Andy, having looked at your* Earth's Future *paper, may I point out that there are physical materials, such as boron nitride (so called 'white graphite”) that, even in graphene-thin flakes, combine strong restrahl reflectivity in the thermal IR, with complete transparency to most of the solar power spectrum.
Sulfur hexafluoride is both expensive and *very, very* long-lasting- its deliberate release might be the opening salvo of The 100 Years Climate War. On Wednesday, May 16, 2018 at 10:18:23 AM UTC-4, Andy Parker wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > Josh Horton, David Keith and I have written a paper about > counter-geoengineering and it was published today in Earth’s Future > https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2018EF000864. > Counter-geoengineering > <https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2018EF000864.Counter-geoengineering> > > we define as the use of technical means to negate the change in radiative > forcing caused by SRM deployment. Typically people think about the > deliberate release of potent greenhouses gases when they think of > counter-geoengineering, but other methods are possible. > > > > We wrote the paper because the idea of counter-geoengineering crops up > from time to time in discussions of SRM, but no one has yet done any > serious analysis of how it might be done or what the implications might be. > We try to address both of these things and we conclude: > > - there are two potential methods for counter-geoengineering: > “countervailing”, which would entail the release of warming agents (such as > greenhouse gases or aerosols), and “neutralising”, which would consist of > removing or otherwise rendering inert the original SRM agent. > > - Any state that could credibly threaten to counter-geoengineer might have > an effective veto over SRM use. This could provide a counter against > unilateral SRM use and could nudge decision-making towards multilateralism. > Alternatively, it could result in spiralling brinkmanship over the climate, > environmental damage, and conflict. > > - We hope that these technologies will not be developed or used. The fact > that SRM may be needed to counter climate change represents a collective > failure to limit GHG emissions. The development and use of > counter-geoengineering would be a further testament to the international > system’s inability to resolve climate disagreements in a constructive way. > > > > Speaking personally, I’m sceptical that counter-geoengineering will ever > be developed. To me it seems that the barriers to development are too high > and the potential uses are too niche and so I can’t see anyone bothering to > try. I hope that’s right, but I'm finding that what I hope for is having > less and less influence on real world political developments. > > > > Note that David and Josh made a video discussing this research with their > colleague Peter Irvine: https://player.vimeo.com/video/269265108. They > have similar reservations to me regarding the feasibility and desirability > of counter-geoengineering and they discuss this and more in the video. > > > > Andy > -- 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.
