We've got emissions scenarios and stabilisation scenarios, and
recently, there's been a paper evaluating geoengineering. In all these
cases, the potential for playing around with emissions paths for both
aerosols and GHG's hasn't been explored very much at all. Rather very
simplified emissions paths (eg a step function for aerosols) have been
applied to very complex climate models.
Why is there no work with simplified climate models and more complex
emissions paths?
Wouldn't it be worthwhile to look at the impact of eg reducing
sulfates (for health reasons) very steeply early on, and comparing
that with later reductions ?
Or of comparing early steep GHG and aerosol emissions reductions
combined with emissions never falling below zero
to say less steep early GHG and aerosol emissions, temporary aerosol
geoengineering to keep aerosol forcing constant for a few decades and
GHG emissions falling to well below zero?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
