AN abrupt halt to climate engineering would have "devastating" consequences for the planet, scientists have warned.
Mimicking the effects of a volcanic eruption by spraying sulphur dioxide particles high in the atmosphere has been proposed as a last resort answer to climate change.
But if the operation had to stop suddenly for any reason the global impact could be disastrous, new research suggests.
The US team conducted computer simulations of a scenario in which large-scale geoengineering is used to achieve a moderate level of climate cooling.
It involved aircraft spraying five million tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere every year from 2020 to 2070.
The strategy was calculated to lower global temperature by about 1C, roughly reversing the amount of warming that had occurred since the start of the Industrial Revolution.
However, a sudden halt to the spraying led to hugely accelerated climate change, with the planet heating up 10 times faster than it would have done had geoengineering not been deployed.
Lead scientist Professor Alan Robock, from Rutgers University, said: "Rapid warming after stopping geoengineering would be a huge threat to the natural environment and biodiversity.
"If geoengineering ever stopped abruptly, it would be devastating, so you would have to be sure that it could be stopped gradually, and it is easy to think of scenarios that would prevent that.
"Imagine large droughts or floods around the world that could be blamed on geoengineering, and demands that it stop. Can we ever risk that?"
Maintaining the sulphur dioxide cloud would mean aircraft having to fly continuously into the upper atmosphere, said Prof Robock. Without continual spraying, it would last only about a year.
Many animals and plants would not be able to survive in a rapidly warming world, said the researchers whose findings are reported in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution.
"We really need to look in a lot more detail at the impact on specific organisms and how they might adapt if geoengineering stops suddenly," Prof Robock added.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article