skip to main content

Title: Potential ecological impacts of climate intervention by reflecting sunlight to cool Earth
As the effects of anthropogenic climate change become more severe, several approaches for deliberate climate intervention to reduce or stabilize Earth’s surface temperature have been proposed. Solar radiation modification (SRM) is one potential approach to partially counteract anthropogenic warming by reflecting a small proportion of the incoming solar radiation to increase Earth’s albedo. While climate science research has focused on the predicted climate effects of SRM, almost no studies have investigated the impacts that SRM would have on ecological systems. The impacts and risks posed by SRM would vary by implementation scenario, anthropogenic climate effects, geographic region, and by ecosystem, community, population, and organism. Complex interactions among Earth’s climate system and living systems would further affect SRM impacts and risks. We focus here on stratospheric aerosol intervention (SAI), a well-studied and relatively feasible SRM scheme that is likely to have a large impact on Earth’s surface temperature. We outline current gaps in knowledge about both helpful and harmful predicted effects of SAI on ecological systems. Desired ecological outcomes might also inform development of future SAI implementation scenarios. In addition to filling these knowledge gaps, increased collaboration between ecologists and climate scientists would identify a common set of SAI research goals more » and improve the communication about potential SAI impacts and risks with the public. Without this collaboration, forecasts of SAI impacts will overlook potential effects on biodiversity and ecosystem services for humanity. « less
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Award ID(s):
2017113 1937619 1937699 1637685
Publication Date:
Journal Name:
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. 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.
  2. Abstract. Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), as a possible supplement to emission reduction, has the potential to reduce some of the risks associated with climate change. Adding aerosols to the lower stratosphere would result in temporary global cooling. However, different choices for the aerosol injection latitude(s) and season(s) have been shown to lead to significant differences in regional surface climate, introducing a design aspect to SAI. Past research has shown that there are at least three independent degrees of freedom (DOFs) that can be used to simultaneously manage three different climate goals. Knowing how many more DOFs there are, and thus how many independent climate goals can be simultaneously managed, is essential to understanding fundamental limits of how well SAI might compensate for anthropogenic climate change, and evaluating any underlying trade-offs between different climate goals. Here, we quantify the number of meaningfully independent DOFs of the SAI design space. This number of meaningfully independent DOFs depends on both the amount of cooling and the climate variables used for quantifying the changes in surface climate. At low levels of global cooling, only a small set of injection choices yield detectably different surface climate responses. For a cooling level of 1–1.5 ∘C, we find that theremore »are likely between six and eight meaningfully independent DOFs. This narrows down the range of available DOFs and also reveals new opportunities for exploring alternate SAI designs with different distributions of climate impacts.« less
  3. Abstract

    Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) is a prospective climate intervention technology that would seek to abate climate change by deflecting back into space a small fraction of the incoming solar radiation. While most consideration given to SAI assumes a global intervention, this paper considers an alternative scenario whereby SAI might be deployed only in the subpolar regions. Subpolar deployment would quickly envelope the poles as well and could arrest or reverse ice and permafrost melt at high latitudes. This would yield global benefit by retarding sea level rise. Given that effective SAI deployment could be achieved at much lower altitudes in these regions than would be required in the tropics, it is commonly assumed that subpolar deployment would present fewer aeronautical challenges. An SAI deployment intended to reduce average surface temperatures in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions by 2 °C is deemed here to be feasible at relatively low cost with conventional technologies. However, we do not find that such a deployment could be undertaken with a small fleet of pre-existing aircraft, nor that relegating such a program to these sparsely populated regions would obviate the myriad governance challenges that would confront any such deployment. Nevertheless, given its feasibilitymore »and potential global benefit, the prospect of subpolar-focused SAI warrants greater attention.

    « less
  4. Gilbert, Jack A. (Ed.)
    ABSTRACT Biological soil crusts (biocrusts) are widespread in drylands and deserts. At the microhabitat scale, they also host hypolithic communities that live under semitranslucent stones. Both environmental niches experience exposure to extreme conditions such as high UV radiation, desiccation, temperature fluctuations, and resource limitation. However, hypolithic communities are somewhat protected from extremes relative to biocrust communities. Conditions are otherwise similar, so comparing them can answer outstanding questions regarding adaptations to environmental extremes. Using metagenomic sequencing, we assessed the functional potential of dryland soil communities and identified the functional underpinnings of ecological niche differentiation in biocrusts versus hypoliths. We also determined the effect of the anchoring photoautotroph (moss or cyanobacteria). Genes and pathways differing in abundance between biocrusts and hypoliths indicate that biocrust communities adapt to the higher levels of UV radiation, desiccation, and temperature extremes through an increased ability to repair damaged DNA, sense and respond to environmental stimuli, and interact with other community members and the environment. Intracellular competition appears to be crucial to both communities, with biocrust communities using the Type VI Secretion System (T6SS) and hypoliths favoring a diversity of antibiotics. The dominant primary producer had a reduced effect on community functional potential compared with niche, butmore »an abundance of genes related to monosaccharide, amino acid, and osmoprotectant uptake in moss-dominated communities indicates reliance on resources provided to heterotrophs by mosses. Our findings indicate that functional traits in dryland communities are driven by adaptations to extremes and we identify strategies that likely enable survival in dryland ecosystems. IMPORTANCE Biocrusts serve as a keystone element of desert and dryland ecosystems, stabilizing soils, retaining moisture, and serving as a carbon and nitrogen source in oligotrophic environments. Biocrusts cover approximately 12% of the Earth’s terrestrial surface but are threatened by climate change and anthropogenic disturbance. Given their keystone role in ecosystem functioning, loss will have wide-spread consequences. Biocrust microbial constituents must withstand polyextreme environmental conditions including high UV exposure, desiccation, oligotrophic conditions, and temperature fluctuations over short time scales. By comparing biocrust communities with co-occurring hypolithic communities (which inhabit the ventral sides of semitranslucent stones and are buffered from environmental extremes), we identified traits that are likely key adaptations to extreme conditions. These include DNA damage repair, environmental sensing and response, and intracellular competition. Comparison of the two niches, which differ primarily in exposure levels to extreme conditions, makes this system ideal for understanding how functional traits are structured by the environment.« less
  5. Abstract Rivers that do not flow year-round are the predominant type of running waters on Earth. Despite a burgeoning literature on natural flow intermittence (NFI), knowledge about the hydrological causes and ecological effects of human-induced, anthropogenic flow intermittence (AFI) remains limited. NFI and AFI could generate contrasting hydrological and biological responses in rivers because of distinct underlying causes of drying and evolutionary adaptations of their biota. We first review the causes of AFI and show how different anthropogenic drivers alter the timing, frequency and duration of drying, compared with NFI. Second, we evaluate the possible differences in biodiversity responses, ecological functions, and ecosystem services between NFI and AFI. Last, we outline knowledge gaps and management needs related to AFI. Because of the distinct hydrologic characteristics and ecological impacts of AFI, ignoring the distinction between NFI and AFI could undermine management of intermittent rivers and ephemeral streams and exacerbate risks to the ecosystems and societies downstream.