Hi Mike and Andrew,
This is an interesting discussion. What about *direct* cooling of the ESAS
(East Siberian Arctic Shelf - which includes the East Siberian Sea), to try
to reduce methane emissions? We have to consider all possible methods of
reducing emissions here, since there is enough
I agree. This is an ideal area to test bright water, as it is isolated and
traditionally ice covered. It's also possibly ideal for sulphate aerosols
(due to the low tropopause and short residency time for particulates as a
result of the brewer dobson circulation). However, it is not certain that
Dear Colleagues,
A working paper 'The Regulation of Climate Engineering Research' in
now online at SSRN, details below. It has tentatively been accepted
for publication. If you are interested in reading it, I can consider
and incorporate any comments received in the next week or so.
With thanks,
Folks,
There is some discussion in DC about making some small amount of public
funds available to support SRM and CDR research.
In today's funding climate, it is much more likely that someone might be
given authority to re-allocate existing budgets than that they would
actually be given
I would not allocate the money to a particular area of research initially. I
would use some of the money to establish a formal geoengineering society
with a Chairman and board, a small paid staff and technical committees made
up of geoengineers to oversee the meeting and publications. I would
SCIENCE: Vanishing ice allows storms to sharply erode Alaska's Arctic coast
(04/18/2011)
Lauren Morello, EE reporter
Portions of the Arctic coast are eroding by more than 26 feet per year, a
problem that is likely to worsen as climate change intensifies, according to
a new study.
The problem is
Hi
I'd focus on clarifying SRM capabilities.
For that money, we can make test scale deployments of sulfur aerosols,
bright water and cloud brightening.
At present our understanding of the basic science of all of these is poor,
so engineering appropriate delivery technology is much less relevant
Does anyone know a viable and affordable way to restore the ice? Of course
it will go in any case; the only issue is timing. Although CO2 and other
phenomena accelerate the rate of warming the current temperature is
increasing AND HAS BEEN FOR A LONG TIME independent of mankind's activities.
Of a
Ken,
Here's one suggestion:
As a general rule, I would favor SRM over CDR for short-term funding,
for a couple of reasons. First, the technical attributes of SRM mean
that it would be called upon if there was a need for immediate action
- I think CDR has to be viewed as a medium- to long-term
It is better practice when building a house to start with a plan and then a
foundation. I described the necessary plan/foundation in a prior e-mail. Why
would you want to bet the bundle at the racetrack?
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
I agree fully with Gene's point. I think that geoengineering must stick just to
one very simple point until research attracts adequate capital funding for
developing more elaborate systems. The layman just get confused when too many
options are placed for them. (In the end geoengineering will
Hi all,
John Davies has asked me to copy this on to you.
BTW, he doesn't mention the sea ice _volume_, which continues on a
downward trend, see PIOMAS model [1].
Cheers,
John
[1]
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
--
Dear Ken et al.
Good question.
I would allocate the money to the Arctic. The loss of summer sea ice is real
and happening rapidly (within a century from linear extrapolations). I would
devote half the money to finding out how serious the loss of summer sea ice
would be for the ecology of
the
Greetings,
If I wanted to research geoengineering, I wouldn’t form an formal
geoengineering society, because the press releases it would trigger would
likely be counter-productive to my research. Plus, my sense here in DC is
that the USG is still not really ready to have geoengineering
Ken,
First of all, send the list of who in Washington has $10 M and wants to
spend it on geoengineering.
Second, recall the line in the AMS AGU Policy statement calling for study
of historical, ethical, legal, and social implications of geoengineering
Since the greatest risks seem to include
Hello,
I would recommend that this very limited budget be spent on the development
of an aerosol delivery design which would be flexible enough in use to
attract other sources of funding. Most, if not all, SRM aerosol injection
proposals have been tightly focused on the primary goals of
Broad RFPs for multi-year consortia -- maybe four three-year $5million
grants to begin with. Define the goals that the research should support --
eg development and assessment of a 1W/m^2 (global average) SRM technology --
not the technologies that should be used. Provide a way for the scoring
Hi
There seem to be a number of people on this list who are conducting research
on geoeng whilst not being part of an institution.
I am wondering if there is any source of funding to support their work?
Conference attendances are particularly expensive, and are not always
refunded by the
A useful, very modest investment would be in a research registry, a
central repository where folks can post projects, proposals, results,
etc. (or at least notices of projects and pointers to more
information). Should be public and open, so as to meet transparency
often discussed (as at Asilomar)
John Davies' Letter was initially published at:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/letters/letters-arctic-sea-ice-2212525.html
To give such a call for action a more global reach, and more
publicity, I recommend it to be published CC, while welcoming further
signatories.
A single paragraph
Ken with few ccs
1. Thanks for reporting this $10 M news (and probably for scouting it up)
2. Oliver's note (below) comes closest to my own of the ideas so far put forth.
It may be presumptive to assume multi year funding (and anything over $10
million in the first year), but why not
21 matches
Mail list logo
