Letter | Published:

Regional climate response to solar-radiation management

Nature Geoscience volume 3, pages 537541 (2010) | Download Citation


Concerns about the slow pace of climate mitigation have led to renewed dialogue about solar-radiation management, which could be achieved by adding reflecting aerosols to the stratosphere1,2,3,4,5,6. Modelling studies suggest that solar-radiation management could produce stabilized global temperatures and reduced global precipitation4,5,6. Here we present an analysis of regional differences in a climate modified by solar-radiation management, using a large-ensemble modelling experiment that examines the impacts of 54 scenarios for global temperature stabilization. Our results confirm that solar-radiation management would generally lead to less extreme temperature and precipitation anomalies, compared with unmitigated greenhouse gas emissions. However, they also illustrate that it is physically not feasible to stabilize global precipitation and temperature simultaneously as long as atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise. Over time, simulated temperature and precipitation in large regions such as China and India vary significantly with different trajectories for solar-radiation management, and they diverge from historical baselines in different directions. Hence, it may not be possible to stabilize the climate in all regions simultaneously using solar-radiation management. Regional diversity in the response to different levels of solar-radiation management could make consensus about the optimal level of geoengineering difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1.

    Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Clim. Change 77, 211–220 (2006).

  2. 2.

    A combined mitigation/geoengineering approach to climate stabilization. Science 314, 452–454 (2006).

  3. 3.

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

  4. 4.

    , & Regional climate responses to geoengineering with tropical and Arctic SO2 injections. J. Geophys. Res. 113, D16101 (2008).

  5. 5.

    , , , & Geoengineering by stratospheric SO2 injection: Results from the Met Office HadGEM2 climate model and comparison with the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. 10, 7421–7434 (2010).

  6. 6.

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

  7. 7.

    The Earth’s Climate Past and Future (Academic, 1982).

  8. 8.

    , , & Ocean acidification: The other CO2 problem. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 1, 169–192 (2009).

  9. 9.

    et al. The climate prediction.net BBC climate change experiment: Design of the coupled model ensemble. Proc. R. Soc. A 367, 855–870 (2009).

  10. 10.

    et al. The simulation of SST, sea ice extents and ocean heat transports in a version of the Hadley Centre coupled model without flux adjustments. Clim. Dyn. 16, 147–168 (2000).

  11. 11.

    Do-it-yourself climate prediction. Nature 401, 642–642 (1999).

  12. 12.

    & Constraints on future changes in climate and the hydrologic cycle. Nature 419, 224–232 (2002).

  13. 13.

    , & Impact of geoengineering schemes on the global hydrological cycle. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 7664–7669 (2008).

  14. 14.

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

  15. 15.

    & Quantifying the water vapour feedback associated with post-Pinatubo cooling. Clim. Dyn. 23, 207–214 (2004).

  16. 16.

    et al. in IPCC Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (eds Solomon, S. et al.) 589–662 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

  17. 17.

    et al. Arctic Oscillation response to volcanic eruptions in the IPCC AR4 climate models. J. Geophys. Res. 111, D07107 (2006).

  18. 18.

    et al. Global temperature stabilization via controlled albedo enhancement of low-level maritime clouds. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 366, 3969–3987 (2008).

  19. 19.

    , & Implications of delayed actions in addressing carbon dioxide emission reduction in the context of geo-engineering. Clim. Change 92, 261–273 (2009).

  20. 20.

    et al. Response of a deciduous forest to the mount Pinatubo eruption: Enhanced photosynthesis. Science 299, 2035–2038 (2003).

  21. 21.

    , , , & Impact of geoengineered aerosols on the troposphere and stratosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 114, D12305 (2009).

  22. 22.

    & Transient climate-carbon simulations of planetary geoengineering. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 9949–9954 (2007).

  23. 23.

    & Carbon Dioxide, Populations, and Communities (Academic, 1996).

  24. 24.

    et al. Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science 318, 1737–1742 (2007).

  25. 25.

    , , , & The geoengineering option. Foreign Affairs 88, 64–76 (2009).

  26. 26.

    & IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000).

  27. 27.

    Past, present, and future concentrations of tropospheric ozone and aerosols: Methodology, ozone evaluation, and sensitivity to aerosol wet removal. J. Geophys. Res. 111, D22211 (2006).

  28. 28.

    & History of sulfate aerosol radiative forcings. Geophys. Res. Lett. 29, 1308 (2002).

  29. 29.

    et al. in IPCC Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (eds Solomon, S. et al.) 129–234 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

  30. 30.

    , , & Stratospheric aerosol optical depth, 1850–1990. J. Geophys. Res. 98, 22987–22994 (1993).

Download references


The authors thank the cpdn participants for their donations of computing power without which the experiment would not have been possible. We thank T. Aina, D. Rowlands and the cpdn team for deployment of the experiment through the cpdn system, P. Stier and H. Yamazaki for advice and supervision during experimental design, W. Ingram for providing HadCM3 model diagnostics and comments on multiple drafts, and D. Keith for suggestions on the analyses. K.L.R. acknowledges support from a US National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship and the ARCS Foundation. K.L.R. and M.G.M. acknowledge the support of the Climate Decision Making Center funded by the US National Science Foundation (SES-0345798).

Author information


  1. Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, 129 Baker Hall, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, USA

    • Katharine L. Ricke
    •  & M. Granger Morgan
  2. AOPP, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Clarendon Laboratory, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PU, UK

    • Myles R. Allen


  1. Search for Katharine L. Ricke in:

  2. Search for M. Granger Morgan in:

  3. Search for Myles R. Allen in:


K.L.R. designed and carried out the experiments and carried out the data analysis, M.G.M. and M.R.A. supervised the design and interpretation. The manuscript was written by K.L.R. and edited by M.G.M. and M.R.A.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katharine L. Ricke.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    Supplementary Information

About this article

Publication history






Further reading