Skip to Content

One Potential Problem With Geoengineering: Less Rain

A new study from the National Center for Atmospheric Research says geoengineering could decrease rainfall compared to pre-industrial periods.
November 1, 2013

If global warming really takes off, some researchers think we should consider pumping sulfate aerosols high up in the atmosphere to shade the earth and cool it back down. The approach, one of a group of strategies known as geoengineering, sounds mad. But it has the attraction of being cheap. According to one estimate, it would cost less than a billion dollars a year, pocket change in a world economy of $70 trillion (see “A Cheap and Easy Plan to Stop Global Warming” and “Climate Change: The Moral Choices”).

No one really knows, however, what putting large amounts of sulfate up in the stratosphere will do, especially in the long term. We have a general idea of the short term reaction, because we’d basically be doing what big volcanic eruptions naturally do. But the sulfur from those eruptions falls out of the sky after a couple of years. Geoengineering would have to go on for hundreds or thousands of years while we wait for carbon dioxide levels to come back down.

One outstanding question is how much geoengineering would impact rainfall. According to some models, the news is good. Global warming would increase rainfall, on average. Geoengineering would reduce it, and things would even out—it would just bring precipitation levels back to normal.

But a study in the Journal of Geophysical Research suggests that geoengineering could significantly reduce precipitation, possibly enough to have an impact on crops and drinking water.

Here’s one reason why. Higher carbon dioxide levels cause plants to partially close pores in their leaves, which decreases the amount of water vapor they release. Without geoengineering, high levels of carbon dioxide would also make the earth warmer and increase evaporation, which would offset the decrease in water vapor from plants. But shading the earth slows down evaporation, so there’s a net decrease in rainfall.

The study is far from the last word on geoengineering. For one thing, it looked at extreme levels of CO2 that could still be avoided. At lower levels the reduction in rainfall is smaller and might not even be noticed. There are also many other factors other than average rainfall that matter, including effects of sulfate aerosols on the ozone layer. But given the study’s findings suggest that at the very least we need to learn more about about the potential side effects of geoengineering. 

Keep Reading

Most Popular

Here’s how a Twitter engineer says it will break in the coming weeks

One insider says the company’s current staffing isn’t able to sustain the platform.

Technology that lets us “speak” to our dead relatives has arrived. Are we ready?

Digital clones of the people we love could forever change how we grieve.

How to befriend a crow

I watched a bunch of crows on TikTok and now I'm trying to connect with some local birds.

Starlink signals can be reverse-engineered to work like GPS—whether SpaceX likes it or not

Elon said no thanks to using his mega-constellation for navigation. Researchers went ahead anyway.

Stay connected

Illustration by Rose Wong

Get the latest updates from
MIT Technology Review

Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.

Thank you for submitting your email!

Explore more newsletters

It looks like something went wrong.

We’re having trouble saving your preferences. Try refreshing this page and updating them one more time. If you continue to get this message, reach out to us at customer-service@technologyreview.com with a list of newsletters you’d like to receive.