Dear Stephen,
My list of 26 problems is in slide 157 of
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/RobockGeoEngineering72ForDistribution.ppt
I have been mainly focused on stratospheric aerosols. My latest
publication on this is a response to Seitz's bubbles proposal at
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/Bubble2.pdf Some of the issues
also apply to marine cloud brightening (MCB).
Our GeoMIP project is making progress on understanding the climate
response to stratospheric aerosols. We are beginning additional
experiments related to MCB, and they will be described in a paper that
will be submitted later this month to a special issue on GeoMIP to be
published in JGR. I'll send it out as soon as it is submitted.
Alan
Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program
Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
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
http://twitter.com/AlanRobock
On 6/1/13 9:52 AM, Stephen Salter wrote:
Dear Alan
Can you tell me which of your 26 objections apply to marine cloud
brightening?
I am sure that many of the people who want research on but not
deployment of geoengineering systems are greatly reassured that you
are there to spot the nasty problems. Keep up your valuable work.
I too was at the Ames meeting and confirm your recollection.
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering
University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland
[email protected] Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195
WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
On 01/06/2013 17:33, Alan Robock wrote:
Dear All,
I also was at the NASA Ames meeting. It was my first geoengineering
meeting, and it was there that I was struck with the very
enthusiastic endorsement of geoengineering as a solution to global
warming by people who did not seem to be aware of the potential
negative impacts. But Lane and Kheshgi were not among those who were
blindly advocating geoengineering, as I remember it. I agree with
Clive that the reason we are even considering this Plan B is that
Exxon and other fossil fuel companies have had a dedicated campaign
to deny anthropogenic global warming, and that AEI has been part of
this campaign, and that if they were to now advocate mitigation we
would not be nearly as interested in geoengineering. But it was not
such a black and white discussion at the Ames meeting – it was more
of a general discussion of geoengineering and a learning opportunity
for many.
It was at the Ames meeting that I wrote down my 20 reasons why
geoengineering may be a bad idea, as I listened to two days of
presentations. (My research program since then has been to
investigate those reasons. I have now crossed out three of them, but
added nine new ones, so the total is now 26.)
Alan
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
