Search

Making informed future decisions about solar radiation modification (SRM; also known as solar geoengineering)-approaches such as stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) that would cool the climate by reflecting sunlight-requires projections of the climate response and associated human and ecosystem impacts. These projections, in turn, will rely on simulations with global climate models. As with climate-change projections, these simulations need to adequately span a range of possible futures, describing different choices, such as start date and temperature target, as well as risks, such as termination or interruptions. SRM modeling simulations to date typically consider only a single scenario, often with some unrealistic or arbitrarily chosen elements (such as starting deployment in 2020), and have often been chosen based on scientific rather than policy-relevant considerations (e.g., choosing quite substantial cooling specifically to achieve a bigger response). This limits the ability to compare risks both between SRM and non-SRM scenarios and between different SRM scenarios. To address this gap, we begin by outlining some general considerations on scenario design for SRM. We then describe a specific set of scenarios to capture a range of possible policy choices and uncertainties and present corresponding SAI simulations intended for broad community use.

Solar geoengineering, also called sunlight reflection or solar radiation modification (SRM), is a potential climate response that would cool the Earth's surface and reduce many other climate changes by scattering on order 1% of incoming sunlight back to space. SRM can only imperfectly correct for elevated greenhouse gases, but it might complement other climate responses to reduce risks, while also bringing new risks and new challenges to global governance. As climate alarm and calls for effective near-term action mount, SRM is attracting sharply increased attention and controversy, with many calls for expanded research and governance consultations along with ongoing concerns about risks, misuse, or overreliance. We review SRM's history, methods, potential uses and impacts, and governance needs, prioritizing the approach that is most prominent and promising, stratospheric aerosol injection. We identify several policy-relevant characteristics of SRM interventions and identify four narratives that capture current arguments over how SRM might be developed or used in sociopolitical context to either beneficial or destructive effect, with implications for near-term research, assessment, and governance activity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, some scientists have called for research into and potential development of 'solar geoengineering' technologies as an option to counter global warming. Solar geoengineering refers to a set of speculative techniques to reflect some incoming sunlight back into space, for example, by continuously spraying reflective sulphur aerosols into the stratosphere over several generations. Because of the significant ecological, social, and political risks posed by such technologies, many scholars and civil society organizations have urged governments to take action to prohibit the development and deployment of solar geoengineering techniques. In this article we take such calls for a prohibitory or a non-use regime on solar geoengineering as a starting point to examine existing international law and governance precedents that could guide the development of such a regime. The precedents we examine include international prohibitory and restrictive regimes that impose bans or restrictions on chemical weapons, biological weapons, weather modification technologies, anti-personnel landmines, substances that deplete the ozone layer, trade in hazardous wastes, deep seabed mining, and mining in Antarctica. We also assess emerging norms and soft law in anticipatory governance of novel technologies, such as human cloning and gene editing. While there is no blueprint for a solar geoengineering non-use regime in international law, our analysis points to numerous specific elements on which governments could draw to constrain or impose an outright prohibition on the development of technologies for solar geoengineering, should they opt to do so. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) has been proposed as a potential supplement to mitigate some climate impacts of anthropogenic warming. Using Community Earth System Model ensemble simulation results, we analyze the response of temperature and precipitation extremes to two different SAI strategies: one injects SO2 at the equator to stabilize global mean temperature and the other injects SO2 at multiple locations to stabilize global mean temperature as well as the interhemispheric and equator‐to‐pole temperature gradients. Our analysis shows that in the late 21st century, compared with the present‐day climate, both equatorial and multi‐location injection lead to reduced hot extremes in the tropics, corresponding to overcooling of the mean climate state. In mid‐to‐high latitude regions, in comparison to the present‐day climate, substantial decreases in cold extremes are observed under both equatorial and multi‐location injection, corresponding to residual winter warming of the mean climate state. Both equatorial and multi‐location injection reduce precipitation extremes in the tropics below the present‐day level, associated with the decrease in mean precipitation. Overall, for most regions, temperature and precipitation extremes show reduced change in response to multi‐location injection than to equatorial injection, corresponding to reduced mean climate change for multi‐location injection. In comparison with equatorial injection, in response to multi‐location injection, most land regions experience fewer years with significant change in cold extremes from the present‐day level, and most tropical regions experience fewer years with significant change in hot extremes. The design of SAI strategies to mitigate anthropogenic climate extremes merits further study. Plain Language Summary: Injecting SO2 into the stratosphere to deflect incoming sunlight back to space has been proposed as a possible means to counteract anthropogenic warming. Previous studies focused on the response of the mean climate change to SO2 injection. Here we analyze how SO2 injection would affect climate extremes using two sets of climate model simulations under a high‐CO2 scenario. In one set of simulations, SO2 is injected into the stratosphere at the equator to stabilize global mean warming at the present‐day level; in another set of simulations, SO2 is injected into the stratosphere at four different latitudes to stabilize global mean temperature, interhemispheric temperature gradient, and equator‐to‐pole temperature gradient at the same time. Our analysis shows that both equatorial injection and multi‐location injection can help reduce temperature and precipitation extreme events induced by global warming, but their effectiveness varies across different regions. In general, compared to equatorial injection, multi‐location injection can be more effective in stabilizing climate extremes at the present‐day level over most regions. This is consistent with the fact that multi‐location injection exhibits smaller changes in mean climate state than that of the equatorial injection relative to the present‐day state. Key Points: We examine the climate extreme response to two stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) strategies: equatorial injection and multi‐location injectionThe response of climate extremes to SAI shows similar characteristics to mean climate responseMulti‐location injection is more effective in stabilizing climate extremes at the present‐day level [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) has been proposed as a potential supplement to mitigate some climate impacts of anthropogenic warming. Using Community Earth System Model ensemble simulation results, we analyze the response of temperature and precipitation extremes to two different SAI strategies: one injects SO2 at the equator to stabilize global mean temperature and the other injects SO2 at multiple locations to stabilize global mean temperature as well as the interhemispheric and equator‐to‐pole temperature gradients. Our analysis shows that in the late 21st century, compared with the present‐day climate, both equatorial and multi‐location injection lead to reduced hot extremes in the tropics, corresponding to overcooling of the mean climate state. In mid‐to‐high latitude regions, in comparison to the present‐day climate, substantial decreases in cold extremes are observed under both equatorial and multi‐location injection, corresponding to residual winter warming of the mean climate state. Both equatorial and multi‐location injection reduce precipitation extremes in the tropics below the present‐day level, associated with the decrease in mean precipitation. Overall, for most regions, temperature and precipitation extremes show reduced change in response to multi‐location injection than to equatorial injection, corresponding to reduced mean climate change for multi‐location injection. In comparison with equatorial injection, in response to multi‐location injection, most land regions experience fewer years with significant change in cold extremes from the present‐day level, and most tropical regions experience fewer years with significant change in hot extremes. The design of SAI strategies to mitigate anthropogenic climate extremes merits further study.

The illustrative development pathways developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for the Synthesis Report of its Sixth Assessment Report (AR6 (1)) consider mainly different levels of mitigation and adaptation. This article expands the range of development pathways. One assumption is the crossing of tipping points of the climate system with positive feedback. A second assumption is the deployment of solar radiation modification triggered by significantly increase of loss and damage. A prerequisite for such deployment is additional scientific knowledge to inform decisions at the policy level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As disruptions from climate change increase, so will the urgency to find shorter-term approaches to ameliorating its harms. This may include calls to implement solar geoengineering, an approach to cooling the planet by reflecting incoming sunlight back to space. While the exact effects of solar geoengineering are still highly uncertain, physical science to date suggests that it may be effective at reducing many aspects of climate change in the short term. One of the biggest concerns about solar geoengineering is the extent to which it may interfere with crucial emissions reductions policies, i.e. mitigation. There are multiple channels by which geoengineering could alter mitigation pathways, both financial and behavioural. Here we define three such linkages and present the evidence available to constrain their potential magnitudes. Because solar geoengineering is not a substitute for mitigation, policies to develop or implement technologies that could be used to carry it out should be designed to accentuate its complementary nature to mitigation and deter the possibility it is used to delay decarbonizing the economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Solar geoengineering refers to proposals, including stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), to slow or reverse climate change by reflecting away incoming sunlight. The rapid changes ongoing in the Arctic and Antarctic, and the risk of exceeding tipping points in the cryosphere within decades, make limiting such changes a plausible objective of solar geoengineering. Here, we review the impacts of SAI on polar climate and cryosphere, including the dependence of these impacts on the latitude(s) of injection, and make recommendations for future research directions. SAI would cool the polar regions and reduce many changes in polar climate under future warming scenarios. Some under‐cooling of the polar regions relative to the global mean is expected under SAI without high latitude injection, due to latitudinal variation in insolation and CO2 forcing, the forcing dependence of the polar lapse rate feedback, and altered atmospheric dynamics. There are also potential limitations in the effectiveness of SAI to arrest changes in winter‐time polar climate and to prevent sea‐level rise from the Antarctic ice sheet. Finally, we also review the prospects for three other solar geoengineering proposals targeting the poles: marine cloud brightening, cirrus cloud thinning, and sea‐ice albedo modification. Sea‐ice albedo modification appears unlikely to be viable on pan‐Arctic or Antarctic scales. Whether marine cloud brightening or cirrus cloud thinning would be effective in the polar regions remains uncertain. Solar geoengineering is an increasingly prominent proposal and a robust understanding of its consequences in the polar regions is needed to inform climate policy in the coming decades. Plain Language Summary: It may be possible to temporarily limit the impacts of climate change by reflecting away part of the incoming sunlight reaching the Earth. Ideas for how to do this are termed solar geoengineering. The Arctic and Antarctic are warming rapidly and change in these regions contributes to serious problems caused by climate change, such as global sea level rise. Additionally, we may exceed warming thresholds within several decades beyond which changes in the polar climate system become self‐perpetuating. As a result the Arctic and Antarctic are potential regional targets of solar geoengineering. In this study we review for the first time the evidence on how various forms of solar geoengineering would impact the Arctic and Antarctic. We find that while solar geoengineering is less effective in the polar regions, which receive less sunlight to reflect away than the lower latitudes, global deployment could meaningfully reduce all the projected changes due to climate change which we assess. The potential effectiveness of local polar schemes, which would aim to change the energy balance only over the Arctic or Antarctic, remains very uncertain. The limited evidence we have suggests such options would be insufficient to prevent regional change under high emissions scenarios. Key Points: Global solar geoengineering, if technically feasible, would likely reduce the rapid climate change ongoing in the Arctic and AntarcticTargeted solar geoengineering strategies would be needed to avoid residual warming in the polar regionsNo truly localized polar geoengineering proposal has been shown viable for restoring climate on a pan‐Arctic or Antarctic scale [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Solar geoengineering refers to proposals, including stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), to slow or reverse climate change by reflecting away incoming sunlight. The rapid changes ongoing in the Arctic and Antarctic, and the risk of exceeding tipping points in the cryosphere within decades, make limiting such changes a plausible objective of solar geoengineering. Here, we review the impacts of SAI on polar climate and cryosphere, including the dependence of these impacts on the latitude(s) of injection, and make recommendations for future research directions. SAI would cool the polar regions and reduce many changes in polar climate under future warming scenarios. Some under‐cooling of the polar regions relative to the global mean is expected under SAI without high latitude injection, due to latitudinal variation in insolation and CO2 forcing, the forcing dependence of the polar lapse rate feedback, and altered atmospheric dynamics. There are also potential limitations in the effectiveness of SAI to arrest changes in winter‐time polar climate and to prevent sea‐level rise from the Antarctic ice sheet. Finally, we also review the prospects for three other solar geoengineering proposals targeting the poles: marine cloud brightening, cirrus cloud thinning, and sea‐ice albedo modification. Sea‐ice albedo modification appears unlikely to be viable on pan‐Arctic or Antarctic scales. Whether marine cloud brightening or cirrus cloud thinning would be effective in the polar regions remains uncertain. Solar geoengineering is an increasingly prominent proposal and a robust understanding of its consequences in the polar regions is needed to inform climate policy in the coming decades.

Climate change is a prevalent threat, and it is unlikely that current mitigation efforts will be enough to avoid unwanted impacts. One potential option to reduce climate change impacts is the use of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI). Even if SAI is ultimately deployed, it might be initiated only after some temperature target is exceeded. The consequences of such a delay are assessed herein. This study compares two cases, with the same target global mean temperature of ∼1.5° C above preindustrial, but start dates of 2035 or a ‘delayed’ start in 2045. We make use of simulations in the Community Earth System Model version 2 with the Whole Atmosphere Coupled Chemistry Model version 6 (CESM2-WACCM6), using SAI under the SSP2-4.5 emissions pathway. We find that delaying the start of deployment (relative to the target temperature) necessitates lower net radiative forcing (−30%) and thus larger sulfur dioxide injection rates (+20%), even after surface temperatures converge, to compensate for the extra energy absorbed by the Earth system. Southern hemisphere ozone is higher from 2035 to 2050 in the delayed start scenario, but converges to the same value later in the century. However, many of the surface climate differences between the 2035 and 2045 start simulations appear to be small during the 10–25 years following the delayed SAI start, although longer simulations would be needed to assess any longer-term impacts in this model. In addition, irreversibilities and tipping points that might be triggered during the period of increased warming may not be adequately represented in the model but could change this conclusion in the real world.

Solar geoengineering appears able to reduce climate change risks but raises controversy, the leading cause of which is the concern that its research, development, and evaluation might inappropriately obstruct efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions ('mitigation'). Describing how policies could effectively and feasibly manage such possible mitigation obstruction has proven elusive. One option would be to strategically link the international policies of mitigation and solar geoengineering. Here I explore this by disaggregating states based on their relevant characteristics. I propose linkages of mitigation policy with: (1) solar geoengineering research and development, (2) decision-making regarding whether to deploy solar geoengineering, and (3) how to deploy solar geoengineering. Based on the incentives that states would face under them, these linkages are assessed on whether they can be expected to effectively increase mitigation and are seem minimally feasible. Linkages in each of the three categories have potential and could occur sequentially. In the linkage which I believe has the greatest potential, one or more states would proclaim their right to deploy solar geoengineering if and only if they meet their own mitigation goals and the rest of the world insufficiently mitigates, and would promise to forego deployment if either condition is not met. I identify this proposed linkage's possible challenges, including legitimacy, credibility, optimal size, relations among targets of the linkage, stringency of mitigation goals, and potential counterproductivity. Limitations to this exploration and assessment include the speculative nature, the assumption that states' preferences regarding mitigation and solar geoengineering are properly related, and the use of noncooperative linkage. Key policy insights Solar geoengineering could reduce the impacts of climate change but is controversial, in large part because of concerns that its research, development, or use might obstruct efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions. I explore and assess whether linking international policies of greenhouse gas emissions reductions and solar geoengineering could feasibly and effectively increase emissions reductions. In the linkage that I believe has the greatest potential, one or more states would proclaim their right to deploy solar geoengineering if and only if they meet their emissions reductions goals and other countries do not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Solar radiation modification (SRM) is known to strengthen both land and ocean carbon uptake because of its impacts on surface temperature, solar radiation, and other potential drivers of the global carbon cycle. However, the magnitude and timing of the response of both land and ocean carbon uptake to SRM and its consequence on allowable CO2 emissions remain poorly understood. Here we use the results of six Earth system models simulating a continuous stratospheric injection of 5 Tg of sulfur dioxide per year between 2020 and 2069 under the representative concentration pathways 4.5 to investigate the impact of SRM on land and ocean carbon uptake. We find that 50 years of SRM under this protocol increases the allowable CO2 emissions by 40 ± 19 GtC; 85% of this additional uptake of carbon is stored in the land biosphere and 15% in the ocean. This increase in allowable CO2 emissions is however not sustainable after the stoppage of SRM. Earth system models predict a mean release of 8 ± 11 GtC of the carbon back to the atmosphere 20 years after the stoppage which is dominated by large uncertainties in the response of the simulated land carbon cycle to rising temperature and solar radiation. We demonstrate that the time scales of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) potential of SRM are smaller than the time scales of the geological storage assumed in well‐established CDR options. This shows that the CDR potential of SRM should be compared to well‐established CDR options with caution.

Solar radiation modification (SRM) could greatly reduce climate change and associated risks. Yet it has not been well‐received by the climate change expert community. This is evident in the authoritative reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which emphasize SRM's governance, political, social, and ethical challenges. I find seven such challenges identified in the IPCC reports: that SRM could lessen mitigation; that its termination would cause severe climatic impacts; that researching SRM would create a "slippery slope" to its inevitable and unwanted use; that decisions to use it could be contrary to democratic norms; that the public may not accept SRM; that it could be unethical; and that decisions to use SRM could be unilateral. After assessing the extent to which these challenges are supported by existing evidence, scholarly literature, and robust logic, I conclude that, for six of the seven, the IPCC's claims variously are speculative, fail to consider both advantages and disadvantages, implicitly make unreasonable negative assumptions, are contrary to existing evidence, and/or are meaninglessly vague. I suggest some reasons for the reports' failure to meet the IPCC's standards of balance, thoroughness, and accuracy, and recommend a dedicated Special Report on SRM. This article is categorized under:Integrated Assessment of Climate Change > Assessing Climate Change in the Context of Other Issues [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 sulfate 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 sulfate aerosol forms particles with average radii of 0.1 µm 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. Key Points: Improved models of stratospheric solar geoengineering require accurate predictions of aerosol formation in aircraft wakesA new 3D aerosol microphysics model predicts distribution and optical density of sulfate and calcite aerosols in the SCoPEx propeller wakeThis model is a step toward quantitative comparison between models and measurements of aerosol formation in stratospheric wakes [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Solar radiation modification (SRM) is known to strengthen both land and ocean carbon uptake because of its impacts on surface temperature, solar radiation, and other potential drivers of the global carbon cycle. However, the magnitude and timing of the response of both land and ocean carbon uptake to SRM and its consequence on allowable CO2 emissions remain poorly understood. Here we use the results of six Earth system models simulating a continuous stratospheric injection of 5 Tg of sulfur dioxide per year between 2020 and 2069 under the representative concentration pathways 4.5 to investigate the impact of SRM on land and ocean carbon uptake. We find that 50 years of SRM under this protocol increases the allowable CO2 emissions by 40 ± 19 GtC; 85% of this additional uptake of carbon is stored in the land biosphere and 15% in the ocean. This increase in allowable CO2 emissions is however not sustainable after the stoppage of SRM. Earth system models predict a mean release of 8 ± 11 GtC of the carbon back to the atmosphere 20 years after the stoppage which is dominated by large uncertainties in the response of the simulated land carbon cycle to rising temperature and solar radiation. We demonstrate that the time scales of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) potential of SRM are smaller than the time scales of the geological storage assumed in well‐established CDR options. This shows that the CDR potential of SRM should be compared to well‐established CDR options with caution. Key Points: The global carbon uptake is reinforced by 40 ± 19 GtC after 50 years of solar radiation modificationEighty‐five percent of this global uptake is driven by the land carbon sink; only 15% is controlled by the oceanThe largest model uncertainties consist in the response of the land carbon cycle to the stoppage of solar radiation modification [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]