On Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 13, 2018 5:26 PM
> *Cc:* geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Should we lump MCB & Stratospheric SRM as equally
> risky?
>
>
>
> Doug
>
>
>
> The governance
that with MCB if you wanted too.
d
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 5:26 PM
Cc: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [geo] Should we lump MCB & Stratospheric SRM
@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 2:44 PM
To: durbrow <durb...@gmail.com>
Cc: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [geo] Should we lump MCB & Stratospheric SRM as equally risky?
It's complicated to answer. The MCB
Andrew
I must object to your claim that the rapid control of marine cloud
brightening is risky.
Control engineers will tell you that they like systems with a single,
dominant phase lag. You are right in saying that the effects of marine
cloud brightening fade quickly but the world's
neering@googlegroups.com> >
Subject: Re: [geo] Should we lump MCB & Stratospheric SRM as equally risky?
It's complicated to answer. The MCB fade out period is days not years, so the
simple answer is that MCB is more risky. But the real answer depends in system
vulnerability,
It's complicated to answer. The MCB fade out period is days not years, so
the simple answer is that MCB is more risky. But the real answer depends in
system vulnerability, which in turn depends on a complex interacting
network of social, political and technical risks
Andrew
On Tue, 13 Mar 2018,
Would some kind person tell me if I got these claims wrong?
Marine Cloud Brightening and Stratospheric Aerosol SRM are *not*
equivalently risky.
While both have the possibility of termination shock and regional
variation, these two risks are lower in MCB.
I’m worried that the discussion on
