http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2087.html
A quantitative evaluation of the public response to climate engineering
Published online 12 January 2014
Atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase, with CO2 passing 400 parts per million in May 2013. To avoid severe climate change and the attendant economic and social dislocation, existing energy efficiency and emissions control initiatives may need support from some form of climate engineering. As climate engineering will be controversial, there is a pressing need to inform the public and understand their concerns before policy decisions are taken. So far, engagement has been exploratory, small-scale or technique-specific. We depart from past research to draw on the associative methods used by corporations to evaluate brands. A systematic, quantitative and comparative approach for evaluating public reaction to climate engineering is developed. Its application reveals that the overall public evaluation of climate engineering is negative. Where there are positive associations they favour carbon dioxide removal (CDR) over solar radiation management (SRM) techniques. Therefore, as SRM techniques become more widely known they are more likely to elicit negative reactions. Two climate engineering techniques, enhanced weathering and cloud brightening, have indistinct concept images and so are less likely to draw public attention than other CDR or SRM techniques.
--
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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification/Weather Modification AssociationMonday, 21 April 2008New Unconventional Concepts and Legal Ramificationshttps://ams.confex.com/ams/17WModWMA/techprogram/session_21926.htmOn Engineering HurricanesWilliam R. Cotton, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO; and S. M. Saleebyhttps://ams.confex.com/ams/17WModWMA/techprogram/paper_139450.htmIn the last year there have been two papers that have proposed that seeding hurricanes with small hygroscopic particles, as opposed to conventional giant hygroscopic particle seeding, could lead to the reduction in their intensity (Cotton et al., 2007; Rosenfeld et al., 2007). The Cotton et al. (2007) paper was based preliminary results of simulations of the impact of African dust on hurricane intensity (Zhang et al., 2007), which showed that dust acting as CCN influenced the storm development by inducing changes in the hydrometeor properties, modifying the storm diabatic heating distribution and thermodynamic structure, and ultimately influencing the storm intensity through complex dynamical responses. Some simulated storm intensities showed a monotonic decrease in storm intensity with increasing concentrations of CCN under certain configurations of the model but this trend was easily modified just by introducing slight variations in the GCCN profile. Thus, Zhang et al. (2007) concluded that the physical processes responsible for the impact of dust as nucleating aerosols on hurricane development need to be examined in the future under a wide range of environmental conditions.Since then Henian Zhang has carried out more simulations that illustrate that the response is by no means simple. In some cases increasing CCN leads to a strengthening of hurricane intensity. Moreover, the results of introducing dust acting at CCN further in the lifecycle of the storm reveals that the response to CCN varies greatly depending on the stage of introduction of the aerosol. Thus this work illustrates that even using simple, rather idealized simulations the response of a hurricane to aerosol can be quite nonlinear. This makes the potential modification of hurricanes to small-particle hygroscopic seeding even more challenging than envisioned by Cotton et al. (2007) and Rosenfeld et al. (2007). Nonetheless we urge that this topic should be investigated much more extensively and in further detail.American Meteorological Society:New Unconventional Concepts and Legal Ramificationshttps://ams.confex.com/ams/17WModWMA/techprogram/session_21926.htmChair: Joe Golden, Univ. of Colorado/CIRES/NOAA/GSD, Boulder, CO2.1 Atmospheric heating as a research toolLyle M. Jenkins, Eastlund Scientific Enterprises Corporation, Houston, TX; and B. J. Eastlundhttps://ams.confex.com/ams/17WModWMA/techprogram/paper_139228.htmhttps://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/139228.pdf2.2 Reducing hurricane intensity by cooling the upper mixed layer using arrays of Atmocean, Inc.'s wave-driven upwelling pumpsPhilip W. Kithil, Atmocean, Inc., Santa Fe, NM; and I. Ginishttps://ams.confex.com/ams/17WModWMA/techprogram/paper_139127.htm2.3 On Engineering HurricanesWilliam R. Cotton, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO; and S. M. Saleebyhttps://ams.confex.com/ams/17WModWMA/techprogram/paper_139450.htmhttps://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/139450.pdf2.4 A machine to get rid of hurricanesBrian Sandler, none, West Bloomfield, MIhttps://ams.confex.com/ams/17WModWMA/techprogram/paper_137069.htmhttps://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/137069.pdf
- Create a “multilateral registry of cloud seeding, geoengineering, and atmospheric experimentation events with information and data collection on key characteristics” [1].
- Create a publicly available multilateral registry website, with hourly updates on atmospheric activities.
- Require nations/states/persons to notify the multilateral registry (at least) 24 hours prior to initiation of atmospheric experimentation/modification to ensure public notice, and liability should said experimentation/modification cause monetary, environmental, or physical losses.