First-Order Priorities

Version published:

August 28, 2025 - 2:58pm

Increased observations
- More in situ measurements of cirrus conditions, especially at high latitudes, are needed to understand these clouds and how to represent them in models (Gasparini et al. 2020).
- Observations of interactions between cirrus clouds and both natural and anthropogenic aerosols are needed in order to assess CCT (Tully et al. 2023).
Modeling and analysis of existing observations
- Mineral dust is the globally prevalent ice nucleating particle for cirrus clouds globally, however, it is unclear what role mineral dust aerosols play in the Arctic (Tully et al. 2023). Studies addressing this gap are needed.
- A coordinated modeling intercomparison study is needed that focuses on cirrus cloud physical properties, mechanisms of formation, and climate impacts (Gasparini et al. 2020). This will further understanding of cirrus clouds as well as elucidate discrepancies between models.
- Site suitability analysis to determine target regions for CCT.
- Cirrus surface forcing is small, even in winter. Could this technique theoretically produce a large enough impact to influence Arctic sea ice?
Need to determine if CCT and MPCT are linked, such that one cannot occur without the other (Haywood et al. 2025).
A comprehensive assessment of the potential co-benefits and risks of this approach is needed.

Increased observations
- More in situ measurements of cirrus conditions, especially at high latitudes, are needed to understand these clouds and how to represent them in models (Gasparini et al. 2020).
- Observations of interactions between cirrus clouds and both natural and anthropogenic aerosols are needed in order to assess CCT (Tully et al. 2023).
Modeling and analysis of existing observations
- Mineral dust is the globally prevalent ice nucleating particle for cirrus clouds globally, however, it is unclear what role mineral dust aerosols play in the Arctic (Tully et al. 2023). Studies addressing this gap are needed.
- A coordinated modeling intercomparison study is needed that focuses on cirrus cloud physical properties, mechanisms of formation, and climate impacts (Gasparini et al. 2020). This will further understanding of cirrus clouds as well as elucidate discrepancies between models.
- Site suitability analysis to determine target regions for CCT.
- Cirrus surface forcing is small, even in winter. Could this technique theoretically produce a large enough impact to influence Arctic sea ice?
Need to determine if CCT and MPCT are linked, such that one cannot occur without the other (Haywood et al. 2025).
A comprehensive assessment of the potential co-benefits and risks of this approach is needed.

Version published:

August 28, 2025 - 3:04pm

Across all SRM approaches a governance framework is needed. There is currently no system in place for SRM governance. Governance frameworks are needed for CCT across multiple aspects.
- Research:
  - Research framework proposed by Diamond et al. (2022) for MCB could be adapted and developed for CCT. This framework includes checkpoints (research questions that need to be addressed for the pathway to be viable) and exit ramps (criteria for terminating research if the pathway is deemed not technically or socially feasible). Once developed, this type of research framework could be enacted now, even in the absence of other governance structures and international guidance. Diamond et al. (2022) focuses on physical and technical checkpoints and exit ramps. However, social checkpoints and exit ramps also need development.
  - A multilateral governance framework for small-scale outdoor experiments with development of norms, guidelines, and codes of conduct (UNEP 2023). See the research governance framework detailed in Jinnah et al. (2024a).
- Technology:
  - Technology governance is needed. The questions of who would pay to deploy and who would pay for damages need to be discussed.
Further development of what priorities look like in different places for different actors will be needed.

Across all SRM approaches a governance framework is needed. There is currently no system in place for SRM governance. Governance frameworks are needed for CCT across multiple aspects.
- Research:
  - Research framework proposed by Diamond et al. (2022) for MCB could be adapted and developed for CCT. This framework includes checkpoints (research questions that need to be addressed for the pathway to be viable) and exit ramps (criteria for terminating research if the pathway is deemed not technically or socially feasible). Once developed, this type of research framework could be enacted now, even in the absence of other governance structures and international guidance. Diamond et al. (2022) focuses on physical and technical checkpoints and exit ramps. However, social checkpoints and exit ramps also need development.
  - A multilateral governance framework for small-scale outdoor experiments with development of norms, guidelines, and codes of conduct (UNEP 2023). See the research governance framework detailed in Jinnah et al. (2024a).
- Technology:
  - Technology governance is needed. The questions of who would pay to deploy and who would pay for damages need to be discussed.
Further development of what priorities look like in different places for different actors will be needed.

Version published:

September 13, 2024 - 6:48pm

UNESCO World Commission on the Ethics of Scientific Knowledge and Technology’s (COMEST) 2023 Report on the ethics of climate engineering has a slate of recommendations related to SRM covering governance, participation and inclusion, role of scientific knowledge and research strengthening capacity, and education, awareness, and advocacy.
Public engagement, education, and town halls about all aspects of the approach need to be developed and implemented in parallel with research in order to determine whether this approach can be implemented.
Follow core engagement principles identified by the Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx) advisory committee (Jinnah et al. 2024a):
- Start engagement efforts as early as possible.
- Include social scientists with engagement expertise on research teams during the research design process.
- Don’t presuppose what communities will be concerned about.
- Develop a plan to be responsive to community concern.