Hello Mark,

You are raising an interesting point.We must always be ready
to embrace the possibility of superior new ideas, regarding SRM
and other issues.

However, since you mentioned MCB, which I'm involved with, I'd
appreciate your views as to why we should not continue working
on this idea, on which we have been published about a dozen papers
in major refereed scientific journals.[Several other groups, in different 
countries, are also examining and publishing papers on MCB 
possibilities]. Our published work indicates that in addition to 
possibly being able to maintain the planet's average surface 
temperature and sea-ice cover for a fewdecades, it could be 
of value in regard to  smaller-scale issues such as hurricane 
weakening and coral reef preservation.

It is true that the first paper on MCB was published long ago (1990),
but It received absolutely zero funding for about 15-18 years, and only 
a very small amount subsequently.

I believe that the stratospheric sulphur SRM technique has also been 
hamstrung for lack of adequate funding.

I think you are right in suggesting that new SRM ideas should be actively 
sought and examined, but I think you are wrong in suggesting the 
abandonment of the MCB and stratospheric sulphur techniques, which
have not yet received adequate funding for a thorough examination.And
which do show promise.

All Best,    John.



John Latham
Address: P.O. Box 3000,MMM,NCAR,Boulder,CO 80307-3000
Email: [email protected]  or [email protected]
Tel: (US-Work) 303-497-8182 or (US-Home) 303-444-2429
 or   (US-Cell)   303-882-0724  or (UK) 01928-730-002
http://www.mmm.ucar.edu/people/latham
________________________________________
From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on 
behalf of Mark Massmann [[email protected]]
Sent: 01 September 2013 13:52
To: [email protected]
Subject: [geo] Global solicitation for new ideas is needed more than ever

There are a number of posts, presentations and reports which have claimed that 
the SRM approach of stratospheric aerosols "will definitely work" because it 
would simulate how Mt. Pinatubo's eruption cooled the planet.

I maintain that not only is that claim false, but it is making the search for 
other promising SRM methods seem much less urgent, when in fact the opposite is 
true.

The urgent truth is that more promising SRM methods need to be identified ASAP 
by engaging a much wider participation from the global science and engineering 
communities (among other experts).  After all, aren't the concepts of Sulfate 
Aerosols and Marine Cloud Brightening both over 20 years old?  What does that 
say about the success of geoengineering efforts since then?

The claim that sulfate aerosols would cool the planet like Mt. Pinatubo is far 
too simplified, and there are far too many unknowns at this point to understand 
the aerosol's true effect.  Unknowns include everything from what to inject to 
how to deliver it, how to properly disperse it, the resulting particulate size 
and resulting albedo, the fallout time and the effect on lower level clouds, as 
well as the damaging effect on the ozone layer and the resulting acid rain.

I have been calling for a global solicitation of SRM concepts with this group 
for over 3 years now. I'm afraid that we are now running out of time- so it's 
more urgent than ever that this gets done.  Please reply with comments- thanks.

Mark Massmann

--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to