@crumbcake now 13 views :o)

@davidho and controllability … we did a fun little known paper — doi: 10.1002/2014GL062240 — we used a ‘good’ climate model as a surrogate for the real world and future climate response, and an old climate model for a surrogate for a good climate model … I know … it gets very twilight zone …
to explore how controllable SO4 injection above the Arctic might be. We worried buckets that people would accuse us of practicing climate modification. Fortunately, no-one read the paper :o)

@Saix I’ve been working from VMs since the 90s (I must have a windows NT VM somewhere …) — best part is having set up your software and working environment on one computer, you can simply copy eg to a laptop and work from that. If you have a machine die or upgrade you can be up and running in the time it takes to install the VM layer and copy across your backup. Downsides can be poorer graphics performance.

@dgar just have lots more dogs as backups

@TatianaIlyina I suggest … quantifying and publishing the CO2 emissions associated with the experiments in each paper. And I am not necessarily saying this because I run a single core model (because often I run 100s of ensemble experiments).
I am going to try it for my next paper … see how much I can annoy the editor …
Only the box modellers will ‘win’, of course :o)

@davidho the damn stuff is colorless and odorless … I say we tag it as it comes out of tailpipes and smokestacks with the chemicals added to natural gas and propane, or better, skunk … see how that goes down.

@davidho the liquid CO2 will sink to the bottom from that depth. I assume the methane hydrate will float and cause way too much excitement at the surface.

@davidho can I have liquid CO2 at 3000 meters, or is that being greedy? :o)