Hi All
Part of the reason for the difference between the Royal Society 2009
estimate for the cost of stratospheric aerosols given in table 1 of the
MacKerron paper and the Blackstock 2009 figure which MacKerron gives on
his page 10 was because the Royal Society got in a muddle in note (e) in
their table 3.6 of their reading of Alan Robock's cost estimates. Alan
separated initial capital cost of aircraft from day-to-day running costs
but the Royal Society took only the running costs.
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering.
University of Edinburgh. Mayfield Road. Edinburgh EH9 3JL. Scotland.
[email protected] Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195
WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs U-tube Jamie Taylor Power for Change
On 16/07/2014 00:35, Andrew Lockley wrote:
See attached. The conclusion especially is worth reading, and the
central argument that direct costs and also economic impacts of
geoengineering are potentially grossly underestimated is compelling.
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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
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/d/optout.
