Andrew and list:
I’d like to defend Dr. Bala’s original short original title, but wish
he had more completely addressed the question. I can agree that your two
suggested title revisions better capture the nature of his article. But the
title discussion should also involve differences between reversing “global
warming” and reversing “greenhouse gas impacts” (thinking ocean acidification,
mainly)
The original title, with the important verb “reverse” seems quite
appropriate in any dialog about geoengineering. But as in most “Geo” articles
that concentrate on SRM, the possibility of CDR is assumed away. Dr. Bala
does this in his sixth paragraph, reading (emphases added)
"Since most CDR methods rely on natural biological and chemical
processes, they are inherently less risky. They also directly address the root
cause of the problem which is elevated atmospheric CO2. However, since natural
CO2 removal processes are slow, CDR methods are unlikely to reverse climate
change rapidly in an emer- gency scenario where temperatures should be brought
down within 1–10 years.”
Sentence 1: Regarding “natural”, it is of course beneficial to be less
risky. But I think there is an implication in this lead up sentence that
“natural” is slow; that natural isn’t potentially big and fast.
Sentence 2: Good also to address root causes - obviously. Maybe the
major slam against SRM.
Sentence 3: “slow” here is an assumption. Dr. Rau has continually
suggested this need not be so.
Sentence 4: “unlikely” and “rapidly” are accurate within the context
of 1-10 years”. But, forgetting the 1-year possibility, 10 years is still, I
maintain, a possible time to achieve a peak in GHG and start a decline
(assumed/pushed by Jim Hansen, 350.org, CCL, etc). I suggest more than an
assumption is needed to equate geoengineering only to SRM.
I read Dr. Bala’s closing paragraph to say that his answer to his own
question is no. I think it would be the same for your two re-writes if you buy
his sixth paragraph assumptions. So I hope we can have further dialog on this
main timing assumption in this sixth paragraph.
Ron
On Dec 29, 2014, at 11:02 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote:
> Attached
>
> Poster's note : isn't a more appropriate question "Should we choose
> geoengineering to cap global warming at current levels?" or "Should we choose
> geoengineering to reduce the rate of global warming from future greenhouse
> emissions?"
>
> Should we choose geoengineering to reverse global warming - G. Bala -
> CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 107, NO. 12, 25 DECEMBER 2014
>
>
> --
> 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.
> <1939.pdf-69639188.pdf>
--
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.
