David Thanks for your UCL lecture today. Quite a hostile crowd!
The point of information I was hoping to introduce was about the environmental mass flow rate vs human exposure of aerosols. You suggest that the SRM mass flux would be around 2 orders smaller than background exposure (which I assume is itself principally anthropogenic). Whilst rain out of SRM particulates may be non-homogeneous, that's perhaps not the salient point. The background sources are highly concentrated around urban areas and transport routes. The aggregate increase in individual exposure may therefore be far smaller than a simple mass flow rate would suggest, due to this concentration of background. I'm sure you're already mindful of this point, but the audience questions suggested that they did not make the leap to how small an increment to health effect would reasonably be expected as a result of SRM. Perhaps in future it may be beneficial to concentrate on exposure increment, not mass flux increment, as the highlighted variable? A -- 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.
