Climatic Change

, Volume 121, Issue 3, pp 487–497

The long-term policy context for solar radiation management

Article

Abstract

We examine the potential role of “solar radiation management” or “sunlight reduction methods” (SRM) in limiting future climate change, focusing on the interplay between SRM deployment and mitigation in the context of uncertainty in climate response. We use a straightforward scenario analysis to show that the policy and physical context determine the potential need, amount, and timing of SRM. SRM techniques, along with a substantial emission reduction policy, would be needed to meet stated policy goals, such as limiting climate change to 2 °C above pre-industrial levels, if the climate sensitivity is high. The SRM levels examined by current modeling studies are much higher than the levels required under an assumption of a consistent long-term policy. We introduce a degree-year metric, which quantifies the magnitude of SRM that would be needed to keep global temperatures under a given threshold.

Supplementary material

10584_2012_577_MOESM1_ESM.doc (293 kb)
ESM 1(DOC 293 kb)
10584_2012_577_MOESM2_ESM.zip (24 kb)
ESM 2(ZIP 23.8 kb)

References

  1. Bala G, Duffy PB, Taylor KE (2008) Impact of geoengineering schemes on the global hydrological cycle. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105(22):7664–7669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrett S (2008) The incredible economics of geoengineering. Environ Resour Econ 39(1):45–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boucher O, Lowe JA, Jones CD (2009) Implications of delayed actions in addressing carbon dioxide emission reduction in the context of geo-engineering. Clim Chang 92:261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brovkin V et al (2009) Geoengineering climate by stratospheric sulfur injections: earth system vulnerability to technological failure. Clim Chang 92:243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calvin KV et al (2009) 2.6: limiting climate change to 450 ppm CO2 equivalent in the 21st century. Energ Econ 31:S107–S120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke L et al (2007) Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.1a Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. (Department of Energy, Office of Biological & Environmental Research, Washington, DC), p 154Google Scholar
  7. Climate Institute (2010) “The Asilomar Conference Recommendations on Principles for Research into Climate Engineering Techniques” (Climate Institute, Washington, DC, 2010)Google Scholar
  8. Forster P et al (2007) Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Goes M, Tuana N, Keller K (2011) The economics (or lack thereof) of aerosol geoengineering. Clim Chang 109:719–744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lenton TM (2011) Early warning of climate tipping points. Nat Clim Change 1:201–209. doi:10.1038/nclimate1143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Macintosh A (2010) Keeping warming within the 2 degrees C limit after Copenhagen. Energy Policy 38(6):2964–2975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. MacMynowski DG, Keith DW, Caldeira K, Shin H-J (2011) Can we test geoengineering? Energy Environ Sci 4:5044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Matthews HD, Caldeira K (2007) Transient climate–carbon simulations of planetary geoengineering. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(24):9949–9954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Matthews HD, Caldeira K (2008) Stabilizing climate requires near-zero-emissions. Geophys Res Lett 35:L04705. doi:10.1029/2007GL032388 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Meehl GA et al (2007) Global Climate Projections. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Meinshausen M et al (2009) Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C. Nature 458:1158–1162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moss RH et al (2010) The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463:747–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. National Research Council, Committee on America’s Climate Choices, Panel on Limiting the Magnitude of Climate Change, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (2010) Limiting the magnitude of future climate change. National Academies Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  19. Ramanathan V, Xu Y (2010) The Copenhagen Accord for limiting global warming: Criteria, constraints, and available avenues. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(18):8055–8062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Raper SCB, Gregory JM, Osborn TJ (2001) Use of an upwelling-diffusion energy balance climate model to simulate and diagnose A/OGCM results. Climate Dynamics 17:601–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rasch PJ et al (2008) An overview of geoengineering of climate using stratospheric sulphate aerosols. Philos T R Soc A 366(1882):4007–4037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rasch PJ, Chen C-C, Latham JL (2009) Geo-engineering by cloud seeding: influence on sea-ice and the climate system. Environ Res Lett 4(8):045112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Robock A (2008) 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea. B Atom Sci 64(2):14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rogelj J et al (2010) Copenhagen Accord pledges are paltry. Nature 464(7292):1126–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Smith SJ, Edmonds JA (2006) The economic implications of carbon cycle uncertainty. Tellus B 58(5):586–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Smith JB et al (2009) Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “reasons for concern”. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(11):4133–4137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. The Royal Society (2009) Geoengineering the climate: Science, governance and uncertaintyGoogle Scholar
  28. Thomson AM et al (2011) RCP4.5: a pathway for stabilization of radiative forcing by 2100. Clim Chang 109(1–2):77–94. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0151-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. van Vuuren DP et al (2007) Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs. Clim Chang 81(2):119–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. van Vuuren D, Stehfest E, den Elzen M, Kram T, van Vliet J, Beltran AM, Deetman S, Oostenrijk R, Isaac M (2011) RCP3-PD: exploring the possibilities to limit global mean temperature change to less than 2 °C. Clim Chang 109(1–2):95–116. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0152-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vaughan NE, Lenton TM (2011) A review of climate geoengineering proposals. Climatic Change 109:745–790. doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0027-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vaughan NE, Lenton TM, Shepherd J (2009) Climate change mitigation: trade-offs between delay and strength of action required. Clim Chang 96:29–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wigley TML (2006) A combined mitigation/geoengineering approach to climate stabilization. Science 314:452CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.Atmospheric Sciences & Global Change, Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryRichlandUSA

Personalised recommendations