I partly disagree; the physical aspects of termination shock for both are 
probably to first order nearly identical.  

 

In both cases the speed of the “shock” will be dominated by the time it takes 
for the climate to warm up (measured in years), though the change in radiative 
forcing will certainly be slower with stratospheric aerosols, that’s likely a 
second order effect (mostly gone in a year, so much shorter than the climate 
response time, though I might be wrong when it comes to thinking about 
adjustments to regional precipitation patterns.  Also does mean that one could 
probably more easily tolerate short-term disruptions with strat aer).  I 
completely agree that the really inportant differences will be in the actual 
sociotechnical deployment system (which might be more naturally distributed for 
MCB, which might mean lower probability of completely stopping but higher 
probability of regional disruptions leading to possibly serious regional 
consequences, but that’s pretty much pure off-the-cuff speculation).

 

More broadly, to first order I think the physical-climate challenges from the 
two approaches are fairly distinct (we shouldn’t lump them) while the 
societal/governance challenges are almost completely identical (we should lump 
them).  

 

(Though before Steven Salter chimes in, both the societal acceptance questions 
and the fact that they’ll likely lead to different regional climate impacts 
will impact the ease or difficulty of governance, though while I can guess 
which of the two would be more socially acceptable in principle, my guess on 
which will lead to more significant regional differences that lead to 
governance challenges would be MCB, but that’s a much less confident guess.)

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>  
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 2:44 PM
To: durbrow <durb...@gmail.com <mailto:durb...@gmail.com> >
Cc: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> >
Subject: Re: [geo] Should we lump MCB & Stratospheric SRM as equally risky?

 

It's complicated to answer. The MCB fade out period is days not years, so the 
simple answer is that MCB is more risky. But the real answer depends in system 
vulnerability, which in turn depends on a complex interacting network of 
social, political and technical risks

 

Andrew 

 

On Tue, 13 Mar 2018, 18:30 E Durbrow, <durb...@gmail.com 
<mailto:durb...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Would some kind person tell me if I got these claims wrong? 

 

Marine Cloud Brightening and Stratospheric Aerosol SRM are *not* equivalently 
risky.

 

While both have the possibility of termination shock and regional variation, 
these two risks are lower in MCB. 

 

I’m worried that the discussion on termination shock is treating all SRM 
methods as equivalent…

 

Thanks for pointing me to a publication indicating that MCB and 
Stratospheric/High Altitude SRM are roughly equally risky.

 

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> .
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com> .
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> .
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to