I'm troubled that the authors quote Ashkabari's figues on tonnes of CO2 equivalent, which seems to imply albedo INSTEAD of CO2. I would much prefer to see W/sq m and a BOTH AND commitment.
This is exactly the kind of thing that would bring geoengineering into disrepute, ie geoengineering being seen as a way to avoid serious reductions in petrochemical burning for heat, power and short/medium- distance transport. Petrochemicals are too precious to burn, except for long distance travel. Future generations (2040-2100) will need them for other things. Ray T --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
