Hi I'd focus on clarifying SRM capabilities.
For that money, we can make test scale deployments of sulfur aerosols, bright water and cloud brightening. At present our understanding of the basic science of all of these is poor, so engineering appropriate delivery technology is much less relevant than testing the basic physics and chemistry. One or more of the ideas might turn out to be completely useless Likewise, we need to test the modelling more closely. In particular we have a very poor understanding of non linear climate change, especially as regards carbon excursions from the cryosphere, resulting feedbacks and consequences, e.g. clathrate gun, methane residence times, etc. Not knowing when to deploy is the single most serious problem. Finally, we need to combine those two results into a sensible SRM programme and model it properly. At that point we can spend any remaining funds on engineering r and d and then we're ready to scale up for deployments. Engineering probably can't be done for that money. A On 18 Apr 2011 16:09, "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]> wrote: -- 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.
