Brief communication: Understanding solar  geoengineering's potential to limit sea level  rise requires attention from cryosphere experts

Irvine, Peter J.; Keith, David W.; Moore, John

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-2501-2018

Articles | Volume 12, issue 7

https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-2501-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-2501-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 12, issue 7

Brief communication

|

27 Jul 2018

Brief communication |

| 27 Jul 2018

Brief communication: Understanding solar geoengineering's potential to limit sea level rise requires attention from cryosphere experts

Peter J. Irvine, David W. Keith, and John Moore

Download

Final revised paper (published on 27 Jul 2018)
Preprint (discussion started on 26 Jan 2018)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'tough fit with the Brief Communication format?', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Feb 2018
- AC1: 'Response to Reviewer 1', Peter Irvine, 12 Jun 2018
RC2: 'Review Irvine et al.', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Feb 2018
- AC2: 'Response to Reviewer 2', Peter Irvine, 12 Jun 2018

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Peter Irvine on behalf of the Authors (12 Jun 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (22 Jun 2018) by Xavier Fettweis

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (22 Jun 2018)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (03 Jul 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Clearly, much work has been invested in this manuscript since its initial submission. In this regard, the GeoMIP simulations presented in section 3.2 are refreshingly novel and quantitative.

At this point, my primary reservation is that the authors seem to have rebutted the majority of R1 comments outside the main manuscript. It is not rebuttals themselves, but rather that this relevant content is not available to readers whom might have similar questions. For example, while I am pleased to see Ohmura2001 appear in the manuscript, what about contextualizing 4 W/m2 against characteristic surface energy budget terms? Or what about explicitly saying these per Tg SO4 cost estimates are different than those of Robuck et al. 2009? Why not mention that you are aware of differences in aerosol injection (and cloud) heights and properties between mid latitude and Arctic? These insights provide little service to the general readership when tucked away in the rebuttal letter.

My secondary reservation remains fit with journal, or at least article format. The authors have responded to this saying the article "was someway between a commentary and a technical review." In terms of format, I do not see Brief Communications as a venue for review of any type. By avoiding a full length TC article, the authors skirt a greater onus on thoroughness and detail. But clearly the editorship has invited a revision within this format. In terms of journal fit, I think the stated sentiment that "novelty is not the central goal" really runs counter to The Cryosphere ambition. The inherent challenge of inter-disciplinary publications is to be simultaneously relevant and up-to-date with multiple communities. In this I can see that the authors have chosen no small task.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (06 Jul 2018) by Xavier Fettweis

AR by Peter Irvine on behalf of the Authors (09 Jul 2018) Author's response

ED: Publish as is (11 Jul 2018) by Xavier Fettweis

Short summary

Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering, a form of solar geoengineering, is a proposal to add a reflective layer of aerosol to the upper atmosphere. This would reduce sea level rise by slowing the melting of ice on land and the thermal expansion of the oceans. However, there is considerable uncertainty about its potential efficacy. This article highlights key uncertainties in the sea level response to solar geoengineering and recommends approaches to address these in future work.