This is probably simultaneously not a technically daft idea (worth
exploring for the possibility of different deployment options), whilst also
being extraordinarily dangerous to actually entertain and consider. In my
view, it's entirely possible we see unilateral/minilateral SRM ramp-up, and
Although the Conversation article mentions marine cloud brightening, the
parliamentary inquiry itself does not mention MCB by name. Although they do
use the term "geoengineering", they only appear to refer to various CDR
methods like ocean iron fertilization and geological sequestration.
This review from 2018 looks at four different theories explaining the
physical climatic causes of ENSO, and might partly answer your question
Stephen?
https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article/5/6/813/5126370
All four certainly appear to be proper "oscillations" in the
physical/engineering sense,
Agree with Andrew on this. I don't think any scientific or engineering
research supports 30% (ie. 0.2C) cooling from 1990 baseline in any time
within the next decade. The prediction market should really *start* at 2030
(maybe 2035, really), and go in interval stages every five years.
See Smith
This is in the discussion on the radiative forcing implications:
*The Twomey effect estimates are much better constrained for the
calculations using Re, but those using Acld show consistent results. The
IMO 2020 regulations led to an ~2 W m-2 IRFACI within the shipping corridor
during austral
Since it looks like the paper is still behind an embargo, here's a link to
an earlier draft version of that paper in case anyone is curious:
The moral permissibility of unilateral solar radiation management Insights
from Just Securitization Theory.docx | Rita Floyd - Academia.edu
At a quick look, it seems FAIR1.3 already has some stratospheric components
(ozone, water vapour) so it's probably not too difficult to extend that to
sulphur aerosols with some simple approximations for aerosol lifetime and
proxy interaction with ozone. Someone else better versed in physical
Even so with ground-based reflection at scale for rudimentary SRM, I think
there's still significant enough uncertainty in climate sensitivity
(still!) such that it's unclear how one would convert albedo gain ->
radiative cooling -> CO2 equivalent offset credits. How does it end up
working
Mann's analogy of the need to continue doing solar geoengineering being
like getting addicted to *methadone *seemed like a very unnecessarily
polemic example. Mann's inability/unwillingness to note the significant
differences between weather modification and solar geoengineering was also
not
Hey Gideon,
Nice work on your second post! Really enjoyed this one, and I think the
quasi-academic (citations etc.) style really suits what you're going for on
the medium.
I must admit some parts I had to read over a few times since I'm fairly new
myself to the topic, and the conditions you
I somewhat agree with Ken. There is a marked difference in the "intent"
behind SRM in comparison to CDR activities. Although both can technically
be described as geoengineering on the definitional front, both historically
and linguistically, there is a sense to "geoengineering" harkens a more
I think it's really awesome you're doing this, Gideon.
At the moment, there's something of a lack of critical reflective
commentary by researchers in the field on how their views have changed over
time in light of changing evidence and new or more developed arguments from
various areas, so
I'm not an expert on atmospheric dynamics, but am aware of some relevant
papers in that general direction.
Gao et al. (2021) looked at "practical" SAI using solar powered lofting
from black carbon particles, partly inspired by the dynamics seen from
large bushfires:
The closest research I'm aware of is the handful of social science workshop
papers which have looked at public and lay perceptions of SRM and SRM
governance. See in particular these papers:
Bellamy et al. (2017): Public perceptions of geoengineering research
governance: An experimental
14 matches
Mail list logo
