Angus (cc Alan / Ben)
Despite several papers addressing the comparability of dimming vs aerosol,
there doesn't appear to be a clear consensus on the relevance of dimming as
an analogue.
As you point out below, there's also a range of issues with aerosol
distribution which have not been resolved.
Hmm, I thought it had been posted before too. The sensitivity of the
tropical circulation (and hence hydrological cycle) to the effects of the
aerosols appears to be rather sensitive to how the aerosol is set up in the
model. Kalidindi et al (2014)
Let me do a quick check today on the bill and its background – we might be
giving it more attention than it deserves. Similar bills popped up in state
legislatures to regulate nano-scale materials when concerns first arose over
their safety and toxicity, and (with a few important exceptions)
According to the RI Legislature web site, it was referred to Committee, where
last week it was recommended to be held for further study.
House Bill No.
5480http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText15/HouseText15/H5480.pdf
BY MacBeth, McLaughlin
ENTITLED, AN ACT RELATING TO HEALTH
Since the bill defines geoengineering as counteracting global *warning*
and not global *warming*, do we have anything to worry about?
The bill makes no distinction between small scale experiments and large
scale implementation, but I guess that is what the review process is for.
Alan Robock
Interesting public framing article from last week:
Some may remember the Rio Earth Summit
http://www.un.org/geninfo/bp/enviro.html. History points to it as a
turning point, when international co-operation “got serious” around a
shared problem: dumping carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) into the
I live next door in Massachusetts so take a particular interest in this.
The bill has two sponsors, both Democrats:
- Rep. Karen MacBeth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_MacBeth
- Rep. James
McLaughlin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_McLaughlin_(politician)
They serve
I don't have any insights into the genesis of this bill, but I suspect it's
not the last one we'll see of this nature. Just as climate policy/energy
policy (think things e.g. state regulation of fracking or RGGI or AB32) has
been effectuated at the sub-national level, so may climate
As an opportunity for consciousness-raising it might be excellent. A little
home geoeingineering project - driveway, gravel path, an upright citizen
in the garden daring the legislature to' bring it on' - needn't wait for a
bill to actually be passed to make for a fun story for somebody on
I sense the opportunity for a great publicity stunt, to poke the
legislators into rethinking this sloppily drafted law by :
A) Deliberately painting a driveway white B) Laying an olivine grit pathway
C) Making some biochar soil improver
I'm sure the local press would be willing to cover it. Does
By my reading , this would also include conventional mitigation efforts, which
are typically specifically and deliberately designed to minimize climate change
. .. at least until the Department of Environmental Management implemented an
exclusion.
Jesse
Sent from Samsung Mobile
Can anyone in Rhode Island and do me a favor, to cover his driveway with
olivine grit? Olaf Schuiling
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Greg Rau
Sent: maandag 23 maart 2015 1:14
To: kcalde...@gmail.com
Cc: Hester, Tracy; geoengineering
What if the intent is to measure the effect, rather than to modify the
climate? Or to measure the ability to deliver an effect, as in an
engineering test?
And further, how would anyone know what intent someone holds?
A
On 23 Mar 2015 03:43, Caroline Masiello masie...@rice.edu wrote:
It sure
*Wil Burns:*
3. I do applaud the bill's proposal to establish a mechanism for public
deliberation on the merits of climate geoengineering, something woefully
lacking in both the major NAS reports released a few weeks ago.
Wil,
The report specifically calls for a 'serious deliberative process'
14 matches
Mail list logo
