Sorry, didn't see footnote [1]:

*[1]<http://geoengineeringourclimate.com/2013/10/29/use-of-models-analogs-and-field-tests-for-geoengineering-research/#_ftnref1>
In
this paper we only address solar radiation management and use the term
“geoengineering” to specifically refer to those sets of technologies.*



_______________
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution for Science
Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 [email protected]
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab
https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira



On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]
> wrote:

> *
> *
> *However, outdoor [geoengineering] experiments ... should be regulated,
> even if these experiments are for scientific purposes.*
>
> The authors do not define 'geoengineering'. Are they including things like
> afforestation and biomass energy with carbon capture and storage in their
> definition?
>
> Have they considered measures short of regulation, such as professoinal
> norms, a list of considerations for proposal review panels, etc?
>
>
>
>
> _______________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution for Science
> Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> +1 650 704 7212 [email protected]
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab
> https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 7:55 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> 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 time 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
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>>
>> *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.
>>
>
>

-- 
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)

Reply via email to