To be more specific on whiplash effects, by using examples: Plants can't colonize quickly, so SRM termination is likely worse than gradual climate change. Human food supply could change suddenly, due to agriculture inertia (e.g. wrong machinery), or sudden climate change. This is more serious than gradual changes which probably affect birth rate more than death rate. Vectored disease ranges, such as malaria, will change range more quickly than can the distribution of genetic resistance in less mobile species, or potentially the change of healthcare habits in human populations. Economic impact will be more serious, as everything from ski lifts, snow ploughs, beach hotels and air con plant will all be in the wrong place.
Just a few examples... I think the issue of termination shock is worth a paper. Anyone fancy collaboration? Working title ' 20 reasons why stopping SRM might be a bad idea' A On Aug 18, 2011 5:34 PM, "Dan Whaley" <[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.
