I didn't have any formal criteria, and I'd be pleased to be guided by anyone who can do a proper comparative paper.
If by the 'British Competition' you mean the IMechE, they already announced the results and I posted it to the list. I think it was only new schemes though. A 2008/12/23 David Schnare <[email protected]>: > Andrew: > > Any attempt to pick winners and losers in geoengineering will be viewed as > highly suspect unless first there is a robust discussion of ranking > criteria. Indeed, you have not disclosed your own criteria, much less the > criteria used by others upon whom you have relied. > > Why don't we think about waiting for the British effort to pick winners and > losers, examine the criteria they used and start from there. Until then, > it's just one man's opinion against another, and that is neither good > science or good policy. > > David > > On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 4:31 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Thanks, I hope others with opinions about this and other categories >> will put their views forward. >> >> I'm concerned by the use of sulphur in this way. It caused terrible >> damage to the forests of Europe in the 70s and 80s. At this time it >> was apparently difficult to establish exactly which sources were >> causing the problem. How can we ensure that this does not happen >> again? >> >> Furthermore, I understand that tropospheric soot is also very >> significant, and that some have proposed using 'dirty burn' in ships >> and aircraft to promote cooling. Smoke from rainforest fires in SE >> Asia is apparently sufficient to promote regional cooling. Should >> this go on the IN list? >> >> A >> >> 2008/12/23 Mike MacCracken <[email protected]>: >> > Dear Andrew-- >> > >> > Although not done intentionally (well, in many cases we have chosen not >> > to >> > use the technology that would maximally limit emissions), we are >> > already, >> > quite fortunately, creating a significant cooling influence with >> > tropospheric sulfate aerosols. While there are negative side effects, >> > comparing those against the impacts this cooling presently alleviates >> > (resulting from about the 0.5 C cooling influence) has not been done, >> > but >> > might not be clear-cut. >> > >> > In that there is no overwhelming negative influence of the tropospheric >> > sulfate aerosols, one could well imagine increasing their amount, at >> > least >> > to generate additional sulfate aerosols in regions where ecological >> > impacts >> > are likely to be minimal. So, increasing tropospheric sulfur dioxide >> > emissions from the elevated stacks of coal-fired power plants or by some >> > other means of lofting the sulfur dioxide to above the boundary layer >> > (where >> > its lifetime is long enough to allow conversion to sulfate aerosol) >> > would >> > seem to be an option to be included in the IN category. Indeed, there >> > may be >> > adverse impacts in terms of deposition and human health, but it may well >> > be >> > possible to manage the emissions to that they occur only for >> > trajectories >> > that take the sulfates out over the oceans or to other locations where >> > deposition would not be problematic. >> > >> > In fact, given the apparently increasing SO2 emissions from the new >> > coal-fired power plants in China (as evidenced by the high sulfate >> > levels >> > shown in the figure in the IPCC WG I report), this approach to limiting >> > warming may already be having some effect--indeed, maybe, as in the mid >> > 20th >> > century, sulfates may be what seems to be somewhat slowing the warming >> > over >> > the past decade. >> > >> > Mike MacCracken >> > >> > >> > On 12/22/08 8:37 PM, "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> Can anyone else help me 'rank' the technologies? Just because people >> >> talk about a tech lots doesn't mean it's actually any good! I'm >> >> getting the impression that the following are basically in/out >> >> >> >> IN >> >> Sea water spraying >> >> Sulphur stratospheric seeding >> >> Ocean fertilisation with iron/urea >> >> White roofs (nice but not very effective) >> >> >> >> DON'T KNOW >> >> Limestone powder into the sea >> >> Fake plastic trees >> >> Biochar >> >> Removing HCl from oceans >> >> >> >> OUT >> >> Nuclear bombs >> >> Space mirrors >> >> Shiny balloons >> >> Sea albedo from litter/pykrete >> >> Low level soot and sulphur burning >> >> >> >> This is obviously just a list based on my bar stool expertise. If >> >> anyone with more knowledge could help that would be appreciated. Any >> >> references to an objective ranking system that I can put in the wiki >> >> would be appreciated. >> >> >> >> A >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> > > > > -- > David W. Schnare > Center for Environmental Stewardship > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
