Solar radiation reduction due to volcanic eruptions, considered the best analogue for stratospheric aerosol injection.
Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) is a proposed method ofsolar geoengineering (or solar radiation modification) to reduceglobal warming. This would introduceaerosols into thestratosphere to create a cooling effect viaglobal dimming and increasedalbedo, which occurs naturally fromvolcanic winter.[1] It appears that stratospheric aerosol injection, at a moderate intensity, could counter most changes to temperature and precipitation, take effect rapidly, have low direct implementation costs, and be reversible in its direct climatic effects.[2] TheIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concludes that it "is the most-researched [solar geoengineering] method that it could limit warming to below 1.5 °C (2.7 °F)."[3] However, like other solar geoengineering approaches, stratospheric aerosol injection would do so imperfectly and other effects are possible,[4] particularly if used in a suboptimal manner.[5]
Various forms ofsulfur have been shown to cool the planet after large volcanic eruptions.[6]Re-entering satellites are polluting the stratosphere.[7] However, as of 2021, there has been little research and existing aerosols in the stratosphere are not well understood.[8] So there is no leading candidate material.Alumina,calcite and salt are also under consideration.[9][10] The leading proposed method of delivery is custom aircraft.[11]
Several types of atmospheric aerosol have a significant effect on Earth's climate: volcanic, desert dust, sea-salt, that originating from biogenic sources and human-made. Volcanic aerosol forms in the stratosphere after an eruption as droplets ofsulfuric acid that can prevail for up to two years, and reflect sunlight, lowering temperature. Desert dust, mineral particles blown to high altitudes, absorb heat and may be responsible for inhibiting storm cloud formation. Human-madesulfate aerosols, primarily from burning oil and coal, affect the behavior of clouds.[15] When aerosols absorb pollutants, it facilitates the deposition of pollutants to the surface of the earth as well as to bodies of water.[16] This has the potential to be damaging to both the environment and human health.
Sources of natural aerosols include oceans, volcanoes, deserts, and living organisms.[17][18] The ocean produces aerosols in two main ways. First, when wind blows over waves, it creates spray made up mostly ofsea salt. Second, tiny ocean organisms—such asplankton—releasedimethyl sulfide and other gases into the air which, in turn, react with other substances in the atmosphere, includingwater vapor, to form gaseous sulfate (sulfuric acid) aerosols. Both sea salt and sulfate aerosols help to form clouds by acting as “seeds” for water droplets, affecting cloud formation and Earth's energy balance.. While these ocean aerosols are widespread, there is still uncertainty about exactly how much they affect the atmosphere.
Volcanic eruptions release ash and gases into the air. Although the falls out of the atmosphere relatively quickly,sulfur dioxide can rise into the stratosphere, where it reacts with water vapor to form long-lived sulfate aerosols in the upper atmosphere. These reflect sunlight and temporarily cool the planet. After a large eruption, these particles can stay in the air for a year or more.
Natural aerosols cool the Earth.[19] When large volcanic eruptions occur, they can cause short-term global cooling of around half a degree or more, depending on the size of the eruption. For example,the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 caused global temperatures to drop by about 0.5 degrees Celsius for up to three years.[20] These events have played an important role in pastclimate variability.
Human activities, especiallyfossil fuel combustion andbiomass burning, emit aerosols directly and indirectly via gases that react in the atmosphere.[21] Common anthropogenic aerosols include sulfates, nitrates,black carbon (soot), and organic carbon. Among these, sulfates are the dominant cooling agent. Organic carbon aerosols also reflect light, while black carbon absorbs it, warming the air and darkening snow and ice.
The net effect of anthropogenic aerosols has been to mask global warming. From 1850 to 2014, they reduced global average surface temperature by about 0.66°C. This cooling is stronger in the more populous Northern Hemisphere. This uneven effect has altered rainfall patterns, including a weakening of tropical monsoons.
Air pollution regulations have reduced sulfate emissions in Europe and North America since the 1980s, and more recently in China. These reductions have improved air quality but diminish the cooling influence of aerosols, contributing to accelerated warming.
In 2009, a Russian team tested aerosol formation in the lower troposphere using helicopters.[26] In 2015,David Keith andGernot Wagner described a potential field experiment, the Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx), using stratosphericcalcium carbonate[27] injection,[28] but as of October 2020 the time and place had not yet been determined.[29][30] SCoPEx is in part funded byBill Gates.[31][32]Sir David King, a former chief scientific adviser to the government of the United Kingdom, stated that SCoPEX and Gates' plans to dim the sun with calcium carbonate could have disastrous effects.[33]
In 2012, theBristol University-led Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) project planned on a limited field test to evaluate a potential delivery system. The group received support from theEPSRC,NERC andSTFC to the tune of £2.1 million[34] and was one of the first UK projects aimed at providing evidence-based knowledge aboutsolar radiation management.[34] Although the field testing was cancelled, the project panel decided to continue the lab-based elements of the project.[35] Furthermore, a consultation exercise was undertaken with members of thepublic in a parallel project byCardiff University, with specific exploration ofattitudes to the SPICE test.[36] This research found that almost all of the participants in the poll were willing to allow the field trial to proceed, but very few were comfortable with the actual use of stratospheric aerosols. A campaign opposing geoengineering led by theETC Group drafted an open letter calling for the project to be suspended until international agreement is reached,[37] specifically pointing to the upcoming convention of parties to theConvention on Biological Diversity in 2012.[38]
Pinatubo eruption cloud. This volcano released huge quantities of stratospheric sulfur aerosols and contributed greatly to understanding of the subject.
Various forms ofsulfur were proposed as the injected substance, as this is in part how volcanic eruptions cool the planet.[6] Precursor gases such assulfur dioxide andhydrogen sulfide have been considered. According to estimates, "one kilogram of well placed sulfur in the stratosphere would roughly offset the warming effect of several hundred thousand kilograms of carbon dioxide."[39] One study calculated the impact of injecting sulfate particles, oraerosols, every one to four years into thestratosphere in amounts equal to those lofted by thevolcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991,[40] but did not address the many technical and political challenges involved in potential solar geoengineering efforts.[41] Use of gaseoussulfuric acid appears to reduce the problem of aerosol growth.[11] Materials such asphotophoretic particles, metal oxides (as inWelsbach seeding, andtitanium dioxide), and diamond are also under consideration.[42][43][44]
Various techniques have been proposed for delivering the aerosol or precursor gases.[1] The required altitude to enter the stratosphere is the height of thetropopause, which varies from 11 kilometres (6.8 mi/36,000 ft) at the poles to 17 kilometers (11 mi/58,000 ft) at the equator.
Proposed tethered balloon to injectaerosols into the stratosphere
Civilian aircraft including theBoeing 747-400 andGulfstream G550/650,C-37A[clarify] could be modified at relatively low cost to deliver sufficient amounts of required material according to one study,[45] but a later metastudy suggests a new aircraft would be needed but easy to develop.[46]
Military aircraft such as the F15-C variant of theF-15 Eagle have the necessaryflight ceiling, but limited payload. Military tanker aircraft such as theKC-135 Stratotanker andKC-10 Extender also have the necessary ceiling at latitudes closer to the poles and have greater payload capacity.[47]
Modifiedartillery might have the necessary capability,[48] but requires a polluting and expensive propellant charge to loft the payload.Railgun artillery could be a non-polluting alternative.
High-altitude balloons can be used to lift precursor gases, in tanks, bladders or in the balloons' envelope.
The latitude and distribution of injection locations has been discussed by various authors. While a near-equatorial injection regime will allow particles to enter the rising leg of theBrewer-Dobson circulation, several studies have concluded that a broader, and higher-latitude, injection regime will reduce injection mass flow rates and/or yield climatic benefits.[49][50] Concentration of precursor injection in a single longitude appears to be beneficial, with condensation onto existing particles reduced, giving better control of the size distribution of aerosols resulting.[51] The long residence time ofcarbon dioxide in the atmosphere may require a millennium-timescale commitment to aerosol injection[52] if aggressive emissions abatement is not pursued simultaneously.
You can helpexpand this article with text translated fromthe corresponding article in German.(December 2024)Click [show] for important translation instructions.
View a machine-translated version of the German article.
Machine translation, likeDeepL orGoogle Translate, is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Wikipedia.
Consideradding a topic to this template: there are already 2,604 articles in themain category, and specifying|topic= will aid in categorization.
Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article.
Youmust providecopyright attribution in theedit summary accompanying your translation by providing aninterlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary isContent in this edit is translated from the existing German Wikipedia article at [[:de:Welsbach-Patent]]; see its history for attribution.
You may also add the template{{Translated|de|Welsbach-Patent}} to thetalk page.
Welsbach seeding is a patented solar radiation modification method, involving seeding thestratosphere with small (10 to 100micron) metal oxide particles (thorium dioxide,aluminium oxide). The purpose of the Welsbach seeding would be to "(reduce) atmospheric warming due to the greenhouse effect resulting from a greenhouse gases layer," by converting radiative energy at near-infrared wavelengths into radiation at far-infrared wavelengths, permitting some of the converted radiation to escape into space, thus cooling the atmosphere. The seeding as described would be performed by airplanes at altitudes between 7 and 13 kilometres.
The method was patented byHughes Aircraft Company in 1991, US patent 5003186.[53] Quote from the patent: "This invention relates to a method for the reduction of global warming resulting from the greenhouse effect, and in particular to a method which involves the seeding of the earth's stratosphere with Welsbach-like materials." This is not considered to be a viable option by current geoengineering experts.[citation needed]
A study in 2020 looked at the cost of SAI through to the year 2100. It found that relative to other climate interventions and solutions, SAI remains inexpensive. However, at about $18 billion per year per degree Celsius of warming avoided (in 2020 USD), a solar geoengineering program with substantial climate impact would lie well beyond the financial reach of individuals, small states, or other non-state potential rogue actors.[54] The annual cost of delivering a sufficient amount of sulfur to counteract expected greenhouse warming is estimated at $5–10 billion US dollars.[54]
SAI is expected to have low direct financial costs of implementation,[55] relative to the expected costs of both unabated climate change and aggressive mitigation.
Early studies suggest that stratospheric aerosol injection might have a relatively low direct cost. One analysis estimated the annual cost of delivering 5 million tons of analbedo enhancing aerosol to an altitude of 20 to 30 km is at US$2 billion to 8 billion, an amount which they suggest would be sufficient to offset the expected warming during the next century.[56] In comparison, the annual cost estimates for climate damage or emission mitigation range from US$200 billion to 2 trillion.[56]
A 2016 study found the cost per 1 W/m2 of cooling to be between 5–50 billion USD/yr.[57] Because larger particles are less efficient at cooling and drop out of the sky faster, the unit-cooling cost is expected to increase over time as increased dose leads to larger, but less efficient, particles by mechanism such as coalescence andOstwald ripening.[58] Assume RCP8.5, -5.5 W/m2 of cooling would be required by 2100 to maintain 2020 climate. At the dose level required to provide this cooling, the net efficiency per mass of injected aerosols would reduce to below 50% compared to low-level deployment (below 1W/m2).[59] At a total dose of -5.5 W/m2, the cost would be between 55–550 billion USD/yr when efficiency reduction is also taken into account, bringing annual expenditure to levels comparable to other mitigation alternatives.
This graph shows the baselineradiative forcing under three differentRepresentative Concentration Pathway scenarios, and how it would be affected by the deployment of SAI, starting from 2034, to halve the speed of warming by 2100, to halt the warming, or to reverse it entirely.[54]
The advantages of this approach in comparison to other solar geoengineering methods include:
Mimics a natural process:[60] Stratospheric sulfur aerosols are created by existing natural processes (especiallyvolcanoes), whose impacts have been studied via observations.[61] This contrasts with other, more speculative solar geoengineering techniques which do not have natural analogs (e.g.,space sunshade).
Technological feasibility: In contrast to other proposed solar geoengineering techniques, such asmarine cloud brightening, much of the required technology is pre-existing:chemical manufacturing,artillery shells, high-altitude aircraft,weather balloons, etc.[6] Unsolved technical challenges include methods to deliver the material in controlled diameter with good scattering properties.
Scalability: Some solar geoengineering techniques, such ascool roofs andice protection, can only provide a limited intervention in the climate due to insufficient scale—one cannot reduce the temperature by more than a certain amount with each technique. Research has suggested that this technique may have a high radiative 'forcing potential'.,[62] yet can be finely tuned according to how much cooling is needed.[54]
Speed: A common argument is that stratospheric aerosol injection can take place quickly,[63] and would be able to buy time forcarbon sequestration projects such ascarbon dioxide air capture to be implemented and start acting over decades and centuries.[40]
It is uncertain how effective any solar geoengineering technique would be, due to the difficulties modeling their impacts and the complex nature of the globalclimate system. Certain efficacy issues are specific to stratospheric aerosols.
Lifespan of aerosols: Tropospheric sulfur aerosols are short lived.[64] Particles delivered into the lower stratosphere in the arctic will typically remain aloft only for a few weeks or months, as air in this region is predominantly descending. To ensure endurance, higher-altitude delivery is needed; particles injected into the rising leg of theBrewer-Dobson circulation above the tropicaltropopause typically remain aloft for several years. Sizing of particles is also crucial to their endurance.[65]
Aerosol delivery: There are two proposals for how to create a stratospheric sulfate aerosol cloud, either through the release of a precursor gas (SO 2) or the direct release of sulfuric acid (H 2SO 4) and these face different challenges.[66] IfSO 2 gas is released it will oxidize to formH 2SO 4 and then condense to form droplets far from the injection site.[67] ReleasingSO 2 would not allow control over the size of the particles that are formed but would not require a sophisticated release mechanism. Simulations suggest that as theSO 2 release rate is increased there would be diminishing returns on the cooling effect, as larger particles would be formed which have a shorter lifetime and are less effective scatterers of light.[68] IfH 2SO 4 is released directly then the aerosol particles would form very quickly and in principle the particle size could be controlled although the engineering requirements for this are uncertain. Assuming a technology for directH 2SO 4 release could be conceived and developed, it would allow control over the particle size to possibly alleviate some of the inefficiencies associated withSO 2 release.[66]
Strength of cooling: The magnitude of the effect of forcing from aerosols by decreasinginsolation received at the surface is not completely certain, as itsscientific modelling involves complex calculations due to different confounding factors and parameters such asoptical properties, spatial and temporal distribution of emission or injection,albedo, geography, loading, rate of transport of sulfate, global burden,atmospheric chemistry, mixing and reactions with othercompounds and aerosols,particle size,relative humidity, and clouds. Along with others, aerosolsize distribution andhygroscopicity have particularly high uncertainty due to being closely related to sulfate aerosol interactions with other aerosols which affects the amount ofradiation reflected.[69][70] As of 2021, state-of-the-artCMIP6 models estimate that total cooling from the currently present aerosols is between 0.1 °C (0.18 °F) to 0.7 °C (1.3 °F);[71] theIPCC Sixth Assessment Report uses the best estimate of 0.5 °C (0.90 °F),[72] but there's still a lot of contradictory research on the impacts of aerosols ofclouds which can alter this estimate of aerosol cooling, and consequently, our knowledge of how many millions of tons must be deployed annually to achieve the desired effect.[73][74][75][76][77][78][79]
Anthropogenic sulfate aerosols have decreased precipitation over most of Asia (red), but increased it over some parts of Central Asia (blue).[80]
Hydrological cycle: Since the historicalglobal dimming from tropospheric sulfate pollution is already well-known to have reduced rainfall in certain areas,[81][80] and is likely to have weakenedMonsoon of South Asia[82][83] and contributed to or even outright caused the1984 Ethiopian famine,[84][85][86] the impact on the hydrological cycle and patterns is one of the most-discussed uncertainties of the different stratospheric aerosol injection proposals.[87][88] It has been suggested that while changes inprecipitation from stratospheric aerosol injection are likely to be more manageable than the changes expected under future warming, one of the main impacts it would have on mortality is by shifting the habitat ofmosquitoes and thus substantially affecting the distribution and spread ofvector-borne diseases. Considering the already-extensive present-day mosquito habitat, it is currently unclear whether those changes are likely to be positive or negative.[89]
Turner was inspired by dramatic sunsets caused by volcanic aerosols[90]
Solar geoengineering in general poses various problems and risks. However, certain problems are specific to or more pronounced with stratospheric sulfide injection.[91]
Ozone depletion: a potential side effect of sulfur aerosols;[92][93] and these concerns have been supported by modelling.[94] However, this may only occur if high enough quantities of aerosols drift to, or are deposited in,polar stratospheric clouds before the levels ofCFCs and other ozone destroying gases fall naturally to safe levels because stratospheric aerosols, together with the ozone destroying gases, are responsible for ozone depletion.[95][96] The injection of other aerosols that may be safer such as calcite has therefore been proposed.[9] The injection of non-sulfide aerosols like calcite (limestone) would also have a cooling effect while counteracting ozone depletion and would be expected to reduce other side effects.[9]
Whitening of the sky: Volcanic eruptions are known to affect the appearance of sunsets significantly,[97] and a change in sky appearance after the eruption ofMount Tambora in 1816"The Year Without A Summer" was the inspiration for the paintings ofJ. M. W. Turner.[98] Since stratospheric aerosol injection would involve smaller quantities of aerosols, it is expected to cause a subtler change to sunsets and a slight hazing of blue skies.[99][100] How stratospheric aerosol injection may affect clouds remains uncertain.[101]
Stratospheric temperature change: Aerosols can also absorb some radiation from the Sun, the Earth, and the surrounding atmosphere. This changes the surrounding air temperature and could potentially impact the stratospheric circulation, which in turn may impact the surface circulation.[102]
Deposition and acid rain: The surface deposition of sulfate injected into the stratosphere may also have an impact on ecosystems. However, the amount and wide dispersal of injected aerosols means that their impact on particulate concentrations and acidity of precipitation would be very small.[103]
Ecological consequences: The consequences of stratospheric aerosol injection on ecological systems are unknown and potentially vary by ecosystem with differing impacts on marine versus terrestrial biomes.[104][105][106]
Mixed effects on agriculture: A historical study in 2018 found that stratospheric sulfate aerosols injected by the volcanic eruptions ofChicón (1982) andMount Pinatubo (1991) had mixed effects on global crop yields of certain major crops.[107] Based on several studies, theIPCC Sixth Assessment Report suggests thatcrop yields andcarbon sinks would be largely unaffected or may even increase slightly, because reducedphotosynthesis due to lower sunlight would be offset byCO2 fertilization effect and the reduction in thermal stress, but there's less confidence about how the specificecosystems may be affected.[89]
Inhibition of Solar Energy Technologies: Uniformly reduced net shortwave radiation would hurt solar photovoltaics by the same 2–5% as for plants.[108] the increased scattering of collimated incoming sunlight would more drastically reduce the efficiencies (by 11% for RCP8.5) of concentrating solar thermal power for both electricity production[109][108] and chemical reactions, such as solar cement production.[110]
Most of the existing governance of stratospheric sulfate aerosols is from that which is applicable to solar radiation management more broadly. However, some existing legal instruments would be relevant to stratospheric sulfate aerosols specifically. At the international level, theConvention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP Convention) obligates those countries which have ratified it to reduce their emissions of particular transboundary air pollutants. Notably, both solar radiation management and climate change (as well as greenhouse gases) could satisfy the definition of "air pollution" which the signatories commit to reduce, depending on their actual negative effects.[111] Commitments to specific values of the pollutants, including sulfates, are made through protocols to the CLRTAP Convention. Full implementation or large scale climate response field tests of stratospheric sulfate aerosols could cause countries to exceed their limits. However, because stratospheric injections would be spread across the globe instead of concentrated in a few nearby countries, and could lead to net reductions in the "air pollution" which the CLRTAP Convention is to reduce so they may be allowed.
The stratospheric injection of sulfate aerosols would cause theVienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer to be applicable due to their possible deleterious effects on stratospheric ozone. That treaty generally obligates its Parties to enact policies to control activities which "have or are likely to have adverse effects resulting from modification or likely modification of the ozone layer."[112] TheMontreal Protocol to the Vienna Convention prohibits the production of certain ozone depleting substances, via phase outs. Sulfates are presently not among the prohibited substances.
^abcRasch PJ, Tilmes S, Turco RP, Robock A, Oman L, Chen CC, Stenchikov GL, Garcia RR (29 August 2008). "An overview of geoengineering of climate using stratospheric sulphate aerosols".Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.366 (1882):4007–4037.Bibcode:2008RSPTA.366.4007R.doi:10.1098/rsta.2008.0131.PMID18757276.S2CID9869660.
^Kommalapati RR, Valsaraj KT (2009).Atmospheric aerosols: Characterization, chemistry, modeling, and climate. Vol. 1005. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. pp. 1–10.doi:10.1021/bk-2009-1005.ch001.ISBN978-0-8412-2482-7.
^ab"Research". Volcanic Emissions Group at the University of Bristol and Michigan Technological University. volcanicplumes.com.Archived from the original on 16 June 2021. Retrieved3 April 2021.
^Moriyama R, Sugiyama M, Kurosawa A, Masuda K, Tsuzuki K, Ishimoto Y (8 September 2016). "The cost of stratospheric climate engineering revisited".Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change.22 (8):1207–1228.doi:10.1007/s11027-016-9723-y.ISSN1381-2386.S2CID157441259.
^Cai Z, Li F, Rong M, Lin L, Yao Q, Huang Y, Chen X, Wang X (1 January 2019), Wang X, Chen X (eds.),"Chapter 1 – Introduction",Novel Nanomaterials for Biomedical, Environmental and Energy Applications, Micro and Nano Technologies, Elsevier, pp. 1–36,ISBN978-0-12-814497-8, retrieved19 April 2023
^Seneviratne S, Zhang X, Adnan M, Badi W, Dereczynski C, Di Luca A, Ghosh S, Iskandar I, Kossin J, Lewis S, Otto F, Pinto I, Satoh M, Vicente-Serrano SM, Wehner M, Zhou B (2021). Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Piran A, Connors S, Péan C, Berger S, Caud N, Chen Y, Goldfarb L (eds.)."Weather and Climate Extreme Events in a Changing Climate"(PDF).Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.2021: 1238.Bibcode:2021AGUFM.U13B..05K.doi:10.1017/9781009157896.007.
^Schelsinger K."The "Romantic" Year Without a Summer".forbes5.pitt.edu/article/romantic-year-without-summer. University of Pittsburgh. Retrieved25 March 2024.
^Kenzelmann P, Weissenstein D, Peter T, Luo B, Fueglistaler S, Rozanov E, Thomason L (1 February 2009). "Geo-engineering side effects: Heating the tropical tropopause by sedimenting sulphur aerosol?".IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science.6 (45): 452017.Bibcode:2009E&ES....6S2017K.doi:10.1088/1755-1307/6/45/452017.S2CID250687073.
^Olson, D. W., R. L. Doescher, M. S. Olson (February 2004). "When the sky ran red: The story behind The Scream". Vol. 107, no. 2. Sky & Telescope. pp. 29–35.
Text was copied from this source, which is available under aCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License