Let me point out that the source quoted in this article only said, "CO2-induced warming is projected to remain approximately constant for many centuries following a complete cessation of emission. A large fraction of climate change is thus irreversible on a human timescale, except if net anthropogenic CO2 emissions were strongly negative over a sustained period."
So where does the term "geoengineering" come in? It appears to be the New Scientist writer's paraphrase of that quote, and only aggravates the presumption that drastic action has to result from failure to control tailpipes and smokestacks. Meanwhile some of the geoengineering thinkers on this group are seeking to limit the term "geoengineering" to those interventions that most require international governance. Who is speaking up for the natural systems that have always controlled CO2 levels and could play a part in massive draw-down on a global scale? If mitigation is plan A, I would want a robust plan B to give full play to such processes as photosynthesis and restorative agriculture, then *if we need* geoengineering (in the well-governed sense) it is plan C. Brian On Wednesday, September 25, 2013 8:13:04 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: > > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24261-world-wont-cool-without-geoengineering-warns-report.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news#.UkLSzyO3PFo > > World won't cool without geoengineering, warns report > > 11:40 25 September 2013 by Fred Pearce > > < snipped article quotation > > -- 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.
