Accepted for publication in Nature Climate Change (perspectives piece), but I note that the version Andrew attached wasn’t the final version (lots of good reviewer feedback). Apologies that I can’t find the final version on my laptop, so you might have to wait for NCC to format it for the final version – hopefully soon.
There’s an obvious but often overlooked fundamental message here that the evaluation of SRM depends strongly on the scenario assumed… the number of times we all see statements that “solar geoengineering will do X” when there’s a buried assumption about the deployment strategy is remarkable, and we think we need to get beyond that; solar geoengineering is not a binary choice where either we do or don’t use it, but it seems like most of the discourse implicitly assumes that it is. doug From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Robert Chris Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2015 1:32 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [geo] Re: A temporary, moderate, and responsive scenario for solar geoengineering, Keith and MacMartin This paper is dated Feb 2014. Is it peer reviewed? Was it published and if so where? A quick Google Scholar search throws up nothing. Robert Chris On Saturday, 10 January 2015 00:23:21 UTC, andrewjlockley wrote: (Attached) A temporary, moderate, and responsive scenario for solar geoengineering David W. Keith and Douglas G. MacMartin Abstract Evaluation of the risks and benefits of solar geoengineering, or Solar Radiation Management (SRM) depend on the scenario for its implementation. Claims that SRM will reduce precipitation, increase ocean acidification, deplete stratospheric ozone, or that it must be continued forever once started are not inherent features of SRM but rather depend on the specific technology and time trajectory for implementation. We argue that the common assumption that SRM would be used to restore temperatures to preindustrial is a poor scenario choice on which to base policy-relevant judgments about the utility of SRM. As a basis for further analysis we provide a scenario that is temporary in that its end point is zero SRM, is moderate in that it offsets only half of the growth in other anthropogenic climate forcing, and is responsive in that it explicitly recognizes that the amount of SRM will be adjusted in light of new information. We provide specific quantitative illustrations of such a scenario for the case of stratospheric sulfate aerosols. -- 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.
