Hi John, In your note you say, "The undisputed fact that emissions reduction cannot save the Arctic sea ice, at its current rate of retreat..." Can you provide a reference or two that reaches this conclusion? (I'm not asking to dispute what you say but would like to see what you have in mind as support for the proposition.) Thanks David
----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] <[email protected]> To: Geoengineering <[email protected]> Sent: Thu Dec 10 16:46:31 2009 Subject: [geo] Population control, emission cuts, but geoengineering? Hi all, Two excellent programmes on the environment and mankind's impact: David Attenborough: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pdjmk/Horizon_20092010_How_Many_People_Can_Live_on_Planet_Earth/ Iain Stewart: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00jf6md/Hot_Planet/ Unfortunately, although Iain had sympathetic mention of Klaus Lackner's artificial trees, solar radiation management was represented by sulphur being fired into the stratosphere by guns - mention of ozone disruption - and the programme ended with punch line "geoengineering is too expensive and too dangerous". This was an unwarranted dismissal of the technology with probably the best chance of saving the Arctic sea ice. The undisputed fact that emissions reduction cannot save the Arctic sea ice, at its current rate of retreat, was not mentioned. Cheers, John -- 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. -- 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.
