Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 153, Issue 3, pp 305–322 | Cite as

Climate engineering–induced changes in correlations between Earth system variables—implications for appropriate indicator selection

  • Nadine MengisEmail author
  • David P. Keller
  • Wilfried Rickels
  • Martin Quaas
  • Andreas Oschlies
Article

Abstract

Climate engineering (CE) deployment would alter prevailing relationships between Earth system variables, making indicators and metrics used so far in the climate change assessment context less appropriate to assess CE measures. Achieving a comprehensive CE assessment requires a systematic and transparent reevaluation of the indicator selection process from Earth system variables. Here, we provide a first step towards such a systematic assessment of changes in correlations between Earth system variables following simulated deployment of different CE methods. We therefore analyze changes in the correlation structure of a broad set of Earth system variables for two conventional climate change scenarios without CE and with three idealized CE model experiments: (i) solar radiation management, (ii) large-scale afforestation, and (iii) ocean alkalinity enhancement. First, we investigate how the three CE scenarios alter prevailing correlations between Earth system variables when compared to an intermediate-high and a business-as-usual future climate change scenario. Second, we contrast the indicators identified for the non-CE climate change scenarios and the indicators identified when all five scenarios are considered. Finally, we use the identified indicator sets for an evaluation of the five climate change scenarios. We find that the additional indicators provide valuable information for the assessment of the CE measures, and their application hence allows for a more comprehensive and a comparative assessment of the mitigation and CE deployment scenarios.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Wolfgang Koeve and Ulrike Loeptien for the helpful comments and discussion, as well as the participants of the Metrics Workshop of the SPP 1689 in March 2015, Hamburg, and in April 2016 in Kiel, for their thoughts on metrics and indicators.

Author contributions

N.M., D.P.K., W.R., M.Q., and A.O. conceived the experiment. N.M. and D.K. implemented and performed the simulations. N.M. and W.R. analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript with contributions from D.P.K., M.Q., and A.O.

Funding

This work was funded by the DFG Priority Program: Climate Engineering: Risks, Challenges, Opportunities? (SPP 1689).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Supplementary material

10584_2019_2389_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.7 mb)
ESM 1 (PDF 1762 kb)

References

  1. Bitz CM, Lipscomb WH (1999) An energy-conserving thermodynamic model of sea ice. J Geophys Res 104(C7):669–677.  https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JC900100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Böhringer C, Jochem PEP (2007) Measuring the immeasurable. A survey of sustainability indices. Ecol Econ 63(1):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burke M, Hsiang SM, Miguel E (2015) Global non-linear effect of temperature on economic production. Nature 527(7577):235–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cox PM (2001) Description of the TRIFFID dynamic global vegetation model. Hadley Cent Tech Note 24:1–16Google Scholar
  5. Cox PM, Huntingford C, Harding RJ (1998) A canopy conductance and photosynthesis model for use in a GCM land surface scheme. Journal of Hydrology 212–213:79–94 URL http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022169498002030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ebert U, Welsch H (2004) Meaningful environmental indices: a social choice approach. J Environ Econ Manag 47(2):270–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eby M, Weaver AJ, Alexander K, Zickfeld K, Abe-Ouchi A, Cimatoribus AA et al (2013) Historical and idealized climate model experiments: an intercomparison of Earth system models of intermediate complexity. Clim Past 9:1111–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fanning AF, Weaver AJ (1996) An atmospheric energy-moisture balance model: climatology, interpentadal climate change, and coupling to an ocean general circulation model. J Geophys Res 101(D10):111–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. González MF, Ilyina T (2016) Impacts of artificial ocean alkalinization on the carbon cycle and climate in Earth system simulations. Geophys Res Lett 43:6493–6502.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL068576 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hunke EC, Dukowicz JK (1997) An elastic-viscous-plastic model for sea ice dynamics. J Phys Oceanogr 27(9):1849–1867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Irvine PJ, Sriver RL, Keller K (2012) Tension between reducing sea-level rise and global warming through solar-radiation management. Nat Clim Chang 2(2):97–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Irvine PJ, Kravitz B, Lawrence MG, Gerten D, Caminade C, Gosling SN et al (2017) Towards a comprehensive climate impacts assessment of solar geoengineering. Earth’s Future 5(1):93–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Keller DP, Oschlies A, Eby M (2012) A new marine ecosystem model for the University of Victoria Earth system climate model. Geosci Model Dev 5:1195–1220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Keller DP, Feng EY, Oschlies A (2014) Potential climate engineering effectiveness and side effects during a high carbon dioxide-emission scenario. Nat Commun 5:3304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Keller DP, Lenton A, Littleton EW, Oschlies A, Scott V, Vaughan NE (2018) The effects of carbon dioxide removal on the carbon cycle. Curr Clim Chang Rep 4(3):250–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klepper G, Rickels W (2014) Climate engineering: economic considerations and research challenges. Rev Environ Econ Policy 8(2):270–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kravitz B, Robock A, Boucher O, Schmidt H, Taylor KE, Stenchikov GL, Schulz M (2011) The geoengineering model intercomparison project (GeoMIP). Atmos Sci Lett 12(2):162–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kravitz B, Caldeira K, Boucher O, Robock A, Rasch PJ, Alterskjær K, Karam DB, Cole JNS, Curry CL, Haywood JM, Irvine PJ, Ji D, Jones A, Kristjánsson JE, Lunt DJ, Moore JC, Niemeier U, Schmidt H, Schulz M, Singh B, Tilmes S, Watanabe S, Yang S, Yoon JH (2013) Climate model response from the Geoengineering Model Intercompari- son Project (GeoMIP). J Geophys Res Atmos 118(15):8320–8332.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50646 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lunt DJ, Ridgwell A, Valdes PJ, Seale A (2008) “Sunshade World”: a fully coupled GCM evaluation of the climatic impacts of geoengineering. Geophys Res Lett 35:L12710.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL033674 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meinshausen M, Smith SJ, Calvin K, Daniel JS, Kainuma MLT, Lamarque JF et al (2011) The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300. Clim Change 109(1-2):213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Meissner KJ, Weaver AJ, Matthews HD, Cox PM (2003) The role of land surface dynamics in glacial inception: a study with the UVic Earth System Model. Clim Dyn 21(7–8):515–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mengis N, Keller DP, Eby M, Oschlies A (2015) Uncertainty in the response of transpiration to CO2 and implications for climate change. Environ Res Lett 10(9):094001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mengis, N., T. Martin, D. P. Keller, and A. Oschlies (2016), Assessing climate impacts and risks of ocean albedo modification in the Arctic, J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 121:3044–3057,  https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JC011433.
  24. Mengis N, Keller DP, Oschlies A (2018) Systematic correlation matrix evaluation (SCoMaE) – a bottom–up, science-led approach to identifying indicators. Earth Syst Dynam 9:15–31.  https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-15-2018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moreno-Cruz JB, Ricke KL, Keith DW (2012) A simple model to account for regional inequalities in the effectiveness of solar radiation management. Clim Chang 110:649–668.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0103-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oschlies A, Held H, Keller DP, Keller K, Mengis N, Quaas M, Rickels W, Schmidt H (2017) Indicators and metrics for the assessment of climate engineering. Earth’s Future 5:49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pacanowski RC (1995) MOM 2 documentation, users guide and reference manual, GFDL Ocean Group Technical Report. Geophys. Fluid Dyn Lab, Princeton University, Princeton, p 3Google Scholar
  28. Rickels W, Quaas M, Visbeck M (2014) How healthy is the human-ocean system. Environ Res Lett 9:044013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sonntag S, Ferrer Gonzlez M, Ilyina T, Kracher D, Nabel JEMS, Niemeier U, Pongratz J, Reick CH, Schmidt H (2018) Quantifying and comparing effects of climate engineering methods on the earth system. Earth’s Future.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000620
  30. Sterner T, Persson UM (2008) An even sterner review: introducing relative prices into the discounting debate. Rev Environ Econ Policy 2(1):61–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stocker T et al (2013) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. In: Working Group 1 (WG1) Contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report (AR5), Cambridge and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Weaver AJ, Eby M, Wiebe EC, Bitz CM, Duffy PB, Ewen TL et al (2001) The UVic Earth System Climate Model: Model description, climatology, and applications to past, present and future climates. Atmosphere-Ocean 39(4):361–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Concordia UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Simon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada
  3. 3.GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research KielKielGermany
  4. 4.Kiel Institute for the World EconomyKielGermany

Personalised recommendations