“The crux is that Morton does not believe pathways without geoengineering can
avoid climate harms without causing other serious social or economic harms.”
Isn’t that patently obvious at this point? That of course is not an argument
for deploying solar geoengineering, simply an argument in
Cooling the tropics more than the poles is also a choice for stratospheric
aerosol injection; if you want that effect you can presumably do that, and if
you’d rather cool the poles more than the tropics you could do that instead.
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
in the stratosphere. It is the one to
two-year life that stops you having local control. Even if you could choose
the starting point(s) how would you then direct it?
Stephen
On 07/09/2015 17:57, Douglas MacMartin wrote:
Cooling the tropics more than the poles is also a choice for stratospheric
Didn’t read quite as carefully as I could, but two quick comments:
i) the assumption in extending the argument to research is that
more research increases the likelihood of SRM being used as an excuse not to
mitigate; I suspect that is unfounded. That is, more research may make
As an engineer I agree that engineering is purposeful. The other three words I
disagree with, as would any other engineer. (Wikipedia's definition of
engineering is reasonable)
Precision is clearly a subjective construct, as is predictability. I am quite
confident for example that adding strat
And yet another area where turning down the sun won’t have the same effect as
stratospheric aerosols. (Since it has the opposite sign in the stratosphere.)
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Charles H. Greene
Sent: Wednesday, May 11,
Hi Stephen,
You’re right, in the final version we should word that better. Thanks!
I think that doing this for solar reduction (clearly a first but not a last
step) suggests that the tropospheric climate response to an imposed radiative
forcing is, in climate models, pretty linear for
Actually I think it quite plausible that fossil fuels will be competitive in
2040+ (absent carbon pricing). I don’t see anything on the horizon in storage
that would make me believe that that problem is guaranteed to be solved by then
(I think it’s really hard to predict when there’s orders of
I’m sorry, but I fail to see the connection between improvements in information
technology (e.g. self-driving cars), which are solvable by virtue of faster
computation and better algorithms, and CDR, which is limited by energetics and
real physical and chemical processes while dealing with a
The short answer on what altitude we “need” is, nobody knows yet. The climate
science hasn’t been funded enough to answer that type of question. So any
number anyone has written down is speculation or educated guess until one can
more seriously evaluate the pros and cons. That makes it
, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland s.sal...@ed.ac.uk
<mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk> , Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 07795 203 195,
WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs <http://WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs> , YouTube Jamie
Taylor Power for Change
On 21/11/2016 14:23, Douglas MacMartin wrot
Stephen – when I was in industry I worked on the engineering of a project that
hadn’t yet worked out the objectives, and I don’t think we should be repeating
that type of mistake (yes, the project was a disaster… we designed the
hardware, then we figured out what hardware we needed, and after 6
ring@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Myles Allen
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2016 1:47 PM
To: Douglas MacMartin <macma...@cds.caltech.edu>; 'Stephen Salter'
<s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Oxford Martin Info
<i...@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk
I think if you can get them there, keeping them there is comparatively easy...
(The advantage of it being an equilibrium point is that the effort required to
keep it there is in principle small.)
Though I think it would be cheaper to massively transform the world's energy
system in the next
Agree that it isn’t a blanket endorsement, but I’m not sure what disagreement
there is; the only geoengineering research that doesn’t help understand
biodiversity impacts would be research into the hardware needed for deployment.
Everything else that I can think of would ultimately be needed
Embark on what?
The Guardian article is somewhat confused in general. Basically, there’s only
two real observations. Harvard has some research money. And some quite small
fraction of that research money will go into very small scale outdoor field
experiments.
I personally think it
I haven’t read the article, but just in case there’s anyone who hasn’t been
following this, the abstract by itself is extremely misleading.
It would be pretty stupid and irresponsible to issue carbon credits for an
approach for which there is no evidence for the claimed amount of net
Hi Ken,
We tried to write some down in our Earth’s Future piece last year, at least for
stratospheric aerosols
MacMartin, D. G., B. Kravitz, J.C.S. Long, and P.J. Rasch, “Geoengineering with
stratospheric aerosols: what do we not know after a decade of research?”
Earth’s Future, 4,
I think it would be more accurate to say that, based on what we know today, we
don’t know what the costs of DAC would be if deployed at scale. I understand
that people have made estimates, but it is very hard to reliably forecast costs
from things done at 3 or more (?) orders of magnitude
Hi Andrew,
I personally don’t see this as a problem (and I’ve worked a bit with Wake on
question). The direct costs of getting stuff to the stratosphere are not going
to be the long-term barrier to deployment (and might not even be the biggest
costs of deployment, assuming one needs to
The start was Andrew’s email, which was based on a presentation given at CEC17
(sorry, there weren’t any viewgraphs, but you’ve already got the summary).
There’s nothing inherently “wrong” with any approach. Eventually we’ll need a
more serious engineering analysis of different options
GTC, equivalent to 12-26%
of twenty-first-century emissions at a cost of under US$0.5 per tCO2.
Douglas MacMartin
Senior Research Associate & Senior Lecturer, Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering
Faculty Fellow, Cornell Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future
Cornell University
(650)
orked on gas guns, which have more suitable
performance characteristics.
Generally, I don't take the view that engineering is trivial. I think we should
engineer early, and with the same enthusiasm as we apply to other aspects.
Engineering is trivial when it's done, not when it isn't.
: Monday, November 13, 2017 4:58 AM
To: Michael MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net>
Cc: Douglas MacMartin <macma...@cds.caltech.edu>; Greg Rau
<gh...@sbcglobal.net>; geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [geo] Climate science foe Lamar Smith -
Peter - I think that the risks of future climate change are sufficiently
concerning that it would be premature to stop all research on some options on
the assumption that other options are 100% guaranteed to suffice. I think
that pretty much everyone who thinks we need to research SRM also
also edited out all the hate-spewing nonsense
from his own emails to make it look like he was charming and I was a jerk.
Which is why my conclusion is that he knows full well that he's making stuff
up.)
From: Douglas MacMartin [mailto:dgm...@cornell.edu]
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 8:08 AM
Witnesses:
* Dr. Phil Rasch, chief scientist for climate science, Laboratory Fellow,
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
* Dr. Joseph Majkut, director of climate policy, Niskanen Center
* Dr. Douglas MacMartin, senior research associate, Cornell University
* Ms. Kell
Whether one uses stratospheric aerosols or marine cloud brightening, it seems
pretty safe to assume that lower temperatures at high latitudes will have a net
benefit on both sea ice and SLR.
Independent of CE, we have no useful capability to predict the most important
part of SLR (that due
Both SAI and MCB probably need of order of 20 years of research before we could
make reasonably informed decisions; both have a long list of unknowns. (In the
case of MCB, we don't even really know if it "works" in any meaningful sense of
the word, because cloud-aerosol interactions are too
You can listen to the whole thing here if you want; if you click on each of our
names you’ll get our written testimony. (Which at least in my case hardly says
anything surprising; this didn’t seem like the place to go into depth.)
ntervention that we'll be
suffering from both the growing impacts and then the supposed cure.
At the very least, I would think a good case could be made for such an effort.
Best regards, Mike MacCracken
On 11/4/17 11:43 AM, Douglas MacMartin wrote:
> Both SAI and MCB probably need of orde
in DAC.
doug
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Michael MacCracken
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2017 4:07 PM
To: Peter Eisenberger <peter.eisenber...@gmail.com>
Cc: Douglas MacMartin <macma...@cds.caltech.edu>; Michael Hay
Peter,
Once we have demonstrated DAC with permanent storage at Gt scale and proven it
to be low cost with no side effects, then I would agree that we can stop
researching other options. Until then I think it is premature to declare that
we have found the solution and can ignore every other
FYI; McNerney (D-CA) was the main person pushing for the US house hearing last
month; this bill asks the National Academies to look at governance and research
needs. (This would be purely on the solar geoengineering side, to complement
the existing NAS study on CDR.)
cially so if done over a
region that is covered by ocean.
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Douglas MacMartin
Sent: 19 October 2017 12:25
To: david.sev...@carbon-cycle.co.uk <m
Hi Andrew,
The only person I know looking at any of this is Wake, whom you know.
Re altitude and latitude, short answer is that we don’t know, but seems pretty
likely that (a) should inject away from the equator (15-30 degrees, and
essential to be both NH and SH) and (b) not right above
Actually it’s much simpler than that. Most of the people running IAMs don’t
have DAC in their models at all, or if they do, at a price that would lead to
it’s being used. Don’t forget that the current set of publications pointing
out the problems with BECCS are essentially criticizing IAM
Peter – you should replace every use of the words “can” and “will” below with
something like “have been projected to” and “may”.
If you do that, I’ll agree with you. As written, I disagree. Neither you nor
anyone else has proven that DAC *will* have costs below $50/ton, and I don’t
think
I don’t see this as “secretive”. Peer review has its problems, but on the
whole I’d rather see stuff peer reviewed before being made public, at least
when there is likely to be public attention.
The first order draft had no shortage of factual errors; wouldn’t you rather
make sure that
, 2018 7:29 AM
To: Reynolds, J.L. (Jesse) <j.l.reyno...@uu.nl>
Cc: m...@clivehamilton.com; Daniel B Kirk-Davidoff <da...@umd.edu>; Douglas
MacMartin <macma...@cds.caltech.edu>; geoengineering
<geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; brian.peter...@nau.edu; diana.stu...@nau.ed
Sorry, couldn’t leave this alone… I do find this sentence interesting:
The second reason I’m surprised is it seems that the fossil fuel industry is
supportive of GE, given that they fund many GE supporters (Hamilton 2013).
The only connection I’m aware of between the fossil fuel industry
Well, yes, no-one would deploy any form of SRM based on today’s knowledge,
that’s why we need more research.
But I don’t get why people have to make this all into some competition. CDR
and SRM are different. They don’t do the same thing to the climate. Words
like “best” only make sense
Some of us don’t have research budgets to cover publishing open-access
(indeed, some of my funding explicitly doesn’t cover any publication fees
at all). Given that there is almost zero public funding in this field in
the US, most US geoengineering papers probably aren’t generated with public
And to add to Anthony,
-Data is too limited to do what they want (really only one major
volcanic eruption, which is confounded by an El Nino, which they try to
subtract off of the signal by assuming that every El Nino has an identical
effect)
-The solar dimming and many
"Although the classical model implied that successive million year global
temperature averages
would differ by mere micro Kelvins, the implausibility had not been noticed."
Uh... I thought it was pretty well known that the variance tends to continue to
increase on longer and longer time-scales
“Relatively recent” as in at least 4 years ago... the question posed in the
title seems straightforward to answer, since it’s been done already a number of
times!
MacMartin, D. G., Kravitz, B., Keith, D. W., and Jarvis, A., “Dynamics of the
coupled human-climate system resulting from
I partly disagree; the physical aspects of termination shock for both are
probably to first order nearly identical.
In both cases the speed of the “shock” will be dominated by the time it takes
for the climate to warm up (measured in years), though the change in radiative
forcing will
, but at least we already have international experience on
that sort of thing. (See, e.g., Paris agreement targets.)
(Sorry for the long answer, but my last one was too short.)
doug
From: Oliver Morton [mailto:olivermor...@economist.com]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 3:42 PM
To: Douglas MacMartin
Hi Andrew,
On the first one, yes, there are potentially regional applications of MCB, so
agree with you on that. (I don’t think there are hemispheric applications of
SAI; that would screw a lot of people with ITCZ shift, so SAI is only global.)
Re the aircraft bit, no, I disagree that
I partly disagree; the physical aspects of termination shock for both are
probably to first order nearly identical.
In both cases the speed of the “shock” will be dominated by the time it takes
for the climate to warm up (measured in years), though the change in radiative
forcing will
Hi Stephen,
The first number I found when I re-googled this was 13%, Table 1 of
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2011JCLI3972.1. But regardless,
since the statistics are not uniform across the ocean, the patchiness doesn’t
average out, and I think it is fair to say that the
Of course, SRM with stratospheric aerosols would heat the stratosphere and more
than offset the effect of CO2 on low-orbit atmospheric drag…
From: carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2018
Honesty has never been a particularly important concern of ETC… your point
isn’t only thing in here that is basically just made up.
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 4:06 AM
To:
And to be clear (as a coauthor), the particular choice of how the aerosols were
distributed in this model *did* cool the oceans, just not as much as it cooled
the global mean (atmospheric) temperature. So that (assuming one deployed this
way, and that the model is correct) if one held global
Oliver – do you think SOCOL has an error in its H2O concentrations? As long as
they have the right values in the model, then the effect should be taken into
account already.
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent:
ook at hyperloop suggests that it can be modified to attain approximately the
launch velocities required. Did you consider this, or similar electrical
launch? If so, why did you reject it?
I look forward to receiving any response you are able to send.
Andrew
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018, 14:35 Doug
For context, the “huge expense” you refer to below, for the first 15 years of
deployment, is about 1.5x the estimated cost of the Camp fire in California
last week.
Or, 15 years of deployment (including development costs), are about 15% of the
costs in the US alone from the 2017 hurricane
Ummm…. Not filling a paper on aircraft design with every single statement that
could conceivably be typed about SAI does not qualify as “obviously keeping
secret”. That’s a patently silly statement.
As for your comments, yes, reflecting of order 1% of sunlight (enough to reduce
temperature by
My initial reaction is that ANN is a great way to work out strategies for
non-linear and/or highly multivariable systems in data-rich contexts.
For the sorts of control that’s been done to date by Ben and I, the system
response (at least that of the models) is remarkably linear, and the
There’s not that much ground-based astronomy in UV, relative to optical and IR
astronomy.
Impact on optical astronomy is straightforward; if you lose 5% of the direct
light, you need 5% longer integration time to get same number of photons.
Impact on IR astronomy is less obvious, as limited by
The main reason to put in the middle of the ocean (or the first range of
mountains that the air mass encounters) is to have a very stable atmosphere
above the observatory, though it is true that Mt. Wilson above Pasadena used to
be a very good site before the aerosol and light pollution…
Laser
Benoit, the answer to your question “Why are you on this list with
geoengineering” is because the withdrawn UNEA resolution in question explicitly
included CDR as well as SRM. You might disagree with that lumping, I might
disagree, Andrew might disagree, but lump they did…
From:
...@ed.ac.uk; f...@boell.de; vorst...@boell.de; i...@boell.de;
geoengineering ;
carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com; Douglas MacMartin
Subject: Re: [geo] Heinrich Boell evidence to UNEP
Greetings all
I think Lili's piece raises some important issues and I suspect that her
concerns reflect her
Just to get it on everyone's calendar... we will have a second Gordon Research
Conference on Climate Engineering in 2020, June 28-July 3, in Maine, at the
same venue as the 2017 conference. The 2017 meeting was excellent (see here
for the program if you weren't there:
Thanks!
I was actually thinking of reinforcement learning in my previous response…
agree that GAN is not at all applicable here.
I think a stronger statement is in order… this is NOT a problem where any
ANN-based algorithm is likely to be of much value in the next 10+ years, and
maybe never.
, then it isn’t any meaningful concept of geoengineering.
From: Andrew Lockley [mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 7:48 PM
To: Douglas MacMartin
Cc: Boyang Jack Pan ; geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Generative adversarial networks
I can think of a couple
Hi all,
Our latest paper is out online here:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2018JD028906;
“Timescale for Detecting the Climate Response to Stratospheric Aerosol
Geoengineering”
This uses the GLENS simulations (see here:
To: kevin.lister2...@gmail.com
Cc: Douglas MacMartin ; Robert Tulip
; Andrew Lockley ; Stephen
Salter ; geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] RE: [CDR] blog 28, Elon Musk vs regenerative development //
Elon Musk vs le développement de régénération
To start, I agree completely with the bottom line
one that David Keith was using, so it is hardly
surprising that plenty of us have our own independent but very similar
versions.)
From: Robert Tulip
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2019 9:35 PM
To: Douglas MacMartin ; Andrew Lockley
Cc: Stephen Salter ; geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] RE: [CDR] b
Personally I think it is inappropriate to comment on a rough draft that hasn’t
gone through peer review, and would suggest waiting until the document has been
released...
Douglas MacMartin
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
Cornell University
From
This is a great study to understand the effectiveness per unit mass *in the
stratosphere*. Also keep in mind that there’s an additional factor, that at
lower altitudes it takes higher injection rates to achieve the same burden in
the stratosphere (i.e., lower lifetime at lower injected
that, if there were
any appreciable funding, would not be fundamentally hard to answer.
From: Andrew Lockley
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 4:36 AM
To: Govindasamy Bala
Cc: geoengineering ; Douglas MacMartin
Subject: Re: [geo] Climate system response to stratospheric sulfate aerosols
has been way over-emphasized in terms of downsides… a
big problem if you did a lot of cooling today, but probably not a big problem
if you do a moderate amount of cooling in 20 years.)
doug
From: john gorman
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 9:39 AM
To: Douglas MacMartin ; Andrew Lockley
Not in the NOAA bill. That would be in the one written for DOE. (That I don’t
recall the status of)
Douglas MacMartin
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
Cornell University
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com on
behalf of Stephen Salter
Sent: Saturday
Agreed that the pattern of response isn’t as inhomogeneous as the forcing is,
though it is still true that a uniform aerosol layer will overcool the tropics
and undercool the poles, and that choosing your injection locations so that the
aerosol layer is not perfectly uniform does actually
No. Every model that has ever simulated solar dimming shows that the poles
would cool relative to not dimming the sun. But, if you just turn the sun down
then you “undercool” the poles. The plot is G1 relative to pre-industrial, not
G1 relative to 4xCO2.
(These are the exact same model
that would of course be
disappointing, it is far more important to protect everyone's health.
Thanks, and hopefully will see many of you at the end of June!
doug
Douglas MacMartin
Senior Research Associate and Senior Lecturer, Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering, and
Faculty Fellow, Atkinson Center
No… see https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644016.2019.1648169
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com On
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2020 5:28 AM
To: Aaron Franklin
Cc: geoengineering ; Arctic Methane Google
Group
Subject: Re: Re: [geo] Personal sulfate
Unfortunately the cause and effect go the other way – for any of us trying to
get research done on a shoestring, we simply don’t have the resources to pay
for open-access on top of that. I can’t speak for this team, but for much of
what our research group does, that would have to come out of
I’d second Andy… why *wouldn’t* you be concerned about a global-scale
deployment of other methods? (Fair to not be concerned about those methods
because you don’t think they’d do anything at all globally, e.g. cool roofs.)
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com On
Behalf Of Andy Parker
Sent:
, there’s going to be
lots of differences between methods, most of which we don’t know enough about
right now.
From: Renaud de RICHTER
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 1:46 PM
To: Douglas MacMartin
Cc: apark...@gmail.com; geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] What scares you most about SRM?
I can't
, 2020 9:46 AM
To: Douglas MacMartin
Cc: Renaud de RICHTER ; apark...@gmail.com;
geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] What scares you most about SRM?
Dear Douglas, and All,
Thank you for the ongoing discussion, which is always very informative.
May I just ask in relation to the statement below
et parking.
On Sunday, May 3, 2020 at 10:36:24 AM UTC-4, Douglas MacMartin wrote:
You don’t need a countervailing force, you just need to displace yourself
sunward until the forces balance… (though how far depends on areal mass
density, and displacing too far sunward will require greater are
Tim – the difference between the 0.22% and 2% is (i) factor of 4 from ratio of
projected area to surface area of a sphere, (ii) factor of 1/0.7 to account for
the existing albedo of the Earth, (iii) factor of 3/3.7 since 2% is a rough
estimate for 2xCO2, and (iv) efficacy of response to solar
I don’t believe that this is an appropriate forum for this. If there’s a
concern, it should be brought up at BNU and with the journal, not aired
publicly. (I could certainly state my opinion, but I don’t think that belongs
here either.)
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com On
Behalf Of
You don’t need a countervailing force, you just need to displace yourself
sunward until the forces balance… (though how far depends on areal mass
density, and displacing too far sunward will require greater area to shade the
Earth if I recall right).
But even if the propellant requirement is
You’re quick! I typed it in last night and figured I’d send it out to the list
in the morning… but you beat me to it!
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com On
Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 9:13 PM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Postdoctoral positions available
What is not correct in the media report is this sentence: “This process,
however, would take decades.” Well, I guess arguably that’s true, it’s just it
would take a LOT of decades. Melt rate is currently of order 1-2mm/yr
equivalent SLR, so to get the 6m from melting all of Greenland would
. That’s not exactly a profound
observation…
From: Andrew Lockley
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2020 7:20 AM
To: Douglas MacMartin
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse
The more advanced the process, the more momentum it has, and the harder it is
to stop or reverse
the research now, leaving
us in the same boat yet another decade later.
doug
From: Michael MacCracken
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2020 12:54 PM
To: Douglas MacMartin ; andrew.lock...@gmail.com;
geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Background-Greenland collapse
Hi Doug et al.--I'm a bit late
he earth into a glacial period (colloquially, an ice age). I don't
think there has been any serious modelling work done on ice loss reversal, or
even if the models are capable of doing this with any useful accuracy.
On Sat, 15 Aug 2020, 12:03 Douglas MacMartin,
mailto:dgm...@cornell.edu>> wrot
Maybe someone should write something called “False narratives on
geoengineering: solutionism”
Fundamentally, the framing in any of these (other than Alan’s, which lists both
the benefits and harms, and was also written at a time when a few people
actually *were* proposing geoengineering as a
Search for “atmospheric climate intervention”.
(You’ll find it on p. 526)
d
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com On
Behalf Of E Durbrow
Sent: Friday, July 3, 2020 10:40 PM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Does the Democratic Climate Plan include SRM?
When I skimmed through the 500 page
Well, to the extent that one can interpret the CBD decision as a moratorium or
not, it still has an explicit exception for research (and I think one would be
hard-pressed to claim that SCoPEx will itself have negative impacts on
biodiversity), so I think it is fair to say that the authors of
– very hard to make predictions about,
but, of course, very clear that it is a serious possibility.
(And re acid rain, that’s not significant in terms of ocean acidification.)
doug
From: Jasmin S. A. Link
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2020 7:32 PM
To: Douglas MacMartin ; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
personal
expert: Can you be accused for moral(e) hazard?
Best regards,
Jasmin
Am 16.08.2020 um 12:59 schrieb Douglas MacMartin:
Thanks – I agree completely that moral hazard is a serious risk, perhaps the
biggest risk. (But I also think it is important to be more explicit about
one
This is a really interesting nonlinear mechanism, whereby high levels of CO2
might result in more warming than our models currently project, and with
hysteresis (so that once you lose the clouds, you don’t get them back by
cooling). But worth keeping in mind that their simulations were for
Just a reminder to everyone; CEC21 will be on-line only this year, the
submission deadline is tomorrow...
https://www.ce-conference.org/contributions
doug
Douglas MacMartin
Senior Research Associate and Senior Lecturer, Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering, and
Faculty Fellow, Atkinson Center
Adrian – your list of ostensibly viable should include SAI too, as was pointed
out earlier on this same thread. In principle one could inject SO2 or other in
the spring at high latitude (and indeed, that may be the most economically
viable, technologically achievable near-term approach – and
The charge to the committee was to recommend research agenda and research
governance, not to assess the literature. We provided background material that
we felt was sufficient to motivate the research agenda and governance
recommendations, but the report should not in any way be interpreted as
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
