@article {1444547, title = {The Value of Information About Geoengineering and the Two-Sided Cost of Bias}, journal = {Climate Policy}, year = {2022}, pages = {1-11}, abstract = {Solar geoengineering (SG) might be able to reduce climate risks if used to supplement emissions cuts and carbon removal. Yet, the wisdom of proceeding with research to reduce its uncertainties is disputed. Here, we use an integrated assessment model to estimate that the value of information that reduces uncertainty about SG efficacy. We find the value of reducing uncertainty by one-third by 2030 is around $4.5 trillion, most of which comes from reduced climate damages rather than reduced mitigation costs. Reducing uncertainty about SG efficacy is similar in value to reducing uncertainty about climate sensitivity. We analyse the cost of over-confidence about SG that causes too little emissions cuts and too much SG. Consistent with concerns about SG{\textquoteright}s moral hazard problem, we find an over-confident bias is a serious and costly concern; but, we also find under-confidence that prematurely rules out SG can be roughly as costly. Biased judgments are costly in both directions. A coin has two sides. Our analysis quantitatively demonstrates the risk-risk trade-off around SG and reinforces the value of research that can reduce uncertainty.}, url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14693062.2022.2091509?needAccess=true}, author = {Anthony R. Harding and Mariia Belaia and David W. Keith} } @article {1436892, title = {Developing a Plume-in-Grid Model for Plume Evolution in the Stratosphere}, journal = {Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems}, volume = {14}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Stratospheric emissions from aircraft or rockets are important sources of chemical perturbations. Small-radius high-aspect-ratio plumes from stratospheric emissions are smaller than global Eulerian models{\textquoteright} grid cells. To help global Eulerian models resolve subgrid plumes in the stratosphere, a Lagrangian plume model, comprising a Lagrangian trajectory model and an adaptive-grid plume model with a sequence of plume cross-section representations (from a highly resolved 2-D grid to a simplified 1-D grid based on a tradeoff between the accuracy and computational cost), is created and embedded into a global Eulerian (i.e., GEOS-Chem) model to establish a multiscale Plume-in-Grid (PiG) model. We compare this PiG model to the GEOS-Chem model based on a 1-month simulation of continuous inert tracer emissions by aircraft in the stratosphere. In the PiG results, the final injected tracer is more concentrated and approximately 1/3 of the tracer is at concentrations 2{\textendash}4 orders of magnitude larger compared to the GEOS-Chem results. The entropy of injected tracer in the PiG results is 6\% lower than the GEOS-Chem results, indicating less tracer mixing. The total product mass from a hypothetical second-order process (applied to the injected tracer) in the PiG results is 2 orders of magnitude larger than the GEOS-Chem results. Increasing the GEOS-Chem model{\textquoteright}s horizontal resolution 4-fold is insufficient to resolve this product difference, while requiring over seven times the computational resources of the PiG model. This paper describes the PiG model framework and parameterization of plume physical processes. Chemical and aerosol processes will be introduced in the future.}, url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2021MS002816}, author = {Hongwei Sun and Sebastian Eastham and David Keith} } @article {1436893, title = {An interactive stratospheric aerosol model intercomparison of solar geoengineering by stratospheric injection of SO2 or accumulation-mode sulfuric acid aerosols}, journal = {Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics}, volume = {22}, year = {2022}, pages = {2955-2973}, abstract = {Studies of stratospheric solar geoengineering have tended to focus on modification of the sulfuric acid aerosol layer, and almost all climate model experiments that mechanistically increase the sulfuric acid aerosol burden assume injection of SO2. A key finding from these model studies is that the radiative forcing would increase sublinearly with increasing SO2 injection because most of the added sulfur increases the mass of existing particles, resulting in shorter aerosol residence times and aerosols that are above the optimal size for scattering. Injection of SO3 or H2SO4 from an aircraft in stratospheric flight is expected to produce particles predominantly in the accumulation-mode size range following microphysical processing within an expanding plume, and such injection may result in a smaller average stratospheric particle size, allowing a given injection of sulfur to produce more radiative forcing. We report the first multi-model intercomparison to evaluate this approach, which we label AM-H2SO4 injection. A coordinated multi-model experiment designed to represent this SO3- or H2SO4-driven geoengineering scenario was carried out with three interactive stratospheric aerosol microphysics models: the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Community Earth System Model (CESM2) with the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model (WACCM) atmospheric configuration, the Max-Planck Institute{\textquoteright}s middle atmosphere version of ECHAM5 with the HAM microphysical module (MAECHAM5-HAM) and ETH{\textquoteright}s SOlar Climate Ozone Links with AER microphysics (SOCOL-AER) coordinated as a test-bed experiment within the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). The intercomparison explores how the injection of new accumulation-mode particles changes the large-scale particle size distribution and thus the overall radiative and dynamical response to stratospheric sulfur injection. Each model used the same injection scenarios testing AM-H2SO4 and SO2 injections at 5 and 25 Tg(S) yr-1 to test linearity and climate response sensitivity. All three models find that AM-H2SO4 injection increases the radiative efficacy, defined as the radiative forcing per unit of sulfur injected, relative to SO2 injection. Increased radiative efficacy means that when compared to the use of SO2 to produce the same radiative forcing, AM-H2SO4 emissions would reduce side effects of sulfuric acid aerosol geoengineering that are proportional to mass burden. The model studies were carried out with two different idealized geographical distributions of injection mass representing deployment scenarios with different objectives, one designed to force mainly the midlatitudes by injecting into two grid points at 30{\textopenbullet} N and 30{\textopenbullet} S, and the other designed to maximize aerosol residence time by injecting uniformly in the region between 30{\textopenbullet} S and 30{\textopenbullet} N. Analysis of aerosol size distributions in the perturbed stratosphere of the models shows that particle sizes evolve differently in response to concentrated versus dispersed injections depending on the form of the injected sulfur (SO2 gas or AM-H2SO4 particulate) and suggests that prior model results for concentrated injection of SO2 may be strongly dependent on model resolution. Differences among models arise from differences in aerosol formulation and differences in model dynamics, factors whose interplay cannot be easily untangled by this intercomparison.}, url = {https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/2955/2022/}, author = {Debra Weisentein and Daniele Visioni and Henning Franke and Ulrike Niemeier and Sandro Vattioni and Garbiel Chiodo and Thomas Peter and David Keith} } @article {1425040, title = {Social science research to inform solar geoengineering: What are the benefits and drawbacks, and for whom?}, journal = {Science}, volume = {374}, year = {2021}, pages = {815-818}, url = {https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj6517}, author = {Aldy, Joseph E.} } @article {1425037, title = {Toward constructive disagreement about geoengineering: A shared taxonomy of concerns may help}, journal = {Science}, volume = {374}, year = {2021}, pages = {812-815}, url = {https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abj1587}, author = {David Keith} } @article {1440215, title = {Heat has larger impacts on labor in poorer areas}, journal = {Environmental Research Communications}, volume = {3}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Hotter temperature can reduce labor productivity, work hours, and labor income. The effects of heat are likely to be a joint consequence of both exposure and vulnerability. Here we explore the impacts of heat on labor income in the US, using regional wealth as a proxy for vulnerability. We find that one additional day \>32 {\textdegree}C (90 {\textdegree}F) lowers annual payroll by 0.04\%, equal to 2.1\% of average weekly earnings. Accounting for humidity results in slightly more precise estimates. Proxying for wealth with dividend payments we find smaller impacts of heat in counties with higher average wealth. Temperature projections for 2040{\textendash}50 suggest that earnings impacts may be 95\% smaller for US counties in the richest decile relative to the poorest. Considering the within country distribution of vulnerability, in addition to exposure, to climate change could substantially change estimated within-country differences between the rich and poor in income losses from climate change.}, url = {https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2515-7620/abffa3/pdf}, author = {A. P. Behrer and R. J. Park and C. M. Golja and D. W. Keith and Wagner, G.} } @article {1425038, title = {Optimal climate policy in 3D: mitigation, carbon removal, and solar geoengineering}, journal = {Climate Change Economics}, volume = {12}, year = {2021}, pages = {2150008}, abstract = {We introduce solar geoengineering (SG) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) into an integrated assessment model to analyze the trade-offs between mitigation, SG, and CDR. We propose a novel empirical parameterization of SG that disentangles its efficacy, calibrated with climate model results, from its direct impacts. We use a simple parameterization of CDR that decouples it from the scale of baseline emissions. We find that (a) SG optimally delays mitigation and lowers the use of CDR, which is distinct from moral hazard; (b) SG is deployed prior to CDR while CDR drives the phasing out of SG in the far future; (c) SG deployment in the short term is relatively independent of discounting and of the long-term trade-off between SG and CDR over time; (d) small amounts of SG sharply reduce the cost of meeting a 2{\textdegree}
C target and the costs of climate change, even with a conservative calibration for the efficacy of SG.}, url = {https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S2010007821500081}, author = {Mariia Belaia and Juan Moreno-Cruz and David Keith} } @article {1399672, title = {Expert judgments on solar geoengineering research priorities and challenges}, journal = {EarthArXiv}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Solar geoengineering describes a set of proposals to deliberately alter the earth{\textquoteright}s radiative balance to reduce climate risks. We elicit judgements on natural science research priorities for solar geoengineering through a survey and in-person discussion with 72 subject matter experts, including two thirds of all scientists with >=10 publications on the topic. Experts prioritized Earth system response (33\%) and impacts on society and ecosystems (27\%) over the human and social dimensions (17\%) and developing or improving solar geoengineering methods (15\%), with most allocating no effort to weather control or counter-geoengineering. While almost all funding to date has focused on geophysical modeling and social sciences, our experts recommended substantial funding for observations (26\%), perturbative field experiments (16\%), laboratory research (11\%) and engineering for deployment (11\%). Of the specific proposals, stratospheric aerosols received the highest average priority (34\%) then marine cloud brightening (17\%) and cirrus cloud thinning (10\%). The views of experts with >=10 publications were generally consistent with experts with \<10 publications, though when asked to choose the radiative forcing for their ideal climate scenario only 40\% included solar geoengineering compared to 70\% of experts with \<10 publications. This suggests that those who have done more solar geoengineering research are less supportive of its use in climate policy. We summarize specific research recommendations and challenges that our experts identified, the most salient of which were fundamental uncertainties around key climate processes, novel challenges related to solar geoengineering as a design problem, and the challenges of public and policymaker engagement.}, url = {https://eartharxiv.org/repository/view/2307/}, author = {Peter Irvine and Elizabeth Burns and Ken Caldeira and Frank Keutsch and Dustin Tingley and David Keith} } @article {1390158, title = {Aerosol Dynamics in the Near Field of the SCoPEx Stratospheric Balloon Experiment}, journal = {Journal of Geophysical Research}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) might alleviate some climate risks associated with accumulating greenhouse gases. Reduction of specific process uncertainties relevant to the distribution of aerosol in a turbulent stratospheric wake is necessary to support informed decisions about aircraft deployment of this technology. To predict aerosol size distributions we apply microphysical parameterizations of nucleation, condensation and coagulation to simulate an aerosol plume generated via injection of calcite powder or sulphate into a stratospheric wake with velocity and turbulence simulated by a three-dimensional (3D) fluid dynamic calculation. We apply the model to predict the aerosol distribution that would be generated by a propeller wake in the Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx). We find that injecting 0.1 g s-1\ calcite aerosol produces a nearly monodisperse plume and that at the same injection rate, condensable sulphate aerosol forms particles with average radii of 0.1 {\textmu}m at 3 km downstream. We test the sensitivity of plume aerosol composition, size, and optical depth to the mass injection rate and injection location. Aerosol size distribution depends more strongly on injection rate than injection configuration. Comparing plume properties with specifications of a typical photometer, we find that plumes could be detected optically as the payload flies under the plume. These findings test the relevance of in situ sampling of aerosol properties by the SCoPEx outdoor experiment to enable quantitative tests of microphysics in a stratospheric plume. Our findings provide a basis for developing predictive models of SAI using aerosols formed in stratospheric aircraft wakes.}, url = {https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2020JD033438}, author = {C. M. Golja and L. W. Chew and J. A. Dykema and D. W. Keith} } @article {dai_elicitation_2021, title = {Elicitation of US and Chinese expert judgments show consistent views on solar geoengineering}, journal = {Humanities and Social Sciences Communications}, volume = {8}, year = {2021}, note = {Number: 1 Publisher: Palgrave}, pages = {1{\textendash}9}, abstract = {Expert judgments on solar geoengineering (SG) inform policy decisions and influence public opinions. We performed face-to-face interviews using formal expert elicitation methods with 13 US and 13 Chinese climate experts randomly selected from IPCC authors or supplemented by snowball sampling. We compare their judgments on climate change, SG research, governance, and deployment. In contrast to existing literature that often stress factors that might differentiate China from western democracies on SG, we found few significant differences between quantitative judgments of US and Chinese experts. US and Chinese experts differed on topics, such as desired climate scenario and the preferred venue for international regulation of SG, providing some insight into divergent judgments that might shape future negotiations about SG policy. We also gathered closed-form survey results from 19 experts with \textgreater10 publications on SG. Both expert groups supported greatly increased research, recommending SG research funding of \textasciitilde5\% on average (10th{\textendash}90th percentile range was 1{\textendash}10\%) of climate science budgets compared to actual budgets of \textless0.3\% in 2018. Climate experts chose far less SG deployment in future climate policies than did SG experts.}, keywords = {Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, peer reviewed, Public Policy, Solar Geoengineering}, issn = {2662-9992}, doi = {10.1057/s41599-020-00694-6}, url = {https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-00694-6}, author = {Zhen Dai and Burns, Elizabeth T. and Peter J. Irvine and Dustin H. Tingley and Jianhua Xu and David W. Keith} } @article {1394569, title = {Improving Models for Solar Climate Intervention Research}, journal = {Eos}, year = {2021}, abstract = {

Solar climate intervention, also known as solar radiation modification, is an approach intended to mitigate the impacts of climate change by reducing the amount of solar energy that the Earth system traps. It sits alongside three other plausible responses to climate risk: emission cuts and decarbonization, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) removal, and adaptation to a changing climate.

Unlike the other approaches, solar climate intervention (SCI), which comprises various techniques, aims to modify Earth{\textquoteright}s radiation budget{\textemdash}the amounts and balance of solar energy that Earth absorbs and reflects{\textemdash}directly. Implementing SCI means either decreasing inbound solar (shortwave) radiation by reflecting it back into space before it is absorbed or increasing the amount of outbound terrestrial (longwave) radiation.

Potential methods of SCI include stratospheric\ aerosol injection\ (SAI),\ marine cloud brightening,\ cirrus cloud thinning,\ surface albedo modification, and space-based methods involving, for example, mirrors (Figure 1). At present, the potential efficacy and risks of implementing these approaches to reduce climate change are highly uncertain and likely depend on how they are implemented.

The Geoengineering Modeling Research Consortium (GMRC) was founded to coordinate SCI modeling research and to identify and resolve relevant issues with physical models, especially where existing climate research is unlikely to do so. Here we synthesize 2 years of GMRC meetings and research, and we offer specific recommendations for future model development.

}, url = {https://eos.org/science-updates/improving-models-for-solar-climate-intervention-research}, author = {Sebastian Eastham and Sarah Doherty and David Keith and Jadwiga H. Richter and Lili Xia} } @article {fan_solar_2021, title = {Solar geoengineering can alleviate climate change pressures on crop yields}, journal = {Nature Food}, volume = {2}, year = {2021}, note = {Number: 5 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group}, pages = {373{\textendash}381}, abstract = {Solar geoengineering (SG) and CO2 emissions reduction can each alleviate anthropogenic climate change, but their impacts on food security are not yet fully understood. Using an advanced crop model within an Earth system model, we analysed the yield responses of six major crops to three SG technologies (SGs) and emissions reduction when they provide roughly the same reduction in radiative forcing and assume the same land use. We found sharply distinct yield responses to changes in radiation, moisture and CO2, but comparable significant cooling benefits for crop yields by all four methods. Overall, global yields increase \textasciitilde10\% under the three SGs and decrease 5\% under emissions reduction, the latter primarily due to reduced CO2 fertilization, relative to business as usual by the late twenty-first century. Relative humidity dominates the hydrological effect on yields of rainfed crops, with little contribution from precipitation. The net insolation effect is negligible across all SGs, contrary to previous findings.}, issn = {2662-1355}, doi = {10.1038/s43016-021-00278-w}, url = {https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00278-w}, author = {Fan, Yuanchao and Tjiputra, Jerry and Helene Muri and Lombardozzi, Danica and Park, Chang-Eui and Wu, Shengjun and David Keith} } @article {felgenhauer_solar_2021, title = {Solar geoengineering research on the U.S. policy agenda: when might its time come?}, journal = {Environmental Politics}, year = {2021}, pages = {1{\textendash}21}, abstract = {Solar geoengineering (SG) may be a helpful tool to reduce harms from climate change, yet further research into its potential benefits and risks must occur prior to any implementation. So far, however, organized research on SG has been absent from the U.S. national policy agenda. We apply the Multiple Streams Approach analytical framework to explain why a U.S. federal SG research program has failed to materialize up to now, and to consider how one might emerge in the future. We argue that establishing a federal program will require the formation of an advocacy coalition within the political arena that is prepared to support such a policy objective. A coalition favoring federal research on SG does not presently exist, yet the potential nucleus of a future political grouping is evident in the handful of {\textquoteleft}pragmatist{\textquoteright} environmental organizations that have expressed conditional support for expanded research.}, keywords = {Academic peer-reviewed, Public Policy, Solar Geoengineering}, issn = {0964-4016}, doi = {10.1080/09644016.2021.1933763}, url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644016.2021.1933763}, author = {Felgenhauer, Tyler and Joshua Horton and David Keith} } @article {1400386, title = {The U.S. Can{\textquoteright}t Go It Alone on Solar Geoengineering}, journal = {Environmental Affairs: the Geopolitics of Climate Change, Policy Exchange}, year = {2021}, url = {https://policyexchange.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Environmental-Affairs-the-Geopolitcs-of-Climate-Change.pdf}, author = {David Keith and Peter Irvine} } @article {1382708, title = {Designing a radiative antidote to CO2}, journal = {Geophysical Research Letters}, year = {2020}, month = {6 December 2020}, abstract = {Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) reduces the CO2-induced change to the mean global hydrological cycle disproportionately more than it reduces the CO2-induced increase in mean surface temperature. Thus if SRM were used to offset\ all CO2-induced mean warming, global-mean precipitation would be less than in an unperturbed climate. Here we show that the mismatch between the mean hydrological effects of CO2\ and SRM may partly be alleviated by spectrally tuning the SRM intervention (reducing insolation at some wavelengths more than others). By concentrating solar dimming at near-infrared wavelengths, where H2O has strong absorption bands, the direct effect of CO2\ on the tropospheric energy budget can be offset, which minimizes perturbations to the mean hydrological cycle. Idealized cloud-resolving simulations of radiative-convective equilibrium confirm that spectrally-tuned SRM can simultaneously maintain mean surface temperature and precipitation at their unperturbed values even as large quantities of CO2\ are added to the atmosphere.}, url = {https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL090876}, author = {Jacob T. Seeley and Lutsko, Nicholas J. and David W. Keith} } @inbook {1391616, title = {Climate Policy Enters Four Dimensions}, booktitle = {Securing our Economic Future}, year = {2020}, publisher = {Aspen Institute Press}, organization = {Aspen Institute Press}, author = {David W. Keith and John M. Deutch} } @article {1385285, title = {Experimental reaction rates constrain estimates of ozone response to calcium carbonate geoengineering}, journal = {Communications Earth \& Environment}, volume = {1}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Stratospheric solar geoengineering (SG) would impact ozone by heterogeneous chemistry. Evaluating these risks and methods to reduce them will require both laboratory and modeling work. Prior model-only work showed that CaCO3\ particles would reduce, or even reverse ozone depletion. We reduce uncertainties in ozone response to CaCO3\ via experimental determination of uptake coefficients and model evaluation. Specifically, we measure uptake coefficients of HCl and HNO3\ on CaCO3\ as well as HNO3\ and ClONO2\ on CaCl2\ at stratospheric temperatures using a flow tube setup and a flask experiment that determines cumulative long-term uptake of HCl on CaCO3. We find that particle ageing causes significant decreases in uptake coefficients on CaCO3. We model ozone response incorporating the experimental uptake coefficients in the AER-2D model. With our new empirical reaction model, the global mean ozone column is reduced by up to 3\%, whereas the previous work predicted up to 27\% increase for the same SG scenario. This result is robust under our experimental uncertainty and many other assumptions. We outline systematic uncertainties that remain and provide three examples of experiments that might further reduce uncertainties of CaCO3\ SG. Finally, we highlight the importance of the link between experiments and models in studies of SG.}, url = {https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-020-00058-7}, author = {Zhen Dai and Debra K. Weisenstein and Frank N. Keutsch and David W. Keith} } @article {1377899, title = {Parametric Insurance for Solar Geoengineering: Insights from the Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative}, journal = {Global Policy}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Solar geoengineering (SG) entails using technology to modify the Earth{\textquoteright}s radiative balance to offset some of the climate changes caused by long-lived greenhouse gases. Parametric insurance, which delivers payouts when specific physical indices (such as wind speed) cross predefined thresholds, was recently proposed by two of us as a compensation mechanism for SG with the potential to ease disagreements about the technology and to facilitate cooperative deployment; we refer to this proposal as reduced-rate climate risk insurance for solar geoengineering, or {\textquoteleft}RCG{\textquoteright}. Here we probe the plausibility of RCG by exploring the Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative (PCRAFI), a sovereign risk pool providing parametric insurance coverage against tropical cyclones and earthquakes/tsunamis to Pacific island countries since 2013. Tracing the history of PCRAFI and considering regional views on insurance as compensation necessitates reconfiguring RCG in a way that shifts the focus away from bargaining between developed and developing countries toward bargaining among developed countries. This revised version of RCG is challenged by an assumption of broad developed country support for sovereign climate insurance in the developing world, but it also better reflects the underlying incentive structure and distribution of power.}, url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1758-5899.12864}, author = {Joshua B. Horton and Penehuro Lefale and David Keith} } @article {1369189, title = {Steering and Influence in Transnational Climate Governance: Nonstate Engagement in Solar Geoengineering Research}, journal = {Global Environmental Politics}, volume = {20}, year = {2020}, pages = {93-111}, abstract = {Theorists of transnational climate governance (TCG) seek to account for the increasing involvement of nonstate and substate actors in global climate policy. While transnational actors have been present in the emerging field of solar geoengineering{\textemdash}a novel technology intended to reflect a fraction of sunlight back to space to reduce climate impacts{\textemdash}many of their most significant activities, including knowledge dissemination, scientific capacity building, and conventional lobbying, are not captured by the TCG framework. Insofar as TCG is identified with transnational governance and transnational governance is important to reducing climate risks, an incomplete TCG framework is problematic for effective policy making. We attribute this shortcoming on the part of TCG to its exclusive focus on steering and corollary exclusion of influence as a critical component of governance. Exercising influence, for example, through inside and outside lobbying, is an important part of transnational governance{\textemdash}it complements direct governing with indirect efforts to inform, persuade, pressure, or otherwise influence both governor and governed. Based on an empirical analysis of solar geoengineering research governance and a theoretical consideration of alternative literatures, including research on interest groups and nonstate advocacy, we call for a broader theory of transnational governance that integrates steering and influence in a way that accounts for the full array of nonstate and substate engagements beyond the state.}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00572}, author = {Joshua B. Horton and Barbara Koremenos} } @article {1366740, title = {Can Industrial-Scale Solar Hydrogen Supplied from Commodity Technologies Be Cost Competitive by 2030?}, journal = {Cell Reports Physical Science}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Expanding decarbonization efforts beyond the power sector are contingent on cost-effective production of energy carriers, like H2, with near-zero life-cycle carbon emissions. Here, we assess the levelized cost of continuous H2 supply (95\% availability) at industrial-scale quantities (100 tonnes/day) in 2030 from integrating commodity technologies for solar photovoltaics, electrolysis, and energy storage. Our approach relies on modeling the least-cost plant design and operation that optimize component sizes while adhering to hourly solar availability, production requirements, and component inter-temporal operating constraints. We apply the model to study H2 production costs spanning the continental United States and, through extensive sensitivity analysis, explore system configurations that can achieve $2.5/kg levelized costs or less for a range of plausible 2030 technology projections at high-irradiance locations. Notably, we identify potential sites and system configurations where PV-electrolytic H2 could substitute natural gas-derived H2 at avoided CO2 costs (\%$120/ton), similar to the cost of deploying carbon capture and sequestration}, url = {https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-physical-science/fulltext/S2666-3864(20)30185-5$\#$\%20}, author = {Dharik Sanchan Mallapragada and Emre Gen{\c c}er and Patrick Insinger and David Keith and Francis Martin O{\textquoteright}Sullivan} } @article {1307634, title = {Estimating Impacts and Trade-offs in Solar Geoengineering Scenarios With a Moist Energy Balance Model}, journal = {Geophysical Research Letters}, volume = {47}, year = {2020}, abstract = {There are large uncertainties in the potential impacts of solar radiation modification (SRM) and in how these impacts depend on the way SRM is deployed. One open question concerns trade-offs between latitudinal profiles of insolation reduction and climate response. Here, a moist energy balance model is used to evaluate several SRM proposals, providing fundamental insight into how the insolation reduction profile affects the climate response. The optimal SRM profile is found to depend on the intensity of the intervention, as the most effective profile for moderate SRM focuses the reduction at high latitudes, whereas the most effective profile for strong SRM is tropically amplified. The effectiveness of SRM is also shown to depend on when it is applied, an important factor to consider when designing SRM proposals. Using an energy balance model allows us to provide physical explanations for these results while also suggesting future avenues of research with comprehensive climate models.}, author = {Lutsko, Nicholas J. and Seeley, Jacob T and David W. Keith} } @article {1312964, title = {Halving warming with stratospheric aerosol geoengineering moderates policy-relevant climate hazards}, journal = {Environmental Research Letters}, volume = {15}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering is a proposal to artificially thicken the layer of reflective aerosols in the stratosphere and it is hoped that this may offer a means of reducing average climate changes. However, previous work has shown that it could not perfectly offset the effects of climate change and there is a concern that it may worsen climate impacts in some regions. One approach to evaluating this concern is to test whether the absolute magnitude of climate change at each location is significantly increased (exacerbated) or decreased (moderated)relative to the period just preceding deployment. In prior work it was found that halving warming with an idealized solar constant reduction would substantially reduce climate change overall, exacerbating change in a small fraction of places. Here, we test if this result holds for a more realistic representation of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering using the data from the geoengineering large ensemble (GLENS). Using a linearized scaling of GLENS we find that halving warming with stratospheric aerosols moderates important climate hazards in almost all regions. Only 1.3\% of land area sees exacerbation of change in water availability, and regions that are exacerbated see wetting not drying contradicting the common assumption that solar geoengineering leads to drying in general. These results suggest that halving warming with stratospheric aerosol geoengineering could potentially reduce key climate hazards substantially while avoiding some problems associated with fully offsetting warming.}, url = {https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab76de}, author = {David Keith and Peter Irvine} } @article {1378950, title = {An earth system governance perspective on solar geoengineering}, journal = {Earth System Governance}, volume = {3}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Solar geoengineering appears capable of reducing climate change and the associated risks. In part because it would be global in effect, the governance of solar geoengineering is a central concern. The Earth System Governance (ESG) Project includes many researchers who, to varying degrees, utilize a common vocabulary and research framework. Despite the clear mutual relevance of solar geoengineering and ESG, few ESG researchers have considered the topic in substantial depth. To stimulate its sustained uptake as a subject within the ESG research program, we identify significant contributions thus far by ESG scholars on the subject of solar geoengineering governance and survey the wider solar geoengineering governance literature from the perspective of the new ESG research framework. Based on this analysis, we also suggest specific potential lines of inquiry that we believe are ripe for research by ESG scholars: nonstate actors{\textquoteright} roles, polycentricity, public engagement and participation, and the Anthropocene.}, author = {Jesse L. Reynolds and Joshua B. Horton} } @article {1229275, title = {Technical characteristics of a solar geoengineering deployment and implications for governance}, journal = {Climate Policy}, volume = {19}, year = {2019}, pages = {1325-1339}, abstract = {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 {\textendash} both strategic and operational {\textendash} 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 {\textendash} with all the challenges that entails.}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1668347}, author = {Douglas MacMartin and Peter Irvine and Ben Kravitz and Joshua Horton} } @article {1163902, title = {Multilateral parametric climate risk insurance: a tool to facilitate agreement about deployment of solar geoengineering?}, journal = {Climate Policy}, year = {2019}, abstract = {States will disagree about deployment of solar geoengineering, technologies that would reflect a small portion of incoming sunlight to reduce risks of climate change, and most disagreements will be grounded in conflicting interests. States that object to deployment will have many options to oppose it, so states favouring deployment will have a powerful incentive to meet their objections. Objections rooted in opposition to the anticipated unequal consequences of deployment may be met through compensation, yet climate policy is inhospitable to compensation via liability. We propose that multilateral parametric climate risk insurance might be a useful tool to facilitate agreement on solar geoengineering deployment. With parametric insurance, predetermined payouts are triggered when climate indices deviate from set ranges. We suggest that states favouring deployment could underwrite reduced-rate parametric climate insurance. This mechanism would be particularly suited to resolving disagreements based on divergent judgments about the outcomes of proposed implementation. This would be especially relevant in cases where disagreements are rooted in varying levels of trust in climate model predictions of solar geoengineering effectiveness and risks. Negotiations over the pricing and terms of a parametric risk pool would make divergent judgments explicit and quantitative. Reduced-rate insurance would provide a way for states that favour implementation to demonstrate their confidence in solar geoengineering by underwriting risk transfer and ensuring compensation without the need for attribution. This would offer a powerful incentive for states opposing implementation to moderate their opposition.}, url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2019.1607716}, author = {David Keith and Joshua Horton} } @article {1163126, title = {Exploring accumulation-mode H2SO4 versus SO2 stratospheric sulfate geoengineering in a sectional aerosol{\textendash}chemistry{\textendash}climate model}, journal = {Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics}, volume = {19}, year = {2019}, url = {https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-4877-2019}, author = {Sandro Vattioni and Debra Weisenstein and David Keith and Aryeh Feinberg and Thomas Peter and Stenke, Andrea} } @article {1162281, title = {Strategic implications of counter-geoengineering: Clash or cooperation?}, journal = {Journal of Environmental Economics and Management}, volume = {95}, year = {2019}, pages = {153-177}, abstract = {Solar geoengineering has received increasing attention as an option to temporarily stabilize global temperatures. A key concern is that heterogeneous preferences over the optimal amount of cooling combined with low deployment costs may allow the country with the strongest incentive for cooling, the so-called free-driver, to impose a substantial externality on the rest of the world. We analyze whether the threat of counter-geoengineering technologies capable of negating the climatic effects of solar geoengineering can overcome the free-driver problemand tilt the game in favour of international cooperation. Our game-theoreticalmodel of countries with asymmetric preferences allows for a rigorous analysis of the strategic interaction surrounding solar geoengineering and counter-geoengineering.We find that countergeoengineering prevents the free-driver outcome, but not always with benign effects. The presence of counter-geoengineering leads to either a climate clash where countries engage in a non-cooperative escalation of opposing climate interventions (negative welfare effect), a moratorium treaty where countries commit to abstain from either type of climate intervention (indeterminate welfare effect), or cooperative deployment of solar geoengineering (positivewelfare effect).We show that the outcome depends crucially on the degree of asymmetry in temperature preferences between countries.}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069618305035?dgcid=coauthor}, author = {Daniel Heyen and Joshua Horton and Juan Moreno-Cruz} } @article {1159810, title = {Halving warming with idealized solar geoengineering moderates key climate hazards}, journal = {Nature Climate Change}, year = {2019}, abstract = {

Solar geoengineering (SG) has the potential to restore average surface temperatures by increasing planetary albedo, but this could reduce precipitation. Thus, although SG might reduce globally aggregated risks, it may increase climate risks for some regions. Here, using the high-resolution forecast-oriented low ocean resolution (HiFLOR) model{\textemdash}which resolves tropical cyclones and has an improved representation of present-day precipitation extremes{\textemdash}alongside 12 models from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP), we analyse the fraction of locations that see their local climate change exacerbated or moderated by SG. Rather than restoring temperatures, we assume that SG is applied to halve the warming produced by doubling CO2 (half-SG). In HiFLOR, half-SG offsets most of the CO2-induced increase of simulated tropical cyclone intensity. Moreover, none of temperature, water availability, extreme temperature or extreme precipitation are exacerbated under half-SG when averaged over any Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Extremes (SREX) region. Indeed, for both extreme precipitation and water availability, less than 0.4\% of the ice-free land surface sees exacerbation. Thus, while concerns about the inequality of solar geoengineering impacts are appropriate, the quantitative extent of inequality may be overstated.

[[{"fid":1012914,"view_mode":"default","type":"media","attributes":{"height":"315","width":"560","class":"wysiwyg-placeholder media-element file-default"}}]]

}, url = {https://rdcu.be/bqpz9}, author = {Peter Irvine and Kerry Emanuel and He, Jie and Larry Horowitz and Gabriel Vecchi and David Keith} } @article {1159941, title = {The potential for climate engineering with stratospheric sulfate aerosol injections to reduce climate injustice}, journal = {Journal of Global Ethics}, year = {2019}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1080/17449626.2018.1552180}, author = {Toby Svoboda and Peter Irvine and Daniel Callies and Masahiro Sugiyama} } @article {1142267, title = {Climatic Impacts of Wind Power}, journal = {Joule}, volume = {2}, year = {2018}, abstract = {

We find that generating today{\textquoteright}s US electricity demand (0.5 TWe) with wind power would warm Continental US surface temperatures by 0.24C. Warming arises, in part, from turbines redistributing heat by mixing the boundary layer. Modeled diurnal and seasonal temperature differences are roughly consistent with recent observations of warming at wind farms, reflecting a coherent mechanistic understanding for how wind turbines alter climate. The warming effect is: small compared with projections of 21st century warming, approximately equivalent to the reduced warming achieved by decarbonizing global electricity generation, and large compared with the reduced warming achieved by decarbonizing US electricity with wind. For the same generation rate, the climatic impacts from solar photovoltaic systems are about ten times smaller than wind systems. Wind{\textquoteright}s overall environmental impacts are surely less than fossil energy. Yet, as the energy system is decarbonized, decisions between wind and solar should be informed by estimates of their climate impacts.

[[{"fid":"997588","view_mode":"default","type":"media","attributes":{"height":"360","width":"640","class":"wysiwyg-placeholder media-element file-default"}}]]

}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2018.09.009}, author = {Lee Miller and David Keith} } @article {1142272, title = {Observation-based solar and wind power capacity factors and powerdensities}, journal = {Environmental Research Letters}, volume = {13}, year = {2018}, abstract = {

Power density is the rate of energy generation per unit of land surface area occupied by an energy system. The power density of low-carbon energy sources will play an important role in mediating the environmental consequences of energy system decarbonization as the world transitions away from high power-density fossil fuels. All else equal, lower power densities mean larger land and environmental footprints. The power density of solar and wind power remain surprisingly uncertain: estimates of realizable generation rates per unit area for wind and solar power span 0.3{\textendash}47Wem-2 and 10{\textendash}120Wem-2 respectively. We refine this range using US data from 1990{\textendash}2016. We estimate wind power density from primary data, and solar power density from primary plant-level data and prior datasets on capacity density. The mean power density of 411 onshore wind power plants in 2016 was 0.50Wem-2. Wind plants with the largest areas have the lowest power densities. Wind power capacity factors are increasing, but that increase is associated with a decrease in capacity densities, so power densities are stable or declining. If wind power expands away from the best locations and the areas of wind power plants keep increasing, it seems likely that wind{\textquoteright}s power density will decrease as total wind generation increases. The mean 2016 power density of 1150 solar power plants was 5.4Wem-2. Solar capacity factors and (likely) power densities are increasing with time driven, in part, by improved panel efficiencies. Wind power has a 10-fold lower power density than solar, but wind power installations directly occupy much less of the land within their boundaries. The environmental and social consequences of these divergent land occupancy patterns need further study.

[[{"fid":997586,"view_mode":"default","type":"media","attributes":{"height":"360","width":"640","class":"wysiwyg-placeholder media-element file-default"}}]]

}, url = {http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aae102}, author = {Lee Miller and David Keith} } @article {1133533, title = {Brief communication: Understanding solar geoengineering{\textquoteright}s potential to limit sea level rise requires attention from cryosphere experts}, journal = {The Cryosphere}, volume = {12}, year = {2018}, pages = {2501-2513}, abstract = {Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering, a form of solar geoengineering, is a proposal to add a reflective layer of aerosol to the stratosphere to reduce net radiative forcing and so to reduce the risks of climate change. The efficacy of solar geoengineering at reducing changes to the cryosphere is uncertain; solar geoengineering could reduce temperatures and so slow melt, but its ability to reverse ice sheet collapse once initiated may be limited. Here we review the literature on solar geoengineering and the cryosphere and identify the key uncertainties that research could address. Solar geoengineering may be more effective at reducing surface melt than a reduction in greenhouse forcing that produces the same global-average temperature response. Studies of natural analogues and model simulations support this conclusion. However, changes below the surfaces of the ocean and ice sheets may strongly limit the potential of solar geoengineering to reduce the retreat of marine glaciers. High-quality process model studies may illuminate these issues. Solar geoengineering is a contentious emerging issue in climate policy and it is critical that the potential, limits, and risks of these proposals are made clear for policy makers.}, url = {https://www.the-cryosphere.net/12/2501/2018/tc-12-2501-2018.pdf}, author = {Peter J. Irvine and David W. Keith and John Moore} } @article {1125643, title = {Potentially large equilibrium climate sensitivity tail uncertainty}, journal = {Economics Letters}, volume = {168}, year = {2018}, pages = {144-6}, abstract = {Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), the link between concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and eventual global average temperatures, has been persistently and perhaps deeply uncertain. Its {\textquoteleft}likely{\textquoteright} range has been approximately between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Centigrade for almost 40 years (Wagner and Weitzman, 2015). Moreover, Roe and Baker (2007), Weitzman (2009), and others have argued that its right-hand tail may be long, {\textquoteleft}fat{\textquoteright} even. Enter Cox et al. (2018), who use an {\textquoteright}emergent constraint{\textquoteright} approach to characterize the probability distribution of ECS as having a central or best estimate of 2.8{\textcelsius} with a 66\% confidence interval of 2.2-3.4{\textcelsius}. This implies, by their calculations, that the probability of ECS exceeding 4.5{\textcelsius} is less than 1\%. They characterize such kind of result as {\textquotedblleft}renewing hope that we may yet be able to avoid global warming exceeding 2[{\textcelsius}]{\textquotedblright}. We share the desire for less uncertainty around ECS (Weitzman, 2011; Wagner and Weitzman, 2015). However, we are afraid that the upper-tail emergent constraint on ECS is largely a function of the assumed normal error terms in the regression analysis. We do not attempt to evaluate Cox et al. (2018){\textquoteright}s physical modeling (aside from the normality assumption), leaving that task to physical scientists. We take Cox et al. (2018){\textquoteright}s 66\% confidence interval as given and explore the implications of applying alternative probability distributions. We find, for example, that moving from a normal to a log-normal distribution, while giving identical probabilities for being in the 2.2-3.4{\textcelsius} range, increases the probability of exceeding 4.5{\textcelsius} by over five times. Using instead a fat-tailed Pareto distribution, an admittedly extreme case, increases the probability by over forty times.}, url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176518301733}, author = {Gernot Wagner and Martin L. Weitzman} } @article {1132696, title = {Solar Geoengineering and Democracy}, journal = {Global Environmental Politics}, year = {2018}, pages = {5-24}, abstract = {Some scientists suggest that it might be possible to reflect a portion of incoming sunlight back into space to reduce climate change and its impacts. Others argue that such solar radiation management (SRM) geoengineering is inherently incompatible with democracy. In this article, we reject this incompatibility argument. First, we counterargue that technologies such as SRM lack innate political characteristics and predetermined social effects, and that democracy need not be deliberative to serve as a standard for governance. We then rebut each of the argument{\textquoteright}s core claims, countering that (1) democratic institutions are sufficiently resilient to manage SRM, (2) opting out of governance decisions is not a fundamental democratic right, (3) SRM may not require an undue degree of technocracy, and (4) its implementation may not concentrate power and promote authoritarianism. Although we reject the incompatibility argument, we do not argue that SRM is necessarily, or even likely to be, democratic in practice.}, url = {https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/glep_a_00466$\#$authorsTabList}, author = {Joshua B. Horton and Jesse L. Reynolds and Holly Jean Buck and Daniel Callies and Stefan Sch{\"a}fer and David W. Keith and Steve Rayner} } @article {1128855, title = {A Process for Capturing CO2 from the Atmosphere}, journal = {Joule}, year = {2018}, abstract = {

Context \& Scale
An industrial process for large-scale capture of atmospheric CO2 (DAC) serves two roles. First, as a source of CO2 for making carbon-neutral hydrocarbon fuels, enabling carbon-free energy to be converted into high-energy-density fuels. Solar fuels, for example, may be produced at high-insolation low-cost locations from DAC-CO2 and electrolytic hydrogen using gas-to-liquids technology enabling decarbonization of difficult-to-electrify sectors such as aviation. And second, DAC with CO2 sequestration allows carbon removal.

The feasibility of DAC has been disputed, in part, because publications have not provided sufficient engineering detail to allow independent evaluation of costs. We provide an engineering cost basis for a commercial DAC system for which all major components are either drawn from well-established commercial heritage or described in sufficient detail to allow assessment by third parties. This design reflects roughly 100 person-years of development by Carbon Engineering.

Summary
We describe a process for capturing CO2 from the atmosphere in an industrial plant. The design captures \~{}1 Mt-CO2/year in a continuous process using an aqueous KOH sorbent coupled to a calcium caustic recovery loop. We describe the design rationale, summarize performance of the major unit operations, and provide a capital cost breakdown developed with an independent consulting engineering firm. We report results from a pilot plant that provides data on performance of the major unit operations. We summarize the energy and material balance computed using an Aspen process simulation. When CO2 is delivered at 15 MPa, the design requires either 8.81 GJ of natural gas, or 5.25 GJ of gas and 366 kWhr of electricity, per ton of CO2 captured. Depending on financial assumptions, energy costs, and the specific choice of inputs and outputs, the levelized cost per ton CO2 captured from the atmosphere ranges from 94 to 232 $/t-CO2.

}, url = {https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(18)30225-3}, author = {David W. Keith and Geoffrey Holmes and David St. Angelo and Kenton Heidel} } @article {1128296, title = {Recommendations for Improving the Treatment of Risk and Uncertainty in Economic Estimates of Climate Impacts in the Sixth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report}, journal = {Review of Environmental Economics and Policy}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Large discrepancies persist between projections of the physical impacts of climate change and economic damage estimates. These discrepancies increase with increasing global average temperature projections. Based on this observation, we recommend that in its Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) improve its approach to the management of the uncertainties inherent in climate policy decisions. In particular, we suggest that the IPCC (1) strengthen its focus on applications of decision making under risk, uncertainty, and outright ambiguity and (2) estimate how the uncertainty itself affects its economic and financial cost estimates of climate damage and, ultimately, the optimal price for each ton of carbon dioxide released. Our hope is that by adopting these recommendations, AR6 will be able to resolve some of the documented inconsistencies in estimates of the physical and economic impacts of climate change and more effectively fulfill the IPCC{\textquoteright}s mission to provide policymakers with a robust and rigorous approach for assessing the potential future risks of climate change.}, url = {https://academic.oup.com/reep/advance-article/doi/10.1093/reep/rey005/5025082}, author = {Thomas Stoerk and Gernot Wagner and Robert E T Ward} } @article {1128007, title = {Quantifying the impact of sulfate geoengineering on mortality from air quality and UV-B exposure}, journal = {Atmospheric Environment}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Sulfate geoengineering is a proposed method to partially counteract the global radiative forcing from accumulated greenhouse gases, potentially mitigating some impacts of climate change. While likely to be effective in slowing increases in average temperatures and extreme precipitation, there are known side-effects and potential unintended consequences which have not been quantified. One such consequence is the direct human health impact. Given the significant uncertainties, we take a sensitivity approach to explore the mechanisms and range of potential impacts. Using a chemistry-transport model, we quantify the steady-state response of three public health risks to 1 {\textdegree}C global mean surface cooling. We separate impacts into those which are {\textquotedblleft}radiative forcing-driven{\textquotedblright}, associated with climate change {\textquotedblleft}reversal{\textquotedblright} through modification of global radiative forcing, and those {\textquotedblleft}direct impacts{\textquotedblright} associated uniquely with using sulfate geoengineering to achieve this. We find that the direct (non-radiative forcing driven) impact is a decrease in global mortality of \~{}13,000 annually. Here the benefits of reduced ozone exposure exceed increases in mortality due to UV and particulate matter, as each unit of injected sulfur incurs 1/25th the particulate matter exposure of a unit of sulfur emitted from surface sources. This reduction is exceeded by radiative forcing-driven health impacts resulting from using sulfate geoengineering to offset 1 {\textdegree}C of surface temperature rise. Increased particulate matter formation at these lower temperatures results in \~{}39,000 mortalities which would have been avoided at higher temperatures. As such we estimate that sulfate geoengineering in 2040 would cause \~{}26,000 (95\% interval: -30,000 to +79,000) early deaths annually relative to the same year without geoengineering, largely due to the loss of health benefits associated with CO2-induced warming. These results account only for impacts due to changes in air quality and UV-B flux. They do not account for non-mortality impacts or changes in atmospheric dynamics, and must be considered in the wider context of other climate change impacts such as heatwave frequency and sea level rise.}, url = {https://www-sciencedirect-com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/science/article/pii/S1352231018303510}, author = {Sebastian D. Eastham and Debra K. Weisenstein and David W. Keith and Steven R. H. Barrett} } @article {1138794, title = {Stopping Solar Geoengineering Through Technical Means: A Preliminary Assessment of Counter-Geoengineering}, journal = {Earth{\textquoteright}s Future}, volume = {6}, year = {2018}, pages = {1058-1065}, url = {https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018EF000864}, author = {Andy Parker and Joshua Horton and David Keith} } @article {1126610, title = {Fast, cheap, and imperfect? U.S. public opinion about solar geoengineering}, journal = {Environmental Politics}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Solar geoengineering, which seeks to cool the planet by reflecting a small fraction of sunlight back into space, has drawn the attention of scientists and policymakers as climate change remains unabated. Unlike mitigation, solar geoengineering could quickly and cheaply lower global temperatures. It is also imperfect. Its environmental impacts remain unpredictable, and its low cost and immediate effects may result in {\textquotedblleft}moral hazard,{\textquotedblright} potentially crowding out costly mitigation efforts. There is little understanding about how the public will respond to such tradeoffs. To address this, a 1,000-subject nationally representative poll focused on solar geoengineering was conducted as part of the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) of the US electorate in October-November 2016. The importance that individuals place on solar geoengineering{\textquoteright}s speed and cost predicts their support for it, but there is little to no relationship between their concerns about its shortcomings and support for its research and use. Acquiescence bias appears to be an important factor for attitudes around solar geoengineering and moral hazard.}, url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09644016.2018.1479101?journalCode=fenp20}, author = {Aseem Mahajan and Dustin Tingley and Gernot Wagner} } @article {1124616, title = {Production of Sulfates Onboard an Aircraft: Implications for the Cost and Feasibility of Stratospheric Solar Geoengineering}, journal = {Earth and Space Science}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Injection of sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere, a form of solar geoengineering, has been proposed as a means to reduce some climatic changes by decreasing net anthropogenic radiative forcing. The cost and technical feasibility of forming aerosols with the appropriate size distribution are uncertain. We examine the possibility of producing the relevant sulfur species, SO2\ or SO3, by in situ conversion fromelemental sulfur onboard an aircraft. We provide afirst-order engineering analysis of an open cycle chemicalplant for in situ sulfur to sulfate conversion using a Brayton cycle combustor and a catalytic converter. We find that such a plant could have sufficiently low mass that the overall requirement for mass transport to the lower stratosphere may be reduced by roughly a factor of 2. All else equal, this suggests that{\textemdash}for a given radiative forcing{\textemdash}the cost of delivering sulfate aerosols may be nearly halved. Beyond reducing cost, the use of elemental sulfur reduces operational health and safety risks and should therefore reduce environmental side effects associated with delivery. Reduction in cost is not necessarily beneficial as it reduces practical barriers to deployment, increasing the urgency of questions concerningthe efficacy, risks, and governance of solar geoengineering.}, url = {https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/2018EA000370}, author = {Jordan P. Smith and John Dykema and David Keith} } @article {1120500, title = {Solar geoengineering as part of an overall strategy for meeting the 1.5{\textdegree}C Paris target}, journal = {Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society}, volume = {376}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Solar geoengineering refers to deliberately reducing net radiative forcing by reflecting some sunlight back to space, in order to reduce anthropogenic climate changes; a possible such approach would be adding aerosols to the stratosphere. If future mitigation proves insufficient to limit the rise in global mean temperature to less than 1.5{\textdegree}C above preindustrial, it is plausible that some additional and limited deployment of solar geoengineering could reduce climate damages. That is, these approaches could eventually be considered as part of an overall strategy to manage the risks of climate change, combining emissions reduction, net-negative emissions technologies and solar geoengineering to meet climate goals. We first provide a physical science review of current research, research trends and some of the key gaps in knowledge that would need to be addressed to support informed decisions. Next, since few climate model simulations have considered these limited-deployment scenarios, we synthesize prior results to assess the projected response if solar geoengineering were used to limit global mean temperature to 1.5{\textdegree}C above preindustrial in an overshoot scenario that would otherwise peak near 3{\textdegree}C. While there are some important differences, the resulting climate is closer in many respects to a climate where the 1.5{\textdegree}C target is achieved through mitigation alone than either is to the 3{\textopenbullet}C climate with no geoengineering. This holds for both regional temperature and precipitation changes; indeed, there are no regions where a majority of models project that this moderate level of geoengineering would produce a statistically significant shift in precipitation further away from preindustrial levels. This article is part of the theme issue {\textquoteleft}The Paris Agreement: understanding the physical and social challenges for a warming world of 1.5{\textdegree}C above pre-industrial levels{\textquoteright}.}, author = {Douglas G. MacMartin and Katharine L. Ricke and David W. Keith} } @article {1129230, title = {The Risk of Termination Shock From Solar Geoengineering}, journal = {Earth{\textquoteright}s Future}, volume = {6}, year = {2018}, note = {[[{"fid":"983674","view_mode":"default","type":"media","attributes":{"height":"360","width":"640","class":"wysiwyg-placeholder media-element file-default"}}]]}, pages = {456-467}, abstract = {If solar geoengineering were to be deployed so as to mask a high level of global warming, and then stopped suddenly, there would be a rapid and damaging rise in temperatures. This effect is often referred to as termination shock, and it is an influential concept. Based on studies of its potential impacts, commentators often cite termination shock as one of the greatest risks of solar geoengineering. However, there has been little consideration of the likelihood of termination shock, so that conclusions about its risk are premature. This paper explores the physical characteristics of termination shock, then uses simple scenario analysis to plot out the pathways by which different driver events (such as terrorist attacks, natural disasters, or political action) could lead to termination. It then considers where timely policies could intervene to avert termination shock. We conclude that some relatively simple policies could protect a solar geoengineering system against most of the plausible drivers. If backup deployment hardware were maintained and if solar geoengineering were implemented by agreement among just a few powerful countries, then the system should be resilient against all but the most extreme catastrophes. If this analysis is correct, then termination shock should be much less likely, and therefore much less of a risk, than has previously been assumed. Much more sophisticated scenario analysis{\textemdash}going beyond simulations purely of worst-case scenarios{\textemdash}will be needed to allow for more insightful policy conclusions.}, url = {https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017EF000735}, author = {Andy Parker and Peter Irvine} } @article {1118052, title = {Mortality tradeoff between air quality and skin cancer from changes in stratospheric ozone}, journal = {Environmental Research Letters}, volume = {13}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Skin cancer mortality resulting from stratospheric ozone depletion has been widely studied. Similarly, there is a deep body of literature on surface ozone and its health impacts, with modeling and observational studies demonstrating that surface ozone concentrations can be increased when stratospheric air mixes to the Earth{\textquoteright}s surface. We offer the first quantitative estimate of the trade-off between these two effects, comparing surface air quality benefits and UV-related harms from stratospheric ozone depletion. Applying an idealized ozone loss term in the stratosphere of a chemistry-transport model for modern-day conditions, we find that each Dobson unit of stratospheric ozone depletion results in a net decrease in the global annual mortality rate of ~40 premature deaths per billion population (d/bn/DU). The impacts are spatially heterogeneous in sign and magnitude, composed of a reduction in premature mortality rate due to ozone exposure of ~80 d/bn/DU concentrated in Southeast Asia, and an increase in skin cancer mortality rate of ~40 d/bn/DU, mostly in Western Europe. This is the first study to quantify air quality benefits of stratospheric ozone depletion, and the first to find that marginal decreases in stratospheric ozone around modern-day values could result in a net reduction in global mortality due to competing health impact pathways. This result, which is subject to significant methodological uncertainty, highlights the need to understand the health and environmental trade-offs involved in policy decisions regarding anthropogenic influences on ozone chemistry over the 21st century.}, url = {http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaad2e/meta}, author = {Sebastian D. Eastham and David W. Keith and Steven R. H. Barrett} } @article {1116778, title = {Factoring in the forgotten role of renewables in CO2 emission trends using decomposition analysis}, journal = {Energy Policy}, volume = {116}, year = {2018}, pages = {290{\textendash}296}, abstract = {This paper introduces an approach for separately quantifying the contributions from renewables in decomposition analysis. So far, decomposition analyses of the drivers of national CO2 emissions have typically considered the combined energy mix as an explanatory factor without an explicit consideration or separation of renewables. As the cost of renewables continues to decrease, it becomes increasingly relevant to track their role in CO2 emission trends. Index decomposition analysis, in particular, provides a simple approach for doing so using publicly available data. We look to the U.S. as a case study, highlighting differences with the more detailed but also more complex structural decomposition analysis. Between 2007 and 2013, U.S. CO2 emissions decreased by around 10\%{\textemdash}a decline not seen since the oil crisis of 1979. Prior analyses have identified the shale gas boom and the economic recession as the main explanatory factors. However, by decomposing the fuel mix effect, we conclude that renewables played an equally important role as natural gas in reducing CO2 emissions between 2007 and 2013: renewables decreased total emissions by 2.3{\textendash}3.3\%, roughly matching the 2.5{\textendash}3.6\% contribution from the shift to natural gas, compared with 0.6{\textendash}1.5\% for nuclear energy.}, url = {https://authors.elsevier.com/c/1Wc5D14YGgXgPS}, author = {Kristina Mohlin and Jonathan R. Camuzeaux and Adrian Muller and Marius Schneider and Gernot Wagner} } @article {1115710, title = {Ramsey discounting calls for subtracting climate damages from economic growth rates}, journal = {Applied Economics Letters}, year = {2018}, abstract = {The Ramsey equation ties the utility discount rate and the elasticity of marginal utility of consumption together with per capita consumption growth rates to calculate consumption discount rates. For many applications, per capita consumption growth rates can be approximated with per capita output growth rates. That approximation does not work for climate change, which drives an ever-increasing and increasingly uncertain wedge between output and consumption growth. NAS (2017), in a central recommendation and illustrative example, conflates the two. The correct, consumption-based discounting method generally decreases consumption discount rates and, thus, increases the resulting Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide (SC-CO2).}, url = {http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/qTsNxGiVFDu4UuPKZhvQ/full}, author = {J. Paul Kelleher and Gernot Wagner} } @article {1113832, title = {Tailoring Meridional and Seasonal Radiative Forcing by Sulfate Aerosol Solar Geoengineering}, journal = {Geophysical Research Letters}, volume = {45}, year = {2018}, abstract = {We study the possibility of designing solar radiation management schemes to achieve a desired meridional radiative forcing (RF) profile using a two-dimensional chemistry-transport-aerosol model. Varying SO2 or H2SO4 injection latitude, altitude, and season, we compute RF response functions for a broad range of possible injection schemes, finding that linear combinations of these injection cases can roughly achieve RF profiles that have been proposed to accomplish various climate objectives. Globally averaged RF normalized by the sulfur injection rate (the radiative efficacy) is largest for injections at high altitudes, near the equator, and using emission of H2SO4 vapor into an aircraft wake to produce accumulation-mode particles. There is a trade-off between radiative efficacy and control as temporal and spatial control is best achieved with injections at lower altitudes and higher latitudes. These results may inform studies using more realistic models that couple aerosol microphysics, chemistry, and stratospheric dynamics.}, url = {http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL076472/abstract}, author = {Zhen Dai and Debra Weisenstein and David Keith} } @article {1153124, title = {Parametric Insurance as an Alternative to Liability for Compensating Climate Harms}, journal = {Carbon \& Climate Law Review}, volume = {12}, year = {2018}, pages = {285-296}, abstract = {

Interstate compensation for climate change based on legal liability faces serious obstacles. Structural incongruities related to causation, time, scope, and scale impede application of tort law to climate change, while political opposition from developed countries prevents intergovernmental consideration of liability as a means of compensating for climate damages. Insurance, however, in particular parametric insurance triggered by objective environmental indices, is emerging as a promising alternative to liability. This is manifest in the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, which ruled out recourse to legal liability, and in the formation and expansion of regional sovereign climate risk insurance schemes in the Caribbean, Africa, and the Pacific. Theory and early practice suggest that parametric insurance exhibits five key advantages compared to legal liability in the climate change context: (1) it does not require that causation be demonstrated; (2) it has evolved to provide catastrophic coverage; (3) it is oriented toward the future rather than the past; (4) it is contractual, rather than adversarial, in nature; and (5) it provides a high degree of predictability. Compensation based on parametric insurance represents a novel climate policy option with significant potential to advance climate politics.

}, url = {https://cclr.lexxion.eu/article/CCLR/2018/4/4}, author = {Joshua B. Horton} } @article {1097031, title = {Underwriting 1.5{\textdegree}C: competitive approaches to financing accelerated climate change mitigation}, journal = {Climate Policy}, year = {2017}, abstract = {

Delivering emission reductions consistent with a 1.5{\textdegree}C trajectory will require innovative public financial instruments designed to mobilize trillions of dollars of low-carbon private investment. Traditional public subsidy instruments such as grants and concessional loans, while critical to supporting nascent technologies or high-capital-cost projects, do not provide the price signals required to shift private investments towards low-carbon alternatives at a scale. Programmes that underwrite the value of emission reductions using auctioned price floors provide price certainty over long time horizons, thus improving the cost-effectiveness of limited public funds while also catalysing private investment.

Taking lessons from the World Bank{\textquoteright}s Pilot Auction Facility, which supports methane and nitrous oxide mitigation projects, and the United Kingdom{\textquoteright}s Contracts for Difference programme, which supports renewable energy deployment, we show that auctioned price floors can be applied to a variety of sectors with greater efficiency and scalability than traditional subsidy instruments. We explore how this new class of instrument can enhance the cost-effectiveness of carbon pricing and complementary policies needed to achieve a 1.5{\textdegree}C outcome, including through large-scale adoption by the Green Climate Fund and other international and domestic climate finance vehicles.

Key policy insights

}, url = {http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2017.1389687}, author = {Paul Bodnar and Caroline Ott and Rupert Edwards and Stephan Hoch and Emily F. McGlynn and Gernot Wagner} } @article {1087496, title = {Policy sequencing toward decarbonization}, journal = {Nature Energy}, year = {2017}, abstract = {Many economists have long held that carbon pricing{\textemdash}either through a carbon tax or cap-and-trade{\textemdash}is the most cost-effective way to decarbonize energy systems, along with subsidies for basic research and development. Meanwhile, green innovation and industrial policies aimed at fostering low-carbon energy technologies have proliferated widely. Most of these predate direct carbon pricing. Low-carbon leaders such as California and the European Union (EU) have followed a distinct policy sequence that helps overcome some of the political challenges facing low-carbon policy by building economic interest groups in support of decarbonization and reducing the cost of technologies required for emissions reductions. However, while politically effective, this policy pathway faces significant challenges to environmental and cost effectiveness, including excess rent capture and lock-in. Here we discuss options for addressing these challenges under political constraints. As countries move toward deeper emissions cuts, combining and sequencing policies will prove critical to avoid environmental, economic, and political dead-ends in decarbonizing energy systems.}, url = {https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-017-0025-8?WT.mc_id=TWT_NEnergy\&utm_content=bufferfb0cd\&utm_medium=social\&utm_source=twitter.com\&utm_campaign=buffer}, author = {Jonas Meckling and Thomas Sterner and Gernot Wagner} } @article {1078581, title = {Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media}, journal = {Palgrave Communications}, volume = {3}, year = {2017}, abstract = {Discourse on social media of solar geoengineering has been rapidly increasing over the past decade, in line with increased attention by the scientific community and low but increasing awareness among the general public. The topic has also found increased attention online. But unlike scientific discourse, a majority of online discussion focuses on the so-called chemtrails conspiracy theory, the widely debunked idea that airplanes are spraying a toxic mix of chemicals through contrails, with supposed goals ranging from weather to mind control. This paper presents the results of a nationally representative 1000-subject poll part of the 36,000-subject 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), and an analysis of the universe of social media mentions of geoengineering. The former shows ~ 10\% of Americans declaring the chemtrails conspiracy as {\textquotedblleft}completely{\textquotedblright} and a further ~ 20{\textendash}30\% as {\textquotedblleft}somewhat{\textquotedblright} true, with no apparent difference by party affiliation or strength of partisanship. Conspiratorial views have accounted for ~ 60\% of geoengineering discourse on social media over the past decade. Of that, Twitter has accounted for \>90\%, compared to ~ 75\% of total geoengineering mentions. Further affinity analysis reveals a broad online community of conspiracy. Anonymity of social media appears to help its spread, so does the general ease of spreading unverified or outright false information. Online behavior has important real-world reverberations, with implications for climate science communication and policy.}, url = {https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-017-0014-3}, author = {Dustin Tingley and Gernot Wagner} } @article {1053216, title = {Solar geoengineering reduces atmospheric carbon burden}, journal = {Nature Climate Change}, volume = {7}, year = {2017}, pages = {617{\textendash}619}, abstract = {

Solar geoengineering is no substitute for cutting emissions, but could nevertheless help reduce the atmospheric carbon burden. In the extreme, if solar geoengineering were used to hold radiative forcing constant under RCP8.5, the carbon burden may be reduced by ~100 GTC, equivalent to 12{\textendash}26\% of twenty-first-century emissions at a cost of under US$0.5 per tCO2.

}, url = {https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3376.epdf?author_access_token=LJ7xrnEo6oZoRNRYgu7btNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NZqUjovChb9EdabCEcR6GuvZkepQXaPwfxVdn3_EQ1onk9bPWOsX7ETCUW7OvjKbM7syCkanNFs4sG07XAXjcx}, author = {David W. Keith and Gernot Wagner and Claire L. Zabel} } @article {1012946, title = {The Asia-Pacific{\textquoteright}s role in the emerging solar geoengineering debate}, journal = {Climatic Change}, year = {2017}, abstract = {Increasing interest in climate engineering in recent years has led to calls by the international research community for international research collaboration as well as global public engagement. But making such collaboration a reality is challenging. Here, we report the summary of a 2016 workshop on the significance and challenges of international collaboration on climate engineering research with a focus on the Asia-Pacific region. Because of the region{\textquoteright}s interest in benefits and risks of climate engineering, there is a potential synergy between impact research on anthropogenic global warming and that on solar radiation management. Local researchers in the region can help make progress toward better understanding of impacts of solar radiation management. These activities can be guided by an ad hoc Asia-Pacific working group on climate engineering, a voluntary expert network. The working group can foster regional conversations in a sustained manner while contributing to capacity building. An important theme in the regional conversation is to develop effective practices of dialogues in light of local backgrounds such as cultural traditions and past experiences of large-scale technology development. Our recommendation merely portrays one of several possible ways forward, and it is our hope to stimulate the debate in the region.}, url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007\%2Fs10584-017-1994-0}, author = {Masahiro Sugiyama and Shinichiro Asayama and Atsushi Ishii and Takanobu Kosugi and John C. Moore and Jolene Lin and Penehuro F. Lefale and Wil Burns and Masatomo Fujiwara and Arunabha Ghosh and Joshua Horton and Atsushi Kurosawa and Andy Parker and Michael Thompson and Pak-Hang Wong and Lili Xia} } @article {1002291, title = {Unmask temporal trade-offs in climate policy debates}, journal = {Science}, volume = {356}, year = {2017}, pages = {492-493}, abstract = {

Global warming potentials (GWPs) have become an essential element of climate policy and are built into legal structures that regulate greenhouse gas emissions. This is in spite of a well-known shortcoming: GWP hides trade-offs between short- and long-term policy objectives inside a single time scale of 100 or 20 years (1). The most common form, GWP100, focuses on the climate impact of a pulse emission over 100 years, diluting near-term effects and misleadingly implying that short-lived climate pollutants exert forcings in the long-term, long after they are removed from the atmosphere (2). Meanwhile, GWP20 ignores climate effects after 20 years. We propose that these time scales be ubiquitously reported as an inseparable pair, much like systolic-diastolic blood pressure and city-highway vehicle fuel economy, to make the climate effect of using one or the other time scale explicit. Policy-makers often treat a GWP as a value-neutral measure, but the time-scale choice is central to achieving specific objectives (2{\textendash}4).

}, url = {http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6337/492}, author = {Ilissa B. Ocko and Steven P. Hamburg and Daniel J. Jacob and David W. Keith and Nathaniel O. Keohane and Michael Oppenheimer and Joseph D. Roy-Mayhew and Daniel P. Schrag and Stephen W. Pacala} } @report {1130134, title = {Climate change, negative emissions and solar radiation management: It is time for an open societal conversation}, year = {2017}, author = {Matthias Honegger and Munch, Steffen and Hirsch, Annette and Beuttler, Christoph and Thomas Peter and Wil Burns and Genden, Oliver and Goeschl, Timo and Gregorowius, Daniel and David Keith and Lederer, Markus and Michaelowa, Axel and Pasztor, Janos and Schafer, Stefan and Seneviratne, Sonia and Stenke, Andrea and Patt, Anthony and Wallimann-Helmer, Ivo} } @article {1002521, title = {Toward a Responsible Solar Geoengineering Research Program}, journal = {Issues in Science and Technology}, volume = {33}, year = {2017}, url = {http://issues.org/33-3/toward-a-responsible-solar-geoengineering-research-program/}, author = {David Keith} } @article {1022041, title = {Night-time lights: A global, long term look at links to socio-economic trends}, journal = {PLoS ONE}, volume = {12}, year = {2017}, abstract = {We use a parallelized spatial analytics platform to process the twenty-one year totality of the longest-running time series of night-time lights data{\textemdash}the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) dataset{\textemdash}surpassing the narrower scope of prior studies to assess changes in area lit of countries globally. Doing so allows a retrospective look at the global, long-term relationships between night-time lights and a series of socio-economic indicators. We find the strongest correlations with electricity consumption, CO2 emissions, and GDP, followed by population, CH4 emissions, N2O emissions, poverty (inverse) and F-gas emissions. Relating area lit to electricity consumption shows that while a basic linear model provides a good statistical fit, regional and temporal trends are found to have a significant impact.}, url = {http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0174610\&type=printable}, author = {Jeremy Proville and Daniel Zavala-Araiza and Gernot Wagner} } @article {1000601, title = {Towards a comprehensive climate impacts assessment of solar geoengineering}, journal = {Earth{\textquoteright}s Future}, volume = {5}, year = {2017}, pages = {93{\textendash}106}, abstract = {

Despite a growing literature on the climate response to solar geoengineering{\textemdash}proposals to cool the planet by increasing the planetary albedo{\textemdash}there has been little published on the impacts of solar geoengineering on natural and human systems such as agriculture, health, water resources, and ecosystems. An understanding of the impacts of different scenarios of solar geoengineering deployment will be crucial for informing decisions on whether and how to deploy it. Here we review the current stateof knowledge about impacts of a solar-geoengineered climate and identify the major research gaps. We suggest that a thorough assessment of the climate impacts of a range of scenarios of solar geoengineering deployment is needed and can be built upon existing frameworks. However, solar geoengineering poses a novel challenge for climate impacts research as the manner of deployment could be tailored to pursue different objectives making possible a wide range of climate outcomes. We present a number of ideas for approaches to extend the survey of climate impacts beyond standard scenarios of solargeoengineering deployment to address this challenge. Reducing the impacts of climate change is the fundamental motivator for emissions reductions and for considering whether and how to deploy solargeoengineering. This means that the active engagement of the climate impacts research community will be important for improving the overall understanding of the opportunities, challenges, and risks presented by solar geoengineering.

}, url = {http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000389/epdf}, author = {Peter J. Irvine and Ben Kravitz and Mark G. Lawrence and Dieter Gerten and Cyril Caminade and Simon N.Gosling and Erica J. Hendy and Belay T. Kassie and W. Daniel Kissling and Helene Muri and Andreas Oschlies and Steven J. Smith} } @article {1000581, title = {Five solar geoengineering tropes that have outstayed their welcome}, journal = {Earth{\textquoteright}s Future}, volume = {4}, year = {2016}, pages = {562{\textendash}568}, abstract = {

In the last decade, solar geoengineering (solar radiation management, or SRM) has receivedincreasing 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 ofSRM{\textquoteright}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 wouldcost only a few billion dollars per year; (D) modeling studies indicate that SRM would disrupt monsoonprecipitation; 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.

}, url = {http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000416/epdf}, author = {Jesse L. Reynolds and Andy Parker and Peter Irvine} } @article {936831, title = {Stratospheric Solar Geoengineering without Ozone Loss}, journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}, year = {2016}, abstract = {

Injecting sulfate aerosol into the stratosphere, the most frequently analyzed proposal for solar geoengineering, may reduce some climate risks, but it would also entail new risks, including ozone loss and heating of the lower tropical stratosphere, which, in turn, would increase water vapor concentration causing additional ozone loss and surface warming. We propose a method for stratospheric aerosol climate modification that uses a solid aerosol composed of alkaline metal salts that will convert hydrogen halides and nitric and sulfuric acids into stable salts to enable stratospheric geoengineering while reducing or reversing ozone depletion. Rather than minimizing reactive effects by reducing surface area using high refractive index materials, this method tailors the chemical reactivity. Specifically, we calculate that injection of calcite (CaCO3) aerosol particles might reduce net radiative forcing while simultaneously increasing column ozone toward its preanthropogenic baseline. A radiative forcing of -1 W.m-2, for example, might be achieved with a simultaneous 3.8\% increase in column ozone using 2.1 Tg.y-1 of 275-nm radius calcite aerosol. Moreover, the radiative heating of the lower stratosphere would be roughly 10-fold less than if that same radiative forcing had been produced using sulfate aerosol. Although solar geoengineering cannot substitute for emissions cuts, it may supplement them by reducing some of the risks of climate change. Further research on this and similar methods could lead to reductions in risks and improved efficacy of solar geoengineering methods.

}, url = {http://www.pnas.org/content/113/52/14910.full}, author = {David Keith and Debra Weisenstein and John Dykema and Frank Keutsch} } @article {1000596, title = {Solar geoengineering could substantially reduce climate risks {\textemdash} A research hypothesis for the next decade}, journal = {Earth{\textquoteright}s Future}, volume = {4}, year = {2016}, pages = {549{\textendash}559}, abstract = {

We offer a hypothesis that if solar geoengineering (SG) were deployed to offset half of the increase in global-mean temperature from the date of deployment using a technology and deployment method chosen to approximate a reduction in the solar constant then, over the 21st century, it would (a) substantially reduce the global aggregate risks of climate change, (b) without making any country worse off, and (c) with the aggregate risks from side-effects being small in comparison to the reduction in climate risks. We do not set out to demonstrate this hypothesis; rather we propose it with the goal of stimulating a strategic engagement of the SG research community with policy-relevant questions. We elaborate seven sub-hypotheses on the effects of our scenario for key risks of climate change that could be assessed in future modeling work. As an example, we provide a defence of one of our sub-hypotheses, that our scenario of SG would reduce the risk of drought in dry regions, but also identify issues that may undermine this sub-hypothesis and how future work could resolve this question. SG cannot substitute for emissions mitigation but it may be a useful supplement. It is our hope that scientific and technical research over the next decade focuses more closely on well-articulated variants of the key policy-relevant question: could SG be designed and deployed in such a way that it could substantially and equitably reduce climate risks?

}, url = {http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000465/epdf}, author = {David W. Keith and Peter J. Irvine} } @article {909871, title = {What do people think when they think about solar geoengineering? A review of empirical social science literature, and prospects for future research}, journal = {Earth{\textquoteright}s Future}, year = {2016}, abstract = {

Public views and values about solar geoengineering should be incorporated in science-policy decisions, 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 {\textquotedblleft}moral hazard{\textquotedblright} and {\textquotedblleft}reverse moral hazard{\textquotedblright} hypotheses, with empirical support for each appearing under different circumstances and populations. We argue that in the coming decade, empirical social science research on solar geoengineering will be crucial, and should be integrated with physical scientific research.

}, url = {http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000461/full}, author = {Burns, Elizabeth T. and Jane A. Flegal and David W. Keith and Aseem Mahajan and Dustin Tingley and Gernot Wagner} } @article {881326, title = {Improved aerosol radiative properties as a foundation for solar geoengineering risk assessment}, journal = {Geophysical Research Letters}, year = {2016}, abstract = {

Side effects resulting from the deliberate injection of sulfate aerosols intended to partially offset climate change have motivated the investigation of alternatives, including solid aerosol materials. Sulfate aerosols warm the tropical tropopause layer, increasing the flux of water vapor into the stratosphere, accelerating ozone loss, and increasing radiative forcing. The high refractive index of some solid materials may lead to reduction in these risks. We present a new analysis of the scattering efficiency and absorption of a range of candidate solid aerosols. We utilize a comprehensive radiative transfer model driven by updated, physically consistent estimates of optical properties. We compute the potential increase in stratospheric water vapor and associated longwave radiative forcing. We find that the stratospheric heating calculated in this analysis indicates some materials to be substantially riskier than previous work. We also find that there are Earth-abundant materials that may reduce some principal known risks relative to sulfate aerosols.

}, url = {http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL069258/full}, author = {John Dykema and David Keith and Frank Keutsch} } @webarticle {888876, title = {Establishing practical estimates for city-integrated solar PV and wind}, year = {2016}, url = {http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6288/922.e-letters}, author = {Lee Miller and Vaclav Smil and Gernot Wagner and David Keith} } @article {887531, title = {An overview of the Earth system science of solar geoengineering}, journal = {Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change}, year = {2016}, abstract = {

Solar geoengineering has been proposed as a means to cool the Earth by increasing the reflection of sunlight back to space, for example, by injecting reflective aerosol particles (or their precursors) into the lower stratosphere. Such proposed techniques would not be able to substitute for mitigation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as a response to the risks of climate change, as they would only mask some of the effects of global warming. They might, however, eventually be applied as a complementary approach to reduce climate risks. Thus, the Earth system consequences of solar geoengineering are central to understanding its potentials and risks. Here we review the state-of-the-art knowledge about stratospheric sulfate aerosol injection and an idealized proxy for this, {\textquoteleft}sunshade geoengineering,{\textquoteright} in which the intensity of incoming sunlight is directly reduced in models. Studies are consistent in suggesting that sunshade geoengineering and stratospheric aerosol injection would generally offset the climate effects of elevated GHG concentrations. However, it is clear that a solar geoengineered climate would be novel in some respects, one example being a notably reduced hydrological cycle intensity. Moreover, we provide an overview of nonclimatic aspects of the response to stratospheric aerosol injection, for example, its effect on ozone, and the uncertainties around its consequences. We also consider the issues raised by the partial control over the climate that solar geoengineering would allow. Finally, this overview highlights some key research gaps in need of being resolved to provide sound basis for guidance of future decisions around solar geoengineering.

}, url = {http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.423/abstract}, author = {Pete Irvine and Ben Kravitz and Mark Lawrence and Helene Muri} } @article {887481, title = {Tipping elements and climate-economic shocks: Pathways toward integrated assessment}, journal = {Earth{\textquoteright}s Future}, year = {2016}, abstract = {

The literature on the costs of climate change often draws a link between climatic {\textquoteleft}tipping points{\textquoteright} and large economic shocks, frequently called {\textquoteleft}catastrophes{\textquoteright}. The phrase {\textquoteleft}tipping points{\textquoteright} in this context can be misleading. In popular and social scientific discourse, {\textquoteleft}tipping points{\textquoteright} involve abrupt state changes. For some climatic {\textquoteleft}tipping points,{\textquoteright} the commitment to a state change may occur abruptly, but the change itself may be rate-limited and take centuries or longer to realize. Additionally, the connection between climatic {\textquoteleft}tipping points{\textquoteright} and economic losses is tenuous, though emerging empirical and process-model-based tools provide pathways for investigating it. We propose terminology to clarify the distinction between {\textquoteleft}tipping points{\textquoteright} in the popular sense, the critical thresholds exhibited by climatic and social {\textquoteleft}tipping elements,{\textquoteright} and {\textquoteleft}economic shocks{\textquoteright}. The last may be associated with tipping elements, gradual climate change, or non-climatic triggers. We illustrate our proposed distinctions by surveying the literature on climatic tipping elements, climatically sensitive social tipping elements, and climate-economic shocks, and we propose a research agenda to advance the integrated assessment of all three.

}, url = {http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000362/abstract}, author = {Robert E. Kopp and Rachael Shwom and Gernot Wagner and Jiacan Yuan} } @article {862911, title = {Modeling the effects of climate engineering}, journal = {Science}, volume = {352}, year = {2016}, pages = {1526-1527}, doi = {10.1126/science.aag1630}, url = {http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6293/1526.3}, author = {David Keith and Gernot Wagner and Juan Moreno-Cruz} } @webarticle {888871, title = {Stated estimates for city-integrated wind and solar PV are too high}, year = {2016}, url = {http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6288/922.e-letters}, author = {Lee Miller and Vaclav Smil and Gernot Wagner and David Keith} } @article {894071, title = {The International Politics of Climate Engineering: A Review and Prospectus for International Relations}, journal = {The Oxford University Press}, year = {2016}, abstract = {

Proposed large-scale intentional interventions in natural systems in order to counter climate change, typically called {\textquotedblleft}climate engineering{\textquotedblright} or {\textquotedblleft}geoengineering,{\textquotedblright} stand to dramatically alter the international politics of climate change and potentially much more. There is currently a significant and growing literature on the international politics of climate engineering. However, it has been produced primarily by scholars from outside the discipline of International Relations (IR). We are concerned that IR scholars are missing a critical opportunity to offer insights into, and perhaps help shape, the emerging international politics of climate engineering. To that end, the primary goal of this paper is to call the attention of the IR community to these developments. Thus, we offer here an overview of the existing literature on the international politics of climate engineering and a preliminary assessment of its strengths and lacunae. We trace several key themes in this corpus, including problem structure, the concern that climate engineering could undermine emissions cuts, the potentially {\textquotedblleft}slippery slope{\textquotedblright} of research and development, unilateral implementation, interstate conflict, militarization, rising tensions between industrialized and developing countries, and governance challenges and opportunities. The international politics of climate engineering is then considered through the lenses of the leading IR theories (Realism, Institutionalism, Liberalism, and Constructivism), exploring both what they have contributed and possible lines of future inquiry. Disciplinary IR scholars should have much to say on a number of topics related to climate engineering, including its power and transformational potentials, the possibility of counter-climate engineering, issues of institutional design, international law, and emergent practices. We believe that it is incumbent on the IR community, whose defining focus is international relations, to turn its attention to these unprecedented technologies and to the full scope of possible ramifications they might have for the international system.

}, url = {http://isr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/03/17/isr.viv013}, author = {Joshua Horton and Jesse Reynolds} } @article {869156, title = {Implications of the Paris Agreement for Carbon Dioxide Removal and Solar Geoengineering}, journal = {Policy Brief, Harvard Project on Climate Agreements, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School}, year = {2016}, url = {http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/26842/implications_of_the_paris_agreement_for_carbon_dioxide_removal_and_solar_geoengineering.html?breadcrumb=\%2Fproject\%2F56\%2Fharvard_project_on_climate_agreements}, author = {Joshua Horton and David Keith and Matthias Honegger} } @article {888891, title = {Key impacts of climate engineering on biodiversity and ecosystems, with priorities for future research}, journal = {Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences}, year = {2016}, pages = {1-26}, abstract = {

Climate change has significant implications for biodiversity and ecosystems. With slow progress towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions, climate engineering (or {\textquoteleft}geoengineering{\textquoteright}) is receiving increasing attention for its potential to limit anthropogenic climate change and its damaging effects. Proposed techniques, such as ocean fertilization for carbon dioxide removal or stratospheric sulfate injections to reduce incoming solar radiation, would significantly alter atmospheric, terrestrial and marine environments, yet potential side-effects of their implementation for ecosystems and biodiversity have received little attention. A literature review was carried out to identify details of the potential ecological effects of climate engineering techniques. A group of biodiversity and environmental change researchers then employed a modified Delphi expert consultation technique to evaluate this evidence and prioritize the effects based on the relative importance of, and scientific understanding about, their biodiversity and ecosystem consequences. The key issues and knowledge gaps are used to shape a discussion of the biodiversity and ecosystem implications of climate engineering, including novel climatic conditions, alterations to marine systems and substantial terrestrial habitat change. This review highlights several current research priorities in which the climate engineering context is crucial to consider, as well as identifying some novel topics for ecological investigation.

}, url = {http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1943815X.2016.1159578}, author = {Caitlin G. McCormack and Wanda Born and Peter Irvine and Eric P. Achterberg and Tatsuya Amano and Jeff Ardron and Pru N. Foster and Jean-Pierre Gattuso and Stephen J. Hawkins and Erica Hendy and W. Daniel Kissling and Salvador E. Lluch-Cota and Eugene J. Murphy and Nick Ostle and Nicholas J.P. Owens and R. Ian Perry and Hans O. P{\"o}rtner and Robert J. Scholes and Frank M. Schurr and Oliver Schweiger and Josef Settele and Rebecca K. Smith and Sarah Smith and Jill Thompson and Derek P. Tittensor and Mark van Kleunen and Chris Vivian and Katrin Vohland and Rachel Warren and Andrew R. Watkinson and Steve Widdicombe and Phillip Williamson and Emma Woods and Jason J. Blackstock and William J. Sutherland} } @inbook {922426, title = {Solar Geoengineering and Obligations to the Global Poor}, booktitle = {Climate Justice and Geoengineering: Ethics and Policy in the Atmospheric Anthropocene}, year = {2016}, publisher = {Rowman \& Littlefield}, organization = {Rowman \& Littlefield}, address = {London}, url = {http://www.rowmaninternational.com/books/climate-justice-and-geoengineering}, author = {Joshua Horton and David Keith}, editor = {Christopher J. Preston} } @article {928606, title = {Wind speed reductions by large-scale wind turbine deployments lower turbine efficiencies and set low generation limits}, journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}, year = {2016}, abstract = {

Wind turbines generate electricity by removing kinetic energy from the atmosphere. Large numbers of wind turbines are likely to reduce wind speeds, which lowers estimates of electricity generation from what would be presumed from unaffected conditions. Here, we test how well wind power limits that account for this effect can be estimated without explicitly simulating atmospheric dynamics. We first use simulations with an atmospheric general circulation model (GCM) that explicitly simulates the effects of wind turbines to derive wind power limits (GCM estimate), and compare them to a simple approach derived from the climatological conditions without turbines [vertical kinetic energy (VKE) estimate]. On land, we find strong agreement between the VKE and GCM estimates with respect to electricity generation rates (0.32 and 0.37 We m-2) and wind speed reductions by 42 and 44\%. Over ocean, the GCM estimate is about twice the VKE estimate (0.59 and 0.29 We m-2) and yet with comparable wind speed reductions (50 and 42\%). We then show that this bias can be corrected by modifying the downward momentum flux to the surface. Thus, large-scale limits to wind power use can be derived from climatological conditions without explicitly simulating atmospheric dynamics. Consistent with the GCM simulations, the approach estimates that only comparatively few land areas are suitable to generate more than 1 We m-2 of electricity and that larger deployment scales are likely to reduce the expected electricity generation rate of each turbine. We conclude that these atmospheric effects are relevant for planning the future expansion of wind power.

}, url = {http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/11/08/1602253113.full.pdf}, author = {Lee Miller and Axel Kleidon} } @article {861111, title = {Climate Emergencies Do Not Justify Engineering the Climate}, journal = {Nature Climate Change}, year = {2015}, url = {http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n4/full/nclimate2539.html}, author = {Jana Sillmann and Timothy M. Lenton and Anders Levermann and Konrad Ott and Mike Hulme and Francois Benduhn and Joshua Horton} } @report {861101, title = {Designing Procedural Mechanisms for the Governance of Solar Radiation Management Field Experiments: Workshop Report}, year = {2015}, url = {https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/ottawa_workshop_feb_2015_1.pdf}, author = {Jason J. Blackstock and Neil Craik and Jack Doughty and Joshua Horton} } @article {861106, title = {The Emergency Framing of Solar Geoengineering: Time for a Different Approach}, journal = {The Anthropocene Review}, year = {2015}, url = {http://anr.sagepub.com/content/early/2015/03/26/2053019615579922.abstract}, author = {Joshua Horton} } @article {862921, title = {How much bulk energy storage is needed to decarbonize electricity?}, journal = {Energy and Environmental Science}, volume = {8}, year = {2015}, pages = {3409-3417}, doi = {10.1039/C5EE01452B}, url = {https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6wfH8hIAchFa1NPMXVpMk9MQ2M/view?usp=sharing}, author = {Hossein Safaei and David Keith} } @article {861066, title = {Impact of the Volkswagen emissions control defeat device on US public health}, journal = {Environmental Research Letters}, volume = {10}, year = {2015}, pages = {114005}, url = {http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/11/114005}, author = {Steven R. H. Barrett and Raymond L. Speth and Sebastian D. Eastham and Irene C. Dedoussi and Akshay Ashok and Robert Malina and David Keith} } @article { 176, title = {Liability for Solar Geoengineering: Historical Precedents, Contemporary Innovations, and Governance Possibilities}, journal = {NYU Environmental Law Journal}, volume = {22}, year = {2015}, pages = {225-273}, url = {/files/tkg/files/176.horton.keith_.liabilityforsolargeoengineering.pdf}, author = {Joshua Horton and Andrew Parker and David Keith} } @article { 177, title = {Solar geoengineering using solid aerosol in the stratosphere}, journal = {Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics}, volume = {15}, year = {2015}, pages = {11835-11859}, doi = {10.5194/acp-15-11835-2015}, url = {http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/15/11835/2015/acp-15-11835-2015.html}, author = {Debra Weisenstein and David Keith and John Dykema} } @article { 174, title = {A temporary, moderate and responsive scenario for solar geoengineering}, journal = {Nature Climate Change}, volume = {5}, year = {2015}, doi = {10.1038/NCLIMATE2493}, url = {/files/tkg/files/174.keith_.macmartin.atemporarymoderateandresponsivescenarioforsolargeoengineering.pdf}, author = {David Keith and Douglas G. MacMartin} } @article {862926, title = {Two methods for estimating limits to large-scale wind power generation}, journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States}, volume = {112}, year = {2015}, pages = {11169{\textendash}11174}, doi = {10.1073/pnas.1408251112}, url = {http://www.pnas.org/content/112/36/11169.full}, author = {Lee Miller and Nathaniel A. Brunsell and David B. Mechem and Fabian Gans and Andrew J. Monaghan and Robert Vautard and David Keith and Axel Kleidon} } @article { 175, title = {Will solar geoengineering help us manage the risks of climate change?}, journal = {Our world and us: How our environment and our societies will change}, year = {2015}, pages = {76-92}, url = {/files/tkg/files/175.keith_.parker.willsolargeoengineeringhelpusmanagetherisksofclimatechange.pdf}, author = {David Keith and Andy Parker} } @article {862916, title = {Workshop on Climate Effects of Wind Turbines, American Meteorological Society}, year = {2015}, doi = {10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00231.1}, url = {http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00231.1}, author = {Kerry Emanuel and Frauke Hoss and David Keith and Zhiming Kuang and Julie Lundquist and Lee Miller} } @article {936691, title = {Development and evaluation of the unified tropospheric{\textendash}stratospheric chemistry extension (UCX) for the global chemistry-transport model GEOS-Chem}, journal = {Atmospheric Environment}, volume = {89}, year = {2014}, pages = {52-63}, abstract = {

Global chemistry-transport models (CTMs) typically use simplified parameterizations or relaxation to climatology to estimate the chemical behavior of the stratosphere only in the context of its impact on tropospheric chemistry. This limits investigation of stratospheric chemistry and interactions between tropospheric and stratospheric chemistry-transport processes. We incorporate stratospheric chemical and physical processes into the model GEOS-Chem in the form of a unified chemistry extension (UCX). The stratospheric chemistry framework from NASA{\textquoteright}s Global Modeling Initiative (GMI) is updated in accordance with JPL 10-06 and combined with GEOS-Chem{\textquoteright}s existing widely applied and validated tropospheric chemistry to form a single, unified gas-phase chemistry scheme. Aerosol calculations are extended to include heterogeneous halogen chemistry and the formation, sedimentation and evaporation of polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) as well as background liquid binary sulfate (LBS) aerosols. The Fast-JX v7.0a photolysis scheme replaces a hybrid of Fast-J and Fast-JX v6.2, allowing photolytic destruction at frequencies relevant to the stratosphere and of species not previously modeled. Finally, new boundary conditions are implemented to cover both surface emissions of new species and mesospheric behavior. Results for four simulation years (2004-2007) are compared to those from the original, tropospheric model and to in situ and satellite-based measurements. We use these comparisons to show that the extended model is capable of modeling stratospheric chemistry efficiently without compromising the accuracy of the model at lower altitudes, perturbing mean OH below 250 hPa by less than 5\% while successfully capturing stratospheric behavior not previously captured in GEOS-Chem such as formation and collapse of the Antarctic ozone hole. These extensions (with supporting validation and intercomparison) enable an existing and extensively validated tropospheric CTM to be used to investigate a broader set of atmospheric chemistry problems and leverages GEOS-Chem{\textquoteright}s existing tropospheric treatment.

}, url = {http://keith.seas.harvard.edu/files/tkg/files/Eastham-Weisenstein-Barrett-2014.pdf}, author = {Sebastian D. Eastham and Debra K. Weisenstein and Steven R. H. Barrett} } @article { 171, title = {Field experiments on solar geoengineering: report of a workshop exploring a representative research portfolio}, journal = {Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A}, volume = {372}, year = {2014}, url = {/files/tkg/files/171.keith_.fieldexperimentsonsolargeoengineering.pdf}, author = {David Keith and Riley Duren and Douglas MacMartin} } @article { 168, title = {Geoengineering: the world{\textquoteright}s largest control problem}, journal = {American Control Conference}, year = {2014}, pages = {2401-2406}, url = {/files/tkg/files/168.macmartin.controlproblem.pdf}, author = {MacMartin and D. G. and B. Kravitz and D. W. Keith} } @article { 169, title = {A multi-model assessment of regional climate disparities caused by solar geoengineering}, journal = {Environmental Research Letters}, volume = {9}, year = {2014}, doi = {10.1088/1748-9326/9/7/074013}, url = {http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/7/074013/pdf/1748-9326_9_7_074013.pdf}, author = {Ben Kravitz and Douglas MacMartin and Alan Robock and Philip Rasch and Katharine Ricke and Jason Cole and Charles Curry and Pete Irvine and Duoying Ji and David Keith and Jon Egill Kristj{\'a}nsson and John Moore and Helene Muri and Balwinder Singh and Simone Tilmes and Shingo Watanabe and Shuting Yang and Jin-Ho Yoon} } @article { 170, title = {Not a superpower}, journal = {Policy Options}, volume = {35}, year = {2014}, pages = {18-20}, url = {/files/tkg/files/170.keith_.notasuperpower.pdf}, author = {David Keith} } @article {861146, title = {Solar Geoengineering: Reassessing Benefits, Costs, and Compensation}, journal = {Ethics, Policy \& Environment}, year = {2014}, url = {http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21550085.2014.926078$\#$.VMEsdVofyfR}, author = {Joshua Horton} } @article { 172, title = {Solar geoengineering to limit rate of temperature change}, journal = {Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A}, volume = {372}, year = {2014}, doi = {10.1098/rsta.2014.0134}, url = {/files/tkg/files/172.macmartin.caldeira.keith_.solargeoengineeringtolimittherateoftemperaturechange.pdf}, author = {Douglas MacMartin and Ken Caldeira and David Keith} } @article { 173, title = {Stratospheric controlled perturbation experiment (SCoPEx): a small-scale experiment to improve understanding of the risks of solar geoengineering}, journal = {Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A}, volume = {372}, year = {2014}, doi = {10.1098/rsta.2014.0059}, url = {http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/2031/20140059.full}, author = {John Dykema and David Keith and James G. Anderson and Debra Weisenstein} } @article { 160, title = {Are global wind power resource estimates overstated?}, journal = {Environmental Research Letters}, volume = {8}, year = {2013}, doi = {10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015021}, url = {/files/tkg/files/160.adams_.keith_.globalwindpowerestimates.e.pdf}, author = {Amanda Adams and David Keith} } @article { 156, title = {Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) with compressors distributed at heat loads to enable waste heat utilization}, journal = {Journal of Applied Energy}, volume = {103}, year = {2013}, pages = {165-179}, doi = {dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.09.027}, url = {/files/tkg/files/156.safaei.keith_.hugo_.caes_.e.pdf}, author = {Hossein Safaei and David Keith and Ronald Hugo} } @article { 164, title = {Compressed air energy storage with waste heat export: An Alberta case study}, journal = {Energy Conversion and Management}, volume = {78}, year = {2013}, pages = {114{\textendash}124}, url = {/files/tkg/files/164.safaei.keith_.compressedairenergystor.p.pdf}, author = {Hossein Safaei and David Keith} } @article { 165, title = {Dynamics of the coupled human-climate system resulting from closed-loop control of solar geoengineering}, journal = {Climate Dynamics}, volume = {43}, year = {2013}, pages = {243-258}, doi = {10.1007/s00382-013-1822-9}, url = {/files/tkg/files/165.macmartin.keith_.etal_.dynamicsofthecoupledhuman-climatesystem.pdf}, author = {Douglas MacMartin and Ben Kravitz and David Keith and Andrew Jarvis} } @article { 163, title = {End the Deadlock on Governance of Geoengineering Research}, journal = {Science}, volume = {339}, year = {2013}, pages = {1278-1279}, doi = {10.1126/science.1232527}, url = {/files/tkg/files/163.parson.keith_.deadlockongonvernance.p.pdf}, author = {Edward Parson and David Keith} } @article { 161, title = {The fate of an engineered planet}, journal = {Scientific American}, volume = {308}, year = {2013}, pages = {34-36}, url = {/files/tkg/files/161.keith_.parker.engineeredplanet.e.pdf}, author = {David Keith and Andy Parker} } @article { 157, title = {Public Engagement on Solar Radiation Management and Why it Needs to Happen Now}, journal = {Nature Climate Change}, year = {2013}, doi = {10.1007/s10584-013-0763-y}, url = {/files/tkg/files/157.carr_.etal_publicengageonsrm.p.pdf}, author = {Wylie Carr and Christopher Preston and Laurie Yung and David Keith and Bronislaw Szerszynski and Ashley Mercer} } @article { 166, title = {Solar Geoengineering and the Problem of Liability}, journal = {Geoengineering Our Climate Working Paper and Opinion Article Series}, year = {2013}, url = {/files/tkg/files/166.horton_etal.solargeoliabilty.e.pdf}, author = {Joshua Horton and Andy Parker and David Keith} } @article { 148, title = {An Air-Liquid Contactor for Large-Scale Capture of CO2 from Air}, journal = {Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A {\textendash} Mathematical, Physical \& Engineering Sciences}, volume = {370}, year = {2012}, pages = {4380-4403}, doi = {10.1098/rsta.2012.0137}, url = {/files/tkg/files/148.holmes.keith_.contactorforlargescalecapture.e.pdf}, author = {Geoffrey Holmes and David Keith} } @article { 117, title = {Climate Policy under Uncertainty: A Case for Geoengineering}, journal = {Climatic Change}, year = {2012}, doi = {10.1007/s10584-012-0487-4}, url = {/files/tkg/files/117.moreno-cruz.climpoluncert-caseforgeoeng.e.pdf}, author = {Juan Moreno-Cruz and David Keith} } @article { 159, title = {Cost analysis of stratospheric albedo modification delivery systems}, journal = {Environmental Research Letters}, volume = {7}, year = {2012}, doi = {10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034019}, url = {/files/tkg/files/159.mcclellan.2012.costanalysisofstratosp.e.pdf}, author = {Justin McClellan and David Keith and Jay Apt} } @article {861196, title = {Management of trade-offs in geoengineering through optimal choice of non-uniform radiative forcing}, journal = {Nature Climate Change}, volume = {3}, year = {2012}, pages = {365-368}, doi = {10.1038/nclimate1722}, url = {/files/tkg/files/158.1macmartin.etal_.managingtradeoffsthroughnonradforc.e.pdf}, author = {Douglas MacMartin and David Keith and Ben Kravitz and Ken Caldeira} } @article {1130136, title = {Enhancing the Economics of Wind-Based Compressed Air Energy Storage by Waste Heat Recovery}, journal = {Proceedings of ASME 2011 5th International Conference on Energy Sustainability and 9th Fuel Cell, Science, Engineering and Technology Conference. Washington, DC.}, year = {2011}, author = {Hossein Safaei Mohamadabadi and Ronald J. Hugo and David W. Keith} } @article { 178, title = {Is the solar photovoltaic learning curve flattening?}, journal = {Near Zero}, year = {2011}, url = {/files/tkg/files/178.keith_and_moreno-cruz.isthesolarphotovoltaiclearningcurveflattening.pdf}, author = {David Keith and Juan Moreno-Cruz} } @article { 128, title = {Can we test geoengineering?}, journal = {Energy and Environmental Science}, volume = {4}, year = {2011}, pages = {5044-5052}, doi = {10.1039/C1EE01256H}, url = {/files/tkg/files/128.macmynowski.canwetestgeoeng.e.pdf}, author = {Douglas MacMynowski and H.-J. Shin and Ken Caldeira and David Keith} } @article { 155, title = {Effectiveness of stratospheric solar radiation management as a function of climate sensitivity}, journal = {Nature Climate Change}, volume = {2}, year = {2011}, pages = {92-96}, doi = {10.1038/nclimate1328}, url = {/files/tkg/files/155.ricke_.etal_.stratsolarradmgmt.e.pdf}, author = {Katharine Ricke and Daniel Rowlands and William Ingram and David Keith and M. Granger Morgan} } @article { 149, title = {Evaluating the Role of Cogeneration for Carbon Management in Alberta}, journal = {Energy Policy}, volume = {39}, year = {2011}, pages = {7963{\textendash}7974}, doi = {10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.051}, url = {/files/tkg/files/149.doluweera.etal_.evalrolecongeneration.e.pdf}, author = {G. Doluweera and S. Jordaan and J. Bergerson and M. Moore and David Keith} } @article { 158, title = {Geoengineering: A national strategic plan for research on the potentialeffectiveness, feasibility, and consequences of climate remediation technologies}, journal = {Task Force on Climate Remediation Research, The Bipartisan Policy Center}, year = {2011}, url = {/files/tkg/files/bpc_climate_remediation_tf_final_report.pdf}, author = {Jane Long and James Anderson and Ken Caldeira and Joe Chaisson and David Goldston and Steven Hamburg and David Keith and Ron Lehman and Frank Loy and Granger Morgan and Daniel Sarewitz and Thomas Schelling and John Shepherd and David Victor and David Whelan and David Winickoff} } @article { 133, title = {LEED, Energy Savings, and Carbon Abatement: Related but Not Synonymous}, journal = {Environmental Science and Technology}, volume = {45}, year = {2011}, pages = {1757-1758}, doi = {10.1021/es1041332}, url = {/files/tkg/files/133.cubi_.keith_.leed_.e.pdf}, author = {Eduard Cubi Montanya and David Keith} } @article { 150, title = {Public understanding of Solar Radiation Management}, journal = {Environmental Research Letters}, volume = {6}, year = {2011}, doi = {10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044006}, url = {/files/tkg/files/150.mercer_keith_sharp.publicunderstandingsrm.e_0.pdf}, author = {A. M. Mercer and David Keith and J. D. Sharp} } @article { 152, title = {Reshaping the energy landscape}, journal = {Physics Today}, volume = {64}, year = {2011}, pages = {56-57}, url = {/files/tkg/files/152.keith_.reshapingenergylandscape.e.pdf}, author = {David Keith} } @article { 131, title = {A simple model to account for regional inequalities in the effectiveness of solar radiation management}, journal = {Climatic Change}, volume = {110}, year = {2011}, pages = {649-668}, doi = {10.1007/s10584-011-0103-z}, url = {/files/tkg/files/131.moreno-cruz.inequality.srm_.e_0.pdf}, author = {Juan Moreno-Cruz and Katharine Ricke and David Keith} } @article { 116, title = {Capturing CO2 from the atmosphere: Rationale and Process Design Considerations}, journal = {Capturing CO2 from the atmosphere: Rationale and Process Design Considerations}, year = {2010}, url = {/files/tkg/files/116.cherry.heidel.capco2fromatmosp.p.pdf}, author = {David Keith and Kenton Heidel and Robert Cherry} } @article { 127, title = {Efficient formation of stratospheric aerosol for climate engineering by emission of condensible vapor from aircraft}, journal = {Geophysical Research Letters}, volume = {37}, year = {2010}, doi = {10.1029/2010GL043975}, url = {/files/tkg/files/127.pierce.efficientformstratsaerosol.e.pdf}, author = {Jeffrey Pierce and Debra Weisenstein and Patricia Heckendorn and Thomas Peter and David Keith} } @inbook { 89, title = {Engineering the Planet}, booktitle = {Climate Change Science and Policy by S. Schneider and M. Mastrandrea}, year = {2010}, pages = {49}, publisher = {Island Press}, organization = {Island Press}, address = {Washington DC}, url = {/files/tkg/files/89.keith_.engineeringtheplanet.e.pdf}, author = {David Keith} } @article { 124, title = {Evolution of Hydrogen Sulfide in Sour Saline Aquifers During Carbon Dioxide Sequestration}, journal = {International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control}, volume = {5}, year = {2010}, pages = {347-355}, doi = {10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.09.008}, url = {/files/tkg/files/124.ghaderi.keith_.lavoie.lenoenko.evolhydrsulf.p.pdf}, author = {Seyyed Ghaderi and David Keith and Rob Lavoie and Yuri Leonenko} } @article { 129, title = {Expert judgments about transient climate response to alternative future trajectories of radiative forcing}, journal = {PNAS}, volume = {107}, year = {2010}, pages = {12451-12456}, doi = {10.1073/pnas.0908906107}, url = {/files/tkg/files/129.zickfeld.etal_.expertjudgements.e.pdf}, author = {Kristen Zickfeld and M. Granger Morgan and David Frame and David Keith} } @article { 130, title = {Land Use Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Conventional Oil Production and Oil Sands}, journal = {Environmental Science \& Technology}, volume = {44}, year = {2010}, pages = {8766-8872}, doi = {10.1021/es1013278}, url = {/files/tkg/files/130.yeh_.jordaan.etal_.landuseghgemissions.e.pdf}, author = {Sonia Yeh and Sarah Jordaan and Adam Brandt and Merritt Turetsky and Sabrina Spatari and David Keith} } @article { 132, title = {The Need for Climate Engineering Research}, journal = {Issues in Science and Technology}, volume = {27}, year = {2010}, pages = {57-62}, url = {/files/tkg/files/132.caldeira.needforcliengres.e.pdf}, author = {Ken Caldeira and David Keith} } @governmentreport { 96, title = {Photophoretic levitation of engineered aerosols for geoengineering}, volume = {107}, year = {2010}, pages = {16428-16431}, url = {/files/tkg/files/96.keith_.2010.photophoriclevengaerosols.e.pdf}, author = {David Keith} } @article { 147, title = {Pitfalls of coal peak production}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {469}, year = {2010}, pages = {472}, url = {/files/tkg/files/147.keith_.moreno-cruz.pitfallsofcoalpk.e.pdf}, author = {David Keith and Juan Moreno-Cruz} } @article { 125, title = {Research on global sun block needed now}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {463}, year = {2010}, pages = {426-427}, url = {/files/tkg/files/125.keithparsonmorgon.globalsunblock.e.pdf}, author = {David Keith and Edward Parson and M. Granger Morgan} } @article { 123, title = {The truth about dirty oil: Is CCS the answer?}, journal = {Environmental Science \& Technology}, volume = {44}, year = {2010}, pages = {6010-6015}, doi = {10.1021/es903812e}, url = {/files/tkg/files/123.bergersonkeith.dirtyoil.e.pdf}, author = {Joule Bergerson and David Keith} } @article {1130135, title = {Accelerating Carbon Capture and Storage Implementation in Alberta}, journal = {Alberta Carbon Capture and Storage Development Council}, year = {2009}, author = {Jim Carter and Bill Andrew and John Brannan and David Collyer and Cassie Doyle and Jim Ellis and David Keith and Don Lowry and Art Meyer and Mike Percy and Kathy Sendall and Ian Shugart and Roger Thomas and Peter Watson and Len Webber and Steve Williams} } @article { 87, title = {Accelerating CO2 Dissolution in Saline Aquifers for Geological Storage{\textendash}Mechanistic and Sensitivity Studies}, journal = {Energy \& Fuels}, volume = {23}, year = {2009}, pages = {3328-3336}, doi = {10.1021/ef900125m}, url = {/files/tkg/files/87.hassanzadeh.acceleratingco2dissolution.e.pdf}, author = {Hassan Hassanzadeh and Mehran Pooladi-Darvish and David Keith} } @article { 102, title = {Analytical Solution to Evaluate Salt Precipitation during CO2 Injection in Saline Aquifers}, journal = {International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies}, volume = {3}, year = {2009}, pages = {600-611}, doi = {10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.04.004}, url = {/files/tkg/files/102.zeidouni.evalsaltprec.e.pdf}, author = {Mehdi Zeidouni and Mehran Pooladi-Darvish and David Keith} } @article { 110, title = {Anticipating Public Attitudes toward Underground CO2 Storage}, journal = {International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control}, volume = {3}, year = {2009}, pages = {641-651}, doi = {10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.04.001}, url = {/files/tkg/files/110.sharp_.publicattitudesco2storage.e.pdf}, author = {Jacqueline Sharp and Mark Jaccard and David Keith} } @governmentreport { 162, title = {Best practice approaches for characterizing, communicating, and incorporating scientific uncertainty in decision making}, year = {2009}, url = {http://www.globalchange.gov/browse/reports/best-practice-approaches-characterizing-communicating-and-incorporating-scientific}, author = {Granger Morgan and Hadi Dowlatabadi and Max Henrion and David Keith and Robert Lempert and Sandra McBride and Mitchell Small and Thomas Wilbanks} } @article { 126, title = {Biomass co-utilization with unconventional fossil fuels to advance energy security and climate policy}, journal = {National Comission on Energy Policy}, year = {2009}, url = {/files/tkg/files/126.rhodes.2009.biomassco-util.e.pdf}, author = {James Rhodes and David Keith} } @article { 119, title = {Climate Engineering Responses to Climate Emergencies}, journal = {Novim}, year = {2009}, url = {/files/tkg/files/119.blackstock.etal_.climateengresptoclimemerg.e.pdf}, author = {Jason Blackstock and David Battisti and Ken Caldeira and Douglas Eardley and Jonathan Katz and David Keith and Aristides Patrinos and Daniel Schrag and Robert Socolow and Steven Koonin} } @article { 114, title = {Dangerous Abundance}, journal = {Dangerous Abundance}, year = {2009}, url = {/files/tkg/files/114.keith_.dangerous.abundance.e.pdf}, author = {David Keith} } @article { 121, title = {Feasibility of Injecting Large Volumes of CO2 into Aquifers}, journal = {Energy Procedia}, volume = {1}, year = {2009}, pages = {3113-3120}, url = {/files/tkg/files/121.ghaderi.feasinjectlgvol.e.pdf}, author = {Seyyed Ghaderi and David Keith and Yuri Lenonenko} } @article { 118, title = {Geoengineering the climate - Science, governance and uncertainty}, journal = {The Royal Society}, year = {2009}, url = {http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2009/8693.pdf}, author = {John Shepherd and Ken Caldeira and Joanna Haigh and David Keith and Brian Launder and Georgina Mace and Gordon MacKerron and John Pyle and Steve Rayner and Catherine Redgwell and Peter Cox and Andrew Watson} } @article { 111, title = {Integrated design \& UFAD}, journal = {American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers}, volume = {51}, year = {2009}, pages = {30-40}, url = {/files/tkg/files/111.cubi_.ufad_.challenges.e.pdf}, author = {Eduard Cubi Montanya and David Keith and Jim Love} } @article { 120, title = {Low energy packed tower and caustic recovery for direct capture of CO2 from air}, journal = {Energy Procedia}, volume = {1}, year = {2009}, pages = {1535-1542}, doi = {10.1016/j.egypro.2009.01.201}, url = {/files/tkg/files/120.khani_.heidel.ferreira.keith_.cherry.lowenergypackedtower-ghgt9.e.pdf}, author = {M. Mahmoudkhani and K.R. Heidel and J.C. Ferreira and David Keith and R.S Cherry} } @article { 101, title = {Low-energy sodium hydroxide recovery for CO2 capture from air}, journal = {International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies}, volume = {3}, year = {2009}, pages = {376-384}, doi = {10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.02.003}, url = {/files/tkg/files/101.mahamoudkhani.low-energysodiumhydrec.e.pdf}, author = {Maryam Mahmoudkhani and David Keith} } @article { 112, title = {Quantifying land use of oil sands production: a life cycle perspective}, journal = {Environmental Research Letters}, volume = {4}, year = {2009}, doi = {10.1088/1748-9326/4/2/024004}, url = {/files/tkg/files/112.jordaan.quantlanduseofoilsandsprod.e.pdf}, author = {Sarah Jordaan and David Keith and Brad Stelfox} } @article { 122, title = {Why Capture CO2 From The Atmosphere}, journal = {Science}, volume = {325}, year = {2009}, pages = {1654-1655}, url = {http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/325/5948/1654?ijkey=0qEXY.KSEq3KA\&keytype=ref\&siteid=sci}, author = {David Keith} } @article { 75, title = {Assessing Geochemical Carbon Management}, journal = {Climatic Change}, volume = {90}, year = {2008}, pages = {217-242}, url = {/files/tkg/files/75.stephens.geochemicalcarbonmanagement.p.pdf}, author = {Jennie Stephens and David Keith} } @article { 95, title = {Biomass with Capture: Negative Emissions Within social and Environmental Constraints}, journal = {Climatic Change}, volume = {87}, year = {2008}, pages = {321-328}, url = {/files/tkg/files/95.rhodes.biomasswithcaptureed.e.pdf}, author = {James Rhodes and David Keith} } @article { 104, title = {Canada{\textquoteright}s Fossil Energy Future: The Way Forward on Carbon Capture and Storage}, journal = {Natural Resources Canada}, year = {2008}, url = {http://www.energy.alberta.ca/org/pdfs/fossil_energy_e.pdf}, author = {Ian Anderson and David Keith and Kathleen Sendall and Steve Snyder and Patricia Youzwa} } @article { 97, title = {Carbon dioxide capture from atmospheric air using sodium hydroxide spray}, journal = {Environmental Science \& Technology}, volume = {42}, year = {2008}, pages = {2728-2735}, url = {/files/tkg/files/97.stolaroff.aircapturecontactor.e.pdf}, author = {Joshuah Stolaroff and David Keith and Gregory Lowry} } @article { 103, title = {Carbon Neutral Hydrocarbons}, journal = {Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A}, volume = {366}, year = {2008}, pages = {3901-3918}, doi = {10.1098/rsta.2008.0143}, url = {/files/tkg/files/103.zeman_.2008.chncs_.e.pdf}, author = {Frank Zeman and David Keith} } @article { 113, title = {Climate Action Plan}, journal = {British Columbia}, year = {2008}, url = {http://www.livesmartbc.ca/attachments/climateaction_plan_web.pdf}, author = {Cheryl Slusarchuk and Shawn Atleo and Donna Barnett and Jeff Burghardt and Lyn Brown and Randy McLeod and Joe Van Belleghem and Teresa Coady and Ian Tostenon and Andrew Weaver and John Robinson and Naomi Devine and Peter Robinson and David Keith and John Walker and Mossadiq Umedaly} } @article { 94, title = {On the climate impact of surface roughness}, journal = {Journal of Atmospheric Sciences}, volume = {65}, year = {2008}, pages = {2215-2234}, doi = {10.1175/2007JAS2509.1}, url = {/files/tkg/files/94.kirk-davidoff.surfaceroughnessjas.p.pdf}, author = {Daniel Kirk-Davidoff and David Keith} } @article { 82, title = {The Effect of Natural Flow of Aquifers and Associated Dispersion on the Onset of Buoyancy-driven Convection in a Saturated Porous Medium}, journal = {American Institute of Chemical Engineers Journal}, volume = {55}, year = {2008}, pages = {475-485}, doi = {10.1002/aic.11664}, url = {/files/tkg/files/82.hassanzadeh.natflowofaquif.e.pdf}, author = {Hassan Hassanzadeh and Mehran Pooladi-Darvish and David Keith} } @article { 100, title = {Expert Assessments of Future Photovoltaic Technologies}, journal = {Environmental Science \& Technology}, volume = {42}, year = {2008}, pages = {9031-9038}, url = {/files/tkg/files/100.curtright.futphotovoltaictech.e.pdf}, author = {Aimee Curtright and M. Granger Morgan and David Keith} } @article { 92, title = {Improving the way we think about projecting future energy use and emissions of carbon dioxide}, journal = {Climatic Change}, volume = {90}, year = {2008}, pages = {189-215}, doi = {10.1007/s10584-008-9458-1}, url = {/files/tkg/files/92.morgan.improvingscenarios.e.pdf}, author = {M. Granger Morgan and David Keith} } @article { 98, title = {Regulating the Geological Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide}, journal = {Environmental Science \& Technology}, volume = {42}, year = {2008}, pages = {2718{\textendash}2722}, url = {/files/tkg/files/98.wilson.regulatinggeoseq.e.pdf}, author = {Elizabeth Wilson and M. Granger Morgan and Jay Apt and Mark Bonner and Christopher Bunting and M. A. D. Figueiredo and Jenny Gode and Carlo Jaeger and David Keith and Sean McCoy and R. Stuart Haszeldine and Melisa Pollak and David Reiner and Edward Rubin and Asbjorn Torvanger and Christina Ulardic and Shalini Vajjhala and David Victor and Iain Wright} } @article { 93, title = {Reservoir Engineering To Accelerate the Dissolution of CO2 Stored in Aquifers}, journal = {Environmental Science \& Technology}, volume = {42}, year = {2008}, pages = {2742-2747}, url = {/files/tkg/files/93.leonenko.accelerated.disolution.e.pdf}, author = {Yuri Leonenko and David Keith} } @article { 78, title = {Carbon Capture Retrofits and the Cost of Regulatory Uncertainty}, journal = {Energy Journal}, volume = {28}, year = {2007}, pages = {101-127}, url = {/files/tkg/files/78.reinelt.powergenerationuncertiangascarbon.s.pdf}, author = {Peter Reinelt and David Keith} } @article { 83, title = {Carbon-cycle feedbacks increase the likelihood of a warmer future}, journal = {Geophysical Research Letters}, volume = {34}, year = {2007}, doi = {10.1029/2006GL028685}, url = {/files/tkg/files/83.matthews.carbonfeedback.f.pdf}, author = {H. Damon Matthews and David Keith} } @article { 79, title = {Expert judgements on the response of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation to climate change}, journal = {Climatic Change}, volume = {82}, year = {2007}, pages = {235-265}, doi = {10.1007/s10584-007-9246-3}, url = {/files/tkg/files/79.zickfeld.2007.oceanoverturningexpertjudgment.e.pdf}, author = {Kristen Zickfeld and Anders Levermann and David Keith and Till Kuhlbrodt and M. Granger Morgan and Stefan Rahmstorf} } @article { 108, title = {Global-Change Scenarios: Their Development and Use}, journal = {U.S. Climate Change Science Program}, year = {2007}, url = {http://www.globalchange.gov/browse/reports/sap-21b-global-change-scenarios-their-development-and-use}, author = {Virginia Burkett and Karen Fisher-Vanden and David Keith and Linda Mearns and Edward Parson and Hugh Pitcher and Cynthia Rosenzweig and Mort Webster} } @article { 106, title = {Lighting the way: Toward a sustainable energy future}, journal = {InterAcademy Council}, year = {2007}, url = {http://www.interacademycouncil.net/File.aspx?id=24548}, author = {Shem Arungu Olende and Steven Chu and Ged Davis and Mohamed El-Ashry and Jose Goldemberg and Thomas Johansson and David Keith and LI Jinghai and Nebosja Nakicenovic and R.K. Pachauri and Majid Shafie-Pour and Evald Shpilrain and Robert Socolow and Kenji Yamaji and Luguang Yan} } @article { 91, title = {Ocean storage of carbon dioxide: pipelines, risers and seabed containment}, journal = {The 26th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering}, year = {2007}, url = {/files/tkg/files/91.palmer.2007.seabedengineeredstorage.e.pdf}, author = {Andrew Palmer and David Keith and Richard Doctor} } @article { 81, title = {Predicting PVT data for CO2{\textendash}brine mixtures for black-oil simulation of CO2 geological storage}, journal = {International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control}, volume = {2}, year = {2007}, pages = {65-77}, url = {/files/tkg/files/81.hassanzadeh.pvtco2blackoil.e.pdf}, author = {Hassan Hassanzadeh and Mehran Pooladi-Darvish and Adel Elsharkawy and David Keith and Yuri Leonenko} } @article { 88, title = {Promoting Low-Carbon Electricity Production}, journal = {Issues in Science and Technology}, volume = {3}, year = {2007}, pages = {37-43}, url = {/files/tkg/files/88.apt_.lowcarbonist.s.pdf}, author = {Jay Apt and David Keith and M. Granger Morgan} } @article { 99, title = {Prospective Evaluation of Applied Energy Research and Development at DOE (Phase Two), Report of the Panel on DOE{\textquoteright}s Carbon Sequestration Program}, journal = {United States National Research Council, Washington, DC: Board on Energy and Environmental Systems}, year = {2007}, url = {/files/tkg/files/99.nrc_.2007.doecarbonseqpgm.e.pdf}, author = {Lester Lave and Charles Christopher and George Hidy and W. S. Winston Ho and David Keith and Larry Lake and Michael Pilson and Jeffrey Siirola and James Smith and Robert Socolow and John Wootten} } @article { 90, title = {Scaling Behavior of Convective Mixing, with Application to Geological Storage of CO2}, journal = {American Institute of Chemical Engineers Journal}, volume = {53}, year = {2007}, pages = {1121-1131}, url = {/files/tkg/files/90.hassanzadeh.2007.scalingconvectivemixing.e.pdf}, author = {Hassan Hassanzadeh and Mehran Pooladi-Darvish and David Keith} } @article { 65, title = {The Economics of Large Scale Wind Power in a Carbon Constrained World}, journal = {Energy Policy}, volume = {34}, year = {2006}, pages = {395-410}, doi = {10.1016/j.enpol.2004.06.007}, url = {/files/tkg/files/65.decarolis.2006.economicsofwind.e.pdf}, author = {Joseph DeCarolis and David Keith} } @article { 77, title = {Elicitation of expert judgments of aerosol forcing}, journal = {Climatic Change}, volume = {75}, year = {2006}, pages = {195-214}, doi = {10.1007/s10584-005-9025-y}, url = {/files/tkg/files/77.morgan.aerosolelicitation.e.pdf}, author = {M. Granger Morgan and Peter Adams and David Keith} } @article { 76, title = {Evaluation of Potential Cost Reductions from Improved Amine-based CO2 Capture Systems}, journal = {Energy Policy}, volume = {34}, year = {2006}, pages = {3765-3772}, doi = {10.1016/j.enpol.2005.08.004}, url = {/files/tkg/files/76.rao_.costreductoinsamineco2capture.e.pdf}, author = {Anand Rao and Edward Rubin and David Keith and M. Granger Morgan} } @article { 105, title = {Powerful Connections: Priorities and Directions in Energy Science and Technology in Canada}, journal = {Natural Resources Canada}, year = {2006}, url = {http://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/200/301/nrcan-rncan/oee-oee/powerful_connections-e/M4-40-2006E.pdf}, author = {Angus Bruneau and Denis Connor and John Fox and Daniel Kammen and David Keith and Patrick Lamarre and Jacques Martel and Ken McCready and Patrice Best and Laurier Schramm} } @article { 80, title = {Stability of a Fluid in a Horizontal Saturated Porous Layer: Effect of Non linear Concentration Profile, Initial, and Boundary Conditions}, journal = {Transport in Porous Media}, volume = {65}, year = {2006}, pages = {193-211}, doi = {10.1007/s11242-005-6088-1}, url = {/files/tkg/files/80.hassanzadeh.2006.stabilityinitalandbc.e.pdf}, author = {H. Hassanzadeh and M. Pooladi-Darvish and David Keith} } @article { 51, title = {Climate strategy with CO2 capture from the air}, journal = {Climatic Change}, volume = {74}, year = {2005}, pages = {17-45}, doi = {10.1007/s10584-005-9026-x}, url = {/files/tkg/files/51.keith_.2005.climatestratwithaircapture.e.pdf}, author = {David Keith and Minh Ha-Duong and Joshuah Stolaroff} } @article { 72, title = {The Costs of Wind{\textquoteright}s Variability: Is There a Threshold?}, journal = {The Electricity Journal}, volume = {18}, year = {2005}, pages = {69-77}, doi = {/10.1016/j.tej.2004.12.006}, url = {/files/tkg/files/72.decarolis.2005.threshold.e.pdf}, author = {Joseph DeCarolis and David Keith} } @article { 67, title = {Engineering-economic analysis of biomass IGCC with carbon capture and storage}, journal = {Biomass \& Bioenergy}, volume = {29}, year = {2005}, pages = {440-450}, doi = {10.1016/j.biombioe.2005.06.007}, url = {/files/tkg/files/67.rhodes.2005.biomassccs.e.pdf}, author = {James Rhodes and David Keith} } @article { 107, title = {IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage}, journal = {Cambridge University Press}, year = {2005}, url = {http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_wholereport.pdf}, author = {Juan Carlos Abanades and Makoto Akai and Sally Benson and Ken Caldeira and Peter Cook and Ogunlade Davidson and Richard Doctor and James Dooley and Paul Freund and John Gale and Wolfgang Heidug and Howard Herzog and David Keith and Marco Mazzotti and Bert Metz and Balgis Osman-Elasha and Andrew Palmer and Riitta Pipatti and Koen Smekens and Mohammed Soltanieh and Kelly Thambimuthu and Bob van der Zwaan} } @article { 70, title = {Modelling of Convective Mixing in CO2 Storage}, journal = {Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology}, volume = {44}, year = {2005}, pages = {42-52}, url = {/files/tkg/files/70.hassanzadeh.2005.convectivemixing.e.pdf}, author = {H. Hassanzadeh and M. Pooladi-Darvish and David Keith} } @article { 74, title = {Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies}, journal = {Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies. Volume 1: Peer-Reviewed Papers and Plenary Presentations}, year = {2005}, author = {E. S. Rubin and David Keith and C. F. Gilboy} } @article { 73, title = {Regulating the Underground Injection of Carbon Dioxide}, journal = {Environmental Science and Technology}, volume = {39}, year = {2005}, pages = {499A-505A}, url = {/files/tkg/files/73.keith_.estregulatingccs.e.pdf}, author = {David Keith and Julie Giardina and M. Granger Morgan and Elizabeth Wilson} } @article { 68, title = {Using CaO- and MgO-rich Industrial Waste Streams for Carbon Sequestration}, journal = {Energy Conversion and Management}, volume = {46}, year = {2005}, pages = {687-699}, doi = {10.1016/j.enconman.2004.05.009}, url = {/files/tkg/files/68.stolaroff.2005.caoandmgowaststreams.e.pdf}, author = {Joshuah Stolaroff and Gregory Lowry and David Keith} } @article { 49, title = {Fossil Electricity and CO2 Sequestration: How Natural Gas Prices, Initial Conditions and Retrofits Determine the Cost of Controlling CO2 Emissions}, journal = {Energy Policy}, volume = {32}, year = {2004}, pages = {367-382}, doi = {10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00298-7}, url = {/files/tkg/files/49.johnson.2004.fossilelectricitywithoutco2.e.pdf}, author = {Timothy Johnson and David Keith} } @article { 66, title = {The influence of large-scale wind-power on global climate}, journal = {Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences}, volume = {101}, year = {2004}, pages = {16115-16120}, url = {/files/tkg/files/66.keith_.2004.windandclimate.e.pdf}, author = {David Keith and Joseph DeCarolis and David Denkenberger and Donald Lenschow and Sergey Malyshev and Stephen Pacala and Philip Rasch} } @article { 69, title = {Initial Public Perceptions of Deep Geological and Oceanic Disposal of Carbon Dioxide}, journal = {Environmental Science and Technology}, volume = {38}, year = {2004}, pages = {6441-6450}, doi = {10.1021/es040400c}, url = {/files/tkg/files/69.palmgren.2004.perceptionsofccs.e.pdf}, author = {Claire Palmgren and M. Granger Morgan and Wandi Bruine de Bruin and David Keith} } @article {1130137, title = {Biomass Energy with Geological Sequestration of CO2: Two for the Price of One?}, journal = {Proceedings of the 6th International Greenhouse Gas Control Conference, Kyoto, Japan.}, year = {2003}, author = {James S. Rhodes and David W. Keith} } @article { 64, title = {Assessment of Potential Carbon Dioxide Reductions due to Biomass-Coal Cofiring in the United States}, journal = {Environmental Science and Technology}, volume = {37}, year = {2003}, pages = {5081-5089}, doi = {10.1021/es034367q}, url = {/files/tkg/files/64.robinson.2003.biomasscofire.e.pdf}, author = {A. L. Robinson and J. S. Rhodes and David Keith} } @article { 62, title = {Carbon storage: the economic efficiency of storing CO2 in leaky reservoirs}, journal = {Clean Technology and Environmental Policy}, volume = {5}, year = {2003}, pages = {181-189}, doi = {10.1007/s10098-003-0213-z}, url = {/files/tkg/files/62.hadoung.2003.leakycarbonstorage.e.pdf}, author = {Minh Ha-Duong and David Keith} } @article { 54, title = {Regulating the Ultimate Sink: Managing the risks of geologic CO2 sequestration}, journal = {Environmental Science and Technology}, volume = {37}, year = {2003}, pages = {3476-3483}, doi = {10.1021/es021038}, url = {/files/tkg/files/54.wilson.2003.regulatingtheultimatesink.e.pdf}, author = {Elizabeth Wilson and Timothy Johnson and David Keith} } @article { 63, title = {Rethinking Hydrogen Cars}, journal = {Science}, volume = {301}, year = {2003}, pages = {315-316}, url = {/files/tkg/files/63.keith_.2003.hydrogencars.e.pdf}, author = {David Keith and Alexander Farrell} } @article { 48, title = {A strategy for introducing hydrogen into transportation}, journal = {Energy Policy}, volume = {31}, year = {2003}, pages = {1357-1367}, url = {/files/tkg/files/48.farrell.2003.astrategyforhydrogen.e.pdf}, author = {Alexander Farrell and David Keith and James Corbett} } @article {1130139, title = {Is the Answer to Climate Change Mitigation Blowing in the Wind?}, journal = {Proceedings of the 1st International Doctoral Consortium on Technology, Policy, and Management, Delft, The Netherlands.}, year = {2002}, author = {J. F. DeCarolis and David Keith} } @article { 47, title = {Bury, burn or both: A two-for-one deal on biomass carbon and energy}, journal = {Climatic Change}, volume = {54}, year = {2002}, pages = {375-377}, url = {/files/tkg/files/47.keith_.2002.buryburnorboth.e.pdf}, author = {David Keith and James Rhodes} } @article { 61, title = {Developing Recommendations for the Management of Geologic Storage of CO2 in Canada}, journal = {University of Regina}, year = {2002}, url = {/files/tkg/files/61.keith_.2002.canadianco2protocol.e.pdf}, author = {David Keith and Malcolm Wilson} } @article { 44, title = {Geoengineering}, journal = {A. S. Goudie Encyclopedia of Global Change, New York, NY: Oxford University Press}, year = {2002}, url = {/files/tkg/files/44.keith_.2002.geoengoxfordency.f.pdf}, author = {David Keith} } @article { 50, title = {Geoengineering - die technologische Gestaltung des Planeten Erde}, journal = {Erde. W. Hauser Klima. Das Experiment mit dem Planeten Erde}, year = {2002}, url = {/files/tkg/files/50.keith_.2002.deutschemuseum.s.pdf}, author = {David Keith} } @article { 45, title = {Geoengineering the Climate: History and Prospect}, journal = {R. G. Watts Innovative Energy Strategies for CO2 Stabilization and Cambridge and UK: Cambridge University Press}, year = {2002}, author = {David Keith} } @article { 46, title = {Towards a Strategy for Implementing CO2 Capture and Storage in Canada}, journal = {Prepared by David Keith, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for the Oil, Gas and Energy Branch, Environment Canada, Ottawa, Ontario}, year = {2002}, url = {/files/tkg/files/46.keith_.2002.strategyforccsincanada.e.pdf}, author = {David Keith} } @article { 34, title = {Accurate Spectrally Resolved Infrared Radiance Observation from Space: Implications for the Detection of Decade-to-Century-Scale Climatic Change}, journal = {Journal of Climate}, volume = {14}, year = {2001}, pages = {979-990}, url = {/files/tkg/files/34.keith_.2001.accurateradianceobsfromspace.e.pdf}, author = {David Keith and James Anderson} } @article { 38, title = {An Airborne Interferometer for Atmospheric Emission and Solar Absorption}, journal = {Applied Optics}, volume = {40}, year = {2001}, pages = {5463-5473}, url = {/files/tkg/files/38.keith_.2001.anairborneinterferometer.e.pdf}, author = {David Keith and John Dykema and Haijun Hu and Larry Lapson and James Anderson} } @article { 115, title = {Carbon Management: Implications for R\&D in the Chemical Sciences and Technology: A Workshop Report to the Chemical Sciences Roundtable}, journal = {National Academies Press (US)}, year = {2001}, doi = {10.17226/10153}, url = {http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44141/}, author = {J. A. Edmonds and J. F. Clarke and J. J. Dooley and D. C. Thomas and B. P. Flannery and J. C. Stringer and C. Creutz and E. Fujita and J. A. Spearot and J. Turner and David Keith and L. E. Manzer and H. H. Kung and P. R. Gruber and J. W. Frost and K. M. Draths and D. R. Knop and M. K. Harrup and J. L. Barker and W. Niu} } @article { 33, title = {Electricity from Fossil Fuels Without CO2 Emissions: Assessing the Costs of Carbon Dioxide Capture and Sequestration in US Electricity Markets}, journal = {Journal of the Air \& Waste Management Association}, volume = {51}, year = {2001}, pages = {1452-1459}, author = {T. L. Johnson and David Keith} } @article { 37, title = {Geoengineering}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {409}, year = {2001}, pages = {420}, url = {/files/tkg/files/37.keith_.2001.geoengineering.e.pdf}, author = {David Keith} } @article { 41, title = {Geoengineering and carbon management: Is there a meaningful distinction?}, journal = {GD. Williams, B. Durie, P. McMullan, C. Paulson and A. Smith Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference, Collingwood, Australia: CSIRO Publishing}, year = {2001}, url = {/files/tkg/files/41.keith_.2001.geogineeeringandcarbonmanagment.f.pdf}, author = {David Keith} } @article { 32, title = {Hydrogen as a transportation fuel}, journal = {Environment}, volume = {43}, year = {2001}, pages = {43-45}, url = {/files/tkg/files/32_farrell_etal_2001_hydrogentransfuel.e.pdf}, author = {Alex Farrell and David Keith} } @article { 39, title = {Industrial Carbon Management: A Review of the Technology and its Implications for Climate Policy}, journal = {J. Katzenberger Elements of Change 2001, Aspen CO: Aspen Global Change Institute}, year = {2001}, url = {/files/tkg/files/39.keith_.2001.carbonmanagementareview.e.pdf}, author = {David Keith and M. Granger Morgan} } @article { 31, title = {The Real Cost of Wind Energy}, journal = {Science}, volume = {294}, year = {2001}, pages = {1000-1002}, url = {/files/tkg/files/31.decarolis.2001.realcostofwind.e.pdf}, author = {Joseph DeCarolis and David Keith} } @article { 43, title = {Regulating Transportation Emissions}, journal = {S. Farrow Rx for Regulation, Pittsburgh: Center for the Study \& Improvement of Regulation, Carnegie Mellon University}, year = {2001}, url = {/files/tkg/files/43.keith_.2001.regulatingtransport.s.pdf}, author = {David Keith and Alex Farrell} } @article { 36, title = {Sinks, Energy Crops, and Land Use: Coherent Climate Policy Demands an Integrated Analysis of Biomass}, journal = {Climatic Change}, volume = {49}, year = {2001}, pages = {1-10}, url = {/files/tkg/files/36.keith_.2001.sinksenergycropsandlanduse.e.pdf}, author = {David Keith} } @article { 60, title = {Who is Richard Feynman and why are they writing a play about him?}, journal = {Performance Today}, year = {2001}, url = {/files/tkg/files/60.keith_.2001.feynman.f.pdf}, author = {David Keith and Susan Poole} } @article { 25, title = {A Breakthrough in Climate Change Policy?}, journal = {Scientific American}, year = {2000}, pages = {78-79}, url = {/files/tkg/files/25.keith_.2000.breakthroughclimatechange.x.pdf}, author = {David Keith and Edward Parson} } @article { 28, title = {The Earth is Not Yet an Artifact}, journal = {IEEE Technology and Society Magazine}, volume = {19}, year = {2000}, pages = {25-28}, url = {/files/tkg/files/28.keith_.2000.earthnotanartifiact.e.pdf}, author = {David Keith} } @article { 26, title = {Geoengineering the Climate: History and Prospect}, journal = {Annual Review of Energy and the Environment}, volume = {25}, year = {2000}, pages = {245-284}, url = {/files/tkg/files/26.keith_.2000.geoengineeringhistoryandprospect.e.pdf}, author = {David Keith} } @article { 24, title = {Intercomparison of atmospheric radiance measurements by two fourier transform spectrometers flown on the NASA ER-2}, journal = {IRS2000: Current Problems in Atmospheric Radiation}, year = {2000}, author = {Haijun Hu and John Dykema and David Keith and Larry Lapson and James Anderson and Robert Knuteson and William Smith} } @article { 27, title = {Stratosphere-troposphere exchange: Inferences from the isotopic composition of water vapor}, journal = {Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres}, volume = {105}, year = {2000}, pages = {15167-15174}, doi = {10.1029/2000JD900130}, url = {/files/tkg/files/27.keith_.2000.strattrophisotopes.e.pdf}, author = {David Keith} } @article {1130149, title = {Towards true zero-emission vehicles in a single step: air pollution and greenhouse gas reductions through hydrogen fueled ships with carbon management}, journal = {OCEANS 2000 MTS/IEEE Conference and Exhibition}, year = {2000}, author = {J. J. Corbett and D. W. Keith and A. Farrell} } @article { 21, title = {The effect of climate change on ozone depletion through changes in stratospheric water vapor}, journal = {Nature}, volume = {402}, year = {1999}, pages = {399-401}, url = {/files/tkg/files/21.kirk-davidoff.1999.ozonedepletionstratosphericwater.e.pdf}, author = {Daniel Kirk-Davidoff and Eric Hintsa and James Anderson and David Keith} } @article { 19, title = {Validation of Radiative Transfer for Atmospheric Temperature Sensing}, journal = {10th conference on atmospheric radiation, Madison, WI}, year = {1999}, url = {/files/tkg/files/19.hu_.1999.validationofradiativetransfer.f.pdf}, author = {Haijun Hu and L. Larrabee Strow and David Keith and James Anderson} } @article { 17, title = {Fossil fuels without CO2 emissions}, journal = {Science}, volume = {282}, year = {1998}, pages = {1053-1054}, url = {/files/tkg/files/17.parson.1998.fossilfuelswithoutco2.f.pdf}, author = {E. A. Parson and David Keith} } @article { 16, title = {Geoengineering Climate}, journal = {S. J. Hassol and J. Katzenberger Elements of Change 1998, Aspen Colorado: Aspen Global Change Institute}, year = {1998}, url = {/files/tkg/files/16_keith_1998_geoengclimate_s.pdf}, author = {David Keith} } @article { 15, title = {Energetics}, journal = {S. H. Schneider Encyclopedia of Climate and Weather, New York, NY: Oxford University Press}, year = {1996}, url = {/files/tkg/files/15.keith_.1996.energetics.s.pdf}, author = {David Keith} } @article { 14, title = {When is it appropriate to combine expert judgments?}, journal = {Climatic Change}, volume = {33}, year = {1996}, pages = {139-143}, url = {/files/tkg/files/14.keith_.1996.whentocombineexpertjudgments.f.pdf}, author = {David Keith} } @article { 12, title = {Meridional Energy Transport - Uncertainty in Zonal Means}, journal = {Tellus}, volume = {47}, year = {1995}, pages = {30-44}, url = {/files/tkg/files/12.keith_.1995.meridionalenergytransport.e.pdf}, author = {David Keith} } @article { 13, title = {Subjective Judgments By Climate Experts}, journal = {Environmental Science \& Technology}, volume = {29}, year = {1995}, pages = {A468-A476}, url = {/files/tkg/files/13.morgan.1995.subjectivejudgmentsbyclimate_experts.s.pdf}, author = {M. Granger Morgan and David Keith} } @article { 11, title = {Eliciting Expert Judgment about Uncertainty in Climate Prediction}, journal = {Elements of Change 1994}, year = {1994}, pages = {164-165}, author = {David Keith} } @article { 8, title = {Atom Optics Using Microfabricated Structures}, journal = {Applied Physics B}, volume = {54}, year = {1992}, pages = {369-374}, url = {/files/tkg/files/08_ekstrom_etal_1992_atomoptics_s.pdf}, author = {C. R. Ekstrom and David Keith and D. E. Pritchard} } @article { 10, title = {Numerical model of a multiple-grating interferometer}, journal = {Journal of the Optical Society of America A}, volume = {9}, year = {1992}, pages = {1601}, doi = {0740-3232/92/091601-06}, url = {/files/tkg/files/10_quentin_etal_1992_multgratinginterf_s.pdf}, author = {Quentin Turchette and David Pritchard and David Keith} } @article { 9, title = {A Serious Look at Geoengineering}, journal = {Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union}, volume = {73}, year = {1992}, pages = {289-293}, url = {/files/tkg/files/09_keith_1992_seriouslookatgeoeng_s.pdf}, author = {David Keith and Hadi Dowlatabadi} } @article { 6, title = {Free-standing gratings and lenses for atom optics}, journal = {Journal of Vacuum Science and Technology B}, volume = {9}, year = {1991}, pages = {2846-2850}, author = {David Keith and Robert Soave and M. J. Rooks} } @article { 7, title = {An Interferometer For Atoms}, journal = {Physical Review Letters}, volume = {66}, year = {1991}, pages = {2693-2696}, url = {/files/tkg/files/07.keith_.1991.aninterferometerforatoms.s.pdf}, author = {David Keith and Christopher Ekstrom and Quentin Turchette and David Pritchard} } @article {888676, title = {An Interferometer for atoms}, journal = {Thesis, Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology}, year = {1991}, url = {/files/tkg/files/00.keith_.1991.aninterferometerforatomsthesis.x.pdf}, author = {David Keith} } @article { 5, title = {Atom Optics}, journal = {New Frontiers in Quantum Electrodynamics and Quantum Optics, A. O. Barut Ed, Plenum Press, New York}, year = {1990}, pages = {467-475}, url = {/files/tkg/files/05.keith_.1990.atom_.optics.f.pdf}, author = {David Keith and David Pritchard} } @article { 4, title = {Diffraction of atoms by a transmission grating}, journal = {Physical Review Letters}, volume = {61}, year = {1988}, pages = {1580}, url = {/files/tkg/files/04_keith_etal_1988_diffraction_ofatoms_s.pdf}, author = {David Keith and M. L. Schattenberg and Henry Smith and D. E. Pritchard} } @article { 3, title = {The application of visual observations to the study of a small-amplitude variable star: rho Cassiopeiae}, journal = {Journal of the American Association of Variable Star Observers}, volume = {14}, year = {1985}, pages = {1-7}, author = {John Percy and Virginia Fabro and David Keith} } @article { 2, title = {Controlled Switching of 10mm Radiation Using Semiconductor Etalons}, journal = {Journal of the Optical Society of America B}, volume = {2}, year = {1985}, pages = {1873-1879}, url = {/files/tkg/files/02_corkum_etal_1985_10mmradiation_s.pdf}, author = {P. Corkum and David Keith} } @article { 1, title = {The Quasi-Cepheid Nature of Rho-Cassiopeiae}, journal = {Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada}, volume = {78}, year = {1984}, pages = {206}, author = {John Percy and David Keith} }