Search

The Arctic is warming at almost four times the global average rate. Here we reframe this amplified Arctic warming in terms of global climate ambition to show that it causes a breach of the Paris Agreement’s 1.5 °C and 2 °C limits 5 and 8 years earlier, respectively. This outsized influence on global climate targets highlights the need for better modelling and monitoring of Arctic change.

Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering (SAG) is proposed to offset global warming; the use of this approach can impact the hydrological cycle. We use simulations from Coupled Model Intercomparison Pr...

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 decision...

Solar geoengineering (SG) has the potential to restore average surface temperatures by increasing planetary albedo1–4, but this could reduce precipitation5–7. Thus, although SG might reduce globally aggregated risks, it may increase climate risks for some regions8–10. Here, using the high-resolution forecast-oriented low ocean resolution (HiFLOR) model—which resolves tropical cyclones and has an improved representation of present-day precipitation extremes11,12—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, neither temperature, water availability, extreme temperature nor 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 overstated13. High-resolution coupled climate model simulations suggest only 0.4% of the land surface will see exacerbated hydrological risks under solar geoengineering that halves warming, indicating that geoengineering-related risks may be overstated.

Consideration of solar geoengineering as a potential response to climate change will demand complex decisions. These include not only the choice to deploy or not, but decisions regarding how to deploy, and ongoing decision making throughout deployment. However, relatively little attention has been paid to envisioning what a solar geoengineering deployment would look like in order to clarify what types of decisions would need to be made. We examine the science of geoengineering to ask how it might influence governance considerations, while consciously refraining from making specific recommendations. The focus here is on a hypothetical deployment (and beyond) rather than research governance. Geoengineering can be designed to trade off different outcomes, requiring an explicit specification of multivariate goals. Thus, we initially consider the complexity surrounding a decision to deploy. Next, we discuss the on-going decisions that would be needed across multiple time-scales. Some decisions are inherently slow, limited by detection and attribution of climate effects in the presence of natural variability. However, there is also a need for decisions that are inherently fast relative to political time-scales: effectively managing some uncertainties would require frequent adjustments to the geoengineered forcing in response to observations. We believe that this exercise can lead to greater clarity in terms of future governance needs by articulating key characteristics of a hypothetical deployment scenario.

Earth's Future published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Geophysical Union Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering (SAG) is suggested as a potential way to reduce the climate impacts of global warming. Using simulations from the Geoengineering Large Ensemble project that employed stratospheric sulfate aerosols injection to keep global mean surface temperature and also the interhemispheric and equator-to-pole temperature gradients at their 2020 values (present-day climate) under Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 scenario, we investigate the potential impact of SAG on the West African Summer Monsoon (WASM) precipitation and the involved physical processes. Results indicate that under Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5, during the monsoon period, precipitation increases by 44.76%, 19.74%, and 5.14% compared to the present-day climate in the Northern Sahel, Southern Sahel, and Western Africa region, respectively. Under SAG, relative to the present-day climate, the WASM rainfall is practically unchanged in the Northern Sahel region but in Southern Sahel and Western Africa regions, rainfall is reduced by 4.06% (0.19 ± 0.22 mm) and 10.87% (0.72 ± 0.27 mm), respectively. This suggests that SAG deployed to offset all warming would be effective at offsetting the effects of climate change on rainfall in the Sahel regions but that it would be overeffective in Western Africa, turning a modest positive trend into a negative trend twice as large. By applying the decomposition method, we quantified the relative contribution of different physical mechanisms responsible for precipitation changes under SAG. Results reveal that changes in the WASM precipitation are mainly driven by the reduction of the low-level land-sea thermal contrast that leads to weakened monsoon circulation and a northward shift of the monsoon precipitation.

Climate engineering with stratospheric sulfate aerosol injections (SSAI) has the potential to reduce risks of injustice related to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. Relying on evidence f...

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.

In the last decade, solar geoengineering (solar radiation management, or SRM) has received increasing 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 of SRM'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 would cost only a few billion dollars per year; (D) modeling studies indicate that SRM would disrupt monsoon precipitation; 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.

We offer a hypothesis that if 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 7 sub-hypotheses on the effects of our scenario for key risks of climate change that could be assessed in future modelling 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. Solar geoengineering 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 solar geoengineering be designed and deployed in such a way that it could substantially and equitably reduce climate risks?

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.

We present a suite of new climate model experiment designs for the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). This set of experiments, named GeoMIP6 (to be consistent with the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6), builds on the previous GeoMIP project simulations, and has been expanded to address several further important topics, including key uncertainties in extreme events, the use of geoengineering as part of a portfolio of responses to climate change, and the relatively new idea of cirrus cloud thinning to allow more longwave radiation to escape to space. We discuss experiment designs, as well as the rationale for those designs, showing preliminary results from individual models when available. We also introduce a new feature, called the GeoMIP Testbed, which provides a platform for simulations that will be performed with a few models and subsequently assessed to determine whether the proposed experiment designs will be adopted as core (Tier 1) GeoMIP experiments. This is meant to encourage various stakeholders to propose new targeted experiments that address their key open science questions, with the goal of making GeoMIP more relevant to a broader set of communities.

We present a simple method to generate a perturbed parameter ensemble (PPE) of a fully-coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation model (AOGCM), HadCM3, without requiring flux-adjustment. The aim was to produce an ensemble that samples parametric uncertainty in some key variables and gives a plausible representation of the climate. Six atmospheric parameters, a sea-ice parameter and an ocean parameter were jointly perturbed within a reasonable range to generate an initial group of 200 members. To screen out implausible ensemble members, 20 yr pre-industrial control simulations were run and members whose temperature responses to the parameter perturbations were projected to be outside the range of 13.6 ± 2 °C, i.e. near to the observed pre-industrial global mean, were discarded. Twenty-one members, including the standard unperturbed model, were accepted, covering almost the entire span of the eight parameters, challenging the argument that without flux-adjustment parameter ranges would be unduly restricted. This ensemble was used in 2 experiments; an 800 yr pre-industrial and a 150 yr quadrupled CO2 simulation. The behaviour of the PPE for the pre-industrial control compared well to ERA-40 reanalysis data and the CMIP3 ensemble for a number of surface and atmospheric column variables with the exception of a few members in the Tropics. However, we find that members of the PPE with low values of the entrainment rate coefficient show very large increases in upper tropospheric and stratospheric water vapour concentrations in response to elevated CO2 and one member showed an implausible nonlinear climate response, and as such will be excluded from future experiments with this ensemble. The outcome of this study is a PPE of a fully-coupled AOGCM which samples parametric uncertainty and a simple methodology which would be applicable to other GCMs.

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—going beyond simulations purely of worst‐case scenarios—will be needed to allow for more insightful policy conclusions.

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. Solar geoengineering could reduce temperatures and so slow melt, but the efficacy of solar geoengineering at offsetting changes to the cryosphere is uncertain. For example, shortwave forcing acts more strongly on the surface than longwave forcing so solar geoengineering would reduce surface melt more effectively but would also suppress the global hydrological cycle potentially reducing accumulation on glaciers. Regardless of how effective solar geoengineering would prove to be at offsetting surface mass balance changes, slow-acting changes below the surface of the ocean and ice-sheets may strongly limit its potential to reduce the retreat of marine glaciers and can’t be evaluated without high-quality process model studies. Here we review the literature on solar geoengineering and the cryosphere and identify the key uncertainties that research could address. 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.

Some have proposed that climate-engineering methods could be developed to offset climate change. However, whilst some of these methods, in particular a form of solar-radiation management referred to as stratospheric aerosol injection (sai), could potentially reduce the overall degree of global warming as well as some associated risks, they are also likely to redistribute some environmental risks globally. Moreover, they could give rise to new risks, raising the issue of legal responsibility for transboundary harm caused. This article examines the question of international accountability of states for an increased risk of environmental harm arising from a large-scale climate intervention using sai, and the legal consequences that would follow. Examination of the applicability of customary rules on state responsibility to sai are useful for understanding the limitations of the existing accountability framework for climate engineering, particularly in the context of global environmental problems involving risk-risk trade-offs and large uncertainties.

Solar radiation management (SRM) has been proposed as a potential method for reducing risks from global warming. However, a widely held concern is that SRM will not reverse the climate consequences of global warming evenly, resulting in regional disparities in the combined climate response to elevated greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations and SRM. Recent research has used climate model projections to quantitatively assess how regional disparities affect the overall efficiency of global SRM and what the resulting potential for cooperation and conflict with regard to SRM may be. First results indicate that regional disparities, although present, may not be severe. These assessments rest on the assumption that, for all regions, any deviation from a past climate state inflicts damages. We challenge this strong change-is-bad assumption by showing that diverging preferences are not only plausible, but may also have the potential to substantially alter assessments of regional disparities. We argue that current assessments yield little information on the ethical and political implications of SRM and that diverging preferences should receive more attention. Promising directions for future inquiry include bridging gaps to the general climate impact research and to research on the social implications of environmental change.

[1] We have examined changes in climate which result from the sudden termination of geoengineering after 50 years of offsetting a 1% per annum increase in CO2 concentrations by a reduction of solar radiation, as simulated by 11 different climate models in experiment G2 of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project. The models agree on a rapid increase in global-mean temperature following termination accompanied by increases in global-mean precipitation rate and decreases in sea-ice cover. There is no agreement on the impact of geoengineering termination on the rate of change of global-mean plant net primary productivity. There is a considerable degree of consensus for the geographical distribution of temperature change following termination, with faster warming at high latitudes and over land. There is also considerable agreement regarding the distribution of reductions in Arctic sea-ice, but less so for the Antarctic. There is much less agreement regarding the patterns of change in precipitation and net primary productivity, with a greater degree of consensus at higher latitudes.

Solar geoengineering - deliberate reduction in the amount of solar radiation retained by the Earth - has been proposed as a means of counteracting some of the climatic effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. We present results from Experiment G1 of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project, in which 12 climate models have simulated the climate response to an abrupt quadrupling of CO2 from preindustrial concentrations brought into radiative balance via a globally uniform reduction in insolation. Models show this reduction largely offsets global mean surface temperature increases due to quadrupled CO2 concentrations and prevents 97% of the Arctic sea ice loss that would otherwise occur under high CO2 levels but, compared to the preindustrial climate, leaves the tropics cooler (-0.3 K) and the poles warmer (+0.8 K). Annual mean precipitation minus evaporation anomalies for G1 are less than 0.2 mm day-1 in magnitude over 92% of the globe, but some tropical regions receive less precipitation, in part due to increased moist static stability and suppression of convection. Global average net primary productivity increases by 120% in G1 over simulated preindustrial levels, primarily from CO2 fertilization, but also in part due to reduced plant heat stress compared to a high CO2 world with no geoengineering. All models show that uniform solar geoengineering in G1 cannot simultaneously return regional and global temperature and hydrologic cycle intensity to preindustrial levels. Key Points Temperature reduction from uniform geoengineering is not uniform Geoengineering cannot offset both temperature and hydrology changes NPP increases mostly due to CO2 fertilization ©2013. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.

[1] Continued anthropogenic CO2 emissions are expected to impact tropical coral reefs by further raising sea surface temperatures (SST) and intensifying ocean acidification (OA). Although geoengineering by means of solar radiation management (SRM) may mitigate temperature increases, OA will persist, raising important questions regarding the impact of different stressor combinations. We apply statistical Bioclimatic Envelope Models to project changes in shallow water tropical coral reef habitat as a single niche (without resolving biodiversity or community composition) under various representative concentration pathway and SRM scenarios, until 2070. We predict substantial reductions in habitat suitability centered on the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool under net anthropogenic radiative forcing of ≥3.0 W/m2. The near-term dominant risk to coral reefs is increasing SSTs; below 3 W/m2 reasonably favorable conditions are maintained, even when achieved by SRM with persisting OA. “Optimal” mitigation occurs at 1.5 W/m2 because tropical SSTs overcool in a fully geoengineered (i.e., preindustrial global mean temperature) world.

International audience; Climate change has significant implications for biodiversity and ecosystems. With slow progress towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions, climate engineering (or ‘geoengineering’) 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.

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, ‘sunshade geoengineering,’ 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. WIREs Clim Change 2016, 7:815–833. doi: 10.1002/wcc.423 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.

Concerns about the risks of unmitigated greenhouse gas emissions are growing. At the same time, confidence that international policy agreements will succeed in considerably lowering anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions is declining. Perhaps as a result, various geoengineering solutions are gaining attention and credibility as a way to manage climate change. Serious consideration is currently being given to proposals to cool the planet through solar-radiation management. Here we analyze how the unique and nontrivial risks of geoengineering strategies pose fundamental questions at the interface between science and ethics. To illustrate the importance of integrated ethical and scientific analysis, we define key open questions and outline a coupled scientific-ethical research agenda to analyze solar-radiation management geoengineering proposals. We identify nine key fields of coupled research including whether solar-radiation management can be tested, how quickly learning could occur, normative decisions em...

A study finds tension between mitigating sea-level rise and reducing the rate of temperature change through solar-radiation management. The rapid warming that would occur if solar-radiation management were to be phased out is shown to depend critically on timescales, potentially committing future generations to its long-term use once started. Geoengineering using solar-radiation management (SRM) is gaining interest as a potential strategy to reduce future climate change impacts1,2,3. Basic physics and past observations suggest that reducing insolation will, on average, cool the Earth. It is uncertain, however, whether SRM can reduce climate change stressors such as sea-level rise or rates of surface air temperature change1,4,5,6. Here we use an Earth system model of intermediate complexity to quantify the possible response of sea levels and surface air temperatures to projected climate forcings7 and SRM strategies. We find that SRM strategies introduce a potentially strong tension between the objectives to reduce (1) the rate of temperature change and (2) sea-level rise. This tension arises primarily because surface air temperatures respond faster to radiative forcings than sea levels. Our results show that the forcing required to stop sea-level rise could cause a rapid cooling with a rate similar to the peak business-as-usual warming rate. Furthermore, termination of SRM was found to produce warming rates up to five times greater than the maximum rates under the business-as-usual CO2 scenario, whereas sea-level rise rates were only 30% higher. Reducing these risks requires a slow phase-out of many decades and thus commits future generations.

Solar Radiation Management (SRM) has been proposed as a mean to partly counteract global warming. The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) has simulated the climate consequences of a number of SRM techniques. Thus far, the effects on vegetation have not yet been thoroughly analyzed. Here the vegetation response to the idealized GeoMIP G1 experiment from eight fully coupled Earth system models (ESMs) is analyzed, in which a reduction of the solar constant counterbalances the radiative effects of quadrupled atmospheric CO2 concentrations (abrupt4 × CO2). For most models and regions, changes in net primary productivity (NPP) are dominated by the increase in CO2, via the CO2 fertilization effect. As SRM will reduce temperatures relative to abrupt4 × CO2, in high latitudes this will offset increases in NPP. In low latitudes, this cooling relative to the abrupt4 × CO2 simulation decreases plant respiration while having little effect on gross primary productivity, thus increasing NPP. In Central America and the Mediterranean, generally dry regions which are expected to experience increased water stress with global warming, NPP is highest in the G1 experiment for all models due to the easing of water limitations from increased water use efficiency at high-CO2 concentrations and the reduced evaporative demand in a geoengineered climate. The largest differences in the vegetation response are between models with and without a nitrogen cycle, with a much smaller CO2 fertilization effect for the former. These results suggest that until key vegetation processes are integrated into ESM predictions, the vegetation response to SRM will remain highly uncertain.

International audience; Climate model studies of the consequences of solar geoengineering are central to evaluating whether such approaches may help to reduce the harmful impacts of global warming. In this study we compare the sunshade solar geoengineering response of a perturbed parameter ensemble (PPE) of the Hadley Centre Coupled Model version 3 (HadCM3) with a multimodel ensemble (MME) by analyzing the G1 experiment from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). The PPE only perturbed a small number of parameters and shares a common structure with the unperturbed HadCM3 model, and so the additional weight the PPE adds to the robustness of the common climate response features in the MME is minor. However, analysis of the PPE indicates some of the factors that drive the spread within the MME. We isolate the role of global mean temperature biases for both ensembles and find that these biases have little effect on the ensemble spread in the hydrological response but do reduce the spread in surface air temperature response, particularly at high latitudes. We investigate the role of the preindustrial climatology and find that biases here are likely a key source of ensemble spread at the zonal and grid cell level. The role of vegetation, and its response to elevated CO2 concentrations through the CO2 physiological effect and changes in plant productivity, is also investigated and proves to have a substantial effect on the terrestrial hydrological response to solar geoengineering and to be a major source of variation within the GeoMIP ensemble.

As a response to climate change, geoengineering with solar radiation management (SRM) has the potential to result in unjust harm. Potentially, this injustice could be ameliorated by providing compensation to victims of SRM. However, establishing a just SRM compensation system faces severe challenges. First, there is scientific uncertainty in detecting particular harmful impacts and causally attributing them to SRM. Second, there is ethical uncertainty regarding what principles should be used to determine responsibility and eligibility for compensation, as well as determining how much compensation ought to be paid. Significant challenges loom for crafting a just SRM compensation system.

Global-scale solar geoengineering is the deliberate modification of the climate system to offset some amount of anthropogenic climate change by reducing the amount of incident solar radiation at the surface. These changes to the planetary energy budget result in differential regional climate effects. For the first time, we quantitatively evaluate the potential for regional disparities in a multi-model context using results from a model experiment that offsets the forcing from a quadrupling of CO2 via reduction in solar irradiance. We evaluate temperature and precipitation changes in 22 geographic regions spanning most of Earthʼs continental area. Moderate amounts of solar reduction (up to 85% of the amount that returns global mean temperatures to preindustrial levels) result in regional temperature values that are closer to preindustrial levels than an un-geoengineered, high CO_2 world for all regions and all models. However, in all but one model, there is at least one region for which no amount of solar reduction can restore precipitation toward its preindustrial value. For most metrics considering simultaneous changes in both variables, temperature and precipitation values in all regions are closer to the preindustrial climate for a moderate amount of solar reduction than for no solar reduction.

Solar radiation management(SRM), a subset of approaches to climate engineering, aims to manipulate the global climate on a large scale. It includes techniques like spraying sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere or brightening marine clouds to reflect more sunlight back into space. In an attempt to examine the socio-political context of SRM, research frequently starts from model projections of physi cal changes in the environment. But assessing socio-political matters is complex, and while model projections may help, experiences from research on CO2-induced climate change reveal many blind spots and some unique challenges.

[1] Various surface albedo modification geoengineering schemes such as those involving desert, urban, or agricultural areas have been proposed as potential strategies for helping counteract the warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions. However, such schemes tend to be inherently limited in their potential and would create a much more heterogeneous radiative forcing than propositions for space-based “reflectors” and enhanced stratospheric aerosol concentrations. Here we present results of a series of atmosphere–ocean general circulation model (GCM) simulations to compare three surface albedo geoengineering proposals: urban, cropland, and desert albedo enhancement. We find that the cooling effect of surface albedo modification is strongly seasonal and mostly confined to the areas of application. For urban and cropland geoengineering, the global effects are minor but, because of being colocated with areas of human activity, they may provide some regional benefits. Global desert geoengineering, which is associated with significant global-scale changes in circulation and the hydrological cycle, causes a smaller reduction in global precipitation per degree of cooling than sunshade geoengineering, 1.1% K−1 and 2.0% K−1 respectively, but a far greater reduction in the precipitation over land, 3.9% K−1 compared with 1.0% K−1. Desert geoengineering also causes large regional-scale changes in precipitation with a large reduction in the intensity of the Indian and African monsoons in particular. None of the schemes studied reverse the climate changes associated with a doubling of CO2, with desert geoengineering profoundly altering the climate and with urban and cropland geoengineering providing only some regional amelioration at most.

Solar Radiation Management (SRM) Geoengineering may ameliorate many consequences of global warming but also has the potential to drive regional climates outside the envelope of greenhouse-gas induced warming, creating 'novel' conditions, and could affect precipitation in some regions disproportionably. Here, using a fully coupled climate model we explore some new methodologies for assessing regional disparities in geoengineering impacts. Taking a 4 x CO2 climate and an idealized 'sunshade' SRM strategy, we consider different fractions of the maximum theoretical, 4 x CO2-cancelling global mean cooling. Whilst regional predictions in particularly relatively low resolution global climate models must be treated with caution, our simulations indicate that it might be possible to identify a level of SRM geoengineering capable of meeting multiple targets, such as maintaining a stable mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet and cooling global climate, but without reducing global precipitation below pre-industrial or exposing significant fractions of the Earth to 'novel' climate conditions. Citation: Irvine, P. J., A. Ridgwell, and D. J. Lunt (2010), Assessing the regional disparities in geoengineering impacts, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L18702, doi:10.1029/2010GL044447.

Analysis of surface and atmospheric energy budget responses to CO and solar forcings can be used to reveal mechanisms of change in the hydrological cycle. We apply this energetic perspective to output from 11 fully coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models simulating experiment G1 of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP), which achieves top-of-atmosphere energy balance between an abrupt quadrupling of CO from preindustrial levels (abrupt4xCO2) and uniform solar irradiance reduction. We divide the climate system response into a rapid adjustment, in which climate response is due to adjustment of the atmosphere and land surface on short time scales, and a feedback response, in which the climate response is predominantly due to feedback related to global mean temperature changes. Global mean temperature change is small in G1, so the feedback response is also small. G1 shows a smaller magnitude of land sensible heat flux rapid adjustment than in abrupt4xCO2 and a larger magnitude of latent heat flux adjustment, indicating a greater reduction of evaporation and less land temperature increase than abrupt4xCO2. The sum of surface flux changes in G1 is small, indicating little ocean heat uptake. Using an energetic perspective to assess precipitation changes, abrupt4xCO2 shows decreased mean evaporative moisture flux and increased moisture convergence, particularly over land. However, most changes in precipitation in G1 are in mean evaporative flux, suggesting that changes in mean circulation are small. Key Points Geoengineering feedback response is small Geoengineering can limit ocean heat uptake in a high CO2 climate Annual mean circulation changes under geoengineering may be small ©2013. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.

Solar radiation management (SRM) geoengineering has been proposed as one means of helping avoid the occurrence of dangerous climate change and undesirable state transitions ('tipping points') in the Earth system. The irreversible melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet is a case in point—a state transition that could occur as a result of CO2-driven elevated global temperatures, and one leading to potentially catastrophic sea-level rise. SRM schemes such as the creation of a 'sunshade' or injection of sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere could reduce incoming solar radiation, and in theory balance, in a global mean, the greenhouse warming resulting from elevated concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. Previous work has highlighted that a geoengineered world would have: warming towards the poles, cooling in the tropics, and a reduction in the global hydrological cycle, which may have important implications for the Greenland Ice Sheet. Using a fully coupled global climate model in conjunction with an ice sheet model, we assess the consequences for the mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet of the reorganization of climate patterns by the combination of high CO2 and geoengineering. We find that Greenland surface temperature and precipitation anomalies, compared to the pre-industrial situation, decrease almost linearly with increasing levels of SRM geoengineering, but that these combine to create a highly non-linear response of the ice sheet. The substantial melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet predicted for four times pre-industrial CO2 levels is prevented in our model with only a partial application of SRM, and hence without having to fully restore the global average temperature back to pre-industrial levels. This suggests that the degree of SRM geoengineering required to mitigate the worst impacts of greenhouse warming, such as sea-level rise, need not be as extensive as generally assumed. Solar radiation management (SRM) geoengineering has been proposed as one means of helping avoid the occurrence of dangerous climate change and undesirable state transitions ('tipping points') in the Earth system. The irreversible melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet is a case in point—a state transition that could occur as a result of CO2-driven elevated global temperatures, and one leading to potentially catastrophic sea-level rise. SRM schemes such as the creation of a 'sunshade' or injection of sulfate aerosols into the stratosphere could reduce incoming solar radiation, and in theory balance, in a global mean, the greenhouse warming resulting from elevated concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. Previous work has highlighted that a geoengineered world would have: warming towards the poles, cooling in the tropics, and a reduction in the global hydrological cycle, which may have important implications for the Greenland Ice Sheet. Using a fully coupled global climate model in conjunction with an ice sheet model, we assess the consequences for the mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet of the reorganization of climate patterns by the combination of high CO2 and geoengineering. We find that Greenland surface temperature and precipitation anomalies, compared to the pre-industrial situation, decrease almost linearly with increasing levels of SRM geoengineering, but that these combine to create a highly non-linear response of the ice sheet. The substantial melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet predicted for four times pre-industrial CO2 levels is prevented in our model with only a partial application of SRM, and hence without having to fully restore the global average temperature back to pre-industrial levels. This suggests that the degree of SRM geoengineering required to mitigate the worst impacts of greenhouse warming, such as sea-level rise, need not be as extensive as generally assumed.

There is international consensus that ‘dangerous’ climate change must be avoided. Yet without radical changes in energy sources and usage and global economies, changes that so far society has been unable or unwilling to make, it seems highly likely that we will start to experience unacceptably damaging and/or societally disruptive global environmental change later this century. What actions can be taken to safeguard future environmental quality, ecosystems, agriculture, economy, and society? A new science–‘geoengineering'–that until recently would have seemed pure science fiction, promises an alternative way of temporarily regaining control of climate. Colossal engineering schemes to shade the sun, make the atmosphere hazier, modify clouds, even throw iron into the ocean, are all being promoted as possible ways out of our dilemma. This article considers the state of this new science, and its implications for society.

The hydrological impact of enhancing Earth's albedo by solar radiation management is investigated using simulations from 12 Earth System models contributing to the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). We contrast an idealized experiment, G1, where the global mean radiative forcing is kept at preindustrial conditions by reducing insolation while the CO 2 concentration is quadrupled to a 4×CO2 experiment. The reduction of evapotranspiration over land with instantaneously increasing CO2 concentrations in both experiments largely contributes to an initial reduction in evaporation. A warming surface associated with the transient adjustment in 4×CO2 generates an increase of global precipitation by around 6.9% with large zonal and regional changes in both directions, including a precipitation increase of 10% over Asia and a reduction of 7% for the North American summer monsoon. Reduced global evaporation persists in G1 with temperatures close to preindustrial conditions. Global precipitation is reduced by around 4.5%, and significant reductions occur over monsoonal land regions: East Asia (6%), South Africa (5%), North America (7%), and South America (6%). The general precipitation performance in models is discussed in comparison to observations. In contrast to the 4×CO2 experiment, where the frequency of months with heavy precipitation intensity is increased by over 50% in comparison to the control, a reduction of up to 20% is simulated in G1. These changes in precipitation in both total amount and frequency of extremes point to a considerable weakening of the hydrological cycle in a geoengineered world.

"All of these proposals acknowledge a need for some form of governance, such as national oversight by funding bodies, but they also share a common supposition that smallscale testing should proceed even in the absence of further international agreement. However, there are strong reasons to refrain from such testing until some form of international cooperation on climate engineering has been established."

Solar geoengineering has been proposed as a temporary means of alleviating some of the consequences of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Single-model studies characterizing the resulting climate effects often used different greenhouse gas concentration profiles and different amounts of geoengineering, making intercomparison difficult. The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) created a framework of four core simulations, designed to reveal robust features and key uncertainties of climate model responses to geoengineering (B. Kravitz et al., The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP), Atmospheric Science Letters, 12(2), 162–167, doi:10.1002/asl.316, 2011). These experiments simulate solar geoengineering via uniform solar reduction or creation of stratospheric sulfate aerosol layers using state-of-the-art climate models.

It has been proposed that growing crop varieties with higher canopy albedo would lower summer-time temperatures over North America and Eurasia and provide a partial mitigation of global warming (‘bio-geoengineering’) (Ridgwell et al 2009 Curr. Biol. 19 1–5). Here, we use a coupled ocean–atmosphere–vegetation model (HadCM3) with prescribed agricultural regions, to investigate to what extent the regional effectiveness of crop albedo bio-geoengineering might be influenced by a progressively warming climate as well as assessing the impacts on regional hydrological cycling and primary productivity. Consistent with previous analysis, we find that the averted warming due to increasing crop canopy albedo by 0.04 is regionally and seasonally specific, with the largest cooling of ∼1 ◦ C for Europe in summer whereas in the low latitude monsoonal SE Asian regions of high density cropland, the greatest cooling is experienced in winter. In this study we identify potentially important positive impacts of increasing crop canopy albedo on soil moisture and primary productivity in European cropland regions, due to seasonal increases in precipitation. We also find that the background climate state has an important influence on the predicted regional effectiveness of bio-geoengineering on societally-relevant timescales (ca 100 years). The degree of natural climate variability and its dependence on greenhouse forcing that are evident in our simulations highlights the difficulties faced in the detection and verification of climate mitigation in geoengineering schemes. However, despite the small global impact, regionally focused schemes such as crop albedo bio-geoengineering have detection advantages.