Cost-Risk Trade-Off of Mitigation and Solar Geoengineering: Considering Regional Disparities Under Probabilistic Climate Sensitivity

Roshan, Elnaz; Khabbazan, Mohammad M.; Held, Hermann

doi:10.1007/s10640-018-0261-9

Cited by 12 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We are grateful for this hint and will certainly cite this and further CEA-based literature on CEA, including the one cited in our twin-paper on SRM Roshan et al (2019).. Based on that discussion we will make much clearer what the innovative aspect of our ms is. In fact, none of the above articles tackles a joint mitigation / SRM integrated assessment which includes regional pattern mismatches induced by SRM.…”

Section: Interactive Commentmentioning

confidence: 80%

Author Response to RC1

Khabbazan¹

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Interactive Commentmentioning

confidence: 80%

Author Response to RC1

Khabbazan¹

2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Motivated by these discussions, several projects provided suggestions for the improvement of assessment metrics: Mengis et al (2018Mengis et al ( , 2019 used an Earth system model to identify which relationships in the Earth system are disrupted by large-scale manipulation of the climate system. In parallel, a targetbased decision framework was developed for economic modeling that allows to calculate trade-off between climate policies costs and the "risk" of violating a climate target (Roshan et al 2019). This approach now allows for the inclusion of a multitude of different Earth system variables.…”

Section: Revealing Underlying Assumptions Assumptions Underlying Indimentioning

confidence: 99%

Unveiling assumptions through interdisciplinary scrutiny: Observations from the German Priority Program on Climate Engineering (SPP 1689)

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The interdisciplinary exchange in climate engineering research offers a unique opportunity to make assumptions more explicit for such research projects. While making assumptions explicit is the standard in all disciplinary sciences, some assumptions in the context of societal challenges can only be usefully unveiled, discussed, and verified from the perspective of other research disciplines. Results from successful interdisciplinary collaborations are then more accessible and more generalizable to actors beyond the confines of the academic community. We aim to illustrate how interdisciplinary exchange helps to unveil assumptions in research endeavors and why this is important for successful interdisciplinary collaborations. We therefore follow different stages of the German Priority Program on Climate Engineering (SPP 1689), which we use as an example case of a successful interdisciplinary project. SPP 1689 focused on risks, challenges, and opportunities of Climate Engineering from the perspectives of numerous disciplines. Major results were that the initial assessments of technologies had to be sobered, the consideration of trade-offs is crucial for the potential assessment, and governance issues appeared larger than previously considered. From the reflections of SPP 1689, we conclude with three lessons learned: (1) The project profited from egalitarian organizational structures and communicative practices, preventing the predominance from single disciplines. (2) Within the project continuous efforts were undertaken to foster interdisciplinary understanding. In addition, the flexible project structure allowed for the accommodation of research needs arising as a result of these exchanges. (3) SPP 1689 offered early career researchers a platform for professional exchange on common challenges and best practices of being a part of an interdisciplinary research project.

show abstract

“…In turn, Eqs. (2) and (8) have been repeatedly used in studies employing MIND and concerning uncertainties and ECS (Neubersch et al, 2014;Roshan et al, 2019;Roth et al, 2015). We employ Eqs.…”

Section: An Existing Mapping For Ph99mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, the following climateeconomic IAMs are currently utilizing PH99: FUND (Anthoff and Tol, 2014), MIND (Edenhofer et al, 2005), and PAGE (Hope, 2006) -the last of which was used in the "Stern Review" for the UK government (Stern, 2007). While MIND has since been succeeded by the IAM REMIND (Luderer et al, 2011) when it comes to spatial resolution or representing the energy sector by dozens of technologies, it currently serves as a state-of-the-art IAM for decision-making under uncertainty (Held et al, 2009;Lorenz et al, 2012;Neubersch et al, 2014;Roth et al, 2015) or joint mitigation-solar radiation management analyses (Roshan et al, 2019;Stankoweit et al, 2015). Kriegler and Bruckner (2004) validated PH99 in conjunction with a simple carbon cycle model.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the future role of the most parsimonious climate module in integrated assessment

Khabbazan

Held

2019

Earth Syst. Dynam.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In the following, we test the validity of a one-box climate model as an emulator for atmosphere–ocean general circulation models (AOGCMs). The one-box climate model is currently employed in the integrated assessment models FUND, MIND, and PAGE, widely used in policy making. Our findings are twofold. Firstly, when directly prescribing AOGCMs' respective equilibrium climate sensitivities (ECSs) and transient climate responses (TCRs) to the one-box model, global mean temperature (GMT) projections are generically too high by 0.5 K at peak temperature for peak-and-decline forcing scenarios, resulting in a maximum global warming of approximately 2 K. Accordingly, corresponding integrated assessment studies might tend to overestimate mitigation needs and costs. We semi-analytically explain this discrepancy as resulting from the information loss resulting from the reduction of complexity. Secondly, the one-box model offers a good emulator of these AOGCMs (accurate to within 0.1 K for Representative Concentration Pathways, RCPs, namely RCP2.6, RCP4.5, and RCP6.0), provided the AOGCM's ECS and TCR values are universally mapped onto effective one-box counterparts and a certain time horizon (on the order of the time to peak radiative forcing) is not exceeded. Results that are based on the one-box model and have already been published are still just as informative as intended by their respective authors; however, they should be reinterpreted as being influenced by a larger climate response to forcing than intended.

show abstract

Cost-Risk Trade-Off of Mitigation and Solar Geoengineering: Considering Regional Disparities Under Probabilistic Climate Sensitivity

Cited by 12 publications

References 41 publications

Author Response to RC1

Author Response to RC1

Unveiling assumptions through interdisciplinary scrutiny: Observations from the German Priority Program on Climate Engineering (SPP 1689)

On the future role of the most parsimonious climate module in integrated assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About