I think this debate shows up some interesting governance issues relating to the local effects of cloud modification. There seems to be more to squabble over than with aerosols in the stratosphere. Is this correct?
We don't want people firing missiles at Stephen's lovely boats, because they interfere with Californian hotels or Boston fisheries. Kinda like NIMBYs, but actually NIMWES - not in my weather system. A 2009/8/8 Mike MacCracken <[email protected]> > > On 8/8/09 6:48 AM, "Stephen Salter" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > If we do not like the results of a treatment pattern that replicates el > > Nino then we move the flotilla to the other side of the Pacific to get a > > controlled amount of la Nina. My own view is that a steady state is > > usually better than an oscillation and I would like to position vessels > > to apply a bit of damping. > > > Dear Stephen--On the question of steady state, for the Pacific region > undergoing El Nino/Southern Oscillation, I would venture to say they depend > on the oscillation, and steady conditions would be a real disaster, over > watering some regions and underwatering others (or are those words > synonyms?)--giving too much precipitation too consistently and too little > to > others, also too consistently. Given the size of the region and the amount > of precipitation, the only way to get enough to virtually everyone is for > there to be an oscillation. > > Best, Mike > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
