In most geoengineering models, the primary outputs are typically temperature and precipitation. The result of this is that these outputs receive an undue focus in discussion, particularly in general literature. We've all seen the "shock horror, geoengineering will cause drought" headlines in the general media.
This problem with this approach is that it's completely divorced from the real impact. Many studies have shown increased water efficiency of plants in a high CO2 world, so there's less precipitation required per unit of NPP. This is now pretty much established scientific fact, AFAIK. The consequence of this is that precipitation simply doesn't matter as much as is implied by the focus on precipitation/temperature in models. Should we therefore be moving towards using NPP, or surface runoff, as a more appropriate model output? I'd appreciate comment from others with expertise in these matters. Thanks Andrew -- 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.
