I would allocate it to a Ocean Fertilization type of project but in
the Chesapeake Bay.
For $ 10 Million we can clean up the bay of excess nutrients and
increase the Dissolved Oxygen level for 1 to 2 months.
This will prove the impact of our fertilization process will have in
Oceans.
The
The possibility of very serious problems (methane/ sea ice/ clathrates/
permafrost etc) in and around the Arctic in the next few years (5 or 10) may be
low (5%, 10%, ? ) but I don't think anyone can suggest that the possibility is
zero.
I would therefore spend the ten million dollars on
Thank you Holly Jean Buck*. You apparently totally miss the point; morality
is not the current issue in geoengineering nor should it be. I am a simple
scientist trying to help people who are interested in doing RD in
Geoengineering to have a formal vehicle for exchanging technical
information,
Prof. Fleming believes the social implications of geoengineering pose a
great risk and we must first understand the social dimensions of actual
deployment. Thank God the US did not waste time on such moralizing before
starting the Manhattan Project. If we had, we would have lost an estimated
I agree, this would be a grave mistake. There would be no surer way
of firing up international political opposition to geoengineering,
mobilizing civil society, encouraging suspicion and hostility, even
dragging in ENMOD. Imagine how China would react! Whether or not the
military has the
Gene:
You say the paleoclimate record tells us that the Earth will flip into a
warm state - increasing its average temperature by almost 10 degrees C from
current values? - without GHGs no less! Please connect the dots for me/us
on how you arrived at this bold interpretation of the data. Dr.
I too, worry about the factors that you and Oliver cite, but the choice seems
more ambiguous than you make it sound. DARPA is at least competent. I am not
sure that the same can be said of any of the climate related civilian RD
entities. Many of course have able people, but the congressional
Gene:
Wow! It seems you -- sorry, I mean Dr. Scotese, has a very dark
vision of the future.
You say: This is Scotese’s data and his interpretation. I hope
you're not putting words in Dr Scotese mouth. Could you please point
out where he claims the current warming trend is due to plate
http://climateprogress.org/2011/04/17/aerosol-geoengineering-economics/
Science Sunday: “The economics (or lack thereof) of aerosol geoengineering”
Is the aerosol strategy intergenerationally unethical?
April 17, 2011
Joe Romm
The Gist: Putting reflective aerosols high into the atmosphere to
Seems to rehash so many of the canards, and to recommit so many of the
obvious fallacies sigh... are we condemned to a perpetual
groundhog day where even the Joe Romm's out there never pick up on the
main points?
0. We've got 700ppm baked in right now. So, mitigate, mitigate,
mitigate
About a year and a half ago, I sent the authors of the paper under
discussion the following comments:
*fromKen Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu*
*tomg...@geosc.psu.edu*
*ccklaus keller kkel...@geosc.psu.edu,*
* Nancy Tuana
I was typing my response to the offered paper when Dr. Caldeira's post came
through. Exactly! And politely put! Even a layperson, such as myself, can
see this paper as disturbingly myopic with a profound lack of
common sense. If a study incorporates a key phase such as our analysis
considers only
12 matches
Mail list logo
