Solar radiation management is increasingly considered to be an option for managing global temperatures1,2, yet the economic effects of ameliorating climatic changes by scattering sunlight back to space remain largely unknown3. Although solar radiation management may increase crop yields by reducing heat stress4, the effects of concomitant changes in available sunlight have never been empirically estimated. Here we use the volcanic eruptions that inspired modern solar radiation management proposals as natural experiments to provide the first estimates, to our knowledge, of how the stratospheric sulfate aerosols created by the eruptions of El Chichón and Mount Pinatubo altered the quantity and quality of global sunlight, and how these changes in sunlight affected global crop yields. We find that the sunlight-mediated effect of stratospheric sulfate aerosols on yields is negative for both C4 (maize) and C3 (soy, rice and wheat) crops. Applying our yield model to a solar radiation management scenario based on stratospheric sulfate aerosols, we find that projected mid-twenty-first century damages due to scattering sunlight caused by solar radiation management are roughly equal in magnitude to benefits from cooling. This suggests that solar radiation management—if deployed using stratospheric sulfate aerosols similar to those emitted by the volcanic eruptions it seeks to mimic—would, on net, attenuate little of the global agricultural damage from climate change. Our approach could be extended to study the effects of solar radiation management on other global systems, such as human health or ecosystem function.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $3.90 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Crutzen, P. J. Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: a contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Clim. Change 77, 211–219 (2006).
Ocean Studies Board. Climate Intervention: Reflecting Sunlight to Cool the Earth (The National Academies, Washington DC, 2015).
MacMartin, D. G., Kravitz, B., Long, J. C. S. & Rasch, P. J. Geoengineering with stratospheric aerosols: what do we not know after a decade of research? Earths Future 4, 543–548 (2016).
Pongratz, J., Lobell, D. B., Cao, L. & Caldeira, K. Crop yields in a geoengineered climate. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 101–105 (2012).
Pachauri, R. K. et al. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R. K. & Meyer, L. A.) (IPCC, Geneva, 2015).
Robock, A., Marquardt, A., Kravitz, B. & Stenchikov, G. Benefits, risks, and costs of stratospheric geoengineering. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L19703 (2009).
Robock, A., MacMartin, D. G., Duren, R. & Christensen, M. W. Studying geoengineering with natural and anthropogenic analogs. Clim. Change 121, 445–458 (2013).
Robock, A. Volcanic eruptions and climate. Rev. Geophys. 38, 191–219 (2000).
World Radiation Data Centre. ‘Global radiation. Daily sums, monthly sums and means’ and ‘Diffuse radiation. Daily sums, monthly sums and means’. World Meteorological Organization http://wrdc.mgo.rssi.ru/ (accessed 1 August 2015).
Sato, M., Hansen, J. E., McCormick, M. P. & Pollack, J. B. Stratopheric aerosol optical depths 1850–1990. J. Geophys. Res. 98, 22987–22994 (1993).
Dutton, E. G. & Christy, J. R. Solar radiative forcing at selected locations and evidence for global lower tropospheric cooling following the eruptions of El Chichón and Pinatubo. Geophys. Res. Lett. 19, 2313–2316 (1992).
Trenberth, K. E. & Dai, A. Effects of Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption on the hydrological cycle as an analog of geoengineering. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L15702 (2007).
Greenwald, R. et al. The influence of aerosols on crop production: a study using the CERES crop model. Agric. Syst. 89, 390–413 (2006).
Roderick, M. L. & Farquhar, G. D. Geoengineering: hazy, cool and well fed? Nat. Clim. Change 2, 76–77 (2012).
Gu, L. et al. Response of a deciduous forest to the Mount Pinatubo eruption: enhanced photosynthesis. Science 299, 2035–2038 (2003).
Gupta, R., Somanathan, E. & Dey, S. Global warming and local air pollution have reduced wheat yields in India. Clim. Change 140, 593–604 (2017).
Roderick, M. L., Farquhar, G. D., Berry, S. L. & Noble, I. R. On the direct effect of clouds and atmospheric particles on the productivity and structure of vegetation. Oecologia 129, 21–30 (2001).
Alton, P. B. Reduced carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems under overcast skies compared to clear skies. Agric. For. Meteorol. 148, 1641–1653 (2008).
Mercado, L. M. et al. Impact of changes in diffuse radiation on the global land carbon sink. Nature 458, 1014–1017 (2009).
Tollenaar, M., Fridgen, J., Tyagi, P., Stackhouse, P. W. Jr. & Kumudini, S. The contribution of solar brightening to the US maize yield trend. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 275–278 (2017).
Xia, L. et al. Solar radiation management impacts on agriculture in China: a case study in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 119, 8695–8711 (2014).
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Crops, NationalProduction. FAOSTAT http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC (accessed 1 January 2016).
Hsiang, S. Climate econometrics. Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 8, 43–75 (2016).
Thomason, L. & Peter, T. (eds) SPARC Assessment of Stratospheric Aerosol Properties (ASAP). SPARC Report No. 4 http://www.sparc-climate.org/publications/sparc-reports/ (SPARC Scientific Streering Group, 2006).
Schlenker, W. & Lobell, D. B. Robust negative impacts of climate change on African agriculture. Environ. Res. Lett. 5, 014010 (2010).
Wooldridge, J. M. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data (MIT Press, Cambridge, 2002).
Niemeier, U., Schmidt, H., Alterskjær, K. & Kristjánsson, J. E. Solar irradiance reduction via climate engineering: impact of different techniques on the energy balance and the hydrological cycle. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118, 11905–11917 (2013).
Carleton, T. A. & Hsiang, S. M. Social and economic impacts of climate. Science 353, aad9837 (2016).
Burney, J. & Ramanathan, V. Recent climate and air pollution impacts on Indian agriculture. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 16319–16324 (2014).
Tang, Q., Hess, P. G., Brown-Steiner, B. & Kinnison, D. E. Tropospheric ozone decrease due to the Mount Pinatubo eruption: reduced stratospheric influx. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 5553–5558 (2013).
Ramankutty, N., Evan, A. T., Monfreda, C. & Foley, J. A. Farming the planet: 1. geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 22, GB1003 (2008).
Sacks, W. J., Deryng, D., Foley, J. A. & Ramankutty, N. Crop planting dates: an analysis of global patterns. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 19, 607–620 (2010).
Burke, M. & Emerick, K. Adaptation to climate change: evidence from US agriculture. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 8, 106–140 (2016).
ISCCP Science Team. ISCCP data and information. NASA Atmospheric Science Data Center https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/project/isccp/isccp_table (accessed 7 February 2016) (1999).
Rohde, R. et al. A new estimate of the average Earth surface land temperature spanning 1753 to 2011. Geoinfor. Geostat. Overview 1, 1000101 (2013).
Willmott, C. & Matsurra, K. Terrestrial air temperature and precipitation: monthly and annual time series (1950–1999). Earth System Research Laboratory http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/ (accessed 1 January 2016) (2001).
Norris, J. R. & Evan, A. T. Empirical removal of artifacts from the ISCCP and PATMOS-x satellite cloud records. J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 32, 691–702 (2015).
Hsiang, S. M. & Meng, K. C. Tropical economics. Am. Econ. Rev. 105, 257–261 (2015).
We thank M. Anderson, M. Auffhammer, D. Baldocchi, K. Caldeira, C. Field, A. Goldstein, D. Keith, P. Huybers, R. Kopp, D. Lobell, K. Ricke, J. Sallee and seminar participants at Berkeley, Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, Johns Hopkins and Stanford universities, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Allied Social Science Association Annual Meeting for useful comments. We thank I. Bolliger for his contributions to the project and all the members of the Global Policy Laboratory for their valuable feedback. We thank L. Thomason for generously sharing SAOD data used in Fig. 1a–c. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Grant No. CNH-L 1715557 and the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. DGE 1752814.
Nature thanks L. Gu and the other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data figures and tables
Extended Data Fig. 1 Countries included in the estimation of the insolation-mediated effect of SAOD on crop yield.
Countries in light green are included in the estimation of the insolation-mediated effect of SSAs on yields for both C3 (soy, rice and wheat) and C4 (maize) crops. Countries in dark green are included only in estimation of the insolation effect for C3 crops, and countries in red are included only in estimation of the insolation effect for maize. Countries in grey are not included in the analysis owing to missing data.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Estimated response of yields to changes in growing-season average temperature (orange), precipitation (blue) and cloud fraction (grey).
Temperature, precipitation and cloud fraction axes show growing-season means. The y axes show partial effects on yield relative to a value of zero for each climatological variable (fT(Tit), fP(Pit) and fC(Cit) in equation (16) in Supplementary Information). Vertical dotted lines show the placement of the knots for the restricted cubic splines specification. Dashed lines show the 95% confidence intervals. n = 2,501, 1,256, 1,562 and 2,010 country-years for maize, soy, rice and wheat, respectively.
Extended Data Fig. 3 Flexible (blue) and linear (red) estimation of the insolation-mediated effect of SSAs on crop yields.
The SAOD axes show growing-season means. Each point on a curve gives the optical effect of SAOD, relative to a value of zero (the slope of the red lines is β in equation (16) in Supplementary Information). Vertical dotted lines show the placement of the knots for the restricted cubic splines specification. Dashed lines show the 95% confidence intervals.
SRM-induced changes in maize growing-season average SAOD, temperature, precipitation and cloud fraction, relative to the climate-change-only scenario. Changes in uncropped land have been masked out by setting the values to zero.
Total effects are constructed by summing the partial effects from insolation, temperature, precipitation and clouds. Effects are relative to the climate-change-only scenario. Changes in uncropped land have been masked out by setting the values to zero. Statistically insignificant effects (P > 0.05) are hatched. We calculate P values using a two-sided t-test comparing the estimated effect of SRM to a null hypothesis of zero effect. When calculating the distribution of the estimated SRM effect, we consider only statistical uncertainty. This uncertainty is shown in Extended Data Table 2, Extended Data Fig. 2, and the calculations are described in Supplementary Information, section IV.4.
Extended Data Fig. 6 The finding that SRM mitigates little of the damages of climate change is consistent across three ensemble runs.
Bar graphs show the total effect of SRM on global yields (cropped-fraction weighted average), relative to the climate change control, for each of the three Earth system model runs. Results are similar across ensemble member runs. Maps on the right show the total effect of SSAs on maize yields for each of the ensemble runs. Error bars in the bar graphs show 95% confidence intervals for estimated mean effects for each crop. Statistically insignificant effects (P > 0.05) are hatched in the maps. Changes in uncropped land have been masked out by setting the values to zero. We calculate P values using a two-sided t-test comparing the estimated effects to a null hypothesis of zero effect. Within each ensemble member, we calculate the distributions of the estimated effects considering only statistical uncertainty. This uncertainty is shown in Extended Data Table 2, Extended Data Fig. 2, and the calculations are described in Supplementary Information, section IV.4.
a, As in Fig. 4e, but comparing a climate change scenario (RCP 4.5) to an historical scenario (Supplementary Information, section IV.3). b, As in Fig. 4e, but comparing a climate-change-with-SRM scenario to an historical scenario. Note that these calculations consider only climatological and sunlight-mediated effects; changes in yields owing to carbon fertilization, or other factors that may differ between scenarios, are not included. Error bars show 95% confidence intervals around the estimated mean effect.
About this article
Cite this article
Proctor, J., Hsiang, S., Burney, J. et al. Estimating global agricultural effects of geoengineering using volcanic eruptions. Nature 560, 480–483 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0417-3
Wildfire‐Smoke Aerosols Lead to Increased Light Use Efficiency Among Agricultural and Restored Wetland Land Uses in California's Central Valley
Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences (2020)
Nature Reviews Earth & Environment (2020)
Earth System Governance (2020)
Climatic Change (2020)
The fertilization effect of global dimming on crop yields is not attributed to an improved light interception
Global Change Biology (2020)