I'd argue that a fleet of hundred(s) of ships is much less vulnerable on the whole. Repositioning is easy.
On Feb 11, 2010 5:47 PM, "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> wrote: There's another fairly critical issue about cloud ships that's rarely considered, and that's their vulnerability. Let's image we're 50 years into a geoengineering programme, with either CCN or sulfur, and let's say we've got an 8C warming effect. In the sulfur world, we'll be using a firehose, tanker fleet, or gunnery to shift the sulfur. You won't be able to get near any of that infrastructure if you fancy throwing a spanner in the works. Not so the cloud ships. They will be floating about autonomously in the sea, and if anyone doesn't like them, they're quite free to set fire to them, blow them up, or just hack their software. Trying to build them all again in a hurry when we're already in the midst of 8C warming could be a serious problem. They won't be terribly expensive, but would a few months/years of 8C be highly damaging, or would the heat capacity of the ocean save our bacon? It's a point that needs to be clarified. If they're worth keeping then it's worth someone blowing them up, Dr. Evil style. A On 11 February 2010 22:26, Kelly Wanser <[email protected]> wrote: > > A number of recent hig... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group... -- 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.
