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
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
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
