Cooling the Arctic: Why We Need High-Latitude Climate Research
by William J. Ripple
July 2, 2025
One of the most urgent and underappreciated threats is the rapid heating of Earth’s high-latitude regions, especially the Arctic. This region is warming nearly four times faster than the global average. If this continues, we risk setting off a cascade of feedback loops and tipping points that could destabilize the climate system. To address these dangers, we should explore every responsible option, including research into solar radiation management (SRM) focused on the Arctic.
The Arctic acts as a stabilizer for Earth’s climate. Its snow and ice reflect sunlight back into space in what is known as the albedo effect. As the region warms, reflective surfaces disappear, exposing darker land and ocean that absorb more heat. This intensifies warming in a self-reinforcing loop.
Another concern is thawing permafrost. These frozen soils hold immense amounts of carbon that have been locked away for thousands of years. As permafrost thaws, it releases methane and carbon dioxide, which further heat the planet. Methane is especially potent over the short term. If released at scale, these gases could push us past critical thresholds.
The Greenland Ice Sheet is also in danger. If it crosses a tipping point, it could contribute many meters of sea level rise. Meanwhile, Arctic warming weakens ocean currents like the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, which help regulate climate across the Northern Hemisphere. A disruption would affect rainfall, agriculture, and weather systems worldwide.
These changes are already underway. The Arctic has lost over 40 percent of its summer sea ice since 1979, and the first ice-free summer could arrive within the next decade. Arctic warming is also disrupting the jet stream, contributing to extreme weather across North America, Europe, and Asia.
Given these risks, we should evaluate potential tools to slow Arctic warming. One emergency option is SRM, which would reflect a small amount of sunlight back into space to cool the planet. Techniques include injecting aerosols into the stratosphere or brightening marine clouds. SRM is no substitute for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, but it might help reduce near-term risk while long-term solutions take hold.
A regional approach to SRM focused on high latitudes may offer strategic advantages. Targeting the Arctic could help preserve sea ice and slow permafrost thaw possibly with fewer side effects than global-scale deployment.
However, SRM also carries serious risks. It could introduce new forms of regional instability. Scientists would monitor not just cooling but hydrological and chemical impacts, especially in sensitive Arctic and sub-Arctic ecosystems. If stopped suddenly while emissions remain high, it could lead to rapid warming. There are ethical and political concerns as well, including who decides when and where SRM might be used. Perhaps most concerning is the possibility that SRM could be used to justify delaying emissions cuts.
That is why I call for research. We need public investment in high-latitude SRM modeling, monitoring, and small-scale trials. This work must be transparent and guided by strong oversight and international cooperation. Our goal should be to understand the science and governance needs before decisions are made.
The poles are our climate’s warning system, and they are flashing red. Let us listen and act wisely, guided by science and a commitment to protecting the Earth for future generations.
The editorial featured here may or may not be consistent with the views of the writer’s affiliations or with those of the other individual AWS members.
The following open letter is from more than 110 physical and biological scientists studying climate and climate impacts about the role of physical sciences research, including the central role it plays in effective governance. The letter affirms the importance of proceeding with responsible research to objectively evaluate the potential for SRM to reduce climate risks and impacts, to understand and minimize the risks of SRM approaches, and to identify the information required for governance. While not addressed in this letter, any decisions to actively use SRM would also need to be preceded by work to address the complex legal, ethical, and political aspects of making such a decision.
An open letter regarding research on reflecting sunlight to reduce the risks of climate change.
Case for Assessment of Solar Radiation Modification
by William J. Ripple
We are facing an imminent, irreversible climate crisis—an undeniable global emergency that threatens the very foundation of life on Earth. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is essential, but no amount of current reduction can undo the warming impact of past and present emissions. According to the United Nations IPCC, the Earth is expected to keep warming for decades in all projected climate change scenarios. As we outlined in our recent 2024 State of the Climate Report, every fraction of a degree of warming leads to more extreme impacts on ecosystems and human communities, with the threats of feedback loops and irreversible climate tipping points looming ever closer. While reducing greenhouse gas emissions remains the bedrock of climate action, it is unlikely that these efforts alone will be enough. Considering this, Solar Radiation Modification (SRM)—a set of techniques that can reflect a portion of sunlight back into space to cool the planet—has gained attention as a potential tool for limiting peak warming.
SRM could help alleviate some of the most dangerous climate impacts while we continue to cut emissions and remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Current projections suggest that even the most aggressive emissions reductions might not keep global warming below several degrees. SRM may offer a buffer, potentially giving vulnerable communities time to adapt while longer-term solutions are refined. This is not to say SRM is without risks; it could have unintended side effects, potentially altering regional climates and impacting weather patterns. However, dismissing SRM research and assessment could leave humanity unprepared as climate risks escalate beyond current mitigation capabilities.
Critics of SRM rightly caution that its use could introduce serious governance challenges. Who decides if, when, or how to deploy SRM? Could powerful nations exert control over its use, potentially worsening global inequalities? The concerns are real, and to avoid the risks associated with uninformed or unilateral decision-making, thorough research, planning, and an internationally inclusive discussion are essential.
Responsible SRM research and assessment would enable a deeper understanding of its potential benefits and limits, helping society make balanced, scientifically-informed choices. Ethical, transparent, and interdisciplinary research and assessment, with broad input from the Global South and other often-marginalized communities, would help create an equitable framework for future SRM discussions.
There is a moral imperative here. Entering the SRM decision-making process without sound science would be dangerous. Ignoring SRM research today may leave future generations with fewer options and less clarity about their potential impacts. While SRM is far from a perfect solution, refusing to investigate it responsibly could have significant consequences in an increasingly uncertain climate future.
For these reasons, we need to approach SRM research and assessment as a possible important tool—one that could make a crucial difference in minimizing climate harm. By working on SRM now, we take a proactive approach, preparing for all scenarios and safeguarding humanity’s ability to make informed, ethical decisions on climate change.