Solar radiation modification: Policy briefing by the Royal Society
Renaud de RICHTER
ISBN: 978-1-78252-803-6
Abbreviations 5
Executive summary 6
Chapter 1: What is Solar Radiation Modification and why is it of current interest? 10
1.1 Climate interventions 13
1.2 Briefing focus 14
1.3 Introduction to SRM techniques 15
1.4 Synopsis 16
Chapter 2: SRM basic science and scenarios 18
2.1 The basic science of SRM 18
2.2 Idealised scenarios of SRM deployment 19
Chapter 3: What are the different SRM techniques? 26
3.1 Main SRM techniques 26
3.2 Other SRM techniques 36
3.3 Estimated costs of different SRM techniques 38
Chapter 4: How accurately can we understand the effects of SRM? 40
4.1 Stratospheric Aerosol Injection 40
4.2 Marine cloud brightening 44
Chapter 5: How effective could SRM techniques be at cooling the planet,
and in what timeframes? 48
5.1 Effective radiative forcing due to SRM 48
5.2 Impact of SRM on surface temperature 51
5.3 Detectability of the effects of SRM 52
5.4 Effects of cessation of SRM 56
Chapter 6: What are the key risks and effects on regional climate from the use of SRM? 59
6.1 Regional temperature 59
6.2 Regional precipitation 64
6.3 Stratospheric ozone 70
6.4 Modes of variability 71
6.5 Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation 74
6.6 Sea level rise 75
relative to the risks of climate change without SRM? 79
7.1. Introduction 79
7.2 The terrestrial biosphere 79
7.2.1 Global Net Primary Productivity 79
7.2.3 Crops 83
7.2.4 Wildfires 84
7.3 The marine biosphere 85
7.4 The cryosphere 87
Chapter 8: An overview of SRM governance – recent developments,
governance principles, and practical challenges 90
8.1 International and domestic governance efforts 91
8.2 Voluntary research governance principles 92
8.3 Overview of SRM field experiments 95
8.4 Research governance challenges for project teams and institutions 98
8.5 International governance challenges 99
8.6 Governance conclusions 101
Conclusions 102
Annexes 104
CONTENTS
4
Brian Cady
Alan Gadian
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/fa680dac-73a8-4391-9add-7346325b79fdn%40googlegroups.com.
Paul Stansell
A careful comparison between The Guardian’s article (5 November 2025) and The Royal Society’s policy briefing, “Solar Radiation Modification” (2025) reveals a significant divergence in tone, emphasis, and degree of certainty. Below is a structured critique.
1. Headline and Framing
Guardian headline:
“Solar geoengineering in wrong hands could wreak climate havoc, scientists warn.”
Assessment:
This headline implies two things:
-
That the Royal Society report warns of imminent or likely catastrophic misuse (“wreak climate havoc”).
-
That the danger lies primarily in who controls solar geoengineering (“in wrong hands”).
However, the Royal Society policy briefing does not use such alarmist or sensational phrasing. It presents solar radiation modification (SRM) as a potentially risky but research-worthy area, requiring robust international governance, transparency, and caution, not as an impending threat of “climate havoc.”
The report’s stated aim is to inform governance and research frameworks, not to raise alarm about immediate misuse.
2. Tone and Emphasis
| Aspect | Royal Society briefing | Guardian article |
|---|---|---|
| Tone | Cautious, technical, policy-oriented. | Urgent, emotive, conflict-driven. |
| Purpose | To outline policy principles and governance needs for responsible research and assessment of SRM. | To attract attention through potential dangers and political controversy. |
| Main risk discussed | Governance gaps, potential inequities, and need for coordinated oversight. | The risk of “rogue” actors or nations causing global climatic disruption. |
The Royal Society authors acknowledge risks but situate them within a policy-development framework, not within a narrative of crisis or misappropriation.
3. Substantive Misalignment
-
Royal Society: The document explicitly does not recommend deployment of SRM. It recommends further research, monitoring, and international governance before any testing or use. It warns against premature or unilateral actions but does so in measured, institutional language.
-
Guardian: The article interprets this as a “warning” about SRM “falling into the wrong hands,” which frames the issue as primarily security-related rather than governance-related.
Thus, while there is an overlap in concern about unilateral or unregulated action, the Royal Society’s focus is precautionary and procedural, not apocalyptic. The Guardian’s framing exaggerates the immediacy and scale of the threat.
4. Governance and “Wrong Hands”
The Royal Society policy briefing indeed discusses governance risks, but it frames them as systemic challenges:
-
Lack of international frameworks.
-
Potential inequities in decision-making between nations.
-
Ethical and political complexities.
It does not discuss “wrong hands” in the sense of malicious actors or deliberate climate manipulation. Instead, it refers to legitimacy, consent, and fairness in governance. The Guardian headline mischaracterizes this nuance by anthropomorphizing the risk (“in wrong hands”) and implying intent to cause harm.
5. Consequence of Misrepresentation
This kind of journalistic framing risks distorting public understanding by:
-
Suggesting the scientific community views SRM primarily as a danger, rather than as a research subject requiring oversight.
-
Undermining nuanced policy discussions with emotionally charged metaphors (“wreak havoc”).
-
Reinforcing public distrust in scientific governance mechanisms.
While newspapers must simplify complex topics, the Guardian article substitutes ethical caution with alarmism, thereby obscuring the balanced intent of the Royal Society report.
6. Overall Evaluation
| Criterion | Evaluation |
|---|---|
| Accuracy | Partially accurate; acknowledges the need for governance but overstates the threat. |
| Tone alignment | Poor; converts careful policy caution into sensational risk. |
| Faithfulness to source | Limited; selectively interprets governance warnings as dire global threats. |
| Public communication value | Moderate; raises awareness but at the cost of nuance and scientific credibility. |
7. Conclusion
The Royal Society’s policy briefing advocates for responsible governance and further research, not for alarm about SRM being weaponized or catastrophically misused.
Therefore, the Guardian headline is not justified by the text of the Royal Society report. It exaggerates the threat narrative and misrepresents the scientific tone of the source document.
The trouble is that "the scientists" don't say that "solar geoengineering in wrong hands could wreak climate havoc", as the title of the article says.
--