These sorts of studies are interesting, yet fundamentally anecdotal. I would imagine answers would differ greatly depending on how the questions were framed.
It would be interesting to ask: If gases released from burning coal, oil and gas make the Earth so hot that crops fail throughout the tropics leading to widespread famine, and the scientific evidence indicated that the only way to rapidly increase crop yields would be to purposefully simulate the climate-cooling effects of a large volcano, would you consider doing this to avoid widespread suffering and death? Or of people in the desert southwest of the US: If global warming causes the desert southwest to become even hotter and drier, and the best scientific evidence suggests that spraying seawater in the sky off the coast of Los Angeles would make the desert southwest both cooler and less parched, more like it was before humans altered our atmosphere, would you consider alleviating excessive heat and drought in this way? My point is not that these are the right ways to frame this issue, but rather that these sorts of polls often reflect the inherent biases of the pollsters in how the issues are framed. -- The cited study claims to minimize framing effects, as if bias were avoidable and the idea of a value-neutral framing were a coherent concept. We need studies that explore the effects of framing. _______________ 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, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:12 AM, Stephen Salter <[email protected]> wrote: > Jim > > Once hurricanes and typhoons have got going, marine cloud brightening > cannot do anything to stop or steer them. However we might be able to > prevent an increase of sea surface temperatures enough stop them very young > or reduce their severity. Moderate ones are needed to produce rain on > land. Attenuating Haiyann would not have met with strong disapproval from > people in the Philippines. > > Stephen > > Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering University > of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland [email protected] +44 > (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs > > > On 14/01/2014 06:05, Jim Lee wrote: > > The abstract mirrors my personal opinions, I think they nailed it. > > I am firmly against any solution that involves creating more pollution. > The "chemtrail" community is up in arms over what they think is > "geoengineering SRM" and will rightly "tar and feather" anyone who's > willing to go on record as saying they want to spray the skies. The > outrage should SRM be deployed will be tremendous, and I'll be there to > lead that march. > > Thank you to this community for being so willing to openly discuss your > research. > I hope that we can focus on solutions like CDR and albedo enhancement (as > long as it isn't used to steer > hurricanes<http://climateviewer.com/2013/11/08/hurricane-hacking-the-department-of-homeland-security-enters-the-weather-modification-business/>, > nudge nudge) > > ~ Jim Lee > Climate Viewer News > http://climateviewer.com/ > > On Sunday, January 12, 2014 7:30:22 PM UTC-5, andrewjlockley wrote: >> >> http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2087. >> html >> >> A quantitative evaluation of the public response to climate engineering >> >> Published online 12 January 2014 >> >> Atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase, with >> CO2 passing 400 parts per million in May 2013. To avoid severe climate >> change and the attendant economic and social dislocation, existing energy >> efficiency and emissions control initiatives may need support from some >> form of climate engineering. As climate engineering will be controversial, >> there is a pressing need to inform the public and understand their concerns >> before policy decisions are taken. So far, engagement has been exploratory, >> small-scale or technique-specific. We depart from past research to draw on >> the associative methods used by corporations to evaluate brands. A >> systematic, quantitative and comparative approach for evaluating public >> reaction to climate engineering is developed. Its application reveals that >> the overall public evaluation of climate engineering is negative. Where >> there are positive associations they favour carbon dioxide removal (CDR) >> over solar radiation management (SRM) techniques. Therefore, as SRM >> techniques become more widely known they are more likely to elicit negative >> reactions. Two climate engineering techniques, enhanced weathering and >> cloud brightening, have indistinct concept images and so are less likely to >> draw public attention than other CDR or SRM techniques. >> > -- > 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. > > > > -- > > > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in > Scotland, with registration number SC005336. > > -- > 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.
