On 14/07/10 20:59, Glyn Roberts wrote:
2. I think the tone of the request should be explicitly to urgently
*prepare* a SRM deployment capability, not for its ASAP deployment as
implied. Deployment would be a second gate. We will lose precious
time to develop a viable system if we try to pass the deployment gate
first. At the same time a governance framework needs to be
established and the holistic long-term consequences of any deployment
need to be far better quantified - how safe is it. This work should
be acknowledged as part of the process.
A comment to Jousif...
You say: "In science, there is no such thing as "only hope" or "only
option"". That's a fine motivational cliche but it is not hard coded
into science that N=>2, where N is the number of options. It is of
course entirely possible that SRM is the only thing we could do to
stop catastrophic climate change. That's not to say that this has yet
been adequately established within the scientific community.
Developing SRM capabilities should be considered very seriously.
Here's my formulation of the original letter:
Let S = {x : x is a solution to a potential problem that is going to end
life as we know it}
Can you prove that the cardinality of S is 1?
I would argue that funding is necessary to establish a rigorous, widely
accepted definition of the problem. Spoken languages (the ones I know
at least) are not expressive enough.
Regards,
Yousif
--
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.
