Tag: climate modelling

Peer-reviewed Publications

Bala, G.; et al. (2018): Solar Geoengineering Research in India

Bala, G.; Gupta, A. (2018): Solar Geoengineering Research in India. In: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-18-0122.1.

“We present here a brief account of the Indian scientific research into solar geoengineering. Climate modeling constitutes the major component of this geoengineering-relevant climate science research. The recent funding initiative by the Department of Science and Technology, the main funding agency for scientific research in India, in support of geoengineering modeling research and its efforts to bring natural, social and political scientists together for an evaluation solar geoengineering at meetings are also discussed. Finally, the directions for future scientific research into geoengineering in India are also discussed.”

LINK

#
Peer-reviewed Publications

Duan, L.; et al. (2018): Comparison of the Fast and Slow Climate Response to Three Radiation Management Geoengineering Schemes

Duan, L.; Cao, L.; Bala, G.; Caldeira, K. (2018): Comparison of the Fast and Slow Climate Response to Three Radiation Management Geoengineering Schemes. In: J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. DOI: 10.1029/2018JD029034.

“Geoengineering has been proposed as a backup approach to rapidly cool the Earth and avoid damages associated with anthropogenic climate change. In this study, we use the NCAR Community Earth System Model (CESM) to conduct a series of slab‐ocean and prescribed sea‐surface‐temperature simulations to investigate the climate response to three proposed radiation management geoengineering schemes: stratospheric aerosol increase (SAI), marine cloud brightening (MCB), and cirrus cloud thinning (CCT).”

LINK

#
Peer-reviewed Publications

Bonetti, F.; et al. (2018): Multiple input control strategies for robust and adaptive climate engineering in a low-order 3-box model

Bonetti, F.; McInnes, C. (2018): Multiple input control strategies for robust and adaptive climate engineering in a low-order 3-box model. In: Proceedings. Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences 474 (2217), S. 20180447. DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2018.0447.

“A low-order 3-box energy balance model for the climate system is employed with a multivariable control scheme for the evaluation of new robust and adaptive climate engineering strategies using solar radiation management. The climate engineering measures are deployed in three boxes thus representing northern, southern and central bands. It is shown that, through heat transport between the boxes, it is possible to effect a degree of latitudinal control through the reduction of insolation.”

LINK

#
Peer-reviewed Publications

Chen, Y.; et al. (2019): Economic losses of carbon emissions from circum-Arctic permafrost regions under RCP-SSP scenarios

Chen, Y.; Liu, A.; Zhang, Z.; Hope, C.; Crabbe, J. (2019): Economic losses of carbon emissions from circum-Arctic permafrost regions under RCP-SSP scenarios. In: Science of the Total Environment 658, S. 1064–1068. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.299.

“In this study, we use the PInc-PanTher model to estimate carbon emissions from thawing permafrost in the circum-Arctic during 2010–2100 followed by the PAGE09 integrated assessment model to evaluate the net economic losses caused by these permafrost carbon emissions.”

LINK

#
Peer-reviewed Publications

Pfrommer, T.; et al. (2019): Establishing causation in climate litigation

Pfrommer, T.; Goeschl, T.; Proelss, A.; Carrier, M.; Lenhard, J.; Martin, H. et al. (2019): Establishing causation in climate litigation. Admissibility and reliability. In: Climatic Change 421 (6926), S. 891. DOI: 10.1007/s10584-018-2362-4.

“Climate litigation has attracted renewed interest as a governance tool. A key challenge in climate litigation is to assess the factual basis of causation. Extreme weather attribution, specifically the Fraction of Attributable Risk (FAR), has been proposed as a way to tackle this challenge. What remains unclear is how attribution science interacts with the legal admissibility of evidence based on climate models. “

LINK

#
Peer-reviewed Publications

Rosenfeld, D.; et al. (2019): Aerosol-driven droplet concentrations dominate coverage and water of oceanic low level clouds

Rosenfeld, D.; Zhu, Y.; Wang, M.; Zheng, Y.; Goren, T.; Yu, S. (2019): Aerosol-driven droplet concentrations dominate coverage and water of oceanic low level clouds. In: Science (New York, N.Y.). DOI: 10.1126/science.aav0566.

“Lack of reliable estimates of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) aerosols over oceans has severely limited our ability to quantify their effects on cloud properties and extent of cooling by reflecting solar radiation – a key uncertainty in anthropogenic climate forcing. Here we introduce a methodology for ascribing cloud properties to CCN and isolating the aerosol effects from meteorological effects.”

LINK

#
Peer-reviewed Publications

Mengis, N.; et al. (2019): Climate engineering–induced changes in correlations between Earth system variables—implications for appropriate indicator selection

Mengis, N.; Keller, D.; Rickels, W.; Quaas, M.; Oschlies, A. (2019): Climate engineering–induced changes in correlations between Earth system variables—implications for appropriate indicator selection. In: Climatic Change 104 (C7), S. 669. DOI: 10.1007/s10584-019-02389-7.

“Climate engineering (CE) deployment would alter prevailing relationships between Earth system variables, making indicators and metrics used so far in the climate change assessment context less appropriate to assess CE measures. Achieving a comprehensive CE assessment requires a systematic and transparent reevaluation of the indicator selection process from Earth system variables. Here, we provide a first step towards such a systematic assessment of changes in correlations between Earth system variables following simulated deployment of different CE methods.”

LINK

#
Peer-reviewed Publications

Rogers, K.; et al. (2019): Wetland carbon storage controlled by millennial-scale variation in relative sea-level rise

Rogers, K.; Kelleway, J.; Saintilan, N.; Megonigal, P.; Adams, J.; Holmquist, J. et al. (2019): Wetland carbon storage controlled by millennial-scale variation in relative sea-level rise. In: Nature 567 (7746), S. 91–95. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-0951-7.

“Coastal wetlands (mangrove, tidal marsh and seagrass) sustain the highest rates of carbon sequestration per unit area of all natural systems, primarily because of their comparatively high productivity and preservation of organic carbon within sedimentary substrates. […] Our results suggest that coastal wetlands characteristic of tectonically stable coastlines have lower carbon storage owing to a lack of accommodation space and that carbon sequestration increases according to the vertical and lateral accommodation space created by RSLR. Such wetlands will provide long-term mitigating feedback[nbsp]effects that are relevant to global climate–carbon modelling.”

LINK

#
Peer-reviewed Publications

Vielstädte, L.; et al. (2019): Footprint and detectability of a well leaking CO2 in the Central North Sea. Implications from a field experiment and numerical modelling

Vielstädte, L.; Linke, P.; Schmidt, M.; Sommer, S.; Haeckel, M.; Braack, M.; Wallmann, K. (2019): Footprint and detectability of a well leaking CO2 in the Central North Sea. Implications from a field experiment and numerical modelling. In: International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 84, S. 190–203. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.03.012.

“Existing wells pose a risk for the loss of carbon dioxide (CO2) from storage sites, which might compromise the suitability of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies as climate change mitigation options. Here, we show results of a controlled CO2 release experiment at the Sleipner CO2 storage site and numerical simulations that evaluate the detectability and environmental consequences of a well leaking CO2 into the Central North Sea (CNS).”

LINK

#
Peer-reviewed Publications

Asayama, S.; et al. (2019): Engineering climate debt: temperature overshoot and peak-shaving as risky subprime mortgage lending

Asayama, S.; Hulme, M. (2019): Engineering climate debt: temperature overshoot and peak-shaving as risky subprime mortgage lending. In: Climate Policy 33 (3), p. 1–10. DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2019.1623165.

“Whilst some view optimistically the strategic interdependence between SRM and CDR, we argue that this strategy comes with a risk of escalating ‘climate debt’. We explain our position using the logic of debt and the analogy of subprime mortgage lending. In overshoot and peak-shaving scenarios, the role of CDR and SRM is to compensate for delayed mitigation, placing the world in a double debt: ‘emissions debt’ and ‘temperature debt’.”

LINK

#