Mengis, Nadine (2017) CE assessment metrics - Comparative, Integrative, Comprehensive. [PICO] In: Climate Engineering Conference 2017. , 09.-10.10.2017, Berlin, Germany .

Preview

Text ParallelSession3.4CEassessmentmetricsComparativeIntegrativeComprehensiveClimateEngineeringConference2017.pdf - Reprinted Version Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution 3.0. Download (349kB) | Preview

Abstract

To enable fair, comprehensive and comparative decision-making on Climate Engineering, we need to foster a multidisciplinary and integrative selection process for assessment metrics. In this session we want to learn to what extent established climate-change assessment metrics are applicable for Climate Engineering assessment and what kind of extensions are needed. This session aims to foster discussions about approaches to comparatively assess different climate engineering (CE) ideas, both among each other and in the context of mitigation. We encourage contributions that address the following questions: How can effects of SRM and CDR methods be compared with each other and with classical mitigation approaches? Which indicators are useful for a comprehensive assessment of SRM and CDR methods? To what extent are structurally new metrics compared to global warming mitigation assessment metrics needed for CE? How can uncertainty be treated explicitly in metrics design? What new challenges arise for the assessment process when different CE methods are combined? How to select indicators for a fair and comprehensive comparison of different CE methods? How to ensure societal relevance of the assessment criteria? How should stakeholders co-shape the design of metrics?
Climate engineering (CE) alters prevailing correlations between Earth system variables,
hence an appropriate assessment of CE must include a reevaluation of the chosen
assessment indicators. A fair comparison of CE methods presents an additional challenge,
since they aim at manipulating different components of the Earth system.
This study systematically identifies changes in correlation patterns introduced by three
idealized Climate Engineering (CE) scenarios: Large-scale Afforestation (LAF), Ocean
Alkalinity Enhancement (OAE) and Solar Radiation Management (SRM). Firstly, we
investigate changes in prevailing correlations between Earths system variables of the single
CE scenarios compared to two future emission scenarios, and the implications of such
changes on chosen assessment indicators. Secondly, we evaluate a common correlation
matrix and identify a set of 14 indicators for a comprehensive comparison of the three CE
scenarios. The evaluation of the CE scenarios relative to a defined reference climate state
shows, that each CE method can be found to show a good performance, depending on the
given indicator. It is beyond the scope of this study to give a value judgement on which of
these variables is of higher importance for society, but here we aim to provide the natural
science knowledge to enable such a discussion.

Actions (login required)

View Item