Well, yes, no-one would deploy any form of SRM based on today’s knowledge,
that’s why we need more research.
But I don’t get why people have to make this all into some competition. CDR
and SRM are different. They don’t do the same thing to the climate. Words
like “best” only make sense
Another thinly veiled fantasy about globally scaled nuclear power being the
answer to all energy/climate problems. We have most of the clean energy
technology that we need already and forever invoking a nuclear powered
future is an attempt to deny what is happening in the real world.
LDM
p7
Im afraid that both of these replies illustrate the problems associated
with SRM in the form of MCB.We simply dont know what the effect of the
large scale (ie sufficient to have noticeable effect) implementation of any
SRM technique will be and the public will not be impressed by these
Hi Andrew, thank you.
No, you did not misunderstand our paper. If by particle rain-out you are
referring to sulfate particles settling from the stratosphere to the upper
troposphere and thus affecting freezing
by increasing the number of available IN for homogeneous freezing, what we
found, in
Poster's note: this is very important paper, as it constrains a key
side-effect of SAI. I may misunderstand the paper, but I don't think it's
looking at particle rain-out - which may provide a further mechanism
Upper tropospheric ice sensitivity to sulfate geoengineering
Daniele Visioni1,2,
Dear All,
Here is the link to our recent paper on the efficacy of Methane in Climate
Dynamics.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-018-4102-x?wt_mc=Internal.Event.1.SEM.ArticleAuthorOnlineFirst
The efficacy of methane is probably not directly linked to geoengineering
but is an
