a) That stratospheric aerosol effects on monsoons are necessarily harmful b) This tends to be presented through elision: stratospheric injection weakens monsoons, and thus disrupts a process on which hundreds of millions of people rely. the question of weather the weakened monsoon is harmful, which would require analysis of soil mositure, changes in intensity, changes to the interannual variance and in timing of onset, etc is not presented. Thus the risk of damage -- which is obviously terrifying -- sits out there without an analysis of possible compensatory mechanisms. (the damage done in the alternative case in which GHG levels rise without stratospheric injections is similarly unexamined, yet my impression is that much stronger monsoons would not be without harms, even conceivably net harms). There also tends not to be any analysis of how robust the conclusion is if stratospheric aerosols are released at a time when tropospheric aerosols are being controlled and phased out (which is, after all, the Crutzen 2006 scenario)
On Tuesday, 5 August 2014 19:38:34 UTC+1, kcaldeira wrote: > > Folks, > > I am supposed to give a keynote talk at CEC14 in two weeks. For this > talk, I would like to try to develop a list of oft-cited memes that many > assume are established facts, but which may not in fact be true. > > I am thinking of things like: "With solar geoengineering, there will be > winners and losers." "Termination risk is an important reason not to engage > in solar geoengineering." "Solar geoengineering will cause widespread > drying." > > I don't want to discuss all of these things here but simply to develop a > list. You could help me by sending an email answering the questions: > > 2a. What memes are out there which many "experts" regard as > well-established facts but which in fact might not be correct? > > 2b. Why do you suspect the correctness of that meme? > > 2c. (optional) Can you provide a citation or a link to where someone is > assuming the meme is true? > > Thoughtful responses would be most appreciated. If you want to start > discussion about a meme, please do so in a separate thread so that this > thread can be easily used to develop a list. > > Thanks, > > Ken > > _______________ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution for Science > Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] <javascript:> > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab > https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira > > Assistant: Dawn Ross <[email protected] <javascript:>> > > -- *This e-mail may contain confidential material. If you are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies. It may also contain personal views which are not the views of The Economist Group. We may monitor e-mail to and from our network.* *Sent by a member of The Economist Group. The Group's parent company is The Economist Newspaper Limited, registered in England with company number 236383 and registered office at 25 St James's Street, London, SW1A 1HG. For Group company registration details go to http://legal.economistgroup.com <http://legal.economistgroup.com> * -- 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.
