This article on US and Chinese expert opinions was really interesting, and an interesting approach.
Now, how about getting these experts to agree on what to call this field and the various approaches? It would make it far easier for us non-climate-scientists to follow what's going on here (I'm a scientist in a different field). Is it Geoengineering? SAI? And what does that stand for (it seems to have been migrating between different terms)? Solar Radiation Management or Solar Radiation Modification? Scenarios? Strategies? Models? which way is up? SG is a new one. Solar geoengineering sounds like you are modifying the sun itself--good luck with that. A simple, consistent set of terms would be really helpful, folks. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jessica Gurevitch Distinguished Professor Department of Ecology and Evolution Stony Brook University Stony Brook, NY 11794-5245 USA ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 10:45 AM Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-00694-6 > > Elicitation of US and Chinese expert judgments show consistent views on > solar geoengineering > Zhen Dai, Elizabeth T. Burns, […]David W. Keith > Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume 8, Article number: 18 > (2021) Cite this article > > 57 Accesses > > Metricsdetails > > Abstract > Expert judgments on solar geoengineering (SG) inform policy decisions and > influence public opinions. We performed face-to-face interviews using > formal expert elicitation methods with 13 US and 13 Chinese climate experts > randomly selected from IPCC authors or supplemented by snowball sampling. > We compare their judgments on climate change, SG research, governance, and > deployment. In contrast to existing literature that often stress factors > that might differentiate China from western democracies on SG, we found few > significant differences between quantitative judgments of US and Chinese > experts. US and Chinese experts differed on topics, such as desired climate > scenario and the preferred venue for international regulation of SG, > providing some insight into divergent judgments that might shape future > negotiations about SG policy. We also gathered closed-form survey results > from 19 experts with >10 publications on SG. Both expert groups supported > greatly increased research, recommending SG research funding of ~5% on > average (10th–90th percentile range was 1–10%) of climate science budgets > compared to actual budgets of <0.3% in 2018. Climate experts chose far less > SG deployment in future climate policies than did SG experts > > -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-075D4kDMgeEMO6Ymz8POYsuhq6BdxwH0e%2BQJsVN7VTPWw%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-075D4kDMgeEMO6Ymz8POYsuhq6BdxwH0e%2BQJsVN7VTPWw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CA%2BPtSAMdJd2G8RGEihY_cZQm7UbsQBbtwy%2BggUA1V%3D1iNb37VQ%40mail.gmail.com.
