| SOLAR GEOENGINEERING WEEKLY SUMMARY (29 APRIL - 05 MAY 2024)Subscribe to our newsletter to receive monthly updates on Solar Geoengineering:
RESEARCH PAPERSNightingale, P., & Cairns, R. (2014). The security implications of geoengineering: Blame, imposed agreement and the security of critical infrastructure. Sussex University: Climate Geoengineering Governance Working Paper Series, 18. Abstract The prospect of solar geoengineering in response to climate change (on the basis of its supposedly significantly lower cost and/or more rapid impact on global temperature than carbon reduction strategies) raises a number of security concerns that have traditionally been understood within a standard Geo-political framing of security. This relates to unrealistic direct application in inter-State warfare or to a securitization of climate change. However, indirect security implications are potentially significant. Current capability, security threats and international law loopholes suggest the military, rather than scientists would undertake geoengineering, and solar radiation management (SRM) in particular. SRM activity would be covered by Critical National Infrastructure policies, and as such would require a significant level of secondary security infrastructure. Concerns about termination effects, the need to impose international policy agreement 4 (given the ability of 'rogue States' to disrupt SRM and existing difficulties in producing global agreement on climate policy), and a world of extreme weather events, where weather is engineered and hence blameworthy rather than natural, suggest these costs would be large. Evidence on how blame is attributed suggest blame for extreme weather events may be directed towards more technologically advanced nations, (such as the USA) even if they are not engaged in geoengineering. From a security perspective SRM is costly, ungovernable, and raises security concerns of a sufficient magnitude to make it a non-viable policy option.
Howard, D. (2024). The political value of letting hopes die. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 1-24. Abstract Much recent philosophical discussion has explored the political value of holding onto certain hopes for shared ends. This paper considers whether there is correlative political value of letting go of certain hopes or at least of refraining from publicly affirming particular hopes for our collective future. For instance, recently a coalition of scientists and governance scholars have called on governments, international agencies, and other actors to agree to a moratorium on a controversial climate-change mitigation strategy known as solar geoengineering. They argue that there is no place for hope for a successful global solar geoengineering strategy in a just and inclusive climate policy portfolio. This paper asks: (i) what sort of demand are these coalitions making? (ii) Is giving up hopes the sort of thing that is warranted for people to do on the basis of these calls? And (iii) is this the sort of thing that can be legitimately demanded of others? Ultimately, I defend both the political value of our own letting go of certain hopes as well as the legitimacy of making such demands on others (at least in certain cases). This is because what I take people to be doing when they make such demands of others is not necessarily to get others to create new desires or to be more or less optimistic about a certain course of action; rather they are making such demands to outline the terms of continued political engagement as they work towards a shared future.
Laakso, A., Visioni, D., Niemeier, U., Tilmes, S., & Kokkola, H. (2024). Dependency of the impacts of geoengineering on the stratospheric sulfur injection strategy–Part 2: How changes in the hydrological cycle depend on the injection rate and model used. Earth System Dynamics, 15(2), 405-427. Abstract This is the second of two papers in which we study the dependency of the impacts of stratospheric sulfur injections on the model and injection strategy used. Here, aerosol optical properties from simulated stratospheric aerosol injections using two aerosol models (modal scheme M7 and sectional scheme SALSA), as described in Part 1 (Laakso et al., 2022), are implemented consistently into the EC-Earth, MPI-ESM and CESM Earth system models (ESMs) to simulate the climate impacts of different injection rates ranging from 2 to 100 Tg(S) yr−1. Two sets of simulations were run with the three ESMs: (1) regression simulations, in which an abrupt change in CO2 concentration or stratospheric aerosols over pre-industrial conditions was applied to quantify global mean fast temperature-independent climate responses and quasi-linear dependence on temperature, and (2) equilibrium simulations, in which radiative forcing of aerosol injections with various magnitudes compensated for the corresponding radiative forcing of CO2 enhancement to study the dependence of precipitation on the injection magnitude. The latter also allow one to explore the regional climatic responses. Large differences in SALSA- and M7-simulated radiative forcing in Part 1 translated into large differences in the estimated surface temperature and precipitation changes in ESM simulations; for example, an injection rate of 20 Tg(S) yr−1 in CESM using M7-simulated aerosols led to only 2.2 K global mean cooling, while EC-Earth–SALSA combination produced a 5.2 K change. In equilibrium simulations, where aerosol injections were utilized to offset the radiative forcing caused by an atmospheric CO2 concentration of 500 ppm, the decrease in global mean precipitation varied among models, ranging from −0.7 % to −2.4 % compared with the pre-industrial climate. These precipitation changes can be explained by the fast precipitation response due to radiation changes caused by the stratospheric aerosols and CO2, as the global mean fast precipitation response is shown to be negatively correlated with global mean atmospheric absorption. Our study shows that estimating the impact of stratospheric aerosol injection on climate is not straightforward. This is because the simulated capability of the sulfate layer to reflect solar radiation and absorb long-wave radiation is sensitive to the injection rate as well as the aerosol model used to simulate the aerosol field. These findings emphasize the necessity for precise simulation of aerosol microphysics to accurately estimate the climate impacts of stratospheric sulfur intervention. This study also reveals gaps in our understanding and uncertainties that still exist related to these controversial techniques.
Laakso, A., Visioni, D., Niemeier, U., Tilmes, S., & Kokkola, H. (2024). Dependency of the impacts of geoengineering on the stratospheric sulfur injection strategy–Part 2: How changes in the hydrological cycle depend on the injection rate and model used. Earth System Dynamics, 15(2), 405-427.
WEB POSTSThe Solar Geoengineering Updates Newsletter (April'2024) Solar Geoengineering Updates3 days ago · Andrew Lockley
THESIS
REPORTAbstract Solar radiation modification is highly controversial. The implementation of invasive geoengineering technologies would entail serious and largely unforeseeable ecological, and geopolitical risks. Considerable scientific disagreement exists around the extent of the risks, how they relate to increased risks of climate change, and whether uncertainties could be resolved. In expert workshops held in 2022 the scientific, technical, and geopolitical viability and desirability of SRM was discussed. This discussion paper presents a blended overview of the academic literature on solar geoengineering and the positions expressed at expert workshops, as well as personal assessments from the authors.
SURVEY
FACT SHEETS
UPCOMING EVENTSSolar Geoengineering Events Calendar GUIDELINES:Sync selected events to your default calendar in these simple steps:1) Click on the event you want to sync.2) Tap the menu icon (three vertical lines) at the top left.3) Choose 'Share.'4) Pick your default calendar.5) Save the event.Sync the entire Teamup Calendar to your default calendar with these simple steps:1) Tap the menu icon (three vertical lines) at the top right.2) Choose 'Preferences.'3) Click 'iCalendar Feeds.'4) Copy the URL shown for 'Solar Geoengineering Events / SRM Deadlines.'’5) Paste the URL into your default calendar settings (Open Google Calendar in your web browser if you are using Gcal).6) Click 'Subscribe' or 'Add Calendar.'
You can directly sync all Solar Geoengineering events to your default calendars by pressing the link below: Sync SG Events to your Default Calendar
PODCASTSWarm pool & SAI - Günther (FIXED) | Reviewer 2 does geoengineering | Warm pool & SAI - Günther (FIXED) Reviewer 2 does geoengineering 1:27:07 |
"Moritz Günther tries valiantly to get @geoengineering1 to understand the atmospheric dynamics of SAI's impacts on the warm pool, but it's rather like watching him trying to train a baboon to use Photoshop - there's some engagement, and the occasional flash of comprehension before it all gets too much for him. NB this is the FIXED version - the original had a couple of important errors of sign from Günther. If you've listen to the old version, pls see this important author note "the part where I say it's destabilising... should actually be stabilising... roughly at 1:10:30 - 1:11:00. The part where I say we would need less aerosol if the Brewer-Dobson circulation mechanism exists but we would actually need more is around 1:21:30 - 1:22:00." (timestamps from old episode) And BTW, props to him for a) checking b) fessing up. Science progresses one correction at a time. Günther, M., Schmidt, H., Timmreck, C., and Toohey, M.: Why does stratospheric aerosol forcing strongly cool the warm pool?, EGUsphere [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-429, 2024."
Controlling MCB - Walker Lee Part 1 | Reviewer 2 does geoengineering | Controlling MCB - Walker Lee Part 1 Reviewer 2 does geoengineering 1:16:35 |
"What control can we exercise over MCB? Should it be confined to small, climatically sensitive areas - or expanded at great cost, to minimise inter-regional disparities? Walker Lee discusses the issue in depth. (See PT 2 for a discussion on disability and diversity). Jack's first paper: https://doi.org/10.22541/essoar.171322700.02512514/v1 Jack's second paper: https://doi.org/10.22541/essoar.171201044.45268441/v1"
Disability & ideological diversity in academia - Walker Lee, Part 2 | Reviewer 2 does geoengineering | Disability & ideological diversity in academia - Walker Lee, Part 2 Reviewer 2 does geoengineering 28:12 |
"We've extracted this very interesting discussion from Walker Lee's new episode, because a) it's a standalone section and b) the main episode was already quite long. Here, Walker Lee describes in vibrant and very personal terms his own academic journey, touching on important issues of ideological diversity and disability discrimination. It's not trad R2, but we liked it. Enjoy!"
"Today’s guest is Dr. Shuchi Talati, a climate technology and governance expert and the founder of The Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering. In this episode, we discuss ethics and governance of solar geoengineering, the formal cancellation of Harvard’s SCoPEx experiment, and the UN Environment Assembly deliberations on Solar Radiation Modification."
YOUTUBE VIDEOSSolar Geoengineering (SRM) and a new type of denial | Solar Geoengineering Advocate "A few thoughts on SRM and why we will probably need it."
Herb Simmens Presentation on Climate Vocabulary to Healthy Planet Action Coalition 2 May 2024 | Robbie Tulip "This discussion features the narrative story in Herb Simmens’ recent book A Climate Vocabulary of the Future. That segment of the book looks back from the year 2035. It describes how humanity began to achieve a healthy climate. Herb Simmens will present that narrative, and lead a discussion on the kinds of stories and language that can inform and excite people to embrace the HPAC vision for a healthy planet. Herb’s presentation and the subsequent discussion are particularly stimulating and timely, now that the HPAC Advocacy Task Force is beginning to explore what an effective and compelling narrative might be developed to advance our mission."
DEADLINES |
