@ Andrew -- There is a continuum here, but i would distinguish
large-scale and global, and note that global effects of clearance on
climate (as opposed to homogocene issues) not large, or even necessarily
noticeable
@ Fred -- method might be nice -- but read Crookes, the key document here,
Andrew
There is a difference between Engineering and Geoengineering.
The examples you gave are simple engineering solutions not Geoengineering.
The Geo in Geoengineering means that BEFORE action is started (research or
deployment) there is an INTENT to use on global scale.
An engineering
If a single advocacy group with $1M can derail an idea, it's probably not
worth doing. If large-scale GE occurs, it will be because of a consensus
backed by multiple governments, international organizations, and, yes,
environmental advocacy groups. At this point it's better to just do the
research
With all due and considerable respect to the people in this discussion, I
think the motivating power of desperation is being grossly underestimated.
Assume that we follow (what I think is overwhelmingly the most likely path)
the business as usual, as long as possible scenario, essentially what
I did an interview last week. It was a 90 or so minute conversation that
got cut down to 1/3 of its original length.
Streaming here: https://soundcloud.com/full-circle-kpfa/full-circle-show
As always, one's investment of time doing such programs is richly rewarded,
not financially but by the
Poster's note : This is a game-changing piece of research. Finding
we have up to 0.8 W/m2 of previously 'hidden' warming is a spectacular
result. It also suggests a possible contradiction with Kravitz'
result on the use of soot, albeit his paper was analysing
stratospheric (not tropospheric)
Alan Robock recently told a Chapman conference
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AENZJEB78E
to expect soot clouds launched above and below the tropopause to produce
prolonged negative forcing .
On Thursday, July 11, 2013 6:23:50 PM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote:
Poster's note : This is a
