Dear Alan, Could you please tell us again about reason "4. Effects on plants of changing the amount of solar radiation and partitioning between direct and diffuse" specifically about the impact on direct gain solar structures such as passive solar building and concentrating collectors.
Thank you, Oliver Wingenter PS Dear Alvia, thank you for furnishing Alan's slides. On Dec 4, 5:19 pm, "Alvia Gaskill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From the AMS website, here is Alan Robock's somewhat acerbic presentation to > the 40 people in suits from think tanks + scientists on Nov. 21. Most of > this information has been discussed here before, but of note is that we now > appear to be down to 13 reasons to be against geoengineering with aerosols. > I would call that progress. > > Also, in Slide 21, he states: "We need a well funded research effort, through > the national climate program [what's that? AG], to examine the efficacy and > dangers of different proposed geoengineering schemes, and to do engineering > studies of the means of doing geoengineering. Small scale field tests of > stratospheric geoengineering cannot be done; you would have to actually do > geoengineering in the real world to test it." > > It really depends on how one defines small scale and what would be tested. I > agree that to determine the impact on global climate using stratospheric > aerosols would require at least hundreds of thousands of tons of precursor > gas and probably 6 months to produce a sufficient stratospheric burden whose > impacts would have to be followed for at least a full cycle of the seasons. > The quantity required for an Arctic-only test is a little less certain, > although will likely be a lot more than its proponents have estimated due to > the spread southward. > > Field tests to determine the type of aerosol produced and how to maximize the > formation of the most efficient sunlight scattering droplets would likely > require a lot less, although that is also uncertain at present. > > While I agree with some of Alan's points, the way in which this subject > matter is presented, including the "mug shot" side-by-sides of Crutzen and > Wigley and the Dr. Evil magazine cover are obviously intended to turn the > audience off to even considering the idea of stratospheric aerosol > geoengineering. As scientists, we can and should be able to do better than > this. > > Robock%20GeoEngineering17AMScongressionalBriefing.pdf > 2444KViewDownload --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
