CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 92Climate Change and GeoengineeringAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateAtmospheric aerosols and clouds

Stratospheric controlled perturbation experiment: a small-scale experiment to improve understanding of the risks of solar geoengineering

Open access
Dykema, John A., Keith, David W., Anderson, James G., Weisenstein, Debra·2014·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
DOI 10.1098/rsta.2014.0059PMC PMC4240955
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Although solar radiation management (SRM) through stratospheric aerosol methods has the potential to mitigate impacts of climate change, our current knowledge of stratospheric processes suggests that these methods may entail significant risks. In addition to the risks associated with current knowledge, the possibility of 'unknown unknowns' exists that could significantly alter the risk assessment relative to our current understanding. While laboratory experimentation can improve the current state of knowledge and atmospheric models can assess large-scale climate response, they cannot capture possible unknown chemistry or represent the full range of interactive atmospheric chemical physics. Small-scale, in situ experimentation under well-regulated circumstances can begin to remove some of these uncertainties. This experiment-provisionally titled the stratospheric controlled perturbation experiment-is under development and will only proceed with transparent and predominantly governmental funding and independent risk assessment. We describe the scientific and technical foundation for performing, under external oversight, small-scale experiments to quantify the risks posed by SRM to activation of halogen species and subsequent erosion of stratospheric ozone. The paper's scope includes selection of the measurement platform, relevant aspects of stratospheric meteorology, operational considerations and instrument design and engineering.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rsta.2014.0059

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • SCoPEx was a proposed small-scale field experiment led by Harvard University to investigate key uncertainties associated with SAI, including the evolution of injected particles and potential impacts on ozone chemistry.

    “The Stratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx) was a proposed small-scale field experiment led by Harvard University to investigate key uncertainties associated with SAI, including the evolution of injected particles and potential impacts on ozone chemistry (Dykema et al., 2014).”

    From Past Field Experiments of Solar Radiation Modification: A Review of the Scientific and Technical Aspects for Governance (2026) · cites this paper as Dykema et al., 2014

    The General requirements for in situ experimentation section describes SCoPEx as seeding a small stratospheric volume and measuring particle evolution and ozone-related chemistry. The Expected results and data analysis section likewise identifies aerosol microphysics and heterogeneous ozone chemistry as its aims. The passages support the proposed experiment and its scientific purpose, but do not establish that it was led by Harvard University. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • SCoPEx aimed to prioritize high-resolution monitoring, employing mid-infrared spectrometers (0.2 ppmv H2O precision), aerosol counters (0.06-1 μm size bins), and lidar to track plume geometry (with 30-75 m range resolution) and chemical signatures in real-time.

    “SCoPEx similarly aimed to prioritize highresolution monitoring, employing mid-infrared spectrometers (0.2 ppmv H2O precision), aerosol counters (0.06-1 μm size bins), and lidar to track plume geometry (with 30-75 m of range resolution) and chemical signatures in real-time (Dykema et al., 2014).”

    From Past Field Experiments of Solar Radiation Modification: A Review of the Scientific and Technical Aspects for Governance (2026) · cites this paper as Dykema et al., 2014

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • By controlled stratospheric releases and tracking photochemical changes, SCoPEx (Stage 2) would have provided empirical data to connect aerosol microphysics with radiative forcing thresholds, but it was not implemented.

    “By controlled stratospheric releases and tracking photochemical changes, SCoPEx (Stage 2) would have provided empirical data to connect aerosol microphysics with radiative forcing thresholds, but it was not implemented (Dykema et al., 2014).”

    From Past Field Experiments of Solar Radiation Modification: A Review of the Scientific and Technical Aspects for Governance (2026) · cites this paper as Dykema et al., 2014

    The ‘Stage two concept of operations’ section proposes controlled releases of water and sulfate aerosol, tracking the seeded volume, and repeated measurements of its chemical evolution. The ‘General requirements for in situ experimentation’ section also calls for measuring aerosol size distributions to compute radiative properties. Our copy does not describe radiative forcing thresholds or establish that Stage 2 was ultimately not implemented; it presents Stage 2 as a proposal. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • SCoPEx defined technical and environmental termination criteria in advance, including signs of unpredicted plume expansion or potential ozone depletion, which were to be tracked via lidar and in situ sensors.

    “SCoPEx defined technical and environmental termination criteria in advance, including signs of unpredicted plume expansion or potential ozone depletion, which were to be tracked via lidar and in situ sensors (Dykema et al., 2014).”

    From Past Field Experiments of Solar Radiation Modification: A Review of the Scientific and Technical Aspects for Governance (2026) · cites this paper as Dykema et al., 2014

    The Stage one concept of operations (page unavailable) proposes scanning LIDAR to map the plume’s location and shape, while science sensors measure chemical species including O3. The Governance > Safety section discusses external oversight and limits on injected material, but our copy does not define advance termination criteria for unexpected plume expansion or potential ozone depletion. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The Russian experiments and SCoPEx both employed a phased, stepwise methodology to reduce risk and enhance replicability, including the use of control sites and a staged development process in SCoPEx.

    “The Russian experiments and SCoPEx both employed a phased, stepwise methodology to reduce risk and enhance replicability, including the use of control sites (Izrael et al., 2009a) and a staged development process in SCoPEx (e.g., Stage 1: platform testing; Stage 2: planned particle release) (Dykema et al., 2014; Jinnah et al., 2024).”

    From Past Field Experiments of Solar Radiation Modification: A Review of the Scientific and Technical Aspects for Governance (2026) · cites this paper as Dykema et al., 2014

    The System architecture section says SCoPEx was following a phased development approach to reduce project risk. But it presents moving from stage one to stage two as a possibility, not an adopted sequence, and the Stage one concept of operations already includes particle release. The cited passages do not say the stages were intended to enhance replicability. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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 104 · Cited by 92

Research works printed but not linked: 93

  1. 10.1029/2002GL015911 · DOI
  2. 10.1016/S0921-8181(02)00195-9 · DOI
  3. 10.1098/rsta.2008.0132 · DOI
  4. Robock A, 2008, Regional climate responses to geoengineering with tropical and Arctic SO2 injections, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. (1984–2012), 113, D16
  5. 10.1029/2010GL043975 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.5194/acp-12-4775-2012 · DOI
  7. 10.5194/acp-12-10945-2012 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1021/j100073a026 · DOI
  9. 10.1126/science.266.5184.398 · DOI
  10. Peter T, 2012, Stratospheric ozone depletion and climate change
  11. Newman PA, 2002, An overview of the SOLVE/THESEO 2000 campaign, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. (1984–2012), 107
  12. Hanisco TF, 2002, Quantifying the rate of heterogeneous processing in the Arctic polar vortex with in situ observations of OH, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. (1984–2012), 107, 21
  13. Hanisco TF, 2002, In situ observations of HO2 and OH obtained on the NASA ER-2 in the high-ClO conditions of the 1999/2000 Arctic polar vortex, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. (1984–2012), 107
  14. Carslaw KS, 2002, A vortex-scale simulation of the growth and sedimentation of large nitric acid hydrate particles, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. (1984–2012), 107
  15. Stimpfle RM, 2004, First measurements of ClOOCl in the stratosphere: the coupling of ClOOCl and ClO in the Arctic polar vortex, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. (1984–2012), 109, D03301
  16. 10.1029/2000JD000181 · DOI
  17. 10.1029/GL013i012p01284 · DOI
  18. 10.1038/324651a0 · DOI
  19. 10.1029/1999RG900008 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1038/321759a0 · DOI
  21. 10.1029/2004GL021504 · DOI
  22. 10.5194/acp-9-8651-2009 · DOI
  23. 10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.441 · DOI
  24. 10.1029/2008GL035333 · DOI
  25. 10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014<2798:RSTWVU>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  26. 10.1029/2002GL014659 · DOI
  27. 10.1029/2012GL051000 · DOI
  28. 10.1029/95RG02097 · DOI
  29. 10.1002/jgrd.50636 · DOI
  30. 10.1126/science.1222978 · DOI
  31. 10.1029/2000GL012502 · DOI
  32. 10.1002/jgrd.50831 · DOI
  33. 10.1002/2014EO270001 · DOI
  34. 10.1002/jgrd.50772 · DOI
  35. Dessler AE, 2013, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 18087
  36. 10.1029/2006GL027899 · DOI
  37. 10.1029/2009JD013100 · DOI
  38. 10.1029/96GL01489 · DOI
  39. 10.1029/2000JD900130 · DOI
  40. 10.1175/2008JAMC1890.1 · DOI
  41. Smith J. 2012 The sources and significance of stratospheric water vapor: mechanistic studies from Equator to Pole. PhD thesis Harvard University Cambridge MA.
  42. 10.1126/science.1227004 · DOI
  43. 10.1002/2013JD020931 · DOI
  44. 10.1175/JAS-D-13-079.1 · DOI
  45. Homeyer CR, 2011, Convective injection into stratospheric intrusions, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. (1984–2012), 116, 23304
  46. 10.1021/j100374a039 · DOI
  47. 10.1021/jp9525503 · DOI
  48. 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2009.01.026 · DOI
  49. 10.1126/science.251.4989.39 · DOI
  50. 10.1016/j.asr.2009.02.013 · DOI
  51. Cathey HM, 2013, Proc. AIAA Balloons Systems (BAL) Conf., Daytona Beach, FL, 25–28 March 2013.
  52. 10.2514/6.2013-1313 · DOI
  53. Rainwater EL, 2003, Proc. AIAA's 3rd Annual Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) Forum, Denver, CO, 17–19 November 2003.
  54. 10.1016/j.asr.2003.07.052 · DOI
  55. 10.1175/1520-0469(2004)061<0224:IWGBBM>2.0.CO;2 · DOI · Paper page
  56. 10.1017/S0022112099006813 · DOI
  57. 10.1029/2000GL011972 · DOI
  58. 10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00015.1 · DOI
  59. 10.5194/acp-5-1605-2005 · DOI
  60. 10.1175/1520-0469(2001)058<1493:TADPFS>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  61. 10.1017/S0022112099008149 · DOI
  62. 10.5194/angeo-22-3869-2004 · DOI
  63. 10.1063/1.168744 · DOI
  64. 10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00076.1 · DOI
  65. 10.1029/98JD02453 · DOI
  66. 10.1126/science.270.5233.70 · DOI
  67. 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2008.04.007 · DOI
  68. 10.5194/acpd-10-27361-2010 · DOI
  69. 10.1063/1.3117349 · DOI
  70. 10.1007/s00340-008-3137-9 · DOI
  71. 10.1175/1520-0426(2002)019<0431:FTESCA>2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  72. 10.1364/AO.45.009221 · DOI
  73. 10.1364/AO.40.004904 · DOI
  74. 10.1126/science.242.4878.558 · DOI
  75. 10.1029/JD094iD09p11480 · DOI
  76. 10.1029/1999JD900288 · DOI
  77. 10.1029/JD094iD14p16649 · DOI
  78. 10.1029/GL015i002p00144 · DOI
  79. Karpuch S, 2007, Systems engineering handbook.
  80. Simpson JM, 1991, Proc. AIAA. International Balloon Technology Conference, Albuquerque, NM, 8–10 October 1991, 108
  81. Hazen NL, 1984, 22nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Am. Inst. of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reno, NV, 9–12 January 1984
  82. 10.1016/0273-1177(85)90422-3 · DOI
  83. Smith S, 2011, Proc. AIAA 11th Aviation Technology, Integration, and Operations (ATIO) Conf., including the AIA, Virginia Beach, VA, 20–22 September 2011.
  84. Renaud E, 1995, Proc. 1st AIAA Aircraft Engineering, Technology, and Operations Congress, Los Angeles, CA, 19–21 September 1995
  85. 10.3137/ao.430402 · DOI
  86. 10.1175/2009BAMS2764.1 · DOI
  87. 10.1029/2006JD007851 · DOI
  88. 10.1029/2007JD008554 · DOI
  89. 10.1029/2004JD004744 · DOI
  90. Sander SP, 2011, Chemical kinetics and photochemical data for use in atmospheric studies evaluation 17.
  91. 10.1063/1.4815828 · DOI
  92. 10.1007/s00340-010-3957-2 · DOI
  93. Kravitz B, 2009, Sulfuric acid deposition from stratospheric geoengineering with sulfate aerosols, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. (1984–2012), 114

Authors
Dykema, J. A., Keith, D. W., Anderson, J. G., & Weisenstein, D.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Dykema, John A.
ORCID
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
Publisher
The Royal Society
Published
2014-12-28
Volume
372
Issue
2031
Pages
20140059
ISSN
  • 1364-503X (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2962
DOI
10.1098/rsta.2014.0059
PMC
PMC4240955
OpenAlex
W1993985243
Cited by
92
References
104
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3
FWCI
3.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration
  • Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research
  • Southwest Research Institute
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate Change and Geoengineering
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Atmospheric Ozone and Climate
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric aerosols and clouds
Keywords
solar radiation management, stratospheric aerosol injection, stratospheric ozone depletion, halogen activation, unknown unknowns, instrument design

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