If this study is correct https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-0001-2 And is correctly reported here https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN25A2X3 Then it appears to back up a point that I have been making for a long time: geoengineering is required, if we are to keep our coastal cities. I do not see economic or political feasibility for large scale CDR to tackle historic emissions, and thus the task must fall to SRM.
Nobody has managed to rause an objection to this argument to date. I'd be grateful if those who might disagree were to raise counter arguments now. If the situation is as I understand it, prevarication has no clear benefits, and we should thus move quickly to readiness for deployment. Andrew -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-07%2BJc0dmp26W2_H08Rsrs1V_sjEs1pkG6xuZZ75OcTa%2Bw%40mail.gmail.com.
