Can stratospheric geoengineering alleviate global-warming-induced changes in deciduous fruit cultivation? The case of Himachal Pradesh (India)
Alan Robock ☮
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-020-02786-3
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10584-020-02786-3.pdf
Abstract
Using Hadley Global Environment Model 2 - Earth System and Max Planck Institute Earth System Model simulations, we assess the impact of global warming and stratospheric geoengineering on deciduous fruit production in Himachal Pradesh (the second-largest apple-producing state in India). The impacts have been assessed for the Representative Concentration Pathways 4.5 (RCP4.5) global warming scenario, and a corresponding geoengineered scenario (G3) from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project, in which stratospheric aerosols are increased for 50 years from 2020 through 2069 to balance the global warming radiative forcing, and then aerosol precursor emissions are terminated. We used the period 2055–2069 (with the largest geoengineering forcing) and the period 2075–2089 (beginning 5 years into the termination phase) and evaluated winter chill and growing season heat accumulation. We found that although stratospheric geoengineering would be able to suppress the increase in temperature under an RCP4.5 scenario to some extent during both switch-on and switch-off periods, if the geoengineering was terminated, the rate of temperature increase would be higher than RCP4.5. The agroclimatically suitable area is projected to shift northeastwards (to higher elevations) under RCP4.5 as well as G3 during both periods. However, during the switched on period, geoengineering would restrict the shift, and areas of Shimla and Mandi districts (most suitable under the current climate) would not be lost due to global warming. Even during the switched off period, before the climate returned to RCP4.5 levels, the above areas would, although to a lesser extent, have reduced harmful climate effects from global warming. However, the area of suitable land (the intersection of soil and agroclimatic suitability) would decrease in both periods for RCP4.5 as well as G3, because as more high-elevation regions become agroclimatically suitable, they do not have suitable soils to support cultivation. Geoengineering could benefit deciduous fruit production by reducing the intensity of global warming; however, if geoengineering was terminated abruptly, the rate of change in temperature would be quite high. This could lead to a rapid change in land suitability and might result in total crop failure in a shorter period compared to RCP4.5.
-- Alan Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor Associate Editor, Reviews of Geophysics Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751 Rutgers University E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu 14 College Farm Road http://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA ☮ http://twitter.com/AlanRobock
Cheri Simonne Rubens
--
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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/594c46bc-ee97-7078-d27c-144f2c930610%40envsci.rutgers.edu.
Douglas MacMartin
Maybe someone should write something called “False narratives on geoengineering: solutionism”
Fundamentally, the framing in any of these (other than Alan’s, which lists both the benefits and harms, and was also written at a time when a few people actually *were* proposing geoengineering as a get-out-of-jail-free-card) is to pose it as a choice of *either* we cut emissions *or* we use geoengineering, much like with car accidents, where we frame those as *either* you wear a seat belt *or* you drive safely, but you’re required to only choose one (seat belts are, of course, a “false solution” to car accidents). I happen to think that is a deliberately misleading and simplistic framing. Reduced pressure on mitigation is an absolutely fair concern (and of course there is evidence that people drive less safely if they have more safety features), but acknowledging that concern doesn’t justify the either/or framing.
Note that one could take other titles below as well, and substitute “not geoengineering” every time you read “geoengineering”. Of course there are side effects and risks, that’s why there is research to better understand them and put them in context; if we knew there were no side effects to implementing something, maybe it would have happened already. The problem is that there are side effects and risks for the natural world without geoengineering too, hence the “context” part. So the people crafting these headlines are deliberately generating naïve simplistic framings of what deserves a more difficult and nuanced treatment because that sort of emotional click-bait works in journalism. The world deserves better.
(My $0.02 on these.)
doug
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAAYr9OyQm%2Bmwz0ZFWVW7-%3D7sPoGEJbAwk3vhBXHMRwsvw9N8Tg%40mail.gmail.com.