Dear Ken,
In general I agree with you. Outdoor research needs to be governed by
an independent body under a global system. But I disagree with this
assertion by Parsons and Keith:
"Research is needed to develop capabilities and assess effectiveness and
risks (field research as well as mode
While the general direction of the Schaeffer et al piece is laudable, the
specific conclusions of Schaeffer et al are way too blunt. They write:
*For these reasons, it is responsible and*
*prudent that scientists voluntarily refrain*
*from conducting field tests of solar climate*
*engineering unt
Ken, the LBL the conversion metric suggests you can offset a tonne of CO2
for roughly every 20 square meters of black driveway you paint white.
If this is so, in terms of carbin footprints, the color of driveways
longer than a few hundred meters may in some cases be as important as the
fu
Ken,
You make a clear point on the* intent issue. *Large scale mariculture
operations, such as OMEGA concept (and even the Salter Wave Sink array),
highlight the importance of this issue.
When does a large surface installation go from a 'fish farm' to that of a
GE installation? If the operators
And I would like to remind you all of this paper:
Robock, Alan, Martin Bunzl, Ben Kravitz, and Georgiy Stenchikov, 2010:
A test for geoengineering? /Science/, *327*, 530-531,
doi:10.1126/science.1186237.
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/TestForGeoengineeringScience2010.pdf
Alan Robock
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1987.html
Field tests of solar climate engineering
Stefan Schäfer, Peter J. Irvine, Anna-Maria Hubert,David Reichwein, Sean
Low, Harald Stelzer, Achim Maas & Mark G. Lawrence
Nature Climate Change 3, 766 (2013)
doi:10.1038/nclimate1987
Pu
