I agree with Ken’s comments to the authors, but wonder whether this
concentration on geoengineering’s ‘termination problem’ couldn’t be
used to rethink possible limits on large-scale aerosol SRM to make it
more palatable and acceptable? Someone once posted, either in a ‘moral
hazard’ thread or
The termination problem that poses the biggest threat is the termination
problem related to fossil-fuel CO2 emissions.
Were we to terminate such emissions today suddenly, there would global
economic havoc (threatening the food supply of billions of people). Not
only that, but the climate effects
The recent bright water discussions are interesting to me partly as a
psychological phenomenon. Just as Seitz begins his paper noting the
similarity between hydrosols in water and aerosols in air, with
hydrosols having their attendant analogues to the “Twomey effect” –
similarly complex issues of
Hi, Ken –
I guess I’d add to the many posts on this thread – don’t forget to
think both defensively and offensively, and since the amount of money
is small, ways in which some of it might be able to act like seed
money should be of interest. In the worst case, what could happen in a
few years?
Hi, Ken -
Of course you're right, but cessation of the industrial activity itself is
certainly not what I meant by the termination problem of co-emitted aerosols
with CO2. I meant the loss of the aerosol loading we are now facing from
replacing coal, in particular, with new greener energy over
In case anyone has fallen into the trap of believing politicians' claims on
emissions its, the following article should dispel your optimism
Of course, there are no cuts - merely accounting fiddles
In my opinion, there won't be any in the near future, either. So its
geoengineer or die.
Hi All,
I am proposing to significantly increase atmospheric CCS rates through the
use of the Lackner type polymer-based ion exchange resin CCS system with the
energy efficient ambient air flow induction potential of a Bedini Motor.
The Bedini Motor US Patent is here
