The way that I read it the proposal to "to ban outdoor experiments of solar geoengineering technologies in areas under their jurisdiction." would instantly stop all emissions of carbon dioxide and other green house gases. These are uncontrolled solar experiments.
Have followed your work and cited it many times with respect to severe weather data. On this topic, I wonder if anyone has tried to seriously analyze the option of painting white the roofs of most buildings in major urban areas? Would that reflect back to space the small difference in sun energy you've said would matter--about 1%? Might it not also offset some of the heat island effect which is still confusing the assessment of the profile of ground temperatures over time?
A Non-Use Agreement may be timely and feasible, but it seems unlikely to be effective. There would be little or no cost to a signatory that violates it, and nothing that could be done even in theory with respect to a nonsignatory that decides to do it anyway.
And easy opportunities exist to exploit the agreement. For context, PRC took advantage of the Montreal Protocol by producing HFCs and agreeing to destroy them in return for cash. However unreliable the PRC may be, North Korea is worse. A Non-Use Agreement would be easy pickings for the Kim Kleptocracy.
The way that I read it the proposal to "to ban outdoor experiments of solar geoengineering technologies in areas under their jurisdiction." would instantly stop all emissions of carbon dioxide and other green house gases. These are uncontrolled solar experiments.
Your piece surprised me for a few reasons. It would seem this effort (which is unlikely to succeed in the first place) would implicitly (if not explicitly) chill funding for basic research that could clarify - negatively or positively - how such climate interventions might play out. One example of such work is Kate Ricke's recent study here https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/simulation-points-out-possibilities-and-pitfalls-regional-geoengineering-schemes Holly Jean Buck goes into this chilling effect here: https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/01/26/1044226/we-cant-afford-to-stop-solar-geoengineering-research/
Roger,
Have followed your work and cited it many times with respect to severe weather data. On this topic, I wonder if anyone has tried to seriously analyze the option of painting white the roofs of most buildings in major urban areas? Would that reflect back to space the small difference in sun energy you've said would matter--about 1%? Might it not also offset some of the heat island effect which is still confusing the assessment of the profile of ground temperatures over time?
Don R.
A Non-Use Agreement may be timely and feasible, but it seems unlikely to be effective. There would be little or no cost to a signatory that violates it, and nothing that could be done even in theory with respect to a nonsignatory that decides to do it anyway.
And easy opportunities exist to exploit the agreement. For context, PRC took advantage of the Montreal Protocol by producing HFCs and agreeing to destroy them in return for cash. However unreliable the PRC may be, North Korea is worse. A Non-Use Agreement would be easy pickings for the Kim Kleptocracy.