Articles | Volume 12, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-1529-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-1529-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
08 Dec 2021
Research article |
| 08 Dec 2021
| 08 Dec 2021
How can solar geoengineering and mitigation be combined under climate targets?
Mohammad M. Khabbazan
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Research Unit Sustainability and Global Change (FNU), University of Hamburg, Grindelberg 5, 20144 Hamburg, Germany
Workgroup for Economic and Infrastructure Policy (WIP), Technical University of Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623 Berlin, Germany
Department of Energy, Transport, and Environment (EVU), German Institute for Economic Research (DIW Berlin), Mohrenstr. 58, 10117 Berlin, Germany
Center for Earth System Research and Sustainability (CEN), University of Hamburg, Bundesstr. 53, 20146 Hamburg, Germany
Marius Stankoweit
Research Unit Sustainability and Global Change (FNU), University of Hamburg, Grindelberg 5, 20144 Hamburg, Germany
Elnaz Roshan
Research Unit Sustainability and Global Change (FNU), University of Hamburg, Grindelberg 5, 20144 Hamburg, Germany
Hauke Schmidt
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Bundesstr. 53, 20146 Hamburg, Germany
Hermann Held
Research Unit Sustainability and Global Change (FNU), University of Hamburg, Grindelberg 5, 20144 Hamburg, Germany
Center for Earth System Research and Sustainability (CEN), University of Hamburg, Bundesstr. 53, 20146 Hamburg, Germany
Related authors
No articles found.
Hairu Ding, Bjorn Stevens, and Hauke Schmidt
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 10511–10521, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-10511-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-10511-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study examines the physical link between subtropical highs and stratocumulus variability. Using reanalysis data, we test two proposed pathways – one at the surface and one in the free troposphere – but find that neither is a dominant mechanism for stratocumulus variability on seasonal and interannual timescales. These results challenge the assumed influence of subtropical highs on stratocumulus and highlight the need for further research into lower-tropospheric stability dynamics.
Markus Kunze, Christoph Zülicke, Tarique A. Siddiqui, Claudia C. Stephan, Yosuke Yamazaki, Claudia Stolle, Sebastian Borchert, and Hauke Schmidt
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3359–3385, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3359-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3359-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present the Icosahedral Nonhydrostatic (ICON) general circulation model with an upper-atmospheric extension with the physics package for numerical weather prediction (UA-ICON(NWP)). We optimized the parameters for the gravity wave parameterizations and achieved realistic modeling of the thermal and dynamic states of the mesopause regions. UA-ICON(NWP) now shows a realistic frequency of major sudden stratospheric warmings and well-represented solar tides in temperature.
Abisha Mary Gnanaraj, Jiawei Bao, and Hauke Schmidt
Weather Clim. Dynam., 6, 489–503, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-6-489-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-6-489-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We study how the Coriolis force caused by a planet's rotation affects its energy budget and habitability. Using an atmospheric general circulation model in a simplified water-covered planet setup, we analyse how rotation rates both slower and faster than Earth affect the amount of water vapour and clouds in the atmosphere. Our results suggest that rotation slower than Earth's makes the planet colder and drier, while faster rotation makes it warmer and moister, reducing its habitability.
Jakob Deutloff, Hermann Held, and Timothy M. Lenton
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 565–583, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-565-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-565-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate the probabilities of triggering climate tipping points under various emission scenarios and how they are altered by additional carbon emissions from the tipping of the Amazon and permafrost. We find that there is a high risk for triggering climate tipping points under a scenario comparable to current policies. However, the additional warming and hence the additional risk of triggering other climate tipping points from the tipping of the Amazon and permafrost remain small.
Ravikiran Hegde, Moritz Günther, Hauke Schmidt, and Clarissa Kroll
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 3873–3887, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-3873-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-3873-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Using a one-dimensional radiative–convective equilibrium model, we show that in clear-sky conditions, stratospheric sulfate aerosol forcing weakens with increasing surface temperature while CO2 forcing varies much less. This effect arises as sulfate aerosol, unlike CO2, absorbs mainly at wavelengths where the atmosphere is optically thin. It thereby masks the surface emission, which increases with warming. The spectral masking also results in weaker radiative feedback when aerosol is present.
Moritz Günther, Hauke Schmidt, Claudia Timmreck, and Matthew Toohey
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 7203–7225, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-7203-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-7203-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric aerosol has been shown to cause pronounced cooling in the tropical Indian and western Pacific oceans. Using a climate model, we show that this arises from enhanced meridional energy export via the stratosphere. The aerosol causes stratospheric heating and thus an acceleration of the Brewer–Dobson circulation that accomplishes this transport. Our findings highlight the importance of circulation adjustments and surface perspectives on forcing for understanding temperature responses.
Hauke Schmidt, Sebastian Rast, Jiawei Bao, Amrit Cassim, Shih-Wei Fang, Diego Jimenez-de la Cuesta, Paul Keil, Lukas Kluft, Clarissa Kroll, Theresa Lang, Ulrike Niemeier, Andrea Schneidereit, Andrew I. L. Williams, and Bjorn Stevens
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1563–1584, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1563-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1563-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
A recent development in numerical simulations of the global atmosphere is the increase in horizontal resolution to grid spacings of a few kilometers. However, the vertical grid spacing of these models has not been reduced at the same rate as the horizontal grid spacing. Here, we assess the effects of much finer vertical grid spacings, in particular the impacts on cloud quantities and the atmospheric energy balance.
Sandra Wallis, Hauke Schmidt, and Christian von Savigny
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 7001–7014, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-7001-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-7001-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Strong volcanic eruptions are able to alter the temperature and the circulation of the middle atmosphere. This study simulates the atmospheric response to an idealized strong tropical eruption and focuses on the impact on the mesosphere. The simulations show a warming of the polar summer mesopause in the first November after the eruption. Our study indicates that this is mainly due to dynamical coupling in the summer hemisphere with a potential contribution from interhemispheric coupling.
Cathy Hohenegger, Peter Korn, Leonidas Linardakis, René Redler, Reiner Schnur, Panagiotis Adamidis, Jiawei Bao, Swantje Bastin, Milad Behravesh, Martin Bergemann, Joachim Biercamp, Hendryk Bockelmann, Renate Brokopf, Nils Brüggemann, Lucas Casaroli, Fatemeh Chegini, George Datseris, Monika Esch, Geet George, Marco Giorgetta, Oliver Gutjahr, Helmuth Haak, Moritz Hanke, Tatiana Ilyina, Thomas Jahns, Johann Jungclaus, Marcel Kern, Daniel Klocke, Lukas Kluft, Tobias Kölling, Luis Kornblueh, Sergey Kosukhin, Clarissa Kroll, Junhong Lee, Thorsten Mauritsen, Carolin Mehlmann, Theresa Mieslinger, Ann Kristin Naumann, Laura Paccini, Angel Peinado, Divya Sri Praturi, Dian Putrasahan, Sebastian Rast, Thomas Riddick, Niklas Roeber, Hauke Schmidt, Uwe Schulzweida, Florian Schütte, Hans Segura, Radomyra Shevchenko, Vikram Singh, Mia Specht, Claudia Christine Stephan, Jin-Song von Storch, Raphaela Vogel, Christian Wengel, Marius Winkler, Florian Ziemen, Jochem Marotzke, and Bjorn Stevens
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 779–811, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-779-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-779-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Models of the Earth system used to understand climate and predict its change typically employ a grid spacing of about 100 km. Yet, many atmospheric and oceanic processes occur on much smaller scales. In this study, we present a new model configuration designed for the simulation of the components of the Earth system and their interactions at kilometer and smaller scales, allowing an explicit representation of the main drivers of the flow of energy and matter by solving the underlying equations.
Shih-Wei Fang, Claudia Timmreck, Johann Jungclaus, Kirstin Krüger, and Hauke Schmidt
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1535–1555, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1535-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1535-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The early 19th century was the coldest period over the past 500 years, when strong tropical volcanic events and a solar minimum coincided. This study quantifies potential surface cooling from the solar and volcanic forcing in the early 19th century with large ensemble simulations, and identifies the regions that their impacts cannot be simply additive. The cooling perspective of Arctic amplification exists in both solar and post-volcano period with the albedo feedback as the main contribution.
Gunter Stober, Ales Kuchar, Dimitry Pokhotelov, Huixin Liu, Han-Li Liu, Hauke Schmidt, Christoph Jacobi, Kathrin Baumgarten, Peter Brown, Diego Janches, Damian Murphy, Alexander Kozlovsky, Mark Lester, Evgenia Belova, Johan Kero, and Nicholas Mitchell
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 13855–13902, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-13855-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-13855-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Little is known about the climate change of wind systems in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere at the edge of space at altitudes from 70–110 km. Meteor radars represent a well-accepted remote sensing technique to measure winds at these altitudes. Here we present a state-of-the-art climatological interhemispheric comparison using continuous and long-lasting observations from worldwide distributed meteor radars from the Arctic to the Antarctic and sophisticated general circulation models.
Clarissa Alicia Kroll, Sally Dacie, Alon Azoulay, Hauke Schmidt, and Claudia Timmreck
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 6565–6591, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6565-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6565-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Volcanic forcing is counteracted by stratospheric water vapor (SWV) entering the stratosphere as a consequence of aerosol-induced cold-point warming. We find that depending on the emission strength, aerosol profile height and season of the eruption, up to 4 % of the tropical aerosol forcing can be counterbalanced. A power function relationship between cold-point warming/SWV forcing and AOD in the yearly average is found, allowing us to estimate the SWV forcing for comparable eruptions.
Cathy W. Y. Li, Guy P. Brasseur, Hauke Schmidt, and Juan Pedro Mellado
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 483–503, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-483-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-483-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Intense and localised emissions of pollutants are common in urban environments, in which turbulence cannot mix these segregated pollutants efficiently in the atmosphere. Despite their relatively high resolution, regional models cannot resolve such segregation and assume instantaneous mixing of these pollutants in their model grids, which potentially induces significant error in the subsequent chemical calculation, based on our calculation with a model that explicitly resolves turbulent motions.
Cited articles
Anthoff, D. and Tol, R. S. J.:
The Impact of Climate Change on the Balanced Growth Equivalent: An Application of FUND,
Environ. Resour. Econ.,
43, 351–367, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-009-9269-5, 2009. a
Arino, Y., Akimoto, K., Sano, F., Homma, T., Oda, J., and Tomoda, T.:
Estimating option values of solar radiation management assuming that climate sensitivity is uncertain,
P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA,
113, 5886–5891, 2016. a
Asseng, S., Foster, I., and Turner, N. C.:
The impact of temperature variability on wheat yields,
Glob. Change Biol.,
17, 997–1012, 2011. a
Bahn, O., Chesney, M., Gheyssens, J., Knutti, R., and Pana, A. C.:
Is there room for geoengineering in the optimal climate policy mix?,
Environ. Sci. Policy,
48, 67–76, 2015. a
Ban-Weiss, G. A. and Caldeira, K.: Geoengineering as an optimization problem,
Environ. Res. Lett., 5, 034009, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/5/3/034009, 2010. a, b
Barrett, S., Lenton, T. M., Millner, A., Tavoni, A., Carpenter, S., Anderies, J. M., Chapin III, F. S., Crépin, A.-S., Daily, G., Ehrlich, P., Folke, C., Galaz, V., Hughes, T., Kautsky, N., Lambin, E. F., Naylor, R., Nyborg, K., Polasky, S., Scheffer, M., Wilen, J., Xepapadeas, A., and de Zeeuw, A.: Climate engineering reconsidered,
Nat. Clim. Change, 4, 527–529, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2278, 2014. a
Bellamy, R., Chilvers, J., Vaughan, N. E., and Lenton, T. M.:
'Opening up' geoengineering appraisal: Multi-Criteria Mapping of options for tackling climate change,
Global Environ. Chang.,
23, 926–937, 2013. a
Bruckner, T. and Zickfeld, K.:
Inverse integrated assessment of climate change: the guard-rail approach,
in: International Conference on Policy Modeling (EcoMod2008), Citeseer, Berlin, 2008. a
Crutzen, P. J.: Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma?, Climatic Change, 77, 211–219, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9101-y, 2006. a
Ekholm, T.:
Climatic cost-benefit analysis under uncertainty and learning on climate sensitivity and damages,
Ecol. Econ.,
154, 99–106, 2018. a
Ekholm, T. and Korhonen, H.:
Climate change mitigation strategy under an uncertain Solar Radiation Management possibility,
Climatic Change,
139, 503–515, 2016. a
Frieler, K., Meinshausen, M., Mengel, M., Braun, N., and Hare, W.:
A scaling approach to probabilistic assessment of regional climate change, Journal of Climate, 25, 3117–3144, 2012. a
Giorgi, F. and Bi, X.: Updated regional precipitation and temperature changes for the 21st century from ensembles of recent AOGCM simulations,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L21715, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL024288, 2005. a, b, c, d
Heutel, G., Moreno-Cruz, J., and Shayegh, S.:
Climate tipping points and solar geoengineering,
J. Econ. Behav. Organ.,
132, 19–45, 2016. a
Heutel, G., Moreno-Cruz, J., and Shayegh, S.:
Solar geoengineering, uncertainty, and the price of carbon,
J. Environ. Econ. Manag.,
87, 24–41, 2018. a
Irvine, P., Sriver, R., and Keller, K.:
Strong tension between the objectives to reduce sea-level rise and rates of temperature change through solar radiation management,
Nat. Clim. Change,
2, 97–100, 2012. a
Kalidindi, S., Bala, G., Modak, A., and Caldeira, K.:
Modeling of solar radiation management: a comparison of simulations using reduced solar constant and stratospheric sulphate aerosols,
Clim. Dynam.,
44, 2909–2925, 2015. a
Khabbazan, M. M. and Held, H.: On the future role of the most parsimonious climate module in integrated assessment, Earth Syst. Dynam., 10, 135–155, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-135-2019, 2019. a, b, c
Klepper, G. and Rickels, W.: The real economics of climate engineering. Economics Research International, 2012, 316564, https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/316564, 2012. a
Kolstad, C., Urama, K., Broome, J., Bruvoll, A., Cariño-Olvera, M., Fullerton, D., Gollier, C., Hanemann, W. M.,
Hassan, R., Jotzo, F., Khan, M. R., Meyer, L., and Mundaca, L.: Social, Economic and Ethical Concepts
and Methods, edited by: Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Farahani, E., Kadner, S., Seyboth, K., Adler, A., Baum, I., and Minx, J. C., Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, 207–282, Cambridge
University Press, available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg3/ (last access: 1 December 2021), 2014. a
Kravitz, B., Rasch, P. J., Forster, P. M., Andrews, T., Cole, J. N., Irvine, P. J., Ji, D., Kristjánsson, J. E., Moore, J. C., Muri, H., and Niemeier, U.: An energetic perspective on hydrological cycle changes in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 13087–13102, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020502, 2013. a, b, c
Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Robock, A., Rasch, P. J., Ricke, K. L., Cole, J. N., Curry, C. L., Irvine, P. J., Ji, D., Keith, D. W., Kristjánsson, J. E., Moore, J. C., Muri, H., Singh, B., Tilmes, S., Watanabe, S., Yang, S., and Yoon, J.-H.: A multi-model assessment of regional climate disparities caused by solar geoengineering, Environ. Res. Lett., 9, 074013, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/7/074013, 2014. a
Kriegler, E. and Bruckner, T.:
Sensitivity analysis of emissions corridors for the 21st century,
Climatic Change,
66, 345–387, 2004. a
Kunreuther, H., Gupta, S., Bosetti, V., Cooke, R., Dutt, V., Ha-Duong, M., Held, H., Llanes-Regueiro, J., Patt, A., Shittu, E., and Weber, E.: Integrated risk and uncertainty assessment of climate change response policies, in: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change: Working Group III Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 151–206, 2014. a, b
MacMartin, D. G., Kravitz, B., and Keith, D. W.: Geoengineering: The world's largest control problem, in: 2014 American Control Conference, IEEE, 4–6 June 2014, Portland, OR, USA, https://doi.org/10.1109/ACC.2014.6858658, 2401–2406, 2014. a
Oschlies, A., Held, H., Keller, D., Keller, K., Mengis, N., Quaas, M., Rickels, W., and Schmidt, H.:
Indicators and metrics for the assessment of climate engineering,
Earths Future,
5, 49–58, 2017. a
Portmann, F. T., Siebert, S., and Döll, P.: MIRCA2000–Global monthly irrigated and rainfed crop areas around the year 2000: A new high-resolution data set for agricultural and hydrological modeling, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 24, GB1011, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GB003435, 2010. a
Robock, A., Oman, L., and Stenchikov, G. L.: Regional climate responses to geoengineering with tropical and Arctic SO2 injections, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 113, D16101, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010050, 2008. a, b
Roshan, E., Khabbazan, M. M., and Held, H.: Cost-Risk Trade-Off of Mitigation and Solar Geoengineering: Considering Regional Disparities Under Probabilistic Climate Sensitivity, Environ. Resour. Econ., 72, 263–279, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-018-0261-9, 2019. a, b, c
Schellnhuber, H. J.: Tragic triumph, Climatic Change, 100, 229–238, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9838-1, 2010. a, b
Schmidt, H., Alterskjær, K., Bou Karam, D., Boucher, O., Jones, A., Kristjánsson, J. E., Niemeier, U., Schulz, M., Aaheim, A., Benduhn, F., Lawrence, M., and Timmreck, C.: Solar irradiance reduction to counteract radiative forcing from a quadrupling of CO2: climate responses simulated by four earth system models, Earth Syst. Dynam., 3, 63–78, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-3-63-2012, 2012. a
Sheffield, J., Goteti, G., and Wood, E. F.:
Development of a 50-year high-resolution global dataset of meteorological forcings for land surface modeling,
J. Climate,
19, 3088–3111, 2006. a
Smith, S. J. and Rasch, P. J.:
The long-term policy context for solar radiation management,
Climatic Change,
121, 487–497, 2013. a
Stankoweit, M., Schmidt, H., Roshan, E., Pieper, P., and Held, H.: Integrated mitigation and solar radiation management scenarios under combined climate guardrails, EGUGA, Vol. 17, EGU2015-7152, EGU General Assembly 2015, 12–17 April 2015, Vienna, Austria, id. 7152, 7152, 2015. a
Stern, N.: The economics of climate change: the Stern review, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007. a
Weedon, G. P., Gomes, S., Viterbo, P., Österle, H., Adam, J. C., Bellouin, N., Boucher, O., and Best, M.: The watch forcing data 1958–2001: a meteorological forcing data set for land surface- and hydrological-models, (Technical Report; 22), Oxfordshire, WATCH Programme, available at: https://publications.pik-potsdam.de/pubman/item/item_16400 (last access: 4 December 2021), 2010. a
Weedon, G. P., Balsamo, G., Bellouin, N., Gomes, S., Best, M. J., and Viterbo, P.:
The WFDEI meteorological forcing data set: WATCH Forcing Data methodology applied to ERA-Interim reanalysis data,
Water Resour. Res.,
50, 7505–7514, 2014. a
Wigley, T. M.:
A combined mitigation/geoengineering approach to climate stabilization,
Science,
314, 452–454, 2006. a
Wigley, T. M. and Raper, S. C.:
Interpretation of high projections for global-mean warming,
Science,
293, 451–4, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1061604, 2001. a
Wu, Z., Huang, N. E., Long, S. R., and Peng, C.-K.:
On the trend, detrending, and variability of nonlinear and nonstationary time series,
P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA,
104, 14889–14894, 2007. a
Short summary
We ask for an optimal amount of solar radiation management (SRM) in conjunction with mitigation if global warming is limited to 2 °C and regional precipitation anomalies are confined to an amount ethically compatible with the 2 °C target. Then, compared to a scenario without regional targets, most of the SRM usage is eliminated from the portfolio even if transgressing regional targets are tolerated in terms of 1/10 of the standard deviation of natural variability.
We ask for an optimal amount of solar radiation management (SRM) in conjunction with mitigation...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint