[geo] (jobs) Join us at the Center for Carbon Removal!

[Andrew Lockley]

http://www.centerforcarbonremoval.org/jobs/?utm_content=bufferf6f4e_medium=social_source=twitter.com_campaign=buffer

Join us at the Center for Carbon Removal!



DIRECTOR - POLICY AND MARKETS

The Director for Policy and Markets will lead the Center's efforts to
engage key government, industry, and NGO stakeholders in the development of
carbon removal policies.

Click here to view full job description and qualifications.

To apply, please email a resume and cover letter to
i...@centerforcarbonremoval.org with the subject line "Job Application:
Director - Policy and Markets"

DIRECTOR - COMMUNICATIONS

The Director for Communications will lead the Center's efforts to generate
discussion, awareness, and action around carbon removal.

Click here to view the full job description and qualifications.

To apply, please email a resume and cover letter to
i...@centerforcarbonremoval.org with the subject line "Job Application:
Director - Communications"

ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR - LAND USE POLICY

The Associate Director for Land Use Policy will help lead the Center’s work
to accelerate the development of terrestrial carbon removal approaches. The
Associate Director will work with the Policy Director to formulate and
conduct research on the opportunities and challenges for terrestrial carbon
removal, ultimately helping to identify the policy and investment
priorities for commercializing and implementing terrestrial carbon removal
solutions.

Click here to view the full job description and qualifications.

To apply, please email a resume and cover letter to
i...@centerforcarbonremoval.org with the subject line "Job Application:
Associate Director - Land Use Policy"

ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR - INDUSTRIAL CARBON REMOVAL POLICY

The Associate Director for Industrial Carbon Removal Policy will help lead
the Center’s work to accelerate the development of industrial carbon
removal approaches. The Associate Director will work with the Policy
Director to formulate and conduct research on the opportunities and
challenges for various industrial carbon removal solutions, including
helping to identify policy and investment priorities for commercializing
industrial carbon removal solutions.

Click here to view the full job description and qualifications.

To apply, please email a resume and cover letter to
i...@centerforcarbonremoval.org with the subject line "Job Application:
Associate Director - Industrial Carbon Removal Policy"

ASSOCIATE

The Associate will develop analyses and communications materials to support
the Center's research and communications efforts around carbon removal
solutions.

Click here to view job description and qualifications.

To apply, please email a resume and cover letter to
i...@centerforcarbonremoval.org with the subject line "Job Application:
Associate"

INTERN

Interns will help support the Center's research and communication efforts
around carbon removal solutions.

Click here to view job description and qualifications.

To apply, please email a resume and cover letter to
i...@centerforcarbonremoval.org with the subject line "Job Application:
Intern"

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Estimating option values of solar radiation management assuming that climate sensitivity is uncertain

[Andrew Lockley]

http://m.pnas.org/content/early/2016/05/04/1520795113.abstract

Estimating option values of solar radiation management assuming that
climate sensitivity is uncertain

Yosuke Arino et al

Edited by M. Granger Morgan, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA,
and approved April 4, 2016

Significance

Stratospheric sulfur injection is an unprecedented manipulation of climate
systems to rapidly decrease the global mean temperature and could entail
environmental risk as well as confront ethical and governance challenges.
Nonetheless, most studies have only evaluated impacts of solar radiation
management (SRM) on the premise of its deployment. This paper presents one
possible methodology for estimating option values of SRM assuming a fairly
moderate scenario on SRM’s use compared with preceding literature, which
would be helpful to examine realistic values of SRM for the society where
social acceptability of SRM’s actual deployment is not high. Our results
emphasize the near- to mid-term role of retaining SRM as a later
risk-hedging option in the face of the uncertainty about climate
sensitivity.

Abstract

Although solar radiation management (SRM) might play a role as an emergency
geoengineering measure, its potential risks remain uncertain, and hence
there are ethical and governance issues in the face of SRM’s actual
deployment. By using an integrated assessment model, we first present one
possible methodology for evaluating the value arising from retaining an SRM
option given the uncertainty of climate sensitivity, and also examine
sensitivities of the option value to SRM’s side effects (damages).
Reflecting the governance challenges on immediate SRM deployment, we assume
scenarios in which SRM could only be deployed with a limited degree of
cooling (0.5 °C) only after 2050, when climate sensitivity uncertainty is
assumed to be resolved and only when the sensitivity is found to be high
(T2x = 4 °C). We conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis with constraining
temperature rise as the objective. The SRM option value is originated from
its rapid cooling capability that would alleviate the mitigation
requirement under climate sensitivity uncertainty and thereby reduce
mitigation costs. According to our estimates, the option value during
1990–2049 for a +2.4 °C target (the lowest temperature target level for
which there were feasible solutions in this model study) relative to
preindustrial levels were in the range between $2.5 and $5.9 trillion,
taking into account the maximum level of side effects shown in the existing
literature. The result indicates that lower limits of the option values for
temperature targets below +2.4 °C would be greater than $2.5 trillion.

solar radiation management,  option value, climate sensitivity,
 uncertainty,  decision tree analysis

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] News review of week 20 of 2016

[CE News Site]

//


   Climate Engineering News Review for Week 20 of 2016

Upcoming Events and Deadlines

·(new, no link) 20.05.2016, Panel discussion: Science Dialogue on 
Climate Engineering. Lessons from the Oxford Geoengineering Programme, 
Oxford/UK


·06.-08.06.2016 
, Workshop: 
Volcanic Impacts on Climate and Society, Palisades, NY/USA


New Publications

·Merk, Christine; et al. (2016) 
: 
Knowledge about aerosol injection does not reduce individual mitigation 
efforts


Selected Media Responses

·BoingBoing 
: 
The Planet Remade: frank, clear-eyed book on geoengineering, climate 
disaster, & humanity's future


·Georgetown Journal 
: 
The Global Conversation on Climate Engineering: Five Minutes with Dr. 
Simon Nicholson


·EOS 
: 
Blowin’ in the Wind: Observing Stratospheric Aerosols


·Brown Political Review 
: 
The New Cold War: The Political Problem of Geoengineering


·Geeks on Earth 
: 
Can Solar Geoengineering Be Part Of Responsible Climate Policy?


·Documentary Box 
: What to 
Know about Geoengineering (Video)


Projects

·Project 
: 
Carbon Removal Society


·Technological Proposal 
: 
The ISA Procedure for Climate Cooling


--
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Climate Engineering Responses to Climate Emergencies (Novim, 2009)

[Andrew Lockley]

Poster's note: old but influential, and seemingly never posted to list

http://keith.seas.harvard.edu/papers/119.Blackstock.etal.ClimateEngResptoClimEmerg.e.pdf

J. J. Blackstock et al., Climate Engineering Responses to Climate
Emergencies (Novim, 2009), archived online at:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.5140

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Despite efforts to stabilize CO2 concentrations, it is possible that
the climate system could respond abruptly with catastrophic
consequences. Intentional intervention in the climate system to avoid
or ameliorate such consequences has been proposed as one possible
response should such a scenario arise. In a one-week study, the
authors of this report conducted a technical review and evaluation of
proposed climate engineering concepts that might serve as a rapid
palliative response to such climate emergency scenarios. Because of
their potential to induce a prompt (<1 yr) global cooling, this study
concentrated on Shortwave Climate Engineering (SWCE) methods for
moderately reducing the amount of shortwave solar radiation absorbed
by the Earth. The study’s main objective was to outline a decade-long
agenda of technical research that would maximally reduce the
uncertainty surrounding the benefits and risks associated with SWCE.
For rigor of technical analysis, the study focused the research agenda
on one particular SWCE concept—stratospheric aerosol injection—and in
doing so developed several conceptual frameworks and methods valuable
for assessing any SWCE proposal. Basic physical science
considerations, exploratory climate modeling, and the impacts of
volcanic aerosols on climate all suggest that SWCE could partially
compensate for some effects— particularly net global warming—of
increased atmospheric CO2. However, existing data also reveal
important limits to the range of CO2 impacts that SWCE could
ameliorate; for example, ongoing ocean acidification would not be
affected, and some categories of climate emergency scenario might
prove unresponsive to SWCE. Moreover, significant uncertainty
presently surrounds the spatial and temporal response of numerous
climate and ecological parameters to SWCE, making the near-term
deployment of large-scale SWCE extraordinarily risky. Components of
any comprehensive research agenda for reducing these uncertainties can
be divided into three progressive phases: (I) Non-Invasive Laboratory
and Computational Research; (II) Field Experiments; and (III)
Monitored Deployment. Each phase involves distinct and escalating
risks (both technical and socio-political), while simultaneously
providing data of greater value for reducing uncertainties. The core
questions that need to be addressed can also be clustered into three
streams of research: Engineering (intervention system development);
Climate Science (modeling and experimentation to understand and
anticipate impacts of the intervention); and Climate Monitoring
(detecting and assessing the actual impacts, both anticipated and
unanticipated). While a number of studies have suggested the
engineering feasibility of specific SWCE proposals, the questions in
the Climate Science and Climate Monitoring streams present far greater
challenges due to the inherent complexity of temporal and spatial
delays and feedbacks within the climate system. Climate Engineering
Responses to Climate Emergencies Page IV These frameworks are applied
to structure the comprehensive research agenda outlined for
stratospheric aerosol SWCE in Part 3 of this report. For the
Engineering stream, current understanding, questions and methods
guiding the necessary research into aerosol material, stratospheric
lofting and dispersion are all defined. For the Climate Science and
Climate Monitoring streams, emphasis is placed on identifying,
predicting and monitoring the response of important climate parameters
across four broad categories: Radiative, Geophysical, Geochemical and
Ecological. Finally, the components within each stream are identified
as belonging to Phase I or II research, and the limits placed by the
natural variability of the climate system on what can be learned from
low-level Phase II field-testing are roughly assessed. This report
does not attempt to evaluate whether stratospheric aerosol (or any
other) SWCE systems should be developed or deployed—or even whether
any parts of the outlined research program should be pursued. Such
questions are the subject of an intense ongoing debate, involving
socio-political and economic issues beyond the scope of this study.
This report aims to better inform that debate by elucidating the
technical research agenda that would be necessary to reduce the
uncertainty in potential SWCE interventions.

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.

[geo] Efficient formation of stratospheric aerosol for climate engineering by emission of condensible vapor from aircraft (old, open)

[Andrew Lockley]

Poster's note: old but seemingly never published to list.  It's a
critical paper, so if you haven't read it, please do so.

http://keith.seas.harvard.edu/papers/127.Pierce.EfficientFormStratsAerosol.e.pdf

Efficient formation of stratospheric aerosol for climate engineering
by emission of condensible vapor from aircraft - 22 September 2010.

[1] Recent analysis suggests that the effectiveness of stratospheric
aerosol climate engineering through emission of non‐condensable vapors
such as SO2 is limited because the slow conversion to H2SO4 tends to
produce aerosol particles that are too large; SO2 injection may be so
inefficient that it is difficult to counteract the radiative forcing
due to a CO2 doubling. Here we describe an alternate method in which
aerosol is formed rapidly in the plume following injection of H2SO4, a
condensable vapor, from an aircraft. This method gives better control
of particle size and can produce larger radiative forcing with lower
sulfur loadings than SO2 injection. Relative to SO2 injection, it may
reduce some of the adverse effects of geoengineering such as radiative
heating of the lower stratosphere. This method does not, however,
alter the fact that such a geoengineered radiative forcing can, at
best, only partially compensate for the climate changes produced by
CO2.

Citation: Pierce, J. R., D. K. Weisenstein, P. Heckendorn, T. Peter,
and D. W. Keith (2010), Efficient formation of stratospheric aerosol
for climate engineering by emission of condensible vapor from
aircraft, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L18805, doi:10.1029/2010GL043975.

-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.