All- I'd like to hear other's opinions on this, but it seems to me that it's too premature to consider down-selecting all of mankind's geoengineering options to 1) Stratospheric Aerosols and 2) Marine Cloud Brightening.
In just the last few weeks, SA's effectiveness and pollution have come into question. MCB has a number of technical uncertainties as well. What if neither scheme actually works due to unforseen issues, or has technical (many-year) delays, or doesn't work nearly well-enough? To help ensure the best chances for success (in one or more schemes), what I believe is really needed here is an all-out global solicitation (~2 to 3 months) for potential alternative schemes, and doing a rigorous comparison next to SA and MCB. If all issues could be transparently compared between schemes (maybe using a fault-analysis tree), I think we could work together to rank preliminary feasibility (thoroughly identifying potential faults as well as possible ways to solve them). I would envision another 3-5 schemes to be selected from this work and be added to SA and MCB, at least for the initial phase of feasibility research. Taking a close look at 5-7 schemes would give me (and I believe mankind in general) a lot more confidence in the direction we are going. After all, this may be the biggest problem mankind has ever had to face- we need to take the best shot(s) at this that we can! Please comment- Mark -- 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.
