CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 7Climate Change and GeoengineeringReinforcement Learning in RoboticsAtmospheric aerosols and clouds

Stratospheric Aerosol Injection as a Deep Reinforcement Learning Problem

Open access
de Witt, Christian Schroeder, Hornigold, Thomas·2019·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1905.07366arXiv 1905.07366
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

As global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, the use of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), a form of solar geoengineering, is increasingly considered in order to artificially mitigate climate change effects. However, initial research in simulation suggests that naive SAI can have catastrophic regional consequences, which may induce serious geostrategic conflicts. Current geo-engineering research treats SAI control in low-dimensional approximation only. We suggest treating SAI as a high-dimensional control problem, with policies trained according to a context-sensitive reward function within the Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) paradigm. In order to facilitate training in simulation, we suggest to emulate HadCM3, a widely used General Circulation Model, using deep learning techniques. We believe this is the first application of DRL to the climate sciences.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1905.07366

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • An advanced deep reinforcement learning system may be used to manage SAI deployment.

    “With the vast amounts of information feedback and constant operational adjustments required (MacMartin et al., 2019), an advanced deep reinforcement learning system may be used to manage SAI deployment (Rolnick et al., 2019; Schroeder de Witt and Hornigold, 2019).”

    From A Fate Worse Than Warming? Stratospheric Aerosol Injection and Global Catastrophic Risk (2021) · cites this paper as Schroeder de Witt and Hornigold, 2019

    The Introduction proposes deep reinforcement learning to discover SAI injection policies, and the Reinforcement learning setting describes an agent choosing simulated injections in response to feedback. The Conclusion frames this as a proposed method for studying optimal SAI control, not as a system shown to manage real-world deployment. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • SAI deployment dependent on software or advanced algorithmic systems would be vulnerable to cyberattack.

    “SAI deployment dependent on any software or advanced algorithmic system (Rolnick et al., 2019; Schroeder de Witt and Hornigold, 2019), which is likely given the high technological and informational demands of deployment (MacMartin et al., 2019), would be vulnerable to cyberattack.”

    From A Fate Worse Than Warming? Stratospheric Aerosol Injection and Global Catastrophic Risk (2021) · cites this paper as Schroeder de Witt and Hornigold, 2019

    The Introduction proposes deep reinforcement learning to discover SAI injection policies, supporting the possibility of algorithmic SAI control. The Conclusion describes this as a proposed approach to studying optimal control; it does not establish that deployment would depend on such a system, and our copy does not address vulnerability to cyberattack. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. Ban-Weiss, G. A. and Caldeira, K. Geoengineering as an optimization problem. Environmental Research Letters, 5(3):034009, 2010.
  2. Brenowitz, N. D. e. a. Prognostic Validation of a Neural Network Unified Physics Parameterization. Geophysical Research Letters, 45(12):6289–6298, 2018. ISSN 1944- 8007. doi: 10.1029/2018GL078510. · DOI
  3. Castruccio, S. e. a. Statistical Emulation of Climate Model Projections Based on Precomputed GCM Runs. Journal of Climate, 27(5):1829–1844, October 2013. ISSN 0894- 8755. doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00099.1. · DOI
  4. Crutzen, P. J. Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Climatic Change, 77(3):211, Jul 2006. ISSN 1573-1480. doi: 10.1007/s10584-006-9101-y. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Dulac-Arnold, G. e. a. Deep Reinforcement Learning in Large Discrete Action Spaces. arXiv:1512.07679 [cs, stat], December 2015. arXiv: 1512.07679. · arXiv
  6. Gabriel, C. J. e. a. Stratospheric geoengineering impacts on el nino/southern oscillation. Atmospheric Chem- istry and Physics, 15(20):11949–11966, 2015. doi:
  7. 10.5194/acp-15-11949-2015. URL https://www. atmos-chem-phys.net/15/11949/2015/. · DOI
  8. Gordon, C. e. a. The simulation of SST, sea ice extents and ocean heat transports in a version of the Hadley Centre coupled model without flux adjustments. Climate Dy- namics, 16(2):147–168, February 2000. ISSN 1432-0894. doi: 10.1007/s003820050010. · DOI
  9. Hansen, J. e. a. Efficacy of climate forcings. Journal of Geo- physical Research: Atmospheres, 110(D18), September 2005. ISSN 0148-0227. doi: 10.1029/2005JD005776. · DOI
  10. Jackson, L. S. e. a. Assessing the controllability of arctic sea ice extent by sulfate aerosol geoengineering. Geophysical Research Letters, 42(4):1223–1231, 2015. doi: 10.1002/ 2014GL062240.
  11. Jones, A. e. a. The impact of abrupt suspension of solar radi- ation management (termination effect) in experiment g2 of the geoengineering model intercomparison project (ge- omip). Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 118(17):9743–9752, 2013. doi: 10.1002/jgrd.50762. · DOI
  12. Keith, D. W. Photophoretic levitation of engineered aerosols for geoengineering. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(38):16428–16431, September 2010. ISSN 0027-8424, 1091-6490. doi: 10.1073/pnas. 1009519107. · DOI
  13. Liebel, L. e. a. Auxiliary Tasks in Multi-task Learning. arXiv:1805.06334 [cs], May 2018. arXiv: 1805.06334. · arXiv
  14. MacMartin, D. G. e. a. Geoengineering: The world's largest control problem. In 2014 American Control Conference, pp. 2401–2406, June 2014. doi: 10.1109/ACC.2014. 6858658. https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/15/11949/2015/ https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/15/11949/2015/ · DOI
  15. Mirowski, P. e. a. Learning to Navigate in Complex Environ- ments. arXiv:1611.03673 [cs], November 2016. arXiv: 1611.03673. · arXiv
  16. Mnih, V. e. a. Human-level control through deep reinforce- ment learning. Nature, 518(7540):529, February 2015. ISSN 1476-4687. doi: 10.1038/nature14236. · DOI · Paper page
  17. O'Gorman, P. A. e. a. Using Machine Learning to Parameter- ize Moist Convection: Potential for Modeling of Climate, Climate Change, and Extreme Events. Journal of Ad- vances in Modeling Earth Systems, 10(10):2548–2563, 2018. ISSN 1942-2466. doi: 10.1029/2018MS001351. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Rashid, T. e. a. QMIX: Monotonic Value Function Fac- torisation for Deep Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learn- ing. arXiv:1803.11485 [cs, stat], March 2018. arXiv: 1803.11485. · arXiv
  19. Rasp, S. e. a. Deep learning to represent subgrid processes in climate models. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(39):9684–9689, September 2018. ISSN 0027-8424, 1091-6490. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1810286115. · DOI · Paper page
  20. Ricke, K. L. e. a. Regional climate response to solar- radiation management. Nature Geoscience, 3(8):537–541, August 2010. ISSN 1752-0908. doi: 10.1038/ngeo915. · DOI
  21. Smith, W. e. a. Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years of deployment. Environmental Research Letters, 13(12):124001, November 2018. ISSN 1748-9326. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aae98d. · DOI · Paper page
  22. Sunehag, P. e. a. Value-Decomposition Networks For Co- operative Multi-Agent Learning. arXiv:1706.05296 [cs], June 2018. arXiv: 1706.05296. · arXiv
  23. Yu, Xiaoyong, e. a. Impacts, effectiveness and regional inequalities of the geomip g1 to g4 solar radiation man- agement scenarios. Global and Planetary Change, 129: 10 – 22, 2015. ISSN 0921-8181. doi: 10.1016/j.gloplacha. 2015.02.010. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
de Witt, C. S., & Hornigold, T.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1905.07366
arXiv
1905.07366
OpenAlex
W2945353373
Cited by
7
References
2
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Natural Environment Research Council (1936118)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate Change and Geoengineering
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric aerosols and clouds
Keywords
stratospheric aerosol injection, solar geoengineering, deep reinforcement learning, climate change mitigation, regional climate impacts, climate model simulation, high-dimensional control

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