Tag: uncertainties

Weil, Gabriel (2021): Global Climate Governance in 3D

Weil, Gabriel (2021): Global Climate Governance in 3D. In SSRN Journal 319 (7), p. 339. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3788661.

“The characteristics of climate interventions vary across three distinct dimensions, which the mitigation-geoengineering dichotomy fails to capture. First, interventions operate via different mechanisms, such as altering the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases or changing the fraction of incoming solar radiation absorbed by the earth. Second, the characteristic duration of interventions varies from days to millennia. Third, interventions differ in terms of leverage — the scale of climate impact achievable with a fixed investment of resources. This article argues that global climate governance would be best served by a unified approach that addresses all climate interventions based on these three dimensions.”

LINK

Eghtedari Naeini, Milad (2021): Uncertainty in cost-benefit analysis of climate policy : climate-economy model evaluation and extension

Eghtedari Naeini, Milad (2021): Uncertainty in cost-benefit analysis of climate policy : climate-economy model evaluation and extension. Dissertation. The University Of Texas At Austin.

“The goal of this dissertation is to assess the uncertainty in cost-benefit analysis of climate change and corresponding damages.”

LINK

Giannousakis, Anastasis; et al. (2021): How uncertainty in technology costs and carbon dioxide removal availability affect climate mitigation pathways

Giannousakis, Anastasis; Hilaire, Jérôme; Nemet, Gregory F.; Luderer, Gunnar; Pietzcker, Robert C.; Rodrigues, Renato et al. (2021): How uncertainty in technology costs and carbon dioxide removal availability affect climate mitigation pathways. In Energy 216, p. 119253. DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2020.119253.

“We assess how energy supply costs and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) availability affect mitigation by performing a sensitivity analysis with the energy-economy-climate model REMIND. We use new scenarios with carbon price paths that aim to reduce the frequently seen temperature overshoot.”

LINK

Visioni, Daniele; et al. (2021): Identifying the sources of uncertainty in climate model simulations of solar radiation modification with the G6sulfur and G6solar Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) simulations

Visioni, Daniele; MacMartin, Douglas G.; Kravitz, Ben; Boucher, Olivier; Jones, Andy; Lurton, Thibaut et al. (2021): Identifying the sources of uncertainty in climate model simulations of solar radiation modification with the G6sulfur and G6solar Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) simulations. Preprint. In Atmos. Chem. Phys. DOI: 10.5194/acp-2021-133.

“We present here results from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) simulations for the experiment G6sulfur and G6solar for six Earth System Models participating in the Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) Phase 6. The aim of the experiments is to reduce the warming from that resulting from a high-tier emission scenario (Shared Socioeconomic Pathways SSP5-8.5) to that resulting from a medium-tier emission scenario (SSP2-4.5).”

LINK

Peoples, Columba (2021): Global uncertainties, geoengineering and the technopolitics of planetary crisis management

Peoples, Columba (2021): Global uncertainties, geoengineering and the technopolitics of planetary crisis management. In Globalizations, pp. 1–15. DOI: 10.1080/14747731.2021.1882815.

“With rising sea levels and disappearing species as harbingers of a planet-wide existential crisis facing the Earth, this article considers the ways in which geoengineering proposals diverge from understandings of global uncertainties and threats within scholarship on the globalization of insecurity, instead identifying ‘the planetary’ as a distinctive space of insecurity.”

LINK

Ng, W. Y.; et al. (2020): Ranking negative emissions technologies under uncertainty

Ng, W. Y.; Low, C. X.; Putra, Z. A.; Aviso, K. B.; Promentilla, M.A.B.; Tan, R. R. (2020): Ranking negative emissions technologies under uncertainty. In Heliyon 6 (12), e05730. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05730.

“Given that there are multiple available NETs that need to be evaluated based on multiple criteria, there is a need for a systematic method for ranking and prioritizing them. Furthermore, the uncertainty in estimating the techno-economic performance levels of NETs is a major challenge. In this work, an integrated model of fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and interval-extended Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) is proposed to address the multiple criteria, together with data uncertainties.”

LINK