Vocanic euptions have impacts that are much more imporant than their transitory impact on climate. Their most significant role is in replenishing critcal elements to preserve the fertiliity of the soil. This in turn of course raises the issue of what the impact will be of human efforts to do SRM on the rest of the ecosystems. This in turn is the cause for concern about unexpected consequences and a concern that cannot be addressed by theory or experiment because complex systems evolution is not predictable and we only have one planet. The important aspect of climate change from a risk perspective is not the first order linear responses but rather whether one crosses some tipping point where the internal feedbacks drive the system to a very different and usually catastrophic state. Such tipping points are an inherent property of both the climate and the ecosystems and ala the butterfly effect are inherently unpredictable. Thus the real issue is not how SRM is like volcanoes but rather what are the unintended feedback from SRM. As a physicist ,and not a DAC advocate, the fact is that DAC with permanent storage is the path to address the risk of catastrophic climate change that has the lowest risk of triggering adverse impacts compared to alternatives when implemented at a global scale for any signiifcant period of time.
It is clear to that all of us share the goal of wanting to prevent the consequences of catastrophic climate change. So in the positive spirit of tryimg to develop a consencus ageneda I assert The BEST path to address the threat of catastrophic climate change involves DAC with permeant storage -it is necessary . I respectfully ask for resposes to this assertion and that we have a constructive dialoque to see if if stands up to scrutiny. I do not want to be asserting an incorect postion but I do want our community to develop a clear science based consencus for the best actions to take. Again to be clear I personally support R&D on SRM but in the context that DAC with permanent storage is the clear priority. If my assertion is wrong and in fact we have no low risk and cost path to addressing the risk than of course SRM would have a high priority and I would want us to be asserting that . On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Michael Hayes <[email protected]> wrote: > Sentinel-SP5 feed: > > http://m.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2017/12/Sentinel-5P_captures_Bali_ > volcanic_eruption > > -- > 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. > -- CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the non-disclosure agreement between the parties. -- 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.
