Halving warming with stratospheric aerosol geoengineering moderates policy-relevant climate hazards

Keith, David, and Peter Irvine. “Halving warming with stratospheric aerosol geoengineering moderates policy-relevant climate hazards.” Environmental Research Letters 15, no. 4 (2024). Publisher's VersionAbstract

irvine_2024_environ._res._lett._15_044011.pdf

香港CDN服务器月租多少钱-【万维讯通】:2021-6-15 · 香港CDN服务器月租多少钱[xr55jB]香港CDN服务器月租多少钱原因有两个：(任何的增值服务都是不需要，成本太高。(成功的seo服务可众非常简单：提交到软件，软件自动生成、无人员上传。选择 …

国外伕理服务器ip免费

蘑菇伕理IP-免费试用企业级高品质HTTP技术平台_伕理IP池 ...:2021-3-24 · 蘑菇伕理【免费试用★全国IP地区】是一家专业提供HTTP/HTTPS伕理IP提供商及大数据服务商,我伔有海量HTTP伕理IP资源,先后为上千 ...

MacMartin, Douglas, Peter Irvine, Ben Kravitz, and Joshua Horton. “Technical characteristics of a solar geoengineering deployment and implications for governance.” Climate Policy 19, no. 10 (2024): 1325-1339. Publisher's VersionAbstract

technical_characteristics_of_a_solar_geoengineering_deployment_and_implications_for_governance.pdf

Consideration of solar geoengineering as a potential response to climate change will demand complex decisions. These include not only the choice of whether to deploy solar engineering, but decisions regarding how to deploy, and ongoing decisionmaking throughout deployment. Research on the governance of solar geoengineering to date has primarily engaged only with the question of whether to deploy. We examine the science of solar geoengineering in order to clarify the technical dimensions of decisions about deployment – both strategic and operational – and how these might influence governance considerations, while consciously refraining from making specific recommendations. The focus here is on a hypothetical deployment rather than governance of the research itself. We first consider the complexity surrounding the design of a deployment scheme, in particular the complicated and difficult decision of what its objective(s) would be, given that different choices for how to deploy will lead to different climate outcomes. Next, we discuss the on-going decisions across multiple timescales, from the sub-annual to the multi-decadal. For example, feedback approaches might effectively manage some uncertainties, but would require frequent adjustments to the solar geoengineering deployment in response to observations. Other decisions would be tied to the inherently slow process of detection and attribution of climate effects in the presence of natural variability. Both of these present challenges to decision-making. These considerations point toward particular governance requirements, including an important role for technical experts – with all the challenges that entails.

Quantifying the effects of solar geoengineering on vegetation

Dagon, Katherine, and Daniel Schrag. “Quantifying the effects of solar geoengineering on vegetation.” Climatic Change 152, no. 1-2 (2024): 235–251. Publisher's VersionAbstract

dagon-schrag2024_article_quantifyingtheeffectsofsolarge.pdf

Climate change will have significant impacts on vegetation and biodiversity. Solar geoengineering has potential to reduce the climate effects of greenhouse gas emissions through albedo modification, yet more research is needed to better understand how these techniques might impact terrestrial ecosystems. Here, we utilize the fully coupled version of the Community Earth System Model to run transient solar geoengineering simulations designed to stabilize radiative forcing starting mid-century, relative to the Representative Concentration Pathway 6 (RCP6) scenario. Using results from 100-year simulations, we analyze model output through the lens of ecosystem-relevant metrics. We find that solar geoengineering improves the conservation outlook under climate change, but there are still potential impacts on terrestrial vegetation. We show that rates of warming and the climate velocity of temperature are minimized globally under solar geoengineering by the end of the century, while trends persist over land in the Northern Hemisphere. Moisture is an additional constraint on vegetation, and in the tropics the climate velocity of precipitation dominates over that of temperature. Shifts in the amplitude of temperature and precipitation seasonal cycles have implications for vegetation phenology. Different metrics for vegetation productivity also show decreases under solar geoengineering relative to RCP6, but could be related to the model parameterization of nutrient cycling. The coupling of water and carbon cycles is found to be an important mechanism for understanding changes in ecosystems under solar geoengineering.

国外伕理服务器ip免费

Belfer Technology Factsheet Series: Solar Geoengineering

Burns, Lizzie, David Keith, Peter Irvine, and Joshua Horton. “Belfer Technology Factsheet Series: Solar Geoengineering” (2024).Abstract

belfer_factsheet_on_solar_geoengineering.pdf

Solar geoengineering refers to a set of emerging technologies that could alter the Earth’s radiative balance— perhaps through injecting aerosols into the stratosphere, where they would reflect a small fraction of sunlight back into space—reducing the amount of climate change caused by greenhouse gases. It could not replace reducing emissions (mitigation), coping with a changing climate (adaptation), or carbon dioxide removal (CDR). Yet it does have the potential to supplement these efforts, and it might provide reductions in climate risk that are unachievable by other means.

e-go加速器ios下载-蚂蚁vp加速器官网

Keith, David, and Joshua Horton. “Multilateral parametric climate risk insurance: a tool to facilitate agreement about deployment of solar geoengineering?” Climate Policy (2024). Publisher's VersionAbstract

horton_and_keith_climate_policy_2024.pdf

求一个国外免费服务器提供商，空间不用太大，1g就行，就挂 ...:2021-4-14 · 求一个国外免费服务器提供商，空间不用太大，1g就行，就挂个网站，需要做宣传也行 IT服务器网站互联网来自：百科更新日期：2021-04-14 1个g？

Exploring accumulation-mode H2SO4 versus SO2 stratospheric sulfate geoengineering in a sectional aerosol–chemistry–climate model

Vattioni, Sandro, Debra Weisenstein, David Keith, Aryeh Feinberg, Thomas Peter, and Andrea Stenke. “Exploring accumulation-mode H2SO4 versus SO2 stratospheric sulfate geoengineering in a sectional aerosol–chemistry–climate model.” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 19 (2024). Publisher's VersionAbstract

香港伕理服务器ip免费

Stratospheric sulfate geoengineering (SSG) could contribute to avoiding some of the adverse impacts of climate change. We used the SOCOL-AER global aerosol–chemistry–climate model to investigate 21 different SSG scenarios, each with 1.83 Mt S yr^{国外伕理服务器ip免费} injected either in the form of accumulation-mode H₂SO₄ droplets (AM H₂SO₄), gas-phase SO₂ or as combinations of both. For most scenarios, the sulfur was continuously emitted at an altitude of 50 hPa (≈20 km) in the tropics and subtropics. We assumed emissions to be zonally and latitudinally symmetric around the Equator. The spread of emissions ranged from 3.75^∘ S–3.75^∘ N to 30^∘ S–30^∘ N. In the SO₂ emission scenarios, continuous production of tiny nucleation-mode particles results in increased coagulation, which together with gaseous H₂SO₄ condensation, produces coarse-mode particles. These large particles are less effective for backscattering solar radiation and have a shorter stratospheric residence time than AM H₂SO₄ particles. On average, the stratospheric aerosol burden and corresponding all-sky shortwave radiative forcing for the AM H₂SO₄ scenarios are about 37 % larger than for the SO₂ scenarios. The simulated stratospheric aerosol burdens show a weak dependence on the latitudinal spread of emissions. Emitting at 30^∘ N–30^∘ S instead of 10^∘ N–10^∘ S only decreases stratospheric burdens by about 10 %. This is because a decrease in coagulation and the resulting smaller particle size is roughly balanced by faster removal through stratosphere-to-troposphere transport via tropopause folds. Increasing the injection altitude is also ineffective, although it generates a larger stratospheric burden, because enhanced condensation and/or coagulation leads to larger particles, which are less effective scatterers. In the case of gaseous SO₂ emissions, limiting the sulfur injections spatially and temporally in the form of point and pulsed emissions reduces the total global annual nucleation, leading to less coagulation and thus smaller particles with increased stratospheric residence times. Pulse or point emissions of AM H₂SO₄ have the opposite effect: they decrease the stratospheric aerosol burden by increasing coagulation and only slightly decrease clear-sky radiative forcing. This study shows that direct emission of AM H₂SO₄ results in higher radiative forcing for the same sulfur equivalent mass injection strength than SO₂ emissions, and that the sensitivity to different injection strategies varies for different forms of injected sulfur.

e-go加速器ios下载-蚂蚁vp加速器官网

Stay in touch

e-go加速器ios下载-蚂蚁vp加速器官网

e-go加速器ios下载-蚂蚁vp加速器官网

e-go加速器ios下载-蚂蚁vp加速器官网

e-go加速器ios下载-蚂蚁vp加速器官网

Frank Keutsch — Heterogeneous Chemistry and Ageing of Designer Aerosol Particles to Assess the Risk of Solar Geoengineering

Halving warming with stratospheric aerosol geoengineering moderates policy-relevant climate hazards

蘑菇伕理IP-免费试用企业级高品质HTTP技术平台_伕理IP池 ...:2021-3-24 · 蘑菇伕理【免费试用★全国IP地区】是一家专业提供HTTP/HTTPS伕理IP提供商及大数据服务商,我伔有海量HTTP伕理IP资源,先后为上千 ...

Quantifying the effects of solar geoengineering on vegetation

Belfer Technology Factsheet Series: Solar Geoengineering

e-go加速器ios下载-蚂蚁vp加速器官网

Exploring accumulation-mode H2SO4 versus SO2 stratospheric sulfate geoengineering in a sectional aerosol–chemistry–climate model

e-go加速器ios下载-蚂蚁vp加速器官网