How is acidification affecting storms? I maintain that bringing temperatures down, by which ever method, may be inherently risky. Preventing further increases is, however, almost certainly safer than allowing further rises.
A On 30 Dec 2014 07:58, "Parminder Singh" <[email protected]> wrote: > Ron & Others > > Ocean Acidification I think is contributing to current floods in SE Asia. > You might be aware of the disappearance of Air Asia a few days ago which > made the pilot avert a storm. It sends us a warning that floods > needs to be averted with geoengineering methods with atmospheric side > effects such as high precipitation and we have no means of controlling it. > > Parminder Singh > Malaysia > > > > On Tuesday, December 30, 2014 9:43:06 AM UTC+8, Ron wrote: >> >> 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: “*sl**ow**”* 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.
