I can't consider as equivalent, or as comparable a full portfolio of very very different technologies, and talk about them indistinctly.
Some are all over the entire world and show limited reversibility (SAI, 2 years to come back to initial if something unexpected and wrong happens), and others are localized and can be stopped in a couple of days if necessary. Some can be "fine tuned" in order *not to induce* " *Large changes in the hydrological cycle and in the ecosystems functioning*" *Why the studies showing the possibilities of "fine tuning" and seasonal adaptation of MCB and other technologies are never mentioned?* *Paulo Artaxo* *University of São Paulo Institute of Physics* *Solar geoengineering poses major dangers in terms of climate impacts. Large changes in the hydrological cycle and in the ecosystems functioning will certain happen. Also governance is a nightmare. Who will implement and control the process? What will be the role of developing countries in the control of the possible deployment?* Le sam. 25 avr. 2020 à 18:47, Douglas MacMartin <dgm...@cornell.edu> a écrit : > I’d second Andy… why **wouldn’t** you be concerned about a global-scale > deployment of other methods? (Fair to not be concerned about those methods > because you don’t think they’d do anything at all globally, e.g. cool > roofs.) > > > > *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> *On > Behalf Of *Andy Parker > *Sent:* Saturday, April 25, 2020 12:45 PM > *To:* geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > *Subject:* Re: [geo] What scares you most about SRM? > > > > Hi Renaud, > > By 'SRM' I meant any technique for quickly affecting global temperatures > by reflecting away solar energy. That could include SAI, MCB, space-based > methods or, theoretically, surface brightening. If any of these could be > deployed to a scale where they could affect the global temperature, they > would elicit the concerns I listed. > > Andy > > > > On Saturday, April 25, 2020 at 5:18:46 PM UTC+1, renaud.derichter wrote: > > Hi Andy, > > Reading you, I do not recognize SRM by MCB (marine cloud brightening), SRM > by cool roofs, SRM by micron-size bubbles in water, SRM by ... many other > techniques. > > I think you only speak about SRM by stratospheric aerosol injection. This > should be clarified in the title and in the text. > > "*The answer is EVERYTHING. If you’re not unsettled by the prospect of > sun-dimming, then you’ve not understood either what is being proposed or > the reasons it’s being considered at all.* > > *SRM would involve intervening in the climate system of the entire planet. > Can we predict the impacts? And the side effects? Who would control it? > What if a country uses it unilaterally? Could climate intervention lead to > climate conflict?* > > *Here you might be tempted to think “the risks are too big, we must and > shall reject it.” But SRM is the only known way to quickly reduce global > temperatures, and that might prove necessary. It might already be the only > way to keep temperatures rises below 1.5 degrees Celsius, or to avoid any > temperature-driven tipping points if they lurk between 1 degree Celsius and > 2 degrees Celsius.* > > *So SRM is like chemotherapy. It’s horrible, it’s risky, no one in their > right mind would consider it… unless the alternative might be worse. And > the alternative might well be worse. Once you face up to the fact that we > live in a world where deliberately dimming the ****ing sun might be less > risky than not doing it, you will have found cause for a few sleepless > nights*." > > Best, > > Renaud > > > > Le sam. 25 avr. 2020 à 13:16, Andy Parker <apar...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > Hi folks, > > If you want a change from feeling anxious about the global pandemic, how > about feeling anxious about the prospect of sun-dimming? Kate Marvel, > Paulo Artaxo, Gernot Wagner and I told Earther what scares us most about > SRM and they published it. Read here: > https://earther.gizmodo.com/no-we-shouldnt-just-block-out-the-sun-1843043812 > . > > 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 geoengi...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/4a47475f-6fb7-48b7-9672-0dbb51424cba%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/4a47475f-6fb7-48b7-9672-0dbb51424cba%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/e89d94fd-7e2c-48f5-8b42-f7edf274a103%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/e89d94fd-7e2c-48f5-8b42-f7edf274a103%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/BL0PR04MB470761713325C86F70FC83C98FD10%40BL0PR04MB4707.namprd04.prod.outlook.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/BL0PR04MB470761713325C86F70FC83C98FD10%40BL0PR04MB4707.namprd04.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAHodn987O1ZX-V4WgdScZtE9Sw%2BaBKzOee-xuXfmygxB1X1Dmw%40mail.gmail.com.
