Thanks for the information. I have read the article and applaud. 



I wonder why the authors did not consider local isolated tests of the sulfur 
approach. As I recall the 0.5 C drop following the volcanic eruption was 
worldwide and lasted one to two years. It took time for the sulfur to spread. 
Why not a  local, immediate, short term experiment  before the sulfur has had 
ti me to spread significantly? It would give an idea of possible greater 
magnitude but with reduced risk except locally. It would avoid other effects 
from a volcanic eruption. 



-gene 



----- Original Message -----


From: "Geoengineering Our Climate (eds. Blackstock, Miller and Rayner)" 
<[email protected]> 
To: [email protected] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 9:50:16 AM 
Subject: [geo] Robock and Kravitz on "Use of Models, Analogs and Field-tests 
for Geoengineering Research" 




Dear colleagues, 

For the "Geoengineering Our Climate?" working paper series, Alan Robock 
(Rutgers) and Ben Kravitz (PNNL) have written an opinion article "Use of 
Models, Analogs and Field-tests for Geoengineering Research" . Below is an 
excerpt from the introduction (in lieu of an abstract): 



" ...How then can geoengineering be studied?  One obvious technique is to use 
global climate models (“indoor” research) to simulate various proposed 
geoengineering schemes, such as adding aerosols to the stratosphere to reflect 
incoming sunlight or adding sea salt to marine stratus clouds to brighten them. 
 Since these two techniques mimic volcanic eruptions and ship tracks, another 
suggestion is to study those phenomena as analogs to geoengineering.  There 
have also been several suggestions for field experiments, as well as some small 
scale tests (“outdoor” research), to learn about geoengineering.  In this 
article, we review these different research methods, commenting on their 
utility, safety, ethics, and governance.  We also discuss natural analogs for 
geoengineering, such as the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo and the observation 
of ship tracks, highlighting both their utility in learning about the effects 
of geoengineering and their limits in providing knowledge.  As we will 
demonstrate, geoengineering research is inseparable from climate research." 




The article can be read and downloaded (as PDF) at: 
http://geoengineeringourclimate.com/2013/10/29/use-of-models-analogs-and-field-tests-for-geoengineering-research/
 . 


Best wishes to all, 

Sean Low 


-- 
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.
  • [geo] Robo... Geoengineering Our Climate (eds. Blackstock, Miller and Rayner)
    • Re: [... euggordon

Reply via email to