Geoengineering Articles

[JohnQPublic]

Here you go:

http://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/issue/10.1002/(ISSN)2328-4277.GEOENGIN1/

Tons of articles.

[JohnQPublic]

Was breaking the taboo on research on climate engineeringvia albedo modification a moral hazard, or a moral imperative (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000463/epdf)

Abstract The topic of increasing the reflectivity of the Earth as a measure to counteract globalwarming has been the subject of high-level discussions and preliminary research since several decades,though prior to the early 2000s there was only very limited research on the topic. This changed in themid-2000s, particularly following the publication of a special section of Climatic Change with a lead paperby Crutzen [2006], which posited the idea of stratospheric aerosol injections as a possible solution to apolicy dilemma. The discussions around t he publication of Crutzen [2006] demonstrated how contentiousthe topic was at that time. The s pecial section of Climatic Change contributedtobreakingthe“taboo”onalbedo modification research that was perceived at that time, and scientific publications on the topic havesince proliferated, including the development of several l arge national and international projects, andthe publication of several assessment reports over the last decade. Here we reflect on the backgroundand main conclusions of the publications in 2006, the developments since then, and on some of themain developments over the next decade that we anticipate for research and dialogue in support ofdecision-making and policy development processes

[JohnQPublic]

What do people think when they think about solargeoengineering? A review of empirical social scienceliterature, and prospects for future research (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000465/epdf)

Abstract Public views and values about solar geoengineering should be incorporated in science-policydecisions, if decision makers want to act in the public interest. In reflecting on the past decade of research,we review around 30 studies investigating public familiarity with, and views about, solar geoengineering.A number of recurring patterns emerge: (1) general unfamiliarity with geoengineering among publics; (2)the importance of artifice versus naturalness; (3) some conditional support for certain kinds of research;and (4) nuanced findings on the “moral hazard” and “reverse moral hazard” hypotheses, with empiri-cal support for each appearing under different circumstances and populations. We argue that in thecoming decade, empirical s ocial science research on solar geoengineering will be crucial, and should beintegrated with physical scientific research.

[JohnQPublic]

Earth’s Future Five solar geoengineering tropes that have outstayed their welcome (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000416/epdf)

Abstract In the last decade, solar geoengineering (solar radiation management, or SRM) has received increasing consideration as a potential means to reduce risks of anthropogenic climate change. Some ideas regarding SRM that have been proposed have receded after being appropriately scrutinized, while others have strengthened through testing and critique. This process has improved the understanding of SRM’s potential and limitations. However, several claims are frequently made in the academic and popular SRM discourses and, despite evidence to the contrary, pose the risk of hardening into accepted facts.Here, in order to foster a more productive and honest debate, we identify, describe, and refute five of the most problematic claims that are unsupported by existing evidence, unlikely to occur, or greatly exaggerated. These are: (A) once started, SRM cannot be stopped; (B) SRM is a right-wing project; (C) SRM would cost only a few billion dollars per year; (D) modeling studies indicate that SRM would disrupt monsoon precipitation; and (E) there is an international prohibition on outdoors research. SRM is a controversial proposed set of technologies that could prove to be very helpful or very harmful, and it warrants vigorous and informed public debate. By highlighting and debunking some persistent but unsupported claims, this paper hopes to bring rigor to such discussions.

[JohnQPublic]

Towards a comprehensive climate impacts assessment of solar geoengineering (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000389/full)
8918