This is pretty hilarious in quasi-translation. “Plus false false does not equal right.” is very succinct.
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alan Robock Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 12:03 PM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] And I speak German perfectly Dear All, Attached is an interview with me published today in Die Zeit. Like Ken, I did the interview in English and it was translated into German. Unfortunately, they translated 25 into 35, and I have asked for a correction. I also post the imperfect google translation. Alan [On sabbatical for current academic year. The best way to contact me is by email, [email protected], or at 732-881-1610 (cell).] Alan Robock, Professor II (Distinguished Professor) Editor, Reviews of Geophysics Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 14 College Farm Road E-mail: [email protected] New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right To tackle climate change with more technology does not solve the problem. An interview with the Meteorologist Alan Robock on the opportunities and risks of geoengineering THE TIME: Geo-engineers want to stop global warming by engaging in the climate system. How to succeed in the practice? Alan Robock: One suggestion is to create artificial clouds in the stratosphere, so in the layer above the troposphere where we live. These clouds were reflecting some solar radiation Back into space, the earth's surface was cooling, something. It brings to sulfur dioxide or hydrogen sulfide into the stratosphere, where the gas reacts with water vapor to form tiny droplets containing sulfur. The same consequences, some volcanic eruptions. It was thus mimic volcanoes, but maintained the continuous layer of clouds. The sky would then no longer blue but milky. TIME: How do you transport sulfur dioxide in a 20-km-high air layer? Robock: The cheapest and easiest way it would be good, it verspruhen with airplanes. Military can already reach the lower stratosphere. A few tons of sulfur was there to deposit cost several billion dollars - a small item for the world economy. TIME: And how much could be cooling, the earth in this way? Robock: One could thus theoretically the global warming that caused the human race through the Ausstos of greenhouse gases, make ruckgangig. TIME: So is it just a matter of time before we can regulate the temperature of the earth as the temperature in a refrigerator? Robock: Yes. No one has shown in practice that this is about at all possible. Function even if it was: Who should decide on what temperature we set the earth? TIME: We have two degrees they restrict, so go on, the average temperature that prevailed before the industrial revolution. Robock: Some want the state by 1880, others want the 1980, while still others maintain the current temperature. Who should decide? TIME: The United Nations. Robock: The UN? And when Russia and Canada will have a couple of degrees warmer? They were able to exploit soil treasures of the Arctic and had to spend less money heating furs, benefit their agriculture was. What if Pacific island countries, it will have some degree Kuhler, because they are already threatened by the destruction? Who should decide? Even rich entrepreneurs could alter the climate, for example, Richard Branson, who owns many aircraft. It dangerous conflicts between nations threatens. Imagine, a country begins with the Geo-Engineering and another schiest from the aircraft. TIME: Should Geoengineering forever remain a taboo? Robock, I've created a list of 35 reasons why it's a bad idea. And a list of eight or nine reasons why it might be a good thing. A good reason timber: When geoengineering works, this technique could Kuhlen the earth and prevent the gronlandische ice melts. Currently the marine resspiegel increases, and he will be at the end of the century, probably three feet high. And the half of humanity lives on the coasts. Against geo-engineering language, that the monsoon was another. In the end it is a question of balancing exercise, how much it would be worth to us if we could stop the rise in sea level? Any one could sacrifice entschadigen yes, if humanity as a whole will benefit. So I think we should do more research on the topic, so that politicians can abwagen better in the future, the pros and cons. TIME: What kind of research do you mean? Robock: I favor Trockenubungen with theoretical models. Some people have proposed field experiments. But we have shown that the idea of stratospheric cloud can not even try. When you create a small cloud in the stratosphere, then let's compete impossible, what impact it has on the climate because the climate is so variable. Imagine, we had a flood in Thailand anschliesend. If you then make the experiment Darfur accountable? For a practical test with useful values you had to bring in quantities of sulfur particles into the grose stratosphere and they hold up there a couple of decades. The test software but then no more, that would be geo-engineering. TIME: The fact that this technique only takes into Recital theoretically could serve as an excuse Darfur some countries, not straining to save as much CO ₂. Robock, the real question is: How high is the risk of geoengineering in comparison to the dangers of global warming? One of the dire consequences if one blast of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the ocean acidification: The pH of the oceans decreases. Shellfish are disappear schlieslich the whole food chain is in danger. If we shield the sun, but nothing changes in it. Plus false false does not equal right. To address technical problems with even more technology, the problem is not lost. The way out for vernunftige is global warming: emit less greenhouse gases. We have the technical solutions for this. You heisen: solar energy, wind energy and perhaps nuclear power. It is a political problem, not a technical one. TIME: For some states could appear interesting but geoengineering as an emergency exit. Robock: This is like a tourniquet, which one applies, if someone threatens to bleed to death. You can not take it anymore. Because if you neutralize the effect of geoengineering GHG and society loses one day the will or the means to go on - then there would be a rapid warming, much faster than we are accustomed today. That would be disastrous. It is the speed of Klimaanderung, we can adapt ourselves to the difficult, so much the absolute temperature. -- 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.
