Dear Gregory B‹On the reduced solar, it all depends what one measures. An important side effect of a layer intended to reflect back out into space about 1% of the incoming solar radiation would be to reduce the downward direct radiation by roughly 10% and shift that into forward-scattered diffuse radiation that is not useful at all in mirror-based solar concentrating technologies. So, there can certainly be a noticeable impact‹whether from volcanic eruptions (where it has been measured) or from human injection (which has not yet been measured). Indeed, it is this scattering that gives such beautiful orange sunrises and sunsets while whitening the sky somewhat when the Sun is overhead.
Mike On 11/8/11 1:25 PM, "Gregory Benford" <[email protected]> wrote: > We're all aware that the moral hazard argument has no real evidence for it and > plenty of ambiguity. > > As for "There are also direct impacts on other mitigation responses, such as > less effective solar power in the presence of solar radiation management > techniques." -- this is a tiny effect, about 1%, not worth worrying about. > > Gregory Benford > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Ben Hale <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hey Nils: >> >> I'm working on a paper on the moral hazard argument against geoengineering >> at this very moment, essentially arguing that the moral hazard objection is >> beset with complications of ambiguity, vagueness, and accuracy. Would you >> mind passing along this paper to me? >> >> Thanks! >> >> Best, >> Ben >> >> Benjamin Hale >> Assistant Professor >> Philosophy and Environmental Studies >> University of Colorado, Boulder >> Tel: 303 735-3624 <tel:303%20735-3624> ; Fax: 303 735-1576 >> <tel:303%20735-1576> >> http://www.practicalreason.com >> http://cruelmistress.wordpress.com >> Ethics, Policy & Environment >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Motoko M. >> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 7:14 AM >> To: geoengineering >> Subject: [geo] Re: More anti-science from ETC >> >> Has anyone evidence for this ETC-statement? If yes, then this would be >> the moral hazard working. But I do not know any actual proof. >> >> "Could geoengineering's development/deployment negatively impact other >> responses >> to climate change? - All parties recognize that the prospect of even >> temporary >> technological fixes to climate change encourages some governments and >> industries to >> lower their (already weak) commitment to mitigation and adaptation. >> Further, if >> technological alternatives are thought to be "cheaper", other options >> and funds will attract >> less support. There are also direct impacts on other mitigation >> responses, such as less >> effective solar power in the presence of solar radiation management >> techniques." [ETC proposal Nov 4. 2011, p. 12] >> >> Best >> Nils >> >> -- >> 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] >> <mailto:geoengineering%[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] >> <mailto:geoengineering%[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.
