Estimating global agricultural effects of geoengineering using volcanic eruptions
Abstract
Solar radiation management is increasingly considered to be an option for managing global temperatures 1,2, yet the economic effects of ameliorating climatic changes by scattering sunlight back to space remain largely unknown 3. Although solar radiation management may increase crop yields by reducing heat stress 4, the effects of concomitant changes in available sunlight have never been empirically estimated. Here we use the volcanic eruptions that inspired modern solar radiation management proposals as natural experiments to provide the first estimates, to our knowledge, of how the stratospheric sulfate aerosols created by the eruptions of El Chichón and Mount Pinatubo altered the quantity and quality of global sunlight, and how these changes in sunlight affected global crop yields. We find that the sunlight-mediated effect of stratospheric sulfate aerosols on yields is negative for both C4 (maize) and C3 (soy, rice and wheat) crops. Applying our yield model to a solar radiation management scenario based on stratospheric sulfate aerosols, we find that projected mid-twenty-first century damages due to scattering sunlight caused by solar radiation management are roughly equal in magnitude to benefits from cooling. This suggests that solar radiation management-if deployed using stratospheric sulfate aerosols similar to those emitted by the volcanic eruptions it seeks to mimic-would, on net, attenuate little of the global agricultural damage from climate change. Our approach could be extended to study the effects of solar radiation management on other global systems, such as human health or ecosystem function.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Sulfates make sunlight slightly more diffuse, which can impact agriculture.
“Sulfates come with a well-studied risk of ozone loss [210], and they make sunlight slightly more diffuse, which can impact agriculture [642].”
From Tackling climate change with machine learning (2023) · cites this paper as [642]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 33 · Cited by 159
- Authors
- Proctor, J., Hsiang, S., Burney, J., Burke, M., & Schlenker, W.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
- University of California San Diego (US)
- Corresponding author
- Proctor, Jonathan
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2018-08
- Volume
- 560
- Issue
- 7719
- Pages
- 480-483
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- OpenAlex
- W2886613049
- Cited by
- 159
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 4
- FWCI
- 12.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Nature (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate Change and Geoengineering
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Climate change impacts on agriculture
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric aerosols and clouds
- Keywords
- solar radiation management, geoengineering, volcanic eruptions, stratospheric sulfate aerosols, crop yield, El Chichón, Mount Pinatubo, climate change impacts on agriculture, C3 and C4 crops, yield model
- MeSH terms
- Crop Production, Aerosols, Atmosphere, Zea mays, Oryza, Glycine max, Sulfates, Sunlight, Triticum, Ecosystem, Biomass, Crops, Agricultural, Volcanic Eruptions
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