The possibility of very serious problems (methane/ sea ice/ clathrates/ permafrost etc) in and around the Arctic in the next few years (5 or 10) may be low (5%, 10%, ? ) but I don't think anyone can suggest that the possibility is zero.
I would therefore spend the ten million dollars on getting some SRM techniques ready for implementation. This means development and testing of a few promising techniques eg -SO2 various distribution methods. Atmospheric testing essential to evaluate practicality and details eg droplet agglometation . -My silica from tetra ethyl silicate in aircraft fuel idea. Burners must be developed. Could fighter after-burners be used? Concentration for ideal particle size must be evaluated. -The Salter/Latham cloud brightening system. Spray units must be developed, tested and manufactured in quantity (for mounting on warships ?) For each of these full atmospheric testing should be done. Not to the level of influencing climate but to ensure that the particles/droplets can be distributed in the quantity and location required. Stocks of equipment and materials would be needed for implementation within a couple of months. This testing would not influence climate even locally. The fact that climate and global warming would be controlled by this, relies on the evidence from the full global tests done by the thirteen large volcanic eruptions in the last 250 years. Implementation could only be decided by a Security Council Resolution and there would be known and unknown implications. It would be a decision in an emergency. Of course I would prefer it if climate scientists and politicians got real and accepted that emissions reductions will be too slow to avoid serious dangers but his doesn't seem likely in the near future. Regards John gorman ----- Original Message ----- From: Ken Caldeira To: geoengineering Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 4:08 PM Subject: [geo] How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most reduce climate risk? Folks, There is some discussion in DC about making some small amount of public funds available to support SRM and CDR research. In today's funding climate, it is much more likely that someone might be given authority to re-allocate existing budgets than that they would actually be given significantly more money for this effort. Thus, the modest scale. If you were doing strategic planning for a US federal agency, and you were told that you had a budget of $10 million per year and that you should maximize the amount of climate risk reduction obtainable with that $10 million, what would you allocate it to and why? Best, Ken ___________________________________________________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira -- 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.
