All:
Stephen, this transfer function is for tropospheric spraying, yes? The
strato cases are not nearly so predictable. I'd expect the tropo sprays
don't propagate far, anyway.
National legislation to protect geo experiments from lawsuits is
crucial. As David says, international treaties will help, but I'd
estimate they will take far longer, and delay is our enemy. I'd be
happy with the Arctic Council defending their experiments, as they have
clout and standing.
Gregory Benford
-----Original Message-----
From: David Schnare <[email protected]>
Cc: geoengineering <[email protected]>
Sent: Sat, Feb 20, 2010 7:56 am
Subject: Re: [geo] SRM geoengineering: how to deal with the losers?
Pete:
My sense is that who will be a winner or loser is an unknowable
unknown. While I agree with Professor Salter that we could take a stab
at it, and indeed others on this list have made some preliminary
attempts to look at precipitation issues, the sad reality is that
models are dreadfully inadequate for regional analyses and greater
computing power will not be enough to make them much more useful.
In the absence of quality information, humankind has used a best guess,
iterative approach, achieved through international treaty. My
suspicion is that will be what will have to happen here to address
winners and losers. I am concerned, however, that such an approach
will not work if potential "losers" demand stipulated reparations.
Schnare
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 9:38 AM, p.j.irvine
<[email protected]> wrote:
It is likely that any SRM geoengineering intervention will create
winners and losers and some nations may always be against any
intervention whatsoever.
Gregory Benford raised the issue of reaching agreement on the global
scale and how problematic it would be. If for example the arctic
council of nations agreed to initiate a decade-long field trial to
cool the arctic by 1 C, how could they deal with complaints from
nations who felt that this experiment had induced a negative change in
their climate?
In any given year there are floods, droughts, heatwaves, etc. but
during this field trial a fraction of these events would be attributed
(rightly or wrongly, partially or fully) to the intervention. Two
questions arise:
Could it be determined if any changes in the climate (outside of the
target area) had occurred as a result of the intervention during a 10
year trial?
How would aggrieved nations or peoples seek reparations for perceived
negative impacts (scientifically proven or otherwise)?
best regards,
Pete Irvine
PhD student
School of Geographical Sciences
University of Bristol
--
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.
--
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship
--
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.
