Schlagwort: Solar Radiation Management

Study shows support for carbon removal but great concern over solar manipulation

by Ulrich von Lampe, Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC),, October 30

„According to forecasts, even the strategy to gradually reduce climate gas emissions to zero everywhere will no longer be enough to limit global heating to well below 2°C. Today, the discussion is also about „negative emissions,“ i.e., the removal of the most important greenhouse gas, CO2, from the atmosphere. Under the heading of „solar radiation management,“ some are even talking about a potential reflection of incoming sunlight. A new study led by the Berlin-based climate research institute MCC (Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change) now sheds light on the acceptance of such options.“


Baum et al. (2023): Coupling for climate intervention: Sectoral and sustainability couplings for carbon removal and solar geoengineering pathways

Chad M. Baum, Sean Low, Benjamin K. Sovacool IN: Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 194, 122734,

The authors employed a novel dataset garnered from a large expert-interview exercise (N = 125) to conceptualize and consider crucial couplings to solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal at many levels (across different sectors, differing dimensions of sustainability, productive or destructive impacts, and direct and indirect relationships). Their analysis thereby provides insights into the understanding of climate transitions by explicitly considering the most salient couplings in general as well as how, and to what extent, the various options relate to each other, as a portfolio for climate intervention, and together to climate mitigation and adaptation.


GESAMP and C2G’s virtual joint side event: ‚Marine Cloud Brightening, a governance dilemma‘ 

Friday 1 July at 11:00-12:15 WEST (10:00-11:15 UTC) (UN Ocean Conference)

The Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection (GESAMP) and the Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative (C2G) will co-organize a virtual side event on „Marine Cloud Brightening- a governance dilemma“. The event will feature a panel of global speakers with diverse expertise on the ocean, climate change, environmental and ocean law and governance, to engage in discussions on the governance of Marine Cloud Brightening.


Nature-Carlson et al. (2022): Solar geoengineering could redistribute malaria risk in developing countries

Colin J. Carlson, Rita Colwell, Mohammad Sharif Hossain, Mohammed Mofizur Rahman, Alan Robock, Sadie J. Ryan, Mohammad Shafiul Alam, Christopher H. Trisos IN: Nat Commun 13, 2150 (2022).

The authors project how geoengineering could impact malaria risk by comparing current transmission suitability and populations-at-risk under moderate and high greenhouse gas emissions scenarios (Representative Concentration Pathways 4.5 and 8.5) with and without geoengineering. They show that if geoengineering deployment cools the tropics, it could help protect high elevation populations in eastern Africa from malaria encroachment, but could increase transmission in lowland sub-Saharan Africa and southern Asia.


Low et al. (2022): Taking it outside: Exploring social opposition to 21 early-stage experiments in radical climate interventions

Sean Low, Chad M.Baum, Benjamin K. Sovacool IN: Energy Research & Social Science, Vol. 90, August 2022, 102594,

„Who defends and opposes solar geoengineering experiments, and why?“ After screening 44 early-stage experiments, the authors conduct a qualitative comparative analysis of 21 of them in five areas: ocean fertilization, marine cloud brightening, stratospheric aerosol injection, ice protection, and enhanced weathering. The author’s contribution is to map and explain the key issues of contention (why), actors (who), and tactics (how) that have shaped opposition across these linked fields of experimentation and technological development, from the 1990s till today.


Rohling (2022): Rebalancing Our Climate: The Future Starts Today

by Eelco J. Rohling (Professor of Ocean and Climate Change, Australian National University), Oxford Scholarship Online, DOI:10.1093/oso/9780197502556.001.0001, Print ISBN-13: 9780197502556 (in 2022)

„This book documents a wealth of ways to adjust the trajectory of climate change. It outlines measures to drive massive reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, and to reflect part of the incoming energy from the Sun. For all measures, the book evaluates both advantages and disadvantages. Finally, it discusses the need to protect ourselves from impacts that have become inevitable already and looks at how society may be driven to get the job done. In short, this book provides powerful facts and arguments to support informed choices.“


Southeast Asian expert perceptions of solar radiation management techniques and carbon dioxide removal approaches: caution, ambivalence, risk precaution, and research directions

Laurence L Delina IN: Environmental Research Communications

This paper describes the responses of seventeen climate and energy experts from southeast Asia on a purposively designed survey that collected expert opinions on SRM and CDR, their risks, impacts, and governance as they pertain to their countries and region. Respondents showed ambivalence towards these techniques, with many supporting ’natural‘ CDR research and deployment while being cautious about ‚technological‘ SRM and CDR research and deployment.


New York Times: What’s the Least Bad Way to Cool the Planet?

Opinion: „How to cool the planet? The energy infrastructure that powers our civilization must be rebuilt, replacing fossil fuels with carbon-free sources such as solar or nuclear. But even then, zeroing out emissions will not cool the planet. This is a direct consequence of the single most important fact about climate change: Warming is proportional to the cumulative emissions over the industrial era.“


Yue, Chao; et al. (2021): Insensitivity of mass loss of Icelandic Vatnajökull ice cap to solar geoengineering

Yue, Chao; Schmidt, Louise Steffensen; Zhao, Liyun; Wolovick, Michael; Moore, John C. (2021): Insensitivity of mass loss of Icelandic Vatnajökull ice cap to solar geoengineering. [in review]. In The Cryosphere Discuss. [preprint]. DOI: 10.5194/tc-2021-318.

„Geoengineering by stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) may reduce the mass loss from Vatnajökull ice cap (VIC), Iceland, by slowing surface temperature rise, despite relative increases in ocean heat flux brought by the Atlantic Meridional Circulation (AMOC). Although surface mass balance (SMB) is affected by the local climate, the sea level contribution is also dependent on ice dynamics. We use the Parallel Ice Sheet Model (PISM) to estimate the VIC mass balance under the CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5) RCP4.5, 8.5 and GeoMIP (Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project) G4 SAI scenarios during the period 1982–2089. The G4 scenario is based on the RCP4.5, but with additional 5 Tg yr−1 of SO2 injection to the lower stratosphere. By 2089, G4 reduces VIC mass loss from 16 % lost under RCP4.5, to 12 %. Ice dynamics are important for ice cap loss rates, increasing mass loss for RCP4.5 and G4 by 1/4 to 1/3 compared with excluding ice dynamics, but making no difference to mass loss difference under the scenarios. We find that VIC dynamics are remarkably insensitive to climate forcing partly because of AMOC compensation to SMB and low rates of iceberg calving making ocean forcing close to negligible. But the exceptionally high geothermal heat flow under parts of the ice cap which produces correspondingly high basal melt rates means that surface forcing changes are relatively less important than for glaciers with lower geothermal heat flow.“