Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Management of trade-offs in geoengineering through optimal choice of non-uniform radiative forcing

Abstract

Solar radiation management could be used to offset some or all anthropogenic radiative forcing, with the goal of reducing some of the associated climatic change1,2. However, the degree of compensation will vary, with residual climate changes larger in some regions than others. Similarly, the insolation reduction that best compensates climate changes in one region may not be the same as for another, leading to concerns about equity3. Here we show that optimizing the latitudinal and seasonal distribution of solar reduction can improve the fidelity with which solar radiation management offsets anthropogenic climate change. Using the HadCM3L general circulation model, we explore several trade-offs. First, residual temperature and precipitation changes in the worst-off region can be reduced by 30% relative to uniform solar reduction, with only a modest impact on global root-mean-square changes; this has implications for moderating regional inequalities. Second, the same root-mean-square residual climate changes can be obtained with up to 30% less insolation reduction, implying that it may be possible to reduce solar radiation management side-effects and risks (for example, ozone depletion if stratospheric sulphate aerosols are used). Finally, allowing spatial and temporal variability increases the range of trade-offs to be considered, raising the question of how to weight different objectives.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Solar reduction forcing patterns and motivation.
Figure 2: The trade-off between minimizing the global-r.m.s. normalized temperature and precipitation changes, and minimizing the worst-case change over any grid-cell.
Figure 3: Trade-offs between different objectives.

References

  1. 1

    Keith, D. Geoengineering the climate: History and prospect. Annu. Rev. Energ. Environ. 25, 245–284 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Crutzen, P. J. Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Climatic Change 77, 211–219 (2006).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Moreno-Cruz, J., Ricke, K. & Keith, D. W. A simple model to account for regional inequalities in the effectiveness of solar radiation management. Climatic Change 110, 649–668 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Govindasamy, B. & Caldeira, K. Geoengineering Earth’s radiation balance to mitigate CO2-induced climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett. 27, 2141–2144 (2000).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Rasch, P. J., Crutzen, P. J. & Coleman, D. B. Exploring the geoengineering of climate using stratospheric sulfate aerosols: The role of particle size. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L02809 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Caldeira, K. & Wood, L. Global and Arctic climate engineering: Numerical model studies. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 366, 4039–4056 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Lunt, D. J., Ridgwell, A., Valdes, P. J. & Seale, A. Sunshade World: A fully coupled GCM evaluation of the climatic impacts of geoengineering. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L12710 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Robock, A., Oman, L. & Stenchikov, G. Regional climate responses to geoengineering with tropical and Arctic SO2 injections. J. Geophys. Res. 113, D16101 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Ricke, K. L., Granger Morgan, M. & Allen, M. R. Regional climate response to solar-radiation management. Nature Geosci. 3, 537–541 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Bala, G., Duffy, P. B. & Taylor, K. E. Impact of geoengineering schemes on the global hydrological cycle. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 7664–7669 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Ban-Weiss, G. A. & Caldeira, K. Geoengineering as an optimization problem. Environ. Res. Lett. 5, 034009 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Dong, B., Gregory, J. M. & Sutton, R. T. Understanding land-sea warming contrast in response to increased greenhouse gases. Part I: Transient adjustment. J. Clim. 22, 3079–3097 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    MacMynowski, D. G., Shin, H-J. & Caldeira, K. The frequency response of temperature and precipitation in a climate model. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L16711 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Nordhaus, W. A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies (Yale Univ. Press, 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Weitzman, M. What is the damages function for global warming—and what difference might it make? Clim. Change Econom. 1, 57–69 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Jones, C. A fast ocean GCM without flux adjustments. J. Atm. Oceanic Tech. 20, 1857–1868 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    English, J. M., Toon, O. B. & Mills, M. J. Microphysical simulations of sulfur burdens from stratospheric sulfur geoengineering. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 12, 4775–4793 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Keith, D. W. Photophoretic levitation of engineered aerosols for geoengineering. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 16428–16431 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Giorgi, F. & Francisco, R. Uncertainties in regional climate change prediction: A regional analysis of ensemble simulations with the HADCM2 coupled AOGCM. Clim. Dynam. 16, 169–182 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    The Royal Society Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty (Royal Society, 2009).

  21. 21

    Kravitz, B. et al. The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). Atmos. Sci. Lett. 12, 162–167 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Holland, M. M., Serreze, M. C. & Stroeve, J. The sea ice mass budget of the Arctic and its future change as simulated by coupled climate models. Clim. Dynam. 34, 185–200 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Boe, J. L., Hall, A. & Qu, X. September sea-ice cover in the Arctic Ocean projected to vanish by 2100. Nature Geosci. 2, 341–343 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

D.G.M. and D.W.K. conceived the project, D.G.M. carried out the analysis with contributions from B.K. All authors wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Douglas G. MacMartin.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information (PDF 1689 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

MacMartin, D., Keith, D., Kravitz, B. et al. Management of trade-offs in geoengineering through optimal choice of non-uniform radiative forcing. Nature Clim Change 3, 365–368 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1722

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing