The paper is now up on the ERL website:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/7/074013 Ken's suggested "future paper" would actually be a better title. the original title of this was something more like "Winners and losers from solar geoengineering", but the reviewers rightly pointed out that we didn't actually evaluate that, only the temperature and precipitation impacts. But it does get at the meme that sometimes goes around regarding the inevitable "winners and losers" from geoengineering. In the narrow sense of having temperature and precipitation closer to the baseline (we used preindustrial), then there is no model support for that claim - provided that temperature matters in addition to precipitation, and provided that you aren't trying to compensate 100% of the global mean temperature shift due to other anthropogenic causes (which of course no-one would ever want to do). It is, of course, easy to come up with other ways in which some region or people would lose from geoengineering, whether it be places where the ONLY thing that matters is precipitation, not temperature, or shifts in the seasonal distribution of precip, or effects from ozone loss, or people who benefit from climate change,.. This isn't a fundamentally new observation (Moreno-Cruz, Ricke, and Keith 2012.), but it's good to have it evaluated across a dozen models. The other interesting thing (to me) is the lack of inter-model robustness on even the sign of regional precipitation responses in many parts of the world. doug From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:25 PM To: Andrew Lockley Cc: Ben Kravitz; geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Multi model assessment of regional climate disparities caused by solar geoengineering Andrew, Every approach is flawed. The goal is not to be flawless, but to generate useful information in the most efficient way possible. In some cases, that could involve "turning down the sun". "All models are wrong, but some are useful." -- George E.P. Box --- The GeoMIP G3 and G4 experiments involve aerosols, but are more difficult simulations for many groups to perform. http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/GeoMIP/docs/specificationsG1_G4_v1.0.pdf Best, Ken _______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira Assistant: Dawn Ross <[email protected]> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: This may be off thread, but.. Bearing in mind the 'turning down the sun' approach has now been shown to be flawed, will future modelling papers use a different methodology? A On 23 Jul 2014 20:45, "Ben Kravitz" <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Ken - Thanks for your interest! I would be very happy to see such a paper. All of the GeoMIP model output that we used for our paper is publicly available on the Earth System Grid archives, so if you're interested in leading such a paper, please feel free. Best, Ben On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 8:12:18 AM UTC-7, kcaldeira wrote: Will there be a follow up paper focused on the regional climate disparities that might be alleviated by solar geoengineering? _______________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 <tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212> [email protected] http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira Assistant: Dawn Ross <[email protected]> On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:03 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: Attached -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
