The Risk of Termination Shock From Solar Geoengineering
Open accessAbstract
If solar geoengineering were to be deployed so as to mask a high level of global warming, and then stopped suddenly, there would be a rapid and damaging rise in temperatures. This effect is often referred to as termination shock, and it is an influential concept. Based on studies of its potential impacts, commentators often cite termination shock as one of the greatest risks of solar geoengineering. However, there has been little consideration of the likelihood of termination shock, so that conclusions about its risk are premature. This paper explores the physical characteristics of termination shock, then uses simple scenario analysis to plot out the pathways by which different driver events (such as terrorist attacks, natural disasters, or political action) could lead to termination. It then considers where timely policies could intervene to avert termination shock. We conclude that some relatively simple policies could protect a solar geoengineering system against most of the plausible drivers. If backup deployment hardware were maintained and if solar geoengineering were implemented by agreement among just a few powerful countries, then the system should be resilient against all but the most extreme catastrophes. If this analysis is correct, then termination shock should be much less likely, and therefore much less of a risk, than has previously been assumed. Much more sophisticated scenario analysis—going beyond simulations purely of worst‐case scenarios—will be needed to allow for more insightful policy conclusions.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
SAI redundancies are likely to be expensive and thus inconsistently implemented.
“SAI redundancies specifically are likely to be expensive and thus inconsistently implemented (Halstead, 2018; Parker and Irvine, 2018; McKinnon, 2020).”
From A Fate Worse Than Warming? Stratospheric Aerosol Injection and Global Catastrophic Risk (2021) · cites this paper as Parker and Irvine, 2018
Section 3.1.1 describes backup SAI delivery hardware as part of “relatively easy and cheap policy choices,” and §4.3 envisages systems affordable enough for multiple actors to maintain backups. The Conclusion cautions that a resilient system might not be implemented in practice, but does not attribute that uncertainty to expensive redundancies. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMaking SAI resilient to natural disasters or terrorist attacks seems relatively straightforward.
“Making SAI resilient to natural disasters or terrorist attacks seem relatively straight-forward (Parker and Irvine, 2018; Rabitz, 2019)”
From A Fate Worse Than Warming? Stratospheric Aerosol Injection and Global Catastrophic Risk (2021) · cites this paper as Parker and Irvine, 2018
Section 3.1.1 says it should be relatively simple to make an SRM system robust against attacks on deployment infrastructure. Section 3.1.2 says the same measures would improve resilience to local or regional disasters, but Section 4.3 excludes sustained global calamities. The claim omits that limit on disaster resilience. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredSAI has a half-life of approximately 8 months and warming would still take several years to reach its unmitigated levels.
“SAI has a half-life of ∼ 8 months (approximately half the levels of coolants would still be present after 8 months) and warming would still take several years to reach its unmitigated levels (Parker and Irvine, 2018).”
From A Fate Worse Than Warming? Stratospheric Aerosol Injection and Global Catastrophic Risk (2021) · cites this paper as Parker and Irvine, 2018
Section 2.3 says the stratospheric aerosol burden and its cooling effect would take over eight months to fall below half their levels at termination. It also says temperatures would take several years to rise by an appreciable fraction of their eventual response, but does not say they would reach unmitigated levels within several years. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredSolar geoengineering cannot simply reverse the effects of climate change; average temperatures may return to pre-industrial levels, but location-specific climates still change.
“Moreover, unlike CO 2 removal, it cannot simply reverse the effects of climate change (average temperatures may return to pre-industrial levels, but location-specific climates still change), and also comes with the risk of termination shock (fast, catastrophic warming if humanity undertakes solar geoengineering but stops suddenly) [615].”
From Tackling climate change with machine learning (2023) · cites this paper as [615]
Solar geoengineering comes with the risk of termination shock (fast, catastrophic warming if humanity undertakes solar geoengineering but stops suddenly).
“Moreover, unlike CO 2 removal, it cannot simply reverse the effects of climate change (average temperatures may return to pre-industrial levels, but location-specific climates still change), and also comes with the risk of termination shock (fast, catastrophic warming if humanity undertakes solar geoengineering but stops suddenly) [615].”
From Tackling climate change with machine learning (2023) · cites this paper as [615]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 47 · Cited by 168
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Boucher, O., Randall, D., Artaxo, P., Bretherton, C., Feingold, G., Forster, P., et al. (2013). Clouds and aerosols. In T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S. K. Allen, J. Boschung, et al. (Eds.), Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 571-657). Cambridge, England; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
- Specter, M. (2012, May). The climate fixers. The New Yorker, pp. 96-103.
- Authors
- Parker, A., & Irvine, P. J.
- Affiliations
- Research Institute for Sustainability at GFZ (DE)
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Parker, Andy
- Venue
- Earth's Future
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2018-03
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 456-467
- ISSN
- 2328-4277 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2794342040
- Cited by
- 168
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 4
- FWCI
- 9.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Earth s Future (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Publication Database GFZ (GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences) (submittedVersion)
- Publication Database IASS (Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS)) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Bristol
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate Change and Geoengineering
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric aerosols and clouds
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Earth Systems and Cosmic Evolution
- Keywords
- solar geoengineering, termination shock, geoengineering governance, scenario analysis, international cooperation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
