Interesting study (and exercise in positive thinking)! Study finds 0.04C net global cooling, not bad for a "wedge" -- if I recall correctly Socolow et al. required 15 wedges to achieve stabilization, e.g. (simplifying vastly) roughly 0.2C/wedge (2004, 2011 https://www.princeton.edu/mae/people/faculty/socolow/Wedges-reaffirmed-PLUS-ten-soliticed-comments-9-29-11.pdf) Each wedge requires a pretty huge effort like building 750 new nuclear reactors, or afforesting the Sahara. However, the poster doesn't address the likely ripple effects of afforestation, i.e. growth in population, land use, and energy consumption which would very likely offset any savings.
On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:50 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > Poster's note : economically, cropland would be more likely funded > > Attached > > -- > 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
