First-Order Priorities
Research and development
Version published:
September 13, 2024 - 7:11pm
- A robust transdisciplinary scientific review process by a global body (UNEP 2023), similar to IPCC that would include regular updates, agreed-upon scenarios of SRM deployment for evaluation, and research into impacts of SRM on humans and natural ecosystems. Tilmes et al. (2024) propose an assessment structure for an interdisciplinary SAI assessment interconnected across technical and design requirements, response and impacts, and societal consideration. Such an effort with require coordination and collaboration across fields, research entities, and funding (Zarnetske et al. 2021).
- NASEM (2021) detail open research questions related to the aerosol microphysics of SAI and the impact of SAI forcing on stratospheric and upper tropospheric composition. These questions can be addressed through a combination of laboratory measurements, modeling, observations, and potentially controlled experiments. Findings from these efforts will inform further SAI modeling efforts.
- Stratospheric baseline conditions, see NOAA’s SABRE program.
- Advancing SAI models
- For high latitude deployment:
- Combined modeling experiments with high latitude deployment coupled with aerosol magnitudes and injection latitudes varied in feedback control system (Duffey et al. 2023).
- Include high latitude injection scenarios in future GeoMIP model runs to further understand inter-model variation (Duffey et al. 2023).
- Intercomparisons of subtropical injection (Visioni et al. 2024).
- Model runs to compare SAI to non-geonengineered scenarios at a given temperature (emissions mitigation) (Duffey et al. 2023) and consideration of different baselines for comparison (Visioni et al. 2023b).
- For high latitude deployment:
- Impacts
- A comprehensive assessment of global and regional climate impacts predicted for different SAI scenarios (Tilmes et al. 2024). For Arctic-related research efforts, assessment of how SAI scenarios may impact sea ice, ice sheets, and permafrost.
- Targeted studies looking at specific regions that connect expected changes from different SAI scenarios to species and ecosystems, including changes in light regimes (Zarnetske et al. 2021). Such experiments could also evaluate how cooling and increased CO2 affect ecological systems (Zarnetske et al. 2021, Russell et al. 2012, McCormack et al. 2016).
- Evaluation of the types of data and models required to assess ecological impacts of climate intervention scenarios versus no climate intervention (Zarnetske et al. 2021, Russell et al. 2012).
- A comprehensive risk-risk assessment of predicted impacts on human systems (Tilmes et al. 2024).
- A robust transdisciplinary scientific review process by a global body (UNEP 2023), similar to IPCC that would include regular updates, agreed-upon scenarios of SRM deployment for evaluation, and research into impacts of SRM on humans and natural ecosystems. Tilmes et al. (2024) propose an assessment structure for an interdisciplinary SAI assessment interconnected across technical and design requirements, response and impacts, and societal consideration. Such an effort with require coordination and collaboration across fields, research entities, and funding (Zarnetske et al. 2021).
- NASEM (2021) detail open research questions related to the aerosol microphysics of SAI and the impact of SAI forcing on stratospheric and upper tropospheric composition. These questions can be addressed through a combination of laboratory measurements, modeling, observations, and potentially controlled experiments. Findings from these efforts will inform further SAI modeling efforts.
- Stratospheric baseline conditions, see NOAA’s SABRE program.
- Advancing SAI models
- For high latitude deployment:
- Combined modeling experiments with high latitude deployment coupled with aerosol magnitudes and injection latitudes varied in feedback control system (Duffey et al. 2023).
- Include high latitude injection scenarios in future GeoMIP model runs to further understand inter-model variation (Duffey et al. 2023).
- Intercomparisons of subtropical injection (Visioni et al. 2024).
- Model runs to compare SAI to non-geonengineered scenarios at a given temperature (emissions mitigation) (Duffey et al. 2023) and consideration of different baselines for comparison (Visioni et al. 2023b).
- For high latitude deployment:
- Impacts
- A comprehensive assessment of global and regional climate impacts predicted for different SAI scenarios (Tilmes et al. 2024). For Arctic-related research efforts, assessment of how SAI scenarios may impact sea ice, ice sheets, and permafrost.
- Targeted studies looking at specific regions that connect expected changes from different SAI scenarios to species and ecosystems, including changes in light regimes (Zarnetske et al. 2021). Such experiments could also evaluate how cooling and increased CO2 affect ecological systems (Zarnetske et al. 2021, Russell et al. 2012, McCormack et al. 2016).
- Evaluation of the types of data and models required to assess ecological impacts of climate intervention scenarios versus no climate intervention (Zarnetske et al. 2021, Russell et al. 2012).
- A comprehensive risk-risk assessment of predicted impacts on human systems (Tilmes et al. 2024).
- A robust transdisciplinary scientific review process by a global body (UNEP 2023), similar to IPCC that would include regular updates, agreed-upon scenarios of SRM deployment for evaluation, and research into impacts of SRM on humans and natural ecosystems. Tilmes et al. (2024) propose an assessment structure for an interdisciplinary SAI assessment interconnected across technical and design requirements, response and impacts, and societal consideration. Such an effort with require coordination and collaboration across fields, research entities, and funding (Zarnetske et al. 2021).
- NASEM (2021) detail open research questions related to the aerosol microphysics of SAI and the impact of SAI forcing on stratospheric and upper tropospheric composition. These questions can be addressed through a combination of laboratory measurements, modeling, observations, and potentially controlled experiments. Findings from these efforts will inform further SAI modeling efforts.
- Stratospheric baseline conditions, see NOAA’s SABRE program https://csl.noaa.gov/projects/sabre/wb57/
- Advancing SAI models
- For high latitude deployment:
- Combined modeling experiments with high latitude deployment coupled with aerosol magnitudes and injection latitudes varied in feedback control system (Duffey et al. 2023).
- Include high latitude injection scenarios in future GeoMIP model runs to further understand inter-model variation (Duffey et al. 2023).
- Intercomparisons of subtropical injection (Visioni et al. 2024)
- Model runs to compare SAI to non-geonengineered scenarios at a given temperature (emissions mitigation) (Duffey et al. 2023) and consideration of different baselines for comparison (Visioni et al. 2023b).
- For high latitude deployment:
- Impacts
- A comprehensive assessment of global and regional climate impacts predicted for different SAI scenarios (Tilmes et al. 2024). For Arctic-related research efforts, assessment of how SAI scenarios may impact sea ice, ice sheets, and permafrost.
- Targeted studies looking at specific regions that connect expected changes from different SAI scenarios to species and ecosystems, including changes in light regimes (Zarnetske et al. 2021). Such experiments could also evaluate how cooling and increased CO2 affect ecological systems (Zarnetske et al. 2021, Russell et al. 2012, McCormack et al. 2016).
- Evaluation of the types of data and models required to assess ecological impacts of climate intervention scenarios versus no climate intervention (Zarnetske et al. 2021, Russell et al. 2012).
- A comprehensive risk-risk assessment of predicted impacts on human systems (Tilmes et al. 2024).
- A robust transdisciplinary scientific review process by a global body (UNEP 2023), similar to IPCC that would include regular updates, agreed-upon scenarios of SRM deployment for evaluation, and research into impacts of SRM on humans and natural ecosystems. Tilmes et al. (2024) propose an assessment structure for an interdisciplinary SAI assessment interconnected across technical and design requirements, response and impacts, and societal consideration. Such an effort with require coordination and collaboration across fields, research entities, and funding (Zarnetske et al. 2021).
- NASEM (2021) detail open research questions related to the aerosol microphysics of SAI and the impact of SAI forcing on stratospheric and upper tropospheric composition. These questions can be addressed through a combination of laboratory measurements, modeling, observations, and potentially controlled experiments. Findings from these efforts will inform further SAI modeling efforts.
- Stratospheric baseline conditions, see NOAA’s SABRE program https://csl.noaa.gov/projects/sabre/wb57/
- Advancing SAI models
- For high latitude deployment:
- Combined modeling experiments with high latitude deployment coupled with aerosol magnitudes and injection latitudes varied in feedback control system (Duffey et al. 2023)
- Include high latitude in2jection scenarios in future GeoMIP model runs to further understand inter-model variation (Duffey et al. 2023)
- Intercomparisons of subtropical injection (Visioni et al. 2024)
- Model runs to compare SAI to non-geonengineered scenarios at a given temperature (emissions mitigation) (Duffey et al. 2023) and consideration of different baselines for comparison (Visioni et al. 2023b).
- For high latitude deployment:
- Impacts
- A comprehensive assessment of global and regional climate impacts predicted for different SAI scenarios (Tilmes et al. 2024). For Arctic-related research efforts, assessment of how SAI scenarios may impact sea ice, ice sheets, and permafrost.
- Targeted studies looking at specific regions that connect expected changes from different SAI scenarios to species and ecosystems, including changes in light regimes (Zarnetske et al. 2021). Such experiments could also evaluate how cooling and increased CO2 affect ecological systems (Zarnetske et al. 2021, Russell et al. 2012, McCormack et al. 2016).
- Evaluation of the types of data and models required to assess ecological impacts of climate intervention scenarios versus no climate intervention (Zarnetske et al. 2021, Russell et al. 2012).
- A comprehensive risk-risk assessment of predicted impacts on human systems (Tilmes et al. 2024).
- A robust transdisciplinary scientific review process by a global body (UNEP 2023), similar to IPCC that would include regular updates, agreed-upon scenarios of SRM deployment for evaluation, and research into impacts of SRM on humans and natural ecosystems. Tilmes et al. (2024) propose an assessment structure for an interdisciplinary SAI assessment interconnected across technical and design requirements, response and impacts, and societal consideration. Such an effort with require coordination and collaboration across fields, research entities, and funding (Zarnetske et al. 2021).
- NASEM (2021) detail open research questions related to the aerosol microphysics of SAI and the impact of SAI forcing on stratospheric and upper tropospheric composition. These questions can be addressed through a combination of laboratory measurements, modeling, observations, and potentially controlled experiments. Findings from these efforts will inform further SAI modeling efforts.
- Stratospheric baseline conditions, see NOAA’s SABRE program https://csl.noaa.gov/projects/sabre/wb57/
- Advancing SAI models
- For high latitude deployment:
- Combined modeling experiments with high latitude deployment coupled with aerosol magnitudes and injection latitudes varied in feedback control system (Duffey et al. 2023)
- Include high latitude in2jection scenarios in future GeoMIP model runs to further understand inter-model variation (Duffey et al. 2023)
- Intercomparisons of subtropical injection (Visioni et al. 2024)
- Model runs to compare SAI to non-geonengineered scenarios at a given temperature (emissions mitigation) (Duffey et al. 2023) and consideration of different baselines for comparison (Visioni et al. 2023b).
- For high latitude deployment:
- Impacts
- A comprehensive assessment of global and regional climate impacts predicted for different SAI scenarios (Tilmes et al. 2024). For Arctic-related research efforts, assessment of how SAI scenarios may impact sea ice, ice sheets, and permafrost.
- Targeted studies looking at specific regions that connect expected changes from different SAI scenarios to species and ecosystems, including changes in light regimes (Zarnetske et al. 2021). Such experiments could also evaluate how cooling and increased CO2 affect ecological systems (Zarnetske et al. 2021, Russell et al. 2012, McCormack et al. 2016).
- Evaluation of the types of data and models required to assess ecological impacts of climate intervention scenarios versus no climate intervention (Zarnetske et al. 2021, Russell et al. 2012).
- A comprehensive risk-risk assessment of predicted impacts on human systems (Tilmes et al. 2024).
Enabling conditions
Version published:
September 5, 2024 - 1:20am
- 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).
- A framework for governance of the stratosphere (UNEP 2023). Currently no framework exists, even for other activities that already exist in the stratosphere.
- Research framework proposed by Diamond et al. (2022) for MCB could be adapted and developed for SAI. 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. An outcome of the assessment put forward by Tilmes et al. (2024) may be criteria for SAI research exit ramps.
- High level conversations about the role of the private sector in SAI research and deployment.
- Further development of what priorities look like in different places for different actors will be needed.
- 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).
- A framework for governance of the stratosphere (UNEP 2023). Currently no framework exists, even for other activities that already exist in the stratosphere.
- Research framework proposed by Diamond et al. (2022) for MCB could be adapted and developed for SAI. 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. An outcome of the assessment put forward by Tilmes et al. (2024) may be criteria for SAI research exit ramps.
- High level conversations about the role of the private sector in SAI research and deployment.
- Further development of what priorities look like in different places for different actors will be needed.
Engagement
Version published:
September 13, 2024 - 7:12pm
- Promotion of a globally inclusive conversation about SAI (UNEP 2023).
- More awareness in different fields so that studies can be interdisciplinary (Zarnetske et al. 2021).
- Identify what impacts and concerns are held by local communities and Indigenous people and design research projects to specifically look into those impacts (similar to Mettiäinen et al. 2022).
- 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.
- Promotion of a globally inclusive conversation about SAI (UNEP 2023).
- More awareness in different fields so that studies can be interdisciplinary (Zarnetske et al. 2021).
- Identify what impacts and concerns are held by local communities and Indigenous people and design research projects to specifically look into those impacts (similar to Mettiäinen et al. 2022).
- 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.
- Promotion of a globally inclusive conversation about SAI (UNEP 2023).
- More awareness in different fields so that studies can be interdisciplinary (Zarnetske et al. 2021).
- Identify what impacts and concerns are held by local communities and Indigenous people and design research projects to specifically look into those impacts (similar to Mettiäinen et al. 2022).
- 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
- Promotion of a globally inclusive conversation about SAI (UNEP 2023).
- More awareness in different fields so that studies can be interdisciplinary (Zarnetske et al. 2021).
- Identify what impacts and concerns are held by local communities and Indigenous people and design research projects to specifically look into those impacts (similar to Mettiäinen et al. 2022).
- 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. 2024):
- 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.
- 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
- Promotion of a globally inclusive conversation about SAI (UNEP 2023).
- More awareness in different fields so that studies can be interdisciplinary (Zarnetske et al. 2021).
- Identify what impacts and concerns are held by local communities and Indigenous people and design research projects to specifically look into those impacts (similar to Mettiäinen et al. 2022).
- 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.
Help advance Arctic Sea Ice road maps. Submit Comments or Content
How to submit comments:
Thanks for helping to advance these roadmaps. Here is how it works!
Or, send general feedback to info@oceanvisions.org
All submitted comments will be reviewed by the Ocean Visions team to ensure that they are true, verifiable, and additive before being added to the road maps. You can increase the likelihood that your comments will be incorporated into the road maps by providing references (where appropriate).