Thursday, April 1, 2010
review on Eric's WA2
The article is clear and illustrates about the uncertainties of injecting sulphur particles into the stratosphere. Since no experiment has been conducted, the article compares the effect of injecting sulphur with volcano eruption. Furthermore, the article looks deeper into economic aspects that will arise from weather dependant industries. However, the article might have missed out on the importance of having a global agreement to refrain using this method to cool the Earth. The effect of SRM might worsen in poorer countries if richer countries start using it. There is not enough argument in the article, for instance, one could argue that SRM could be used in conjunction with reducing of carbon emission so as to lower the global temperature temporarily since reducing of carbon emission is a long term progress. The article could also weigh the pros and cons of SRM and argue that the cons have more effect on humans in the long run. These suggestions might help to increase the interest in readers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I would like to thank Jianhui for the review. Volcano eruption serves as an example for the fast effect of injecting sulphur particles into the stratosphere. I agree with Jianhui that the argument that states the global agreement is a good reason, but I think the reasons in my essay is more critical.
ReplyDeleteThe arguments are supposed to bring out the point that injection of sulphur particles into the stratosphere is not feasible. Therefore, using SRM in conjunction with reducing of carbon emissions so as to lower the global temperature temporarily since reducing of carbon emission cannot be one of my reason.
I will develop the essay more and state more solid evidence and elaborate more. However, I appreciate the suggestions given by Jianhui.