1
|
Barnes PW, Robson TM, Zepp RG, Bornman JF, Jansen MAK, Ossola R, Wang QW, Robinson SA, Foereid B, Klekociuk AR, Martinez-Abaigar J, Hou WC, Mackenzie R, Paul ND. Interactive effects of changes in UV radiation and climate on terrestrial ecosystems, biogeochemical cycles, and feedbacks to the climate system. Photochem Photobiol Sci 2023; 22:1049-1091. [PMID: 36723799 PMCID: PMC9889965 DOI: 10.1007/s43630-023-00376-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/22/2022] [Accepted: 01/13/2023] [Indexed: 02/02/2023]
Abstract
Terrestrial organisms and ecosystems are being exposed to new and rapidly changing combinations of solar UV radiation and other environmental factors because of ongoing changes in stratospheric ozone and climate. In this Quadrennial Assessment, we examine the interactive effects of changes in stratospheric ozone, UV radiation and climate on terrestrial ecosystems and biogeochemical cycles in the context of the Montreal Protocol. We specifically assess effects on terrestrial organisms, agriculture and food supply, biodiversity, ecosystem services and feedbacks to the climate system. Emphasis is placed on the role of extreme climate events in altering the exposure to UV radiation of organisms and ecosystems and the potential effects on biodiversity. We also address the responses of plants to increased temporal variability in solar UV radiation, the interactive effects of UV radiation and other climate change factors (e.g. drought, temperature) on crops, and the role of UV radiation in driving the breakdown of organic matter from dead plant material (i.e. litter) and biocides (pesticides and herbicides). Our assessment indicates that UV radiation and climate interact in various ways to affect the structure and function of terrestrial ecosystems, and that by protecting the ozone layer, the Montreal Protocol continues to play a vital role in maintaining healthy, diverse ecosystems on land that sustain life on Earth. Furthermore, the Montreal Protocol and its Kigali Amendment are mitigating some of the negative environmental consequences of climate change by limiting the emissions of greenhouse gases and protecting the carbon sequestration potential of vegetation and the terrestrial carbon pool.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P W Barnes
- Biological Sciences and Environment Program, Loyola University New Orleans, New Orleans, USA.
| | - T M Robson
- Organismal & Evolutionary Biology (OEB), Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Viikki Plant Sciences Centre (ViPS), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
- National School of Forestry, University of Cumbria, Ambleside, UK.
| | - R G Zepp
- ORD/CEMM, US Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA, USA
| | - J F Bornman
- Food Futures Institute, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia
| | | | - R Ossola
- Atmospheric Chemistry Observations and Modeling Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, USA
| | - Q-W Wang
- Institute of Applied Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), Shenyang, China
| | - S A Robinson
- Global Challenges Program & School of Earth, Atmospheric and Life Sciences, Securing Antarctica's Environmental Future, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia
| | - B Foereid
- Environment and Natural Resources, Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research, Ås, Norway
| | - A R Klekociuk
- Antarctic Climate Program, Australian Antarctic Division, Kingston, Australia
| | - J Martinez-Abaigar
- Faculty of Science and Technology, University of La Rioja, Logroño (La Rioja), Spain
| | - W-C Hou
- Department of Environmental Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan City, Taiwan
| | - R Mackenzie
- Cape Horn International Center (CHIC), Puerto Williams, Chile
- Millennium Institute Biodiversity of Antarctic and Subantarctic Ecosystems (BASE), Santiago, Chile
| | - N D Paul
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Liaqat W, Altaf MT, Barutçular C, Nawaz H, Ullah I, Basit A, Mohamed HI. Ultraviolet-B radiation in relation to agriculture in the context of climate change: a review. CEREAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS 2023:1-24. [PMID: 37361481 PMCID: PMC10099031 DOI: 10.1007/s42976-023-00375-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2022] [Accepted: 04/03/2023] [Indexed: 06/28/2023]
Abstract
Over the past few decades, the amount of ultraviolet-B radiation (UV-B) reaching the earth's surface has been altered due to climate change and stratospheric ozone dynamics. This narrow but highly biologically active spectrum of light (280-320 nm) can affect plant growth and development. Depletion of ozone and climate change are interlinked in a very complicated manner, i.e., significantly contributing to each other. The interaction of climate change, ozone depletion, and changes in UV-B radiation negatively affects the growth, development, and yield of plants. Furthermore, this interaction will become more complex in the coming years. The ozone layer reduction is paving a path for UV-B radiation to impact the surface of the earth and interfere with the plant's normal life by negatively affecting the plant's morphology and physiology. The nature and degree of the future response of the agricultural ecosystem to the decreasing or increasing UV-B radiation in the background of climate change and ozone dynamics are still unclear. In this regard, this review aims to elucidate the effects of enhanced UV-B radiation reaching the earth's surface due to the depletion of the ozone layer on plants' physiology and the performance of major cereals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Waqas Liaqat
- Department of Field Crops, Faculty of Agriculture, Institute of Natural and Applied Sciences, Çukurova University, 01330 Adana, Turkey
| | - Muhammad Tanveer Altaf
- Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Department of Plant Protection, Sivas University of Science and Technology, 58140 Sivas, Turkey
| | - Celaleddin Barutçular
- Department of Field Crops, Faculty of Agriculture, Institute of Natural and Applied Sciences, Çukurova University, 01330 Adana, Turkey
| | - Hira Nawaz
- Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, Institute of Natural and Applied Sciences, Çukurova University, 01330 Adana, Turkey
| | - Izhar Ullah
- Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Ondokuz Mayis University, Samsun, Turkey
| | - Abdul Basit
- Department of Horticultural Science, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, 41566 South Korea
| | - Heba I. Mohamed
- Department of Biological and Geological Sciences, Faculty of Education, Ain Shams University, Cairo, 11341 Egypt
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Abstract
The benefits and risks of solar radiation modification (SRM; also known as solar geoengineering) need to be evaluated in context with the risks of climate change and will depend on choices such as the amount of cooling. One challenge today is a degree of arbitrariness in the scenarios used in current SRM simulations, making comparisons difficult both between SRM and non-SRM cases and between different SRM scenarios. We address this gap by 1) defining a set of plausible scenarios capturing a range of choices and uncertainties, and 2) providing simulations of these scenarios that can be broadly used for comparative impact assessment. This is an essential precursor to any international assessment by, e.g., the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Making informed future decisions about solar radiation modification (SRM; also known as solar geoengineering)—approaches such as stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) that would cool the climate by reflecting sunlight—requires projections of the climate response and associated human and ecosystem impacts. These projections, in turn, will rely on simulations with global climate models. As with climate-change projections, these simulations need to adequately span a range of possible futures, describing different choices, such as start date and temperature target, as well as risks, such as termination or interruptions. SRM modeling simulations to date typically consider only a single scenario, often with some unrealistic or arbitrarily chosen elements (such as starting deployment in 2020), and have often been chosen based on scientific rather than policy-relevant considerations (e.g., choosing quite substantial cooling specifically to achieve a bigger response). This limits the ability to compare risks both between SRM and non-SRM scenarios and between different SRM scenarios. To address this gap, we begin by outlining some general considerations on scenario design for SRM. We then describe a specific set of scenarios to capture a range of possible policy choices and uncertainties and present corresponding SAI simulations intended for broad community use.
Collapse
|
4
|
Barnes PW, Robson TM, Neale PJ, Williamson CE, Zepp RG, Madronich S, Wilson SR, Andrady AL, Heikkilä AM, Bernhard GH, Bais AF, Neale RE, Bornman JF, Jansen MAK, Klekociuk AR, Martinez-Abaigar J, Robinson SA, Wang QW, Banaszak AT, Häder DP, Hylander S, Rose KC, Wängberg SÅ, Foereid B, Hou WC, Ossola R, Paul ND, Ukpebor JE, Andersen MPS, Longstreth J, Schikowski T, Solomon KR, Sulzberger B, Bruckman LS, Pandey KK, White CC, Zhu L, Zhu M, Aucamp PJ, Liley JB, McKenzie RL, Berwick M, Byrne SN, Hollestein LM, Lucas RM, Olsen CM, Rhodes LE, Yazar S, Young AR. Environmental effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation, and interactions with climate change: UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, Update 2021. Photochem Photobiol Sci 2022; 21:275-301. [PMID: 35191005 PMCID: PMC8860140 DOI: 10.1007/s43630-022-00176-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2021] [Accepted: 01/14/2022] [Indexed: 12/07/2022]
Abstract
The Environmental Effects Assessment Panel of the Montreal Protocol under the United Nations Environment Programme evaluates effects on the environment and human health that arise from changes in the stratospheric ozone layer and concomitant variations in ultraviolet (UV) radiation at the Earth's surface. The current update is based on scientific advances that have accumulated since our last assessment (Photochem and Photobiol Sci 20(1):1-67, 2021). We also discuss how climate change affects stratospheric ozone depletion and ultraviolet radiation, and how stratospheric ozone depletion affects climate change. The resulting interlinking effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation, and climate change are assessed in terms of air quality, carbon sinks, ecosystems, human health, and natural and synthetic materials. We further highlight potential impacts on the biosphere from extreme climate events that are occurring with increasing frequency as a consequence of climate change. These and other interactive effects are examined with respect to the benefits that the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments are providing to life on Earth by controlling the production of various substances that contribute to both stratospheric ozone depletion and climate change.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P W Barnes
- Biological Sciences and Environment Program, Loyola University New Orleans, New Orleans, USA
| | - T M Robson
- Organismal and Evolutionary Biology (OEB), Viikki Plant Science Centre (ViPS), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - P J Neale
- Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Edgewater, USA
| | | | - R G Zepp
- ORD/CEMM, US Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA, USA
| | - S Madronich
- Atmospheric Chemistry Observations and Modeling Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, USA
| | - S R Wilson
- School of Earth, Atmospheric and Life Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia
| | - A L Andrady
- Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, North Carolina State University, Apex, USA
| | - A M Heikkilä
- Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland
| | | | - A F Bais
- Laboratory of Atmospheric Physics, Department of Physics, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece
| | - R E Neale
- Population Health Department, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia
| | - J F Bornman
- Food Futures Institute, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia.
| | | | - A R Klekociuk
- Antarctic Climate Program, Australian Antarctic Division, Kingston, Australia
| | - J Martinez-Abaigar
- Faculty of Science and Technology, University of La Rioja, La Rioja, Logroño, Spain
| | - S A Robinson
- Securing Antarctica's Environmental Future, Global Challenges Program and School of Earth, Atmospheric and Life Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia
| | - Q-W Wang
- Institute of Applied Ecology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), Shenyang, China
| | - A T Banaszak
- Unidad Académica De Sistemas Arrecifales, Universidad Nacional Autónoma De México, Puerto Morelos, Mexico
| | - D-P Häder
- Department of Biology, Friedrich-Alexander University, Möhrendorf, Germany
| | - S Hylander
- Centre for Ecology and Evolution in Microbial Model Systems-EEMiS, Linnaeus University, Kalmar, Sweden.
| | - K C Rose
- Biological Sciences, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, USA
| | - S-Å Wängberg
- Marine Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - B Foereid
- Environment and Natural Resources, Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research, Ås, Norway
| | - W-C Hou
- Environmental Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan
| | - R Ossola
- Environmental System Science (D-USYS), ETH Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - N D Paul
- Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| | - J E Ukpebor
- Chemistry Department, Faculty of Physical Sciences, University of Benin, Benin City, Nigeria
| | - M P S Andersen
- Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, California State University, Northridge, USA
- Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - J Longstreth
- The Institute for Global Risk Research, LLC, Bethesda, USA
| | - T Schikowski
- Research Group of Environmental Epidemiology, Leibniz Institute of Environmental Medicine, Düsseldorf, Germany
| | - K R Solomon
- Centre for Toxicology, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada
| | - B Sulzberger
- Academic Guest, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, 8600, Dübendorf, Switzerland
| | - L S Bruckman
- Materials Science and Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, USA
| | - K K Pandey
- Wood Processing Division, Institute of Wood Science and Technology, Bangalore, India
| | - C C White
- Polymer Science and Materials Chemistry (PSMC), Exponent, Bethesda, USA
| | - L Zhu
- College of Materials Science and Engineering, Donghua University, Shanghai, China
| | - M Zhu
- State Key Laboratory for Modification of Chemical Fibers and Polymer Materials, Donghua University, Shanghai, China
| | - P J Aucamp
- Ptersa Environmental Consultants, Pretoria, South Africa
| | - J B Liley
- National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Alexandra, New Zealand
| | - R L McKenzie
- National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Alexandra, New Zealand
| | - M Berwick
- Internal Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, USA
| | - S N Byrne
- Applied Medical Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - L M Hollestein
- Department of Dermatology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - R M Lucas
- National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
| | - C M Olsen
- Population Health Department, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia
| | - L E Rhodes
- Photobiology Unit, Dermatology Research Centre, School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - S Yazar
- Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney, Australia
| | - A R Young
- St John's Institute of Dermatology, King's College London (KCL), London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Lu B, Trabelsi T, Esposito VJ, Fortenberry RC, Francisco JS, Zeng X. Spectroscopic Characterization of HSO 2• and HOSO • Intermediates Involved in SO 2 Geoengineering. J Phys Chem A 2021; 125:10615-10621. [PMID: 34890193 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpca.1c09311] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
Sulfur-containing radicals HSO2• and HOSO• are key intermediates involved in stratospheric sulfur geoengineering by SO2 injection. The spectroscopic characterization and photochemistry of both radicals are crucial to understanding the chemical impact of SO2 chemistry in the stratosphere. On the basis of the efficient generation of HOSO• by flash pyrolysis of gaseous sulfinic acid, CHF2S(O)OH, a strong absorption is observed at 270 nm along with a shoulder up to 350 nm for HOSO• isolated in low-temperature noble gas matrixes (Ar and Ne). These mainly arise from the excitations from the ground state (X2A) to the C2A/D2A and A2A/B2A states, respectively. Upon a 266 nm laser irradiation, the broad absorption band in the range 320-500 nm for HSO2• appears, and it corresponds to the combination of three excitations from the X2A state to the first (A2A), second (B2A), and third (C2A) excited states. Assignment of the UV-vis spectra is consistent with the photochemistry of HOSO• and HSO2• as observed by matrix-isolation IR spectroscopy and also by the agreement with high-level ab initio calculations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bo Lu
- Department of Chemistry, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Molecular Catalysts and Innovative Materials, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200433, China
| | - Tarek Trabelsi
- Department of Earth and Environmental Science and Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, United States
| | - Vincent J Esposito
- Department of Earth and Environmental Science and Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, United States
| | - Ryan C Fortenberry
- Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry, University of Mississippi, University, Mississippi 38677-1848, United States
| | - Joseph S Francisco
- Department of Earth and Environmental Science and Department of Chemistry, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, United States
| | - Xiaoqing Zeng
- Department of Chemistry, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Molecular Catalysts and Innovative Materials, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200433, China
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Dannenberg A, Zitzelsberger S. Climate experts' views on geoengineering depend on their beliefs about climate change impacts. NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE 2019; 9:769-775. [PMID: 31579402 PMCID: PMC6774770 DOI: 10.1038/s41558-019-0564-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/04/2019] [Accepted: 07/25/2019] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
Climate change damages are expected to increase with global warming, which could be limited directly by solar geoengineering. Here we analyse the views of 723 negotiators and scientists involved in international climate policy who will have a significant influence on whether solar geoengineering will be deployed to counter climate change. We find that respondents who expect severe global climate change damages and who have little confidence in current mitigation efforts are more opposed to geoengineering than respondents who are less pessimistic about global damages and mitigation efforts. However, we also find that respondents are more supportive of geoengineering when they expect severe climate change damages in their home country than when they have more optimistic expectations for the home country. Thus, when respondents are more personally affected, their views are closer to what rational cost-benefit analyses predict.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Astrid Dannenberg
- Department of Economics, University of Kassel, 34117 Kassel, Germany
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Clapp CE, Anderson JG. Modeling the Effect of Potential Nitric Acid Removal During Convective Injection of Water Vapor Over the Central United States on the Chemical Composition of the Lower Stratosphere. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH. ATMOSPHERES : JGR 2019; 124:9743-9770. [PMID: 31763110 PMCID: PMC6853249 DOI: 10.1029/2018jd029703] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/22/2018] [Revised: 07/30/2019] [Accepted: 08/04/2019] [Indexed: 06/10/2023]
Abstract
Tropopause-penetrating convection is a frequent seasonal feature of the Central United States climate. This convection presents the potential for consistent transport of water vapor into the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere (UTLS) through the lofting of ice, which then sublimates. Water vapor enhancements associated with convective ice lofting have been observed in both in situ and satellite measurements. These water vapor enhancements can increase the probability of sulfate aerosol-catalyzed heterogeneous reactions that convert reservoir chlorine (HCl and ClONO2) to free radical chlorine (Cl and ClO) that leads to catalytic ozone loss. In addition to water vapor transport, lofted ice may also scavenge nitric acid and further impact the chlorine activation chemistry of the UTLS. We present a photochemical model that resolves the vertical chemical structure of the UTLS to explore the effect of water vapor enhancements and potential additional nitric acid removal. The model is used to define the response of stratospheric column ozone to the range of convective water vapor transported and the temperature variability of the lower stratosphere currently observed over the Central United States in conjunction with potential nitric acid removal and to scenarios of elevated sulfate aerosol surface area density representative of possible future volcanic eruptions or solar radiation management. We find that the effect of HNO3 removal is dependent on the magnitude of nitric acid removal and has the greatest potential to increase chlorine activation and ozone loss under UTLS conditions that weakly favor the chlorine activation heterogeneous reactions by reducing NOx sources.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- C. E. Clapp
- Department of Chemistry and Chemical BiologyHarvard UniversityCambridgeMAUSA
| | - J. G. Anderson
- Department of Chemistry and Chemical BiologyHarvard UniversityCambridgeMAUSA
- Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied SciencesHarvard UniversityCambridgeMAUSA
- Department of Earth and Planetary SciencesHarvard UniversityCambridgeMAUSA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Sulfuric acid decomposition chemistry above Junge layer in Earth's atmosphere concerning ozone depletion and healing. Commun Chem 2019. [DOI: 10.1038/s42004-019-0178-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022] Open
|
9
|
Lawrence MG, Schäfer S, Muri H, Scott V, Oschlies A, Vaughan NE, Boucher O, Schmidt H, Haywood J, Scheffran J. Evaluating climate geoengineering proposals in the context of the Paris Agreement temperature goals. Nat Commun 2018; 9:3734. [PMID: 30213930 PMCID: PMC6137062 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-05938-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 104] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2017] [Accepted: 08/07/2018] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Current mitigation efforts and existing future commitments are inadequate to accomplish the Paris Agreement temperature goals. In light of this, research and debate are intensifying on the possibilities of additionally employing proposed climate geoengineering technologies, either through atmospheric carbon dioxide removal or farther-reaching interventions altering the Earth’s radiative energy budget. Although research indicates that several techniques may eventually have the physical potential to contribute to limiting climate change, all are in early stages of development, involve substantial uncertainties and risks, and raise ethical and governance dilemmas. Based on present knowledge, climate geoengineering techniques cannot be relied on to significantly contribute to meeting the Paris Agreement temperature goals. Research and debate are intensifying on complementing CO2 emissions reductions with hypothetical climate geoengineering techniques. Here, the authors assess their potentials, uncertainties and risks, and show that they cannot yet be relied on to significantly contribute to meeting the Paris Agreement temperature goals.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mark G Lawrence
- Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS), Potsdam, Germany. .,University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.
| | - Stefan Schäfer
- Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS), Potsdam, Germany.,Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Helene Muri
- University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.,Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
| | | | | | | | - Olivier Boucher
- Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace, CNRS / Sorbonne Université, Paris, France
| | - Hauke Schmidt
- Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Jim Haywood
- University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.,Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
MacMartin DG, Ricke KL, Keith DW. Solar geoengineering as part of an overall strategy for meeting the 1.5°C Paris target. PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS. SERIES A, MATHEMATICAL, PHYSICAL, AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2018; 376:20160454. [PMID: 29610384 PMCID: PMC5897825 DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2016.0454] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/16/2017] [Indexed: 05/15/2023]
Abstract
Solar geoengineering refers to deliberately reducing net radiative forcing by reflecting some sunlight back to space, in order to reduce anthropogenic climate changes; a possible such approach would be adding aerosols to the stratosphere. If future mitigation proves insufficient to limit the rise in global mean temperature to less than 1.5°C above preindustrial, it is plausible that some additional and limited deployment of solar geoengineering could reduce climate damages. That is, these approaches could eventually be considered as part of an overall strategy to manage the risks of climate change, combining emissions reduction, net-negative emissions technologies and solar geoengineering to meet climate goals. We first provide a physical-science review of current research, research trends and some of the key gaps in knowledge that would need to be addressed to support informed decisions. Next, since few climate model simulations have considered these limited-deployment scenarios, we synthesize prior results to assess the projected response if solar geoengineering were used to limit global mean temperature to 1.5°C above preindustrial in an overshoot scenario that would otherwise peak near 3°C. While there are some important differences, the resulting climate is closer in many respects to a climate where the 1.5°C target is achieved through mitigation alone than either is to the 3°C climate with no geoengineering. This holds for both regional temperature and precipitation changes; indeed, there are no regions where a majority of models project that this moderate level of geoengineering would produce a statistically significant shift in precipitation further away from preindustrial levels.This article is part of the theme issue 'The Paris Agreement: understanding the physical and social challenges for a warming world of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels'.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Douglas G MacMartin
- Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA
| | - Katharine L Ricke
- Scripps Institution of Oceanography and School of Global Policy and Strategy, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA
| | - David W Keith
- John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Affiliation(s)
| | - Simone Tilmes
- Atmospheric Chemistry, Observations, and Modeling Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Abstract
Injecting sulfate aerosol into the stratosphere, the most frequently analyzed proposal for solar geoengineering, may reduce some climate risks, but it would also entail new risks, including ozone loss and heating of the lower tropical stratosphere, which, in turn, would increase water vapor concentration causing additional ozone loss and surface warming. We propose a method for stratospheric aerosol climate modification that uses a solid aerosol composed of alkaline metal salts that will convert hydrogen halides and nitric and sulfuric acids into stable salts to enable stratospheric geoengineering while reducing or reversing ozone depletion. Rather than minimizing reactive effects by reducing surface area using high refractive index materials, this method tailors the chemical reactivity. Specifically, we calculate that injection of calcite (CaCO3) aerosol particles might reduce net radiative forcing while simultaneously increasing column ozone toward its preanthropogenic baseline. A radiative forcing of -1 W⋅m-2, for example, might be achieved with a simultaneous 3.8% increase in column ozone using 2.1 Tg⋅y-1 of 275-nm radius calcite aerosol. Moreover, the radiative heating of the lower stratosphere would be roughly 10-fold less than if that same radiative forcing had been produced using sulfate aerosol. Although solar geoengineering cannot substitute for emissions cuts, it may supplement them by reducing some of the risks of climate change. Further research on this and similar methods could lead to reductions in risks and improved efficacy of solar geoengineering methods.
Collapse
|
13
|
Estimating option values of solar radiation management assuming that climate sensitivity is uncertain. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2016; 113:5886-91. [PMID: 27162346 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1520795113] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Although solar radiation management (SRM) might play a role as an emergency geoengineering measure, its potential risks remain uncertain, and hence there are ethical and governance issues in the face of SRM's actual deployment. By using an integrated assessment model, we first present one possible methodology for evaluating the value arising from retaining an SRM option given the uncertainty of climate sensitivity, and also examine sensitivities of the option value to SRM's side effects (damages). Reflecting the governance challenges on immediate SRM deployment, we assume scenarios in which SRM could only be deployed with a limited degree of cooling (0.5 °C) only after 2050, when climate sensitivity uncertainty is assumed to be resolved and only when the sensitivity is found to be high (T2x = 4 °C). We conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis with constraining temperature rise as the objective. The SRM option value is originated from its rapid cooling capability that would alleviate the mitigation requirement under climate sensitivity uncertainty and thereby reduce mitigation costs. According to our estimates, the option value during 1990-2049 for a +2.4 °C target (the lowest temperature target level for which there were feasible solutions in this model study) relative to preindustrial levels were in the range between $2.5 and $5.9 trillion, taking into account the maximum level of side effects shown in the existing literature. The result indicates that lower limits of the option values for temperature targets below +2.4 °C would be greater than $2.5 trillion.
Collapse
|
14
|
Abstract
Devastating floods due to Atlantic hurricanes are relatively rare events. However, the frequency of the most intense storms is likely to increase with rises in sea surface temperatures. Geoengineering by stratospheric sulfate aerosol injection cools the tropics relative to the polar regions, including the hurricane Main Development Region in the Atlantic, suggesting that geoengineering may mitigate hurricanes. We examine this hypothesis using eight earth system model simulations of climate under the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) G3 and G4 schemes that use stratospheric aerosols to reduce the radiative forcing under the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 scenario. Global mean temperature increases are greatly ameliorated by geoengineering, and tropical temperature increases are at most half of those temperature increases in the RCP4.5. However, sulfate injection would have to double (to nearly 10 teragrams of SO2 per year) between 2020 and 2070 to balance the RCP4.5, approximately the equivalent of a 1991 Pinatubo eruption every 2 y, with consequent implications for stratospheric ozone. We project changes in storm frequencies using a temperature-dependent generalized extreme value statistical model calibrated by historical storm surges and observed temperatures since 1923. The number of storm surge events as big as the one caused by the 2005 Katrina hurricane are reduced by about 50% compared with no geoengineering, but this reduction is only marginally statistically significant. Nevertheless, when sea level rise differences in 2070 between the RCP4.5 and geoengineering are factored into coastal flood risk, we find that expected flood levels are reduced by about 40 cm for 5-y events and about halved for 50-y surges.
Collapse
|
15
|
Aaheim A, Romstad B, Wei T, Kristjánsson JE, Muri H, Niemeier U, Schmidt H. An economic evaluation of solar radiation management. THE SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT 2015; 532:61-69. [PMID: 26057725 DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.05.106] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2015] [Revised: 04/16/2015] [Accepted: 05/24/2015] [Indexed: 06/04/2023]
Abstract
Economic evaluations of solar radiation management (SRM) usually assume that the temperature will be stabilized, with no economic impacts of climate change, but with possible side-effects. We know from experiments with climate models, however, that unlike emission control the spatial and temporal distributions of temperature, precipitation and wind conditions will change. Hence, SRM may have economic consequences under a stabilization of global mean temperature even if side-effects other than those related to the climatic responses are disregarded. This paper addresses the economic impacts of implementing two SRM technologies; stratospheric sulfur injection and marine cloud brightening. By the use of a computable general equilibrium model, we estimate the economic impacts of climatic responses based on the results from two earth system models, MPI-ESM and NorESM. We find that under a moderately increasing greenhouse-gas concentration path, RCP4.5, the economic benefits of implementing climate engineering are small, and may become negative. Global GDP increases in three of the four experiments and all experiments include regions where the benefits from climate engineering are negative.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Asbjørn Aaheim
- CICERO - Center for International Climate and Environmental Research Oslo, Norway
| | - Bård Romstad
- CICERO - Center for International Climate and Environmental Research Oslo, Norway
| | - Taoyuan Wei
- CICERO - Center for International Climate and Environmental Research Oslo, Norway
| | | | - Helene Muri
- Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Norway
| | | | - Hauke Schmidt
- Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Oldham P, Szerszynski B, Stilgoe J, Brown C, Eacott B, Yuille A. Mapping the landscape of climate engineering. PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS. SERIES A, MATHEMATICAL, PHYSICAL, AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2014; 372:rsta.2014.0065. [PMID: 25404683 PMCID: PMC4240957 DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2014.0065] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/04/2023]
Abstract
In the absence of a governance framework for climate engineering technologies such as solar radiation management (SRM), the practices of scientific research and intellectual property acquisition can de facto shape the development of the field. It is therefore important to make visible emerging patterns of research and patenting, which we suggest can effectively be done using bibliometric methods. We explore the challenges in defining the boundary of climate engineering, and set out the research strategy taken in this study. A dataset of 825 scientific publications on climate engineering between 1971 and 2013 was identified, including 193 on SRM; these are analysed in terms of trends, institutions, authors and funders. For our patent dataset, we identified 143 first filings directly or indirectly related to climate engineering technologies-of which 28 were related to SRM technologies-linked to 910 family members. We analyse the main patterns discerned in patent trends, applicants and inventors. We compare our own findings with those of an earlier bibliometric study of climate engineering, and show how our method is consistent with the need for transparency and repeatability, and the need to adjust the method as the field develops. We conclude that bibliometric monitoring techniques can play an important role in the anticipatory governance of climate engineering.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P Oldham
- One World Analytics, 3B Waterview, White Cross, Lancaster, UK
| | - B Szerszynski
- Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Department of Sociology, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YT, UK
| | - J Stilgoe
- Department of Science and Technology Studies, University College London, Gower St., London WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - C Brown
- Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Department of Sociology, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YT, UK
| | - B Eacott
- Department of Science and Technology Studies, University College London, Gower St., London WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - A Yuille
- Centre for the Study of Environmental Change, Department of Sociology, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YT, UK
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Dykema JA, Keith DW, Anderson JG, Weisenstein D. Stratospheric controlled perturbation experiment: a small-scale experiment to improve understanding of the risks of solar geoengineering. PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS. SERIES A, MATHEMATICAL, PHYSICAL, AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2014; 372:20140059. [PMID: 25404681 PMCID: PMC4240955 DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2014.0059] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/27/2023]
Abstract
Although solar radiation management (SRM) through stratospheric aerosol methods has the potential to mitigate impacts of climate change, our current knowledge of stratospheric processes suggests that these methods may entail significant risks. In addition to the risks associated with current knowledge, the possibility of 'unknown unknowns' exists that could significantly alter the risk assessment relative to our current understanding. While laboratory experimentation can improve the current state of knowledge and atmospheric models can assess large-scale climate response, they cannot capture possible unknown chemistry or represent the full range of interactive atmospheric chemical physics. Small-scale, in situ experimentation under well-regulated circumstances can begin to remove some of these uncertainties. This experiment-provisionally titled the stratospheric controlled perturbation experiment-is under development and will only proceed with transparent and predominantly governmental funding and independent risk assessment. We describe the scientific and technical foundation for performing, under external oversight, small-scale experiments to quantify the risks posed by SRM to activation of halogen species and subsequent erosion of stratospheric ozone. The paper's scope includes selection of the measurement platform, relevant aspects of stratospheric meteorology, operational considerations and instrument design and engineering.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John A Dykema
- School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, One Brattle Square, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
| | - David W Keith
- School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, One Brattle Square, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA Harvard Kennedy School and School of Engineering and Applied Science, Pierce Hall, 29 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
| | - James G Anderson
- School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, One Brattle Square, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University, Mallinckrodt Link Building, 12 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
| | - Debra Weisenstein
- School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, One Brattle Square, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Tang MJ, Camp JCJ, Rkiouak L, McGregor J, Watson IM, Cox RA, Kalberer M, Ward AD, Pope FD. Heterogeneous Interaction of SiO2 with N2O5: Aerosol Flow Tube and Single Particle Optical Levitation–Raman Spectroscopy Studies. J Phys Chem A 2014; 118:8817-27. [DOI: 10.1021/jp506753c] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- M. J. Tang
- Department
of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, Lensfield Road, Cambridge CB2 1EW, United Kingdom
- Department
of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Wills Memorial Building, Bristol BS8 1RJ, United Kingdom
| | - J. C. J. Camp
- Department
of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Cambridge, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3RA, United Kingdom
| | - L. Rkiouak
- Department
of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, Lensfield Road, Cambridge CB2 1EW, United Kingdom
- Department
of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Cambridge, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3RA, United Kingdom
| | - J. McGregor
- Department
of Chemical and Biological Engineering, University of Sheffield, Mappin Street, Sheffield S1 3JD, United Kingdom
| | - I. M. Watson
- Department
of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Wills Memorial Building, Bristol BS8 1RJ, United Kingdom
| | - R. A. Cox
- Department
of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, Lensfield Road, Cambridge CB2 1EW, United Kingdom
| | - M. Kalberer
- Department
of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, Lensfield Road, Cambridge CB2 1EW, United Kingdom
| | - A. D. Ward
- Central
Laser Facility, STFC, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0QX, United Kingdom
| | - F. D. Pope
- School
of
Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston,
Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Baum SD, Maher TM, Haqq-Misra J. Double catastrophe: intermittent stratospheric geoengineering induced by societal collapse. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2013. [DOI: 10.1007/s10669-012-9429-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 31] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/27/2022]
|
20
|
Russell LM, Rasch PJ, Mace GM, Jackson RB, Shepherd J, Liss P, Leinen M, Schimel D, Vaughan NE, Janetos AC, Boyd PW, Norby RJ, Caldeira K, Merikanto J, Artaxo P, Melillo J, Morgan MG. Ecosystem impacts of geoengineering: a review for developing a science plan. AMBIO 2012; 41:350-69. [PMID: 22430307 PMCID: PMC3393062 DOI: 10.1007/s13280-012-0258-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/22/2011] [Revised: 09/27/2011] [Accepted: 01/31/2012] [Indexed: 05/22/2023]
Abstract
Geoengineering methods are intended to reduce climate change, which is already having demonstrable effects on ecosystem structure and functioning in some regions. Two types of geoengineering activities that have been proposed are: carbon dioxide (CO(2)) removal (CDR), which removes CO(2) from the atmosphere, and solar radiation management (SRM, or sunlight reflection methods), which reflects a small percentage of sunlight back into space to offset warming from greenhouse gases (GHGs). Current research suggests that SRM or CDR might diminish the impacts of climate change on ecosystems by reducing changes in temperature and precipitation. However, sudden cessation of SRM would exacerbate the climate effects on ecosystems, and some CDR might interfere with oceanic and terrestrial ecosystem processes. The many risks and uncertainties associated with these new kinds of purposeful perturbations to the Earth system are not well understood and require cautious and comprehensive research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lynn M. Russell
- Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr. Mail Code 0221, La Jolla, CA 92093-0221 USA
| | - Philip J. Rasch
- Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 902 Battelle Boulevard, P. O. Box 999, MSIN K9-34, Richland, WA 99352 USA
| | - Georgina M. Mace
- Centre for Population Biology, Imperial College London, Ascot, Berks SL5 7PY UK
| | - Robert B. Jackson
- Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708 USA
| | - John Shepherd
- Earth System Science, School of Ocean and Earth Sciences, National Oceanography Centre, University of Southampton, European Way, Southampton, SO14 3ZH UK
| | - Peter Liss
- School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ UK
| | - Margaret Leinen
- Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institute, 5600 US Rt 1 North, Fort Pierce, FL 34946 USA
| | | | - Naomi E. Vaughan
- Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ UK
| | - Anthony C. Janetos
- Joint Global Change Research Institute Pacific Northwest National Laboratory/University of Maryland, 5825 University Research Court, Suite 3500, College Park, MD 20740 USA
| | - Philip W. Boyd
- NIWA Centre of Chemical & Physical Oceanography, Department of Chemistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand
| | - Richard J. Norby
- Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Bethel Valley Road, Bldg. 2040, MS-6301, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6301 USA
| | - Ken Caldeira
- Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
| | - Joonas Merikanto
- Division of Atmospheric Sciences, Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, P.O Box 64, 00014 Helsinki, Finland
| | - Paulo Artaxo
- Institute of Physics, University of São Paulo, Rua do Matão, Travessa R, 187, São Paulo, SP CEP 05508-090 Brazil
| | - Jerry Melillo
- The Ecosystems Center, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA 02543 USA
| | - M. Granger Morgan
- Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
| |
Collapse
|
21
|
Kravitz B, Robock A, Shindell DT, Miller MA. Sensitivity of stratospheric geoengineering with black carbon to aerosol size and altitude of injection. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2012. [DOI: 10.1029/2011jd017341] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
|
22
|
Terao Y, Sugita T, Sasano Y. Ozone loss rates in the Arctic winter stratosphere during 1994-2000 derived from POAM II/III and ILAS observations: Implications for relationships among ozone loss, PSC occurrence, and temperature. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2012. [DOI: 10.1029/2011jd016789] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
|
23
|
Abstract
There is widespread concern that anthropogenic global warming will trigger Arctic climate tipping points. The Arctic has a long history of natural, abrupt climate changes, which together with current observations and model projections, can help us to identify which parts of the Arctic climate system might pass future tipping points. Here the climate tipping points are defined, noting that not all of them involve bifurcations leading to irreversible change. Past abrupt climate changes in the Arctic are briefly reviewed. Then, the current behaviour of a range of Arctic systems is summarised. Looking ahead, a range of potential tipping phenomena are described. This leads to a revised and expanded list of potential Arctic climate tipping elements, whose likelihood is assessed, in terms of how much warming will be required to tip them. Finally, the available responses are considered, especially the prospects for avoiding Arctic climate tipping points.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Timothy M Lenton
- College of Life and Environmental Sciences, Hatherly Laboratories, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4PS, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
24
|
|
25
|
|
26
|
McKenzie RL, Aucamp PJ, Bais AF, Björn LO, Ilyas M, Madronich S. Ozone depletion and climate change: impacts on UV radiation. Photochem Photobiol Sci 2011; 10:182-98. [DOI: 10.1039/c0pp90034f] [Citation(s) in RCA: 301] [Impact Index Per Article: 23.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
|
27
|
The Influence of Stratospheric Sulphate Aerosol Deployment on the Surface Air Temperature and the Risk of an Abrupt Global Warming. ATMOSPHERE 2010. [DOI: 10.3390/atmos1010062] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
|
28
|
Ammann CM, Washington WM, Meehl GA, Buja L, Teng H. Climate engineering through artificial enhancement of natural forcings: Magnitudes and implied consequences. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2010. [DOI: 10.1029/2009jd012878] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
|
29
|
Photophoretic levitation of engineered aerosols for geoengineering. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010; 107:16428-31. [PMID: 20823254 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1009519107] [Citation(s) in RCA: 101] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Aerosols could be injected into the upper atmosphere to engineer the climate by scattering incident sunlight so as to produce a cooling tendency that may mitigate the risks posed by the accumulation of greenhouse gases. Analysis of climate engineering has focused on sulfate aerosols. Here I examine the possibility that engineered nanoparticles could exploit photophoretic forces, enabling more control over particle distribution and lifetime than is possible with sulfates, perhaps allowing climate engineering to be accomplished with fewer side effects. The use of electrostatic or magnetic materials enables a class of photophoretic forces not found in nature. Photophoretic levitation could loft particles above the stratosphere, reducing their capacity to interfere with ozone chemistry; and, by increasing particle lifetimes, it would reduce the need for continual replenishment of the aerosol. Moreover, particles might be engineered to drift poleward enabling albedo modification to be tailored to counter polar warming while minimizing the impact on equatorial climates.
Collapse
|
30
|
Schneider DP, Ammann CM, Otto-Bliesner BL, Kaufman DS. Climate response to large, high-latitude and low-latitude volcanic eruptions in the Community Climate System Model. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2009. [DOI: 10.1029/2008jd011222] [Citation(s) in RCA: 129] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
|
31
|
Kravitz B, Robock A, Oman L, Stenchikov G, Marquardt AB. Sulfuric acid deposition from stratospheric geoengineering with sulfate aerosols. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2009. [DOI: 10.1029/2009jd011918] [Citation(s) in RCA: 60] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
|
32
|
Tilmes S, Garcia RR, Kinnison DE, Gettelman A, Rasch PJ. Impact of geoengineered aerosols on the troposphere and stratosphere. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2009. [DOI: 10.1029/2008jd011420] [Citation(s) in RCA: 126] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
|
33
|
Andrady A, Aucamp PJ, Bais A, Ballaré CL, Björn LO, Bornman JF, Caldwell M, Cullen AP, Erickson DJ, de Gruijl FR, Häder DP, Ilyas M, Kulandaivelu G, Kumar HD, Longstreth J, McKenzie RL, Norval M, Paul N, Redhwi HH, Smith RC, Solomon KR, Sulzberger B, Takizawa Y, Tang X, Teramura AH, Torikai A, van der Leun JC, Wilson SR, Worrest RC, Zepp RG. Environmental effects of ozone depletion and its interactions with climate change: progress report, 2008. Photochem Photobiol Sci 2009; 8:13-22. [PMID: 19256109 DOI: 10.1039/b820432m] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
Abstract
After the enthusiastic celebration of the 20th Anniversary of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer in 2007, the work for the protection of the ozone layer continues. The Environmental Effects Assessment Panel is one of the three expert panels within the Montreal Protocol. This EEAP deals with the increase of the UV irradiance on the Earth's surface and its effects on human health, animals, plants, biogeochemistry, air quality and materials. For the past few years, interactions of ozone depletion with climate change have also been considered. It has become clear that the environmental problems will be long-lasting. In spite of the fact that the worldwide production of ozone depleting chemicals has already been reduced by 95%, the environmental disturbances are expected to persist for about the next half a century, even if the protective work is actively continued, and completed. The latest full report was published in Photochem. Photobiol. Sci., 2007, 6, 201-332, and the last progress report in Photochem. Photobiol. Sci., 2008, 7, 15-27. The next full report on environmental effects is scheduled for the year 2010. The present progress report 2008 is one of the short interim reports, appearing annually.
Collapse
|
34
|
Rasch PJ, Tilmes S, Turco RP, Robock A, Oman L, Chen CC, Stenchikov GL, Garcia RR. An overview of geoengineering of climate using stratospheric sulphate aerosols. PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS. SERIES A, MATHEMATICAL, PHYSICAL, AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES 2008; 366:4007-4037. [PMID: 18757276 DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2008.0131] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/26/2023]
Abstract
We provide an overview of geoengineering by stratospheric sulphate aerosols. The state of understanding about this topic as of early 2008 is reviewed, summarizing the past 30 years of work in the area, highlighting some very recent studies using climate models, and discussing methods used to deliver sulphur species to the stratosphere. The studies reviewed here suggest that sulphate aerosols can counteract the globally averaged temperature increase associated with increasing greenhouse gases, and reduce changes to some other components of the Earth system. There are likely to be remaining regional climate changes after geoengineering, with some regions experiencing significant changes in temperature or precipitation. The aerosols also serve as surfaces for heterogeneous chemistry resulting in increased ozone depletion. The delivery of sulphur species to the stratosphere in a way that will produce particles of the right size is shown to be a complex and potentially very difficult task. Two simple delivery scenarios are explored, but similar exercises will be needed for other suggested delivery mechanisms. While the introduction of the geoengineering source of sulphate aerosol will perturb the sulphur cycle of the stratosphere signicantly, it is a small perturbation to the total (stratosphere and troposphere) sulphur cycle. The geoengineering source would thus be a small contributor to the total global source of 'acid rain' that could be compensated for through improved pollution control of anthropogenic tropospheric sources. Some areas of research remain unexplored. Although ozone may be depleted, with a consequent increase to solar ultraviolet-B (UVB) energy reaching the surface and a potential impact on health and biological populations, the aerosols will also scatter and attenuate this part of the energy spectrum, and this may compensate the UVB enhancement associated with ozone depletion. The aerosol will also change the ratio of diffuse to direct energy reaching the surface, and this may influence ecosystems. The impact of geoengineering on these components of the Earth system has not yet been studied. Representations for the formation, evolution and removal of aerosol and distribution of particle size are still very crude, and more work will be needed to gain confidence in our understanding of the deliberate production of this class of aerosols and their role in the climate system.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Philip J Rasch
- National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO 80307, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
35
|
Robock A, Oman L, Stenchikov GL. Regional climate responses to geoengineering with tropical and Arctic SO2injections. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2008. [DOI: 10.1029/2008jd010050] [Citation(s) in RCA: 289] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
|
36
|
Müller R. Comment on “Resonant dissociative electron transfer of the presolvated electron to CCl4 in liquid: Direct observation and lifetime of the CCl4∗− transition state” [J. Chem. Phys. 128, 041102 (2008)]. J Chem Phys 2008; 129:027101; author reply 027102. [DOI: 10.1063/1.2953723] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
|
37
|
Affiliation(s)
- Alan Robock
- Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA.
| |
Collapse
|