Articles | Volume 14, issue 2
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-367-2023
© Author(s) 2023. 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-14-367-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
28 Mar 2023
Research article |
| 28 Mar 2023
| 28 Mar 2023
The deployment length of solar radiation modification: an interplay of mitigation, net-negative emissions and climate uncertainty
CECI, Université de Toulouse, CERFACS, CNRS, Toulouse, 31100,
France
Climate Analytics, 10969 Berlin, Germany
Alexander Nauels
Climate Analytics, 10969 Berlin, Germany
Australian-German Climate and Energy College, The University of
Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia
Zebedee Nicholls
Australian-German Climate and Energy College, The University of
Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia
Benjamin M. Sanderson
Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research (CICERO),
Oslo, Norway
Carl-Friedrich Schleussner
Climate Analytics, 10969 Berlin, Germany
Geography Department and IRI THESys, Humboldt-Universität zu
Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Related authors
Susanne Baur, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, and Laurent Terray
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2344, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2344, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric Aerosol Injections (SAI) could be used alongside mitigation to reduce global warming. Previous studies suggest that more atmospheric CO2 is taken up when SAI is deployed. Here we look at the entire trajectory of SAI deployment from initialization to after termination and show how the initial carbon uptake benefit and therefore lower negative emission burden is reduced in later stages of SAI where it turns into an additional burden to compensate for reduced natural carbon uptake.
Susanne Baur, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, and Laurent Terray
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 307–322, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-307-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-307-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Most solar radiation modification (SRM) simulations assume no physical coupling between mitigation and SRM. We analyze the impact of SRM on photovoltaic (PV) and concentrated solar power (CSP) and find that almost all regions have reduced PV and CSP potential compared to a mitigated or unmitigated scenario, especially in the middle and high latitudes. This suggests that SRM could pose challenges for meeting energy demands with solar renewable resources.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Ben B. B. Booth, John Dunne, Veronika Eyring, Rosie A. Fisher, Pierre Friedlingstein, Matthew J. Gidden, Tomohiro Hajima, Chris D. Jones, Colin G. Jones, Andrew King, Charles D. Koven, David M. Lawrence, Jason Lowe, Nadine Mengis, Glen P. Peters, Joeri Rogelj, Chris Smith, Abigail C. Snyder, Isla R. Simpson, Abigail L. S. Swann, Claudia Tebaldi, Tatiana Ilyina, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Roland Séférian, Bjørn H. Samset, Detlef van Vuuren, and Sönke Zaehle
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8141–8172, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8141-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8141-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We discuss how, in order to provide more relevant guidance for climate policy, coordinated climate experiments should adopt a greater focus on simulations where Earth system models are provided with carbon emissions from fossil fuels together with land use change instructions, rather than past approaches that have largely focused on experiments with prescribed atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. We discuss how these goals might be achieved in coordinated climate modeling experiments.
Benjamin Mark Sanderson, Victor Brovkin, Rosie Fisher, David Hohn, Tatiana Ilyina, Chris Jones, Torben Koenigk, Charles Koven, Hongmei Li, David Lawrence, Peter Lawrence, Spencer Liddicoat, Andrew Macdougall, Nadine Mengis, Zebedee Nicholls, Eleanor O'Rourke, Anastasia Romanou, Marit Sandstad, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Seferian, Lori Sentman, Isla Simpson, Chris Smith, Norman Steinert, Abigail Swann, Jerry Tjiputra, and Tilo Ziehn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3356, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3356, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates how climate models warm in response to simplified carbon emissions trajectories, refining understanding of climate reversibility and commitment. Metrics are defined for warming response to cumulative emissions and for the cessation or ramp-down to net-zero and net-negative levels. Results indicate that previous concentration-driven experiments may have overstated zero emissions commitment due to emissions rates exceeding historical levels.
Colin G. Jones, Fanny Adloff, Ben B. B. Booth, Peter M. Cox, Veronika Eyring, Pierre Friedlingstein, Katja Frieler, Helene T. Hewitt, Hazel A. Jeffery, Sylvie Joussaume, Torben Koenigk, Bryan N. Lawrence, Eleanor O'Rourke, Malcolm J. Roberts, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Samuel Somot, Pier Luigi Vidale, Detlef van Vuuren, Mario Acosta, Mats Bentsen, Raffaele Bernardello, Richard Betts, Ed Blockley, Julien Boé, Tom Bracegirdle, Pascale Braconnot, Victor Brovkin, Carlo Buontempo, Francisco Doblas-Reyes, Markus Donat, Italo Epicoco, Pete Falloon, Sandro Fiore, Thomas Frölicher, Neven S. Fučkar, Matthew J. Gidden, Helge F. Goessling, Rune Grand Graversen, Silvio Gualdi, José M. Gutiérrez, Tatiana Ilyina, Daniela Jacob, Chris D. Jones, Martin Juckes, Elizabeth Kendon, Erik Kjellström, Reto Knutti, Jason Lowe, Matthew Mizielinski, Paola Nassisi, Michael Obersteiner, Pierre Regnier, Romain Roehrig, David Salas y Mélia, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Michael Schulz, Enrico Scoccimarro, Laurent Terray, Hannes Thiemann, Richard A. Wood, Shuting Yang, and Sönke Zaehle
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1319–1351, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1319-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1319-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a number of priority areas for the international climate research community to address over the coming decade. Advances in these areas will both increase our understanding of past and future Earth system change, including the societal and environmental impacts of this change, and deliver significantly improved scientific support to international climate policy, such as future IPCC assessments and the UNFCCC Global Stocktake.
Gang Tang, Zebedee Nicholls, Alexander Norton, Sönke Zaehle, and Malte Meinshausen
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1941, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1941, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We studied the coupled carbon-nitrogen cycle effect in Earth System Models by developing a carbon-nitrogen coupling in a reduced complexity model, MAGICC. Our model successfully emulated the global carbon-nitrogen cycle dynamics seen in CMIP6 complex models. Results indicate consistent nitrogen limitations on plant growth (net primary production) from 1850 to 2100. Our findings suggest that nitrogen deficiency could reduce future land carbon sequestration.
Marit Sandstad, Borgar Aamaas, Ane Nordlie Johansen, Marianne Tronstad Lund, Glen Philip Peters, Bjørn Hallvard Samset, Benjamin Mark Sanderson, and Ragnhild Bieltvedt Skeie
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6589–6625, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6589-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6589-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The CICERO-SCM has existed as a Fortran model since 1999 that calculates the radiative forcing and concentrations from emissions and is an upwelling diffusion energy balance model of the ocean that calculates temperature change. In this paper, we describe an updated version ported to Python and publicly available at https://github.com/ciceroOslo/ciceroscm (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10548720). This version contains functionality for parallel runs and automatic calibration.
Susanne Baur, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, and Laurent Terray
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2344, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2344, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric Aerosol Injections (SAI) could be used alongside mitigation to reduce global warming. Previous studies suggest that more atmospheric CO2 is taken up when SAI is deployed. Here we look at the entire trajectory of SAI deployment from initialization to after termination and show how the initial carbon uptake benefit and therefore lower negative emission burden is reduced in later stages of SAI where it turns into an additional burden to compensate for reduced natural carbon uptake.
Saloua Peatier, Benjamin M. Sanderson, and Laurent Terray
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 987–1014, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-987-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-987-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The calibration of Earth system model parameters is a high-dimensionality problem subject to data, time, and computational constraints. In this study, we propose a practical solution for finding diverse near-optimal solutions. We argue that the effective degrees of freedom in the model performance response to parameter input is relatively small. Comparably performing parameter configurations exist and showcase different trade-offs in model errors, providing insights for model development.
Suqi Guo, Felix Havermann, Steven J. De Hertog, Fei Luo, Iris Manola, Thomas Raddatz, Hongmei Li, Wim Thiery, Quentin Lejeune, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, David Wårlind, Lars Nieradzik, and Julia Pongratz
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2387, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2387, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Land-cover and land management changes (LCLMCs) can alter climate even in intact areas, causing carbon changes in remote areas. This study is the first to assess these effects, finding they substantially alter global carbon dynamics, changing terrestrial stocks by up to dozens of gigatons. These results are vital for scientific and policy assessments, given the expected role of LCLMCs in achieving the Paris Agreement’s goal to limit global warming below 1.5 °C.
Malte Meinshausen, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Kathleen Beyer, Greg Bodeker, Olivier Boucher, Josep G. Canadell, John S. Daniel, Aïda Diongue-Niang, Fatima Driouech, Erich Fischer, Piers Forster, Michael Grose, Gerrit Hansen, Zeke Hausfather, Tatiana Ilyina, Jarmo S. Kikstra, Joyce Kimutai, Andrew D. King, June-Yi Lee, Chris Lennard, Tabea Lissner, Alexander Nauels, Glen P. Peters, Anna Pirani, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Hans Pörtner, Joeri Rogelj, Maisa Rojas, Joyashree Roy, Bjørn H. Samset, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Sonia Seneviratne, Christopher J. Smith, Sophie Szopa, Adelle Thomas, Diana Urge-Vorsatz, Guus J. M. Velders, Tokuta Yokohata, Tilo Ziehn, and Zebedee Nicholls
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4533–4559, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4533-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4533-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The scientific community is considering new scenarios to succeed RCPs and SSPs for the next generation of Earth system model runs to project future climate change. To contribute to that effort, we reflect on relevant policy and scientific research questions and suggest categories for representative emission pathways. These categories are tailored to the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal, high-risk outcomes in the absence of further climate policy and worlds “that could have been”.
Piers M. Forster, Chris Smith, Tristram Walsh, William F. Lamb, Robin Lamboll, Bradley Hall, Mathias Hauser, Aurélien Ribes, Debbie Rosen, Nathan P. Gillett, Matthew D. Palmer, Joeri Rogelj, Karina von Schuckmann, Blair Trewin, Myles Allen, Robbie Andrew, Richard A. Betts, Alex Borger, Tim Boyer, Jiddu A. Broersma, Carlo Buontempo, Samantha Burgess, Chiara Cagnazzo, Lijing Cheng, Pierre Friedlingstein, Andrew Gettelman, Johannes Gütschow, Masayoshi Ishii, Stuart Jenkins, Xin Lan, Colin Morice, Jens Mühle, Christopher Kadow, John Kennedy, Rachel E. Killick, Paul B. Krummel, Jan C. Minx, Gunnar Myhre, Vaishali Naik, Glen P. Peters, Anna Pirani, Julia Pongratz, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Sophie Szopa, Peter Thorne, Mahesh V. M. Kovilakam, Elisa Majamäki, Jukka-Pekka Jalkanen, Margreet van Marle, Rachel M. Hoesly, Robert Rohde, Dominik Schumacher, Guido van der Werf, Russell Vose, Kirsten Zickfeld, Xuebin Zhang, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, and Panmao Zhai
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 2625–2658, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-2625-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-2625-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper tracks some key indicators of global warming through time, from 1850 through to the end of 2023. It is designed to give an authoritative estimate of global warming to date and its causes. We find that in 2023, global warming reached 1.3 °C and is increasing at over 0.2 °C per decade. This is caused by all-time-high greenhouse gas emissions.
Sarah Schöngart, Lukas Gudmundsson, Mathias Hauser, Peter Pfleiderer, Quentin Lejeune, Shruti Nath, Sonia Isabelle Seneviratne, and Carl-Friedrich Schleußner
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-278, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-278, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Precipitation and temperature are two of the most impact-relevant climatic variables. Their joint distribution largely determines the division into climate regimes. Yet, projecting precipitation and temperature data under different emission scenarios relies on complex models that are computationally expensive. In this study, we propose a method that allows to generate monthly means of local precipitation and temperature at low computational costs.
Chris Smith, Donald P. Cummins, Hege-Beate Fredriksen, Zebedee Nicholls, Malte Meinshausen, Myles Allen, Stuart Jenkins, Nicholas Leach, Camilla Mathison, and Antti-Ilari Partanen
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-708, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-708, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate projections are only useful if the underlying models that produce them are well calibrated and can reproduce observed climate change. We formalize a software package that calibrates the open-source FaIR simple climate model to full-complexity Earth System models. Observations, including historical warming, and assessments of key climate variables such as that of climate sensitivity, are used to constrain the model output.
Susanne Baur, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, and Laurent Terray
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 307–322, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-307-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-307-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Most solar radiation modification (SRM) simulations assume no physical coupling between mitigation and SRM. We analyze the impact of SRM on photovoltaic (PV) and concentrated solar power (CSP) and find that almost all regions have reduced PV and CSP potential compared to a mitigated or unmitigated scenario, especially in the middle and high latitudes. This suggests that SRM could pose challenges for meeting energy demands with solar renewable resources.
Steven J. De Hertog, Carmen E. Lopez-Fabara, Ruud van der Ent, Jessica Keune, Diego G. Miralles, Raphael Portmann, Sebastian Schemm, Felix Havermann, Suqi Guo, Fei Luo, Iris Manola, Quentin Lejeune, Julia Pongratz, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Sonia I. Seneviratne, and Wim Thiery
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 265–291, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-265-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-265-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Changes in land use are crucial to achieve lower global warming. However, despite their importance, the effects of these changes on moisture fluxes are poorly understood. We analyse land cover and management scenarios in three climate models involving cropland expansion, afforestation, and irrigation. Results show largely consistent influences on moisture fluxes, with cropland expansion causing a drying and reduced local moisture recycling, while afforestation and irrigation show the opposite.
Shruti Nath, Lukas Gudmundsson, Jonas Schwaab, Gregory Duveiller, Steven J. De Hertog, Suqi Guo, Felix Havermann, Fei Luo, Iris Manola, Julia Pongratz, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Carl F. Schleussner, Wim Thiery, and Quentin Lejeune
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4283–4313, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4283-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4283-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Tree cover changes play a significant role in climate mitigation and adaptation. Their regional impacts are key in informing national-level decisions and prioritising areas for conservation efforts. We present a first step towards exploring these regional impacts using a simple statistical device, i.e. emulator. The emulator only needs to train on climate model outputs representing the maximal impacts of aff-, re-, and deforestation, from which it explores plausible in-between outcomes itself.
Piers M. Forster, Christopher J. Smith, Tristram Walsh, William F. Lamb, Robin Lamboll, Mathias Hauser, Aurélien Ribes, Debbie Rosen, Nathan Gillett, Matthew D. Palmer, Joeri Rogelj, Karina von Schuckmann, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Blair Trewin, Xuebin Zhang, Myles Allen, Robbie Andrew, Arlene Birt, Alex Borger, Tim Boyer, Jiddu A. Broersma, Lijing Cheng, Frank Dentener, Pierre Friedlingstein, José M. Gutiérrez, Johannes Gütschow, Bradley Hall, Masayoshi Ishii, Stuart Jenkins, Xin Lan, June-Yi Lee, Colin Morice, Christopher Kadow, John Kennedy, Rachel Killick, Jan C. Minx, Vaishali Naik, Glen P. Peters, Anna Pirani, Julia Pongratz, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Sophie Szopa, Peter Thorne, Robert Rohde, Maisa Rojas Corradi, Dominik Schumacher, Russell Vose, Kirsten Zickfeld, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, and Panmao Zhai
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 2295–2327, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-2295-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-2295-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This is a critical decade for climate action, but there is no annual tracking of the level of human-induced warming. We build on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports that are authoritative but published infrequently to create a set of key global climate indicators that can be tracked through time. Our hope is that this becomes an important annual publication that policymakers, media, scientists and the public can refer to.
Steven J. De Hertog, Felix Havermann, Inne Vanderkelen, Suqi Guo, Fei Luo, Iris Manola, Dim Coumou, Edouard L. Davin, Gregory Duveiller, Quentin Lejeune, Julia Pongratz, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Sonia I. Seneviratne, and Wim Thiery
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 629–667, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-629-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-629-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Land cover and land management changes are important strategies for future land-based mitigation. We investigate the climate effects of cropland expansion, afforestation, irrigation and wood harvesting using three Earth system models. Results show that these have important implications for surface temperature where the land cover and/or management change occur and in remote areas. Idealized afforestation causes global warming, which might offset the cooling effect from enhanced carbon uptake.
Steven J. De Hertog, Carmen E. Lopez-Fabara, Ruud van der Ent, Jessica Keune, Diego G. Miralles, Raphael Portmann, Sebastian Schemm, Felix Havermann, Suqi Guo, Fei Luo, Iris Manola, Quentin Lejeune, Julia Pongratz, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Sonia I. Seneviratne, and Wim Thiery
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-953, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-953, 2023
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
Land cover and management changes can affect the climate and water availability. In this study we use climate model simulations of extreme global land cover changes (afforestation, deforestation) and land management changes (irrigation) to understand the effects on the global water cycle and local to continental water availability. We show that cropland expansion generally leads to higher evaporation and lower amounts of precipitation and afforestation and irrigation expansion to the opposite.
Jarmo S. Kikstra, Zebedee R. J. Nicholls, Christopher J. Smith, Jared Lewis, Robin D. Lamboll, Edward Byers, Marit Sandstad, Malte Meinshausen, Matthew J. Gidden, Joeri Rogelj, Elmar Kriegler, Glen P. Peters, Jan S. Fuglestvedt, Ragnhild B. Skeie, Bjørn H. Samset, Laura Wienpahl, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Kaj-Ivar van der Wijst, Alaa Al Khourdajie, Piers M. Forster, Andy Reisinger, Roberto Schaeffer, and Keywan Riahi
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 9075–9109, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-9075-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-9075-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Assessing hundreds or thousands of emission scenarios in terms of their global mean temperature implications requires standardised procedures of infilling, harmonisation, and probabilistic temperature assessments. We here present the open-source
climate-assessmentworkflow that was used in the IPCC AR6 Working Group III report. The paper provides key insight for anyone wishing to understand the assessment of climate outcomes of mitigation pathways in the context of the Paris Agreement.
Benjamin M. Sanderson and Maria Rugenstein
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1715–1736, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1715-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1715-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is a measure of how much long-term warming should be expected in response to a change in greenhouse gas concentrations. It is generally calculated in climate models by extrapolating global average temperatures to a point of where the planet is no longer a net absorber of energy. Here we show that some climate models experience energy leaks which change as the planet warms, undermining the standard approach and biasing some existing model estimates of ECS.
Steven J. De Hertog, Felix Havermann, Inne Vanderkelen, Suqi Guo, Fei Luo, Iris Manola, Dim Coumou, Edouard L. Davin, Gregory Duveiller, Quentin Lejeune, Julia Pongratz, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Sonia I. Seneviratne, and Wim Thiery
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1305–1350, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1305-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1305-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Land cover and land management changes are important strategies for future land-based mitigation. We investigate the climate effects of cropland expansion, afforestation, irrigation, and wood harvesting using three Earth system models. Results show that these have important implications for surface temperature where the land cover and/or management change occurs and in remote areas. Idealized afforestation causes global warming, which might offset the cooling effect from enhanced carbon uptake.
Charles D. Koven, Vivek K. Arora, Patricia Cadule, Rosie A. Fisher, Chris D. Jones, David M. Lawrence, Jared Lewis, Keith Lindsay, Sabine Mathesius, Malte Meinshausen, Michael Mills, Zebedee Nicholls, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Neil C. Swart, William R. Wieder, and Kirsten Zickfeld
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 885–909, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-885-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-885-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We explore the long-term dynamics of Earth's climate and carbon cycles under a pair of contrasting scenarios to the year 2300 using six models that include both climate and carbon cycle dynamics. One scenario assumes very high emissions, while the second assumes a peak in emissions, followed by rapid declines to net negative emissions. We show that the models generally agree that warming is roughly proportional to carbon emissions but that many other aspects of the model projections differ.
Shruti Nath, Quentin Lejeune, Lea Beusch, Sonia I. Seneviratne, and Carl-Friedrich Schleussner
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 851–877, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-851-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-851-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Uncertainty within climate model projections on inter-annual timescales is largely affected by natural climate variability. Emulators are valuable tools for approximating climate model runs, allowing for easy exploration of such uncertainty spaces. This study takes a first step at building a spatially resolved, monthly temperature emulator that takes local yearly temperatures as the sole input, thus providing monthly temperature distributions which are of critical value to impact assessments.
Peter Pfleiderer, Shruti Nath, and Carl-Friedrich Schleussner
Weather Clim. Dynam., 3, 471–482, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-471-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-471-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Tropical cyclones are amongst the most dangerous weather events. Here we develop an empirical model that allows us to estimate the number and strengths of tropical cyclones for given atmospheric conditions and sea surface temperatures. An application of the model shows that atmospheric circulation is the dominant factor for seasonal tropical cyclone activity. However, warming sea surface temperatures have doubled the likelihood of extremely active hurricane seasons in the past decades.
Lea Beusch, Zebedee Nicholls, Lukas Gudmundsson, Mathias Hauser, Malte Meinshausen, and Sonia I. Seneviratne
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2085–2103, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2085-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2085-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce the first chain of computationally efficient Earth system model (ESM) emulators to translate user-defined greenhouse gas emission pathways into regional temperature change time series accounting for all major sources of climate change projection uncertainty. By combining the global mean emulator MAGICC with the spatially resolved emulator MESMER, we can derive ESM-specific and constrained probabilistic emulations to rapidly provide targeted climate information at the local scale.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Angeline G. Pendergrass, Charles D. Koven, Florent Brient, Ben B. B. Booth, Rosie A. Fisher, and Reto Knutti
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 899–918, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-899-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-899-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Emergent constraints promise a pathway to the reduction in climate projection uncertainties by exploiting ensemble relationships between observable quantities and unknown climate response parameters. This study considers the robustness of these relationships in light of biases and common simplifications that may be present in the original ensemble of climate simulations. We propose a classification scheme for constraints and a number of practical case studies.
Camille Besombes, Olivier Pannekoucke, Corentin Lapeyre, Benjamin Sanderson, and Olivier Thual
Nonlin. Processes Geophys., 28, 347–370, https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-28-347-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-28-347-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper investigates the potential of a type of deep generative neural network to produce realistic weather situations when trained from the climate of a general circulation model. The generator represents the climate in a compact latent space. It is able to reproduce many aspects of the targeted multivariate distribution. Some properties of our method open new perspectives such as the exploration of the extremes close to a given state or how to connect two realistic weather states.
Nicholas J. Leach, Stuart Jenkins, Zebedee Nicholls, Christopher J. Smith, John Lynch, Michelle Cain, Tristram Walsh, Bill Wu, Junichi Tsutsui, and Myles R. Allen
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3007–3036, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3007-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3007-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents an update of the FaIR simple climate model, which can estimate the impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions on the global climate. This update aims to significantly increase the structural simplicity of the model, making it more understandable and transparent. This simplicity allows it to be implemented in a wide range of environments, including Excel. We suggest that it could be used widely in academia, corporate research, and education.
Claudia Tebaldi, Kevin Debeire, Veronika Eyring, Erich Fischer, John Fyfe, Pierre Friedlingstein, Reto Knutti, Jason Lowe, Brian O'Neill, Benjamin Sanderson, Detlef van Vuuren, Keywan Riahi, Malte Meinshausen, Zebedee Nicholls, Katarzyna B. Tokarska, George Hurtt, Elmar Kriegler, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Gerald Meehl, Richard Moss, Susanne E. Bauer, Olivier Boucher, Victor Brovkin, Young-Hwa Byun, Martin Dix, Silvio Gualdi, Huan Guo, Jasmin G. John, Slava Kharin, YoungHo Kim, Tsuyoshi Koshiro, Libin Ma, Dirk Olivié, Swapna Panickal, Fangli Qiao, Xinyao Rong, Nan Rosenbloom, Martin Schupfner, Roland Séférian, Alistair Sellar, Tido Semmler, Xiaoying Shi, Zhenya Song, Christian Steger, Ronald Stouffer, Neil Swart, Kaoru Tachiiri, Qi Tang, Hiroaki Tatebe, Aurore Voldoire, Evgeny Volodin, Klaus Wyser, Xiaoge Xin, Shuting Yang, Yongqiang Yu, and Tilo Ziehn
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 253–293, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-253-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-253-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We present an overview of CMIP6 ScenarioMIP outcomes from up to 38 participating ESMs according to the new SSP-based scenarios. Average temperature and precipitation projections according to a wide range of forcings, spanning a wider range than the CMIP5 projections, are documented as global averages and geographic patterns. Times of crossing various warming levels are computed, together with benefits of mitigation for selected pairs of scenarios. Comparisons with CMIP5 are also discussed.
Katherine Dagon, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Rosie A. Fisher, and David M. Lawrence
Adv. Stat. Clim. Meteorol. Oceanogr., 6, 223–244, https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-6-223-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/ascmo-6-223-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Uncertainties in land model projections are important to understand in order to build confidence in Earth system modeling. In this paper, we introduce a framework for estimating uncertain land model parameters with machine learning. This method increases the computational efficiency of this process relative to traditional hand tuning approaches and provides objective methods to assess the results. We further identify key processes and parameters that are important for accurate land modeling.
Robin D. Lamboll, Zebedee R. J. Nicholls, Jarmo S. Kikstra, Malte Meinshausen, and Joeri Rogelj
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 5259–5275, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-5259-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-5259-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Many models project how human activity can lead to more or less climate change, but most of these models do not project all climate-relevant emissions, potentially biasing climate projections. This paper outlines a Python package called Silicone, which can add missing emissions in a flexible yet high-throughput manner. It does this
infillingbased on more complete literature projections. It facilitates a more complete understanding of the climate impact of alternative emission pathways.
Zebedee R. J. Nicholls, Malte Meinshausen, Jared Lewis, Robert Gieseke, Dietmar Dommenget, Kalyn Dorheim, Chen-Shuo Fan, Jan S. Fuglestvedt, Thomas Gasser, Ulrich Golüke, Philip Goodwin, Corinne Hartin, Austin P. Hope, Elmar Kriegler, Nicholas J. Leach, Davide Marchegiani, Laura A. McBride, Yann Quilcaille, Joeri Rogelj, Ross J. Salawitch, Bjørn H. Samset, Marit Sandstad, Alexey N. Shiklomanov, Ragnhild B. Skeie, Christopher J. Smith, Steve Smith, Katsumasa Tanaka, Junichi Tsutsui, and Zhiang Xie
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 5175–5190, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-5175-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-5175-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Computational limits mean that we cannot run our most comprehensive climate models for all applications of interest. In such cases, reduced complexity models (RCMs) are used. Here, researchers working on 15 different models present the first systematic community effort to evaluate and compare RCMs: the Reduced Complexity Model Intercomparison Project (RCMIP). Our research ensures that users of RCMs can more easily evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and limitations of their tools.
Malte Meinshausen, Zebedee R. J. Nicholls, Jared Lewis, Matthew J. Gidden, Elisabeth Vogel, Mandy Freund, Urs Beyerle, Claudia Gessner, Alexander Nauels, Nico Bauer, Josep G. Canadell, John S. Daniel, Andrew John, Paul B. Krummel, Gunnar Luderer, Nicolai Meinshausen, Stephen A. Montzka, Peter J. Rayner, Stefan Reimann, Steven J. Smith, Marten van den Berg, Guus J. M. Velders, Martin K. Vollmer, and Ray H. J. Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3571–3605, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3571-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3571-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
This study provides the future greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations under the new set of so-called SSP scenarios (the successors of the IPCC SRES and previous representative concentration pathway (RCP) scenarios). The projected CO2 concentrations range from 350 ppm for low-emission scenarios by 2150 to more than 2000 ppm under the high-emission scenarios. We also provide concentrations, latitudinal gradients, and seasonality for most of the other 42 considered GHGs.
Benjamin Sanderson
Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 721–735, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-721-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-721-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Here, we assess the degree to which the idealized responses to transient forcing increase and step change forcing increase relate to warming under future scenarios. We find a possible explanation for the poor performance of transient metrics (relative to equilibrium response) as a metric of high-emission future warming in terms of their sensitivity to non-equilibrated initial conditions, and propose alternative metrics which better describe warming under high mitigation scenarios.
Andreas Geiges, Alexander Nauels, Paola Yanguas Parra, Marina Andrijevic, William Hare, Peter Pfleiderer, Michiel Schaeffer, and Carl-Friedrich Schleussner
Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 697–708, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-697-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-697-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Current global mitigation ambition in the National Determined Contributions (NDCs) up to 2030 is insufficient to achieve the 1.5 °C long-term temperature limit. As governments are preparing new and updated NDCs for 2020, we address the question of what level of collective ambition is pivotal regarding the Paris Agreement goals. We provide estimates for global mean temperature increase by 2100 for different incremental NDC update scenarios and illustrate climate impacts under those scenarios.
Peter Pfleiderer, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Tobias Geiger, and Marlene Kretschmer
Weather Clim. Dynam., 1, 313–324, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-1-313-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-1-313-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Seasonal outlooks of Atlantic hurricane activity are required to enable risk reduction measures and disaster preparedness. Many seasonal forecasts are based on a selection of climate signals from which a statistical model is constructed. The crucial step in this approach is to select the most relevant predictors without overfitting. Here we show that causal effect networks can be used to identify the most robust predictors. Based on these predictors we construct a competitive forecast model.
Benjamin Sanderson
Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 563–577, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-563-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-563-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Levels of future temperature change are often used interchangeably with carbon budget allowances in climate policy, a relatively robust relationship on the timescale of this century. However, recent advances in understanding underline that continued warming after net-zero emissions have been achieved cannot be ruled out by observations of warming to date. We consider here how such behavior could be constrained and how policy can be framed in the context of these uncertainties.
Nicholas James Leach, Zebedee Nicholls, Stuart Jenkins, Christopher J. Smith, John Lynch, Michelle Cain, Bill Wu, Junichi Tsutsui, and Myles R. Allen
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2019-379, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2019-379, 2020
Revised manuscript not accepted
Short summary
Short summary
GIR is a simple climate model designed to make exploration of the impact of greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions on the climate easy and understandable for its users. It uses an intuitive input and output structure, and the model is itself a set of only six equations. This lends the model to applications such as teaching, or as a lowest common denominator model between groups in large-scale climate assessments. It could also be used to investigate more complex models through emulation.
Sonya L. Fiddes, Matthew T. Woodhouse, Zebedee Nicholls, Todd P. Lane, and Robyn Schofield
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 10177–10198, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-10177-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-10177-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
The role of natural aerosol in the climate system is uncertain. A key contributor to marine aerosol is dimethyl sulfide (DMS), released by phytoplankton in the oceans. We study the effect of DMS on clouds and rain using a climate model with a detailed aerosol scheme. We show that DMS acts to reduce rainfall in cloud deck regions, leading to longer lived clouds and a large impact on solar energy reaching the surface. Further study of these areas will improve future climate projections.
Fahad Saeed, Ingo Bethke, Stefan Lange, Ludwig Lierhammer, Hideo Shiogama, Dáithí A. Stone, Tim Trautmann, and Carl-Friedrich Schleussner
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2018-107, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2018-107, 2018
Revised manuscript has not been submitted
Michael Wehner, Dáithí Stone, Dann Mitchell, Hideo Shiogama, Erich Fischer, Lise S. Graff, Viatcheslav V. Kharin, Ludwig Lierhammer, Benjamin Sanderson, and Harinarayan Krishnan
Earth Syst. Dynam., 9, 299–311, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-299-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-299-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change challenged the scientific community to describe the impacts of stabilizing the global temperature at its 21st Conference of Parties. A specific target of 1.5 °C above preindustrial levels had not been seriously considered by the climate modeling community prior to the Paris Agreement. This paper analyzes heat waves in simulations designed for this target. We find there are reductions in extreme temperature compared to a 2 °C target.
Nadja Herger, Gab Abramowitz, Reto Knutti, Oliver Angélil, Karsten Lehmann, and Benjamin M. Sanderson
Earth Syst. Dynam., 9, 135–151, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-135-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-135-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Users presented with large multi-model ensembles commonly use the equally weighted model mean as a best estimate, ignoring the issue of near replication of some climate models. We present an efficient and flexible tool that finds a subset of models with improved mean performance compared to the multi-model mean while at the same time maintaining the spread and addressing the problem of model interdependence. Out-of-sample skill and reliability are demonstrated using model-as-truth experiments.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Yangyang Xu, Claudia Tebaldi, Michael Wehner, Brian O'Neill, Alexandra Jahn, Angeline G. Pendergrass, Flavio Lehner, Warren G. Strand, Lei Lin, Reto Knutti, and Jean Francois Lamarque
Earth Syst. Dynam., 8, 827–847, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-827-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-827-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
We present the results of a set of climate simulations designed to simulate futures in which the Earth's temperature is stabilized at the levels referred to in the 2015 Paris Agreement. We consider the necessary future emissions reductions and the aspects of extreme weather which differ significantly between the 2 and 1.5 °C climate in the simulations.
Alexander Nauels, Malte Meinshausen, Matthias Mengel, Katja Lorbacher, and Tom M. L. Wigley
Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 2495–2524, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2495-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2495-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
The MAGICC sea level model projects global sea level rise by emulating process-based estimates for all major sea level drivers and applying them to available climate scenarios and their extensions to 2300. The MAGICC sea level projections are well within the ranges of the fifth IPCC assessment report. Due to its efficient structure, this emulator is a powerful tool for exploring sea level uncertainties and investigating sea level responses for a wide range of climate mitigation pathways.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Michael Wehner, and Reto Knutti
Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 2379–2395, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2379-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2379-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
How should climate model simulations be combined to produce an overall assessment that reflects both their performance and their interdependencies? This paper presents a strategy for weighting climate model output such that models that are replicated or models that perform poorly in a chosen set of metrics are appropriately weighted. We perform sensitivity tests to show how the method results depend on variables and parameter values.
Richard J. Millar, Zebedee R. Nicholls, Pierre Friedlingstein, and Myles R. Allen
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 7213–7228, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-7213-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-7213-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
Simple representations of the global coupled climate–carbon-cycle system are required for climate policy analysis. Existing models have often failed to capture important physical dependencies of the climate response to carbon dioxide emissions. In this paper we propose a simple but novel modification to impulse-response climate–carbon-cycle models to capture these physical dependencies. This simple model creates an important tool for both climate policy and climate science analysis.
Malte Meinshausen, Elisabeth Vogel, Alexander Nauels, Katja Lorbacher, Nicolai Meinshausen, David M. Etheridge, Paul J. Fraser, Stephen A. Montzka, Peter J. Rayner, Cathy M. Trudinger, Paul B. Krummel, Urs Beyerle, Josep G. Canadell, John S. Daniel, Ian G. Enting, Rachel M. Law, Chris R. Lunder, Simon O'Doherty, Ron G. Prinn, Stefan Reimann, Mauro Rubino, Guus J. M. Velders, Martin K. Vollmer, Ray H. J. Wang, and Ray Weiss
Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 2057–2116, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2057-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2057-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
Climate change is primarily driven by human-induced increases of greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations. Based on ongoing community efforts (e.g. AGAGE and NOAA networks, ice cores), this study presents historical concentrations of CO2, CH4, N2O and 40 other GHGs from year 0 to year 2014. The data is recommended as input for climate models for pre-industrial, historical runs under CMIP6. Global means, but also latitudinal by monthly surface concentration fields are provided.
Daniel Mitchell, Krishna AchutaRao, Myles Allen, Ingo Bethke, Urs Beyerle, Andrew Ciavarella, Piers M. Forster, Jan Fuglestvedt, Nathan Gillett, Karsten Haustein, William Ingram, Trond Iversen, Viatcheslav Kharin, Nicholas Klingaman, Neil Massey, Erich Fischer, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, John Scinocca, Øyvind Seland, Hideo Shiogama, Emily Shuckburgh, Sarah Sparrow, Dáithí Stone, Peter Uhe, David Wallom, Michael Wehner, and Rashyd Zaaboul
Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 571–583, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-571-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-571-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
This paper provides an experimental design to assess impacts of a world that is 1.5 °C warmer than at pre-industrial levels. The design is a new way to approach impacts from the climate community, and aims to answer questions related to the recent Paris Agreement. In particular the paper provides a method for studying extreme events under relatively high mitigation scenarios.
Allison H. Baker, Dorit M. Hammerling, Sheri A. Mickelson, Haiying Xu, Martin B. Stolpe, Phillipe Naveau, Ben Sanderson, Imme Ebert-Uphoff, Savini Samarasinghe, Francesco De Simone, Francesco Carbone, Christian N. Gencarelli, John M. Dennis, Jennifer E. Kay, and Peter Lindstrom
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 4381–4403, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-4381-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-4381-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
We apply lossy data compression to output from the Community Earth System Model Large Ensemble Community Project. We challenge climate scientists to examine features of the data relevant to their interests and identify which of the ensemble members have been compressed, and we perform direct comparisons on features critical to climate science. We find that applying lossy data compression to climate model data effectively reduces data volumes with minimal effect on scientific results.
Brian C. O'Neill, Claudia Tebaldi, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Veronika Eyring, Pierre Friedlingstein, George Hurtt, Reto Knutti, Elmar Kriegler, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Jason Lowe, Gerald A. Meehl, Richard Moss, Keywan Riahi, and Benjamin M. Sanderson
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3461–3482, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3461-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3461-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) will provide multi-model climate projections based on alternative scenarios of future emissions and land use changes produced with integrated assessment models. The design consists of eight alternative 21st century scenarios plus one large initial condition ensemble and a set of long-term extensions. Climate model projections will facilitate integrated studies of climate change as well as address targeted scientific questions.
Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Tabea K. Lissner, Erich M. Fischer, Jan Wohland, Mahé Perrette, Antonius Golly, Joeri Rogelj, Katelin Childers, Jacob Schewe, Katja Frieler, Matthias Mengel, William Hare, and Michiel Schaeffer
Earth Syst. Dynam., 7, 327–351, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-327-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-327-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
We present for the first time a comprehensive assessment of key climate impacts for the policy relevant warming levels of 1.5 °C and 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. We report substantial impact differences in intensity and frequency of extreme weather events, regional water availability and agricultural yields, sea-level rise and risk of coral reef loss. The increase in climate impacts is particularly pronounced in tropical and sub-tropical regions.
K. Lorbacher, A. Nauels, and M. Meinshausen
Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 2723–2734, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-2723-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-2723-2015, 2015
D. C. Zemp, C.-F. Schleussner, H. M. J. Barbosa, R. J. van der Ent, J. F. Donges, J. Heinke, G. Sampaio, and A. Rammig
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 13337–13359, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-13337-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-13337-2014, 2014
C. F. Schleussner, J. Runge, J. Lehmann, and A. Levermann
Earth Syst. Dynam., 5, 103–115, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-5-103-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-5-103-2014, 2014
C. F. Schleussner and G. Feulner
Clim. Past, 9, 1321–1330, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-9-1321-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-9-1321-2013, 2013
Related subject area
Management of the Earth system: engineering responses to climate change
Northern-high-latitude permafrost and terrestrial carbon response to two solar geoengineering scenarios
Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical forests at night
How large is the design space for stratospheric aerosol geoengineering?
The response of terrestrial ecosystem carbon cycling under different aerosol-based radiation management geoengineering
Expanding the design space of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering to include precipitation-based objectives and explore trade-offs
Climate engineering to mitigate the projected 21st-century terrestrial drying of the Americas: a direct comparison of carbon capture and sulfur injection
Complementing CO2 emission reduction by solar radiation management might strongly enhance future welfare
Assessing carbon dioxide removal through global and regional ocean alkalinization under high and low emission pathways
Climate engineering by mimicking natural dust climate control: the iron salt aerosol method
Geoengineering as a design problem
Delaying future sea-level rise by storing water in Antarctica
Climate response to imposed solar radiation reductions in high latitudes
Solar irradiance reduction to counteract radiative forcing from a quadrupling of CO2: climate responses simulated by four earth system models
Yangxin Chen, Duoying Ji, Qian Zhang, John C. Moore, Olivier Boucher, Andy Jones, Thibaut Lurton, Michael J. Mills, Ulrike Niemeier, Roland Séférian, and Simone Tilmes
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 55–79, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-55-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-55-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Solar geoengineering has been proposed as a way of counteracting the warming effects of increasing greenhouse gases by reflecting solar radiation. This work shows that solar geoengineering can slow down the northern-high-latitude permafrost degradation but cannot preserve the permafrost ecosystem as that under a climate of the same warming level without solar geoengineering.
Xueyuan Gao, Shunlin Liang, Dongdong Wang, Yan Li, Bin He, and Aolin Jia
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 219–230, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-219-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-219-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Numerical experiments with a coupled Earth system model show that large-scale nighttime artificial lighting in tropical forests will significantly increase carbon sink, local temperature, and precipitation, and it requires less energy than direct air carbon capture for capturing 1 t of carbon, suggesting that it could be a powerful climate mitigation option. Side effects include CO2 outgassing after the termination of the nighttime lighting and impacts on local wildlife.
Yan Zhang, Douglas G. MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, and Ben Kravitz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 201–217, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-201-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-201-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Adding SO2 to the stratosphere could temporarily cool the planet by reflecting more sunlight back to space. However, adding SO2 at different latitude(s) and season(s) leads to significant differences in regional surface climate. This study shows that, to cool the planet by 1–1.5 °C, there are likely six to eight choices of injection latitude(s) and season(s) that lead to meaningfully different distributions of climate impacts.
Hanna Lee, Helene Muri, Altug Ekici, Jerry Tjiputra, and Jörg Schwinger
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 313–326, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-313-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-313-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We assess how three different geoengineering methods using aerosol affect land ecosystem carbon storage. Changes in temperature and precipitation play a large role in vegetation carbon uptake and storage, but our results show that increased levels of CO2 also play a considerable role. We show that there are unforeseen regional consequences under geoengineering applications, and these consequences should be taken into account in future climate policies before implementing them.
Walker Lee, Douglas MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, and Ben Kravitz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 1051–1072, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-1051-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-1051-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The injection of aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight could reduce global warming, but this type of
geoengineeringwould also impact other variables like precipitation and sea ice. In this study, we model various climate impacts of geoengineering on a 3-D graph to show how trying to meet one climate goal will affect other variables. We also present two computer simulations which validate our model and show that geoengineering could regulate precipitation as well as temperature.
Yangyang Xu, Lei Lin, Simone Tilmes, Katherine Dagon, Lili Xia, Chenrui Diao, Wei Cheng, Zhili Wang, Isla Simpson, and Lorna Burnell
Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 673–695, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-673-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-673-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Two geoengineering schemes to mitigate global warming, (a) capturing atmospheric CO2 and (b) injecting stratospheric sulfur gas, are compared. Based on two sets of large-ensemble model experiments, we show that sulfur injection will effectively mitigate projected terrestrial drying over the Americas, and the mitigation benefit will emerge more quickly than with carbon capture. Innovative means of sulfur injection should continue to be explored as one potential low-cost climate solution.
Koen G. Helwegen, Claudia E. Wieners, Jason E. Frank, and Henk A. Dijkstra
Earth Syst. Dynam., 10, 453–472, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-453-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-453-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
We use the climate-economy model DICE to perform a cost–benefit analysis of sulfate geoengineering, i.e. producing a thin artificial sulfate haze in the higher atmosphere to reflect some sunlight and cool the Earth.
We find that geoengineering can increase future welfare by reducing global warming, and should be taken seriously as a policy option, but it can only complement, not replace, carbon emission reduction. The best policy is to combine CO2 emission reduction with modest geoengineering.
Andrew Lenton, Richard J. Matear, David P. Keller, Vivian Scott, and Naomi E. Vaughan
Earth Syst. Dynam., 9, 339–357, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-339-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-339-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Artificial ocean alkalinization (AOA) is capable of reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and surface warming while also addressing ocean acidification. We simulate the Earth system response to a fixed addition of AOA under low and high emissions. We explore the regional and global response to AOA. A key finding is that AOA is much more effective at reducing warming and ocean acidification under low emissions, despite lower carbon uptake.
Franz Dietrich Oeste, Renaud de Richter, Tingzhen Ming, and Sylvain Caillol
Earth Syst. Dynam., 8, 1–54, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-1-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-1-2017, 2017
Ben Kravitz, Douglas G. MacMartin, Hailong Wang, and Philip J. Rasch
Earth Syst. Dynam., 7, 469–497, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-469-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-469-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
Most simulations of solar geoengineering prescribe a particular strategy and evaluate its modeled effects. Here we first choose example climate objectives and then design a strategy to meet those objectives in climate models. We show that certain objectives can be met simultaneously even in the presence of uncertainty, and the strategy for meeting those objectives can be ported to other models. This is part of a broader illustration of how uncertainties in solar geoengineering can be managed.
K. Frieler, M. Mengel, and A. Levermann
Earth Syst. Dynam., 7, 203–210, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-203-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-203-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
Sea level will continue to rise for centuries. We investigate the option of delaying sea-level rise by pumping ocean water onto Antarctica. Due to wave propagation ice is discharged much faster back into the ocean than expected from pure advection. A millennium-scale storage of > 80 % of the additional ice requires a distance of > 700 km from the coastline. The pumping energy required to elevate ocean water to mitigate a sea-level rise of 3 mm yr−1 exceeds 7 % of current global primary energy supply.
M. C. MacCracken, H.-J. Shin, K. Caldeira, and G. A. Ban-Weiss
Earth Syst. Dynam., 4, 301–315, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-4-301-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-4-301-2013, 2013
H. Schmidt, K. Alterskjær, D. Bou Karam, O. Boucher, A. Jones, J. E. Kristjánsson, U. Niemeier, M. Schulz, A. Aaheim, F. Benduhn, M. Lawrence, and C. Timmreck
Earth Syst. Dynam., 3, 63–78, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-3-63-2012, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-3-63-2012, 2012
Cited articles
Allen, M. R., Dube, O. P., Solecki, W., Aragoìn-Durand, F., Cramer, W.,
Humphreys, S., Kainuma, M., Kala, J., Mahowald, N., Mulugetta, Y., Perez,
R., Wairiu, M., and Zickfeld, K.: Framing and Context, in: Global
Warming of 1.5 ∘C, An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global
warming of 1.5 ∘C above pre-industrial levels and related global
greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global
response to the threat of climate change, Vol. 2, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940.003, 2018.
Andrews, T. M., Delton, A. W., and Kline, R.: Anticipating moral hazard
undermines climate mitigation in an experimental geoengineering game,
Ecol. Econ., 196, 107421,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107421, 2022.
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,
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1520795113, 2016.
Asayama, S. and Hulme, M.: Engineering climate debt: temperature overshoot
and peak-shaving as risky subprime mortgage lending, Clim. Policy, 19,
937–946, https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1623165, 2019.
Austin, M. M. K. and Converse, B. A.: In search of weakened resolve: Does
climate-engineering awareness decrease individuals' commitment to
mitigation?, J. Environ. Psychol., 78, 101690,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101690, 2021.
Baatz, C.: Can we have it both ways? On potential trade-offs between
mitigation and solar radiation management, Environ. Values, 25, 29–49,
https://doi.org/10.3197/096327115X14497392134847, 2016.
Baur, S. and Nicholls, Z.: susannebaur/deployment-length-srm: Clean version, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7707967, 2023.
Belaia, M., Moreno-Cruz, J. B., and Keith, D. W.: Optimal climate policy in
3D: mitigation, carbon removal, and solar geoengineering, Clim. Change
Econ., 12, 2150008, https://doi.org/10.1142/S2010007821500081, 2021.
Bellamy, R., Chilvers, J., and Vaughan, N. E.: Deliberative Mapping of
options for tackling climate change: Citizens and specialists “open up”
appraisal of geoengineering, Public Underst. Sci., 25, 269–286,
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514548628, 2016.
Boucher, O., Randall, D., Artaxo, P., Bretherton, C., Feingold, G., Forster,
P., Kerminen, V. M., Kondo, Y., Liao, H., Lohmann, U., Rasch, P., Satheesh,
S. K., Sherwood, S., Stevens, B., and Zhang, X. Y.: Clouds and aerosols, in: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S. K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and Midgley, P. M., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 571–658, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.016,
2013.
Brack, D. and King, R.: Managing Land-based CDR: BECCS, Forests and Carbon
Sequestration: Managing Land-based CDR, Glob. Policy, 12, 45–56,
https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12827, 2020.
Buck, H. J., Martin, L. J., Geden, O., Kareiva, P., Koslov, L., Krantz, W.,
Kravitz, B., Noël, J., Parson, E. A., Preston, C. J., Sanchez, D. L.,
Scarlett, L., and Talati, S.: Evaluating the efficacy and equity of
environmental stopgap measures, Nat. Sustain., 3, 499–504,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0497-6, 2020.
Burns, E. T., Flegal, J. A., Keith, D. W., Mahajan, A., Tingley, D., and
Wagner, G.: What do people think when they think about solar geoengineering?
A review of empirical social science literature, and prospects for future
research, Earth's Future, 4, 536–542, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000461,
2016.
Byers, E., Krey, V., Kriegler E., Riahi, K., Schaeffer, R., Kikstra, J.,
Lamboll, R., Nicholls, Z., Sanstad, M., Smith, C., van der Wijst, K.I., Al
Khourdajie, A., Lecocq, F., Portugal-Pereira, J., Saheb, Y., Strømann,
A., Winkler, H., Auer, C., Brutschin, E., Gidden, M., Hackstock, P.,
Harmsen, M., Huppmann, D., Kolp, P., Lepault, C., Lewis, J., Marangoni, G.,
Müller-Casseres, E., Skeie, R., Werning, M., Calvin, K., Forster, P.,
Guivarch, C., Hasegawa, T., Meinshausen, M., Peters, G., Rogelj, J., Samset,
B., Steinberger, J., Tavoni, M., and van Vuuren, D.: AR6 Scenarios Database, in: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (1.1), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Zenodo [data set],
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7197970, 2022.
Canadell, J. G., Monteiro, P. M. S., Costa, M. H., Cotrim da Cunha, L., Cox, P. M.,
Eliseev, A. V., Henson, S., Ishii, M., Jaccard, S., Koven, C., Lohila, A.,
Patra, P. K., Piao, S., Rogelj, J., Syampungani, S., Zaehle, S., and Zickfeld, K.:
Global Carbon and other Biogeochemical Cycles and Feedbacks, in: Climate
Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by:
Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L., Péan, C.,
Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M. I., Huang, M., Leitzell, K.,
Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J. B. R., Maycock, T. K., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R.,
and Zhou, B., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
and New York, NY, USA, 673–816, 2021.
CAT (Climate Action Tracker): 2100 Warming Projections: Emissions and
expected warming based on pledges and current policies, https://climateactiontracker.org/global/temperatures/ (last access: 16 December 2022), 2022.
Coninck, H., Revi, A., Babiker, M., Bertoldi, P., Buckeridge, M.,
Cartwright, A., Dong, W., Ford, J., Fuss, S., Hourcade, J.-C., Ley, D.,
Mechler, R., Newman, P., Revokatova, A., Schultz, S., Steg, L., and
Sugiyama, T.: Chap. 4 – Strengthening and implementing the global
response, in: Global warming of 1.5 ∘C, 313–443,
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/11/SR15_Chapter4_Low_Res.pdf (last access: 20 October 2022), 2018.
Corner, A. and Pidgeon, N.: Geoengineering, climate change scepticism and
the “moral hazard” argument: an experimental study of UK public perceptions,
Philos. T. R. Soc. A., 372, 20140063,
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0063, 2014.
Dooley, J. J.: Estimating the supply and demand for deep geologic CO2
storage capacity over the course of the 21st century: A meta-analysis of the
literature, Energy Proced., 37, 5141–5150,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2013.06.429, 2013.
Dooley, K. and Kartha, S.: Land-based negative emissions: Risks for
climate mitigation and impacts on sustainable development, Int. Environ. Agreem.-P., 18,
79–98, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-017-9382-9, 2018.
Douville, H., Raghavan, K., Renwick, J., Allan, R. P., Arias, P. A., Barlow, M.,
Cerezo-Mota, R., Cherchi, A., Gan, T. Y., Gergis, J., Jiang, D., Khan, A., Pokam
Mba, W., Rosenfeld, D., Tierney, J., and Zolina, O.: Water Cycle Changes, in:
Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working
Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, edited by: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L.,
Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M. I., Huang, M.,
Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J. B. R., Maycock, T. K., Waterfield, T.,
Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and Zhou, B., Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1055–1210, 2021.
Fairbrother, M.: Geoengineering, moral hazard, and trust in climate science:
evidence from a survey experiment in Britain, Clim. Change, 139,
477–489, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1818-7, 2016.
Flegal, J. A., Hubert, A. M., Morrow, D. R., and Moreno-Cruz, J. B.: Solar
Geoengineering: Social Science, Legal, Ethical, and Economic Frameworks,
Ann. Rev. Environ. Resour., 44, 399–423,
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-030032, 2019.
Forster, P., Storelvmo, T., Armour, K., Collins, W., Dufresne, J.-L., Frame, D.,
Lunt, D. J., Mauritsen, T., Palmer, M. D., Watanabe, M., Wild, M., and Zhang, H.:
The Earth's Energy Budget, Climate Feedbacks, and Climate Sensitivity, in:
Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working
Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, edited by: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L.,
Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M. I., Huang, M.,
Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J. B. R., Maycock, T. K., Waterfield, T.,
Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and Zhou, B., Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 923–1054, 2021.
Fuss, S., Canadell, J. G., Peters, G. P., Tavoni, M., Andrew, R. M., Ciais,
P., Jackson, R. B., Jones, C. D., Kraxner, F., Nakicenovic, N., Le
Quéré, C., Raupach, M. R., Sharifi, A., Smith, P., and Yamagata, Y.:
Betting on negative emissions, Nat. Clim. Change, 4, 850–853,
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2392, 2014.
Fuss, S., Lamb, W. F., Callaghan, M. W., Hilaire, J., Creutzig, F., Amann,
T., Beringer, T., De Oliveira Garcia, W., Hartmann, J., Khanna, T., Luderer,
G., Nemet, G. F., Rogelj, J., Smith, P., Vicente, J. V., Wilcox, J., Del Mar
Zamora Dominguez, M., and Minx, J. C.: Negative emissions – Part 2: Costs,
potentials and side effects, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 063002,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabf9f, 2018.
Fyson, C. L., Baur, S., Gidden, M., and Schleussner, C. F.: Fair-share
carbon dioxide removal increases major emitter responsibility, Nat.
Clim. Change, 10, 836–841, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0857-2,
2020.
Goeschl, T., Heyen, D., and Moreno-Cruz, J.: The Intergenerational Transfer
of Solar Radiation Management Capabilities and Atmospheric Carbon Stocks,
Environ. Resour. Econ., 56, 85–104,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-013-9647-x, 2013.
Grant, N., Hawkes, A., Mittal, S., and Gambhir, A.: The policy implications
of an uncertain carbon dioxide removal potential, Joule, 5, 2593–2605,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2021.09.004, 2021.
Gregory, J. M., Jones, C. D., Cadule, P., and Friedlingstein, P.:
Quantifying Carbon Cycle Feedbacks, J. Clim., 22, 5232–5250,
https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI2949.1, 2009.
IPCC: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A.,
Connors, S. L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M. I.,
Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J. B. R., Maycock, T. K.,
Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and Zhou, B., Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2391 pp.,
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896, 2021.
IPCC: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of
Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Shukla, P. R., Skea, J., Slade, R., Al Khourdajie, A.,
van Diemen, R., McCollum, D., Pathak, M., Some, S., Vyas, P., Fradera, R.,
Belkacemi, M., Hasija, A., Lisboa, G., Luz, S., and Malley, J., Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926, 2022.
Irvine, P. J., Kravitz, B., Lawrence, M. G., and Muri, H.: An overview of
the Earth system science of solar geoengineering, Wiley Interdisciplinary
Reviews, Climate Change, 7, 815–833, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.423, 2016.
Jenkins, S., Sanderson, B., Peters, G., Frölicher, T. L.,
Friedlingstein, P., and Allen, M.: The Multi-Decadal Response to Net Zero CO
2 Emissions and Implications for Emissions Policy, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 49, e2022GL101047, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL101047, 2022.
Johansson, D. J. A., Azar, C., Lehtveer, M., and Peters, G. P.: The role of
negative carbon emissions in reaching the Paris climate targets: The impact
of target formulation in integrated assessment models, Environ. Res. Lett.,
15, 124024, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abc3f0, 2020.
Jones, A. C., Hawcroft, M. K., Haywood, J. M., Jones, A., Guo, X., and
Moore, J. C.: Regional Climate Impacts of Stabilizing Global Warming at 1.5 K Using Solar Geoengineering, Earth's Future, 6, 230–251,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000720, 2018.
Jones, C. D., Frölicher, T. L., Koven, C., MacDougall, A. H., Matthews,
H. D., Zickfeld, K., Rogelj, J., Tokarska, K. B., Gillett, N. P., Ilyina,
T., Meinshausen, M., Mengis, N., Séférian, R., Eby, M., and Burger,
F. A.: The Zero Emissions Commitment Model Intercomparison Project (ZECMIP)
contribution to C4MIP: quantifying committed climate changes following zero
carbon emissions, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4375–4385,
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4375-2019, 2019.
Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., Tarantola, T., Silva, C. L., and Braman,
D.: Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-Channel
Model of Science Communication, Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. SS, 658, 192–222,
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214559002, 2015.
Kearns, J., Teletzke, G., Palmer, J., Thomann, H., Kheshgi, H., Chen, Y.-H.
H., Paltsev, S., and Herzog, H.: Developing a Consistent Database for
Regional Geologic CO2 Storage Capacity Worldwide, Energy Proced., 114,
4697–4709, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.1603, 2017.
Keith, D. W.: Geoengineering the climate: History and Prospect, Annu. Rev.
Energy Environ., 25, 245–84, 2000.
Keith, D. W. and MacMartin, D. G.: A temporary, moderate and responsive
scenario for solar geoengineering, Nat. Clim. Change, 5, 201–206,
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2493, 2015.
Lawrence, M. G., Schäfer, S., Muri, H., Scott, V., Oschlies, A.,
Vaughan, N. E., Boucher, O., Schmidt, H., Haywood, J., and Scheffran, J.:
Evaluating climate geoengineering proposals in the context of the Paris
Agreement temperature goals, Nat. Commun., 9, 3734,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05938-3, 2018.
Leduc, M., Matthews, H. D., and de Elía, R.: Quantifying the Limits of
a Linear Temperature Response to Cumulative CO2 Emissions, J.
Clim., 28, 9955–9968, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00500.1, 2015.
Lee, J.-Y., Marotzke, J., Bala, G., Cao, L., Corti, S., Dunne, J. P.,
Engelbrecht, F., Fischer, E., Fyfe, J. C., Jones, C., Maycock, A., Mutemi, J.,
Ndiaye, O., Panickal, S., and Zhou, T.: Future Global Climate: Scenario-Based
Projections and Near- Term Information, in: Climate Change 2021: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Masson-Delmotte,
V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L., Peìan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y.,
Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M. I., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J. B. R.,
Maycock, T. K., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and Zhou, B.,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA,
553–672, 2021.
MacDougall, A. H., Frölicher, T. L., Jones, C. D., Rogelj, J., Matthews,
H. D., Zickfeld, K., Arora, V. K., Barrett, N. J., Brovkin, V., Burger, F.
A., Eby, M., Eliseev, A. V., Hajima, T., Holden, P. B., Jeltsch-Thömmes,
A., Koven, C., Mengis, N., Menviel, L., Michou, M., Mokhov, I. I., Oka, A.,
Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Shaffer, G., Sokolov, A., Tachiiri, K.,
Tjiputra, J., Wiltshire, A., and Ziehn, T.: Is there warming in the
pipeline? A multi-model analysis of the Zero Emissions Commitment from
CO2, Biogeosciences, 17, 2987–3016,
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-2987-2020, 2020.
MacMartin, D. G., Ricke, K. L., and Keith, D. W.: Solar geoengineering as
part of an overall strategy for meeting the 1.5 ∘C Paris target,
Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 376, 20160454, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0454, 2018.
MacMartin, D. G., Visioni, D., Kravitz, B., Richter, J. H., Felgenhauer, T.,
Lee, W. R., Morrow, D. R., Parson, E. A., and Sugiyama, M.: Scenarios for
modeling solar radiation modification, P. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA, 119, e2202230119, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2202230119,
2022.
Matthews, H. D., Gillett, N. P., Stott, P. A., and Zickfeld, K.: The
proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon emissions, Nature,
459, 829–832, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08047, 2009.
Matthews, H. D., Tokarska, K. B., Nicholls, Z. R. J., Rogelj, J., Canadell,
J. G., Friedlingstein, P., Frölicher, T. L., Forster, P. M., Gillett, N.
P., Ilyina, T., Jackson, R. B., Jones, C. D., Koven, C., Knutti, R.,
MacDougall, A. H., Meinshausen, M., Mengis, N., Séférian, R., and
Zickfeld, K.: Opportunities and challenges in using remaining carbon budgets
to guide climate policy, Nat. Geosci., 13, 769–779,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-00663-3, 2020.
Matthews, H. D., Tokarska, K. B., Rogelj, J., Smith, C. J., MacDougall, A.
H., Haustein, K., Mengis, N., Sippel, S., Forster, P. M., and Knutti, R.:
An integrated approach to quantifying uncertainties in the remaining carbon
budget, Commun. Earth Environ., 2, 7,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-020-00064-9, 2021.
McLaren, D.: Mitigation deterrence and the “moral hazard” of solar
radiation management, Earth's Future, 4, 596–602,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000445, 2016.
Meinshausen, M., Meinshausen, N., Hare, W., Raper, S. C. B., Frieler, K.,
Knutti, R., Frame, D. J., and Allen, M. R.: Greenhouse-gas emission targets
for limiting global warming to 2 ∘C, Nature, 458, 1158–1162,
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08017, 2009.
Meinshausen, M., Raper, S. C. B., and Wigley, T. M. L.: Emulating coupled
atmosphere-ocean and carbon cycle models with a simpler model, MAGICC6 –
Part 1: Model description and calibration, Atmos. Chem.
Phys., 11, 1417–1456, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-1417-2011, 2011a.
Meinshausen, M., Smith, S. J., Calvin, K., Daniel, J. S., Kainuma, M. L. T.,
Lamarque, J., Matsumoto, K., Montzka, S. A., Raper, S. C. B., Riahi, K.,
Thomson, A., Velders, G. J. M., and van Vuuren, D. P. P.: The RCP greenhouse
gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300, Climatic Change,
109, 213–241, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0156-z, 2011b.
Meinshausen, M., Nicholls, Z. R. J., Lewis, J., Gidden, M. J., Vogel, E.,
Freund, M., Beyerle, U., Gessner, C., Nauels, A., Bauer, N., Canadell, J.
G., Daniel, J. S., John, A., Krummel, P. B., Luderer, G., Meinshausen, N.,
Montzka, S. A., Rayner, P. J., Reimann, S., Smith, S. J., van den Berg, M.,
Velders, G. J. M., Vollmer, M. K., and Wang, R. H. J.: The shared
socio-economic pathway (SSP) greenhouse gas concentrations and their
extensions to 2500, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3571–3605,
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3571-2020, 2020.
Merk, C., Pönitzsch, G., and Rehdanz, K.: Knowledge about aerosol
injection does not reduce individual mitigation efforts, Environ.
Res. Lett., 11, 054009, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/054009, 2016.
Moreno-Cruz, J.: Mitigation and the geoengineering threat, Resour.
Energ. Econ., 41, 248–263,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2015.06.001, 2015.
Möller, I.: Political Perspectives on Geoengineering: Navigating Problem
Definition and Institutional Fit, Global Environ. Polit., 20, 57–82,
https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00547, 2020.
Nauels, A., Meinshausen, M., Mengel, M., Lorbacher, K., and Wigley, T. M.
L.: Synthesizing long-Term sea level rise projections-The MAGICC sea level
model v2.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 2495–2524,
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2495-2017, 2017.
Neuber, F. and Ott, K.: The buying time argument within the solar radiation
management discourse, Appl. Sci., 10, 4637,
https://doi.org/10.3390/app10134637, 2020.
Parker, A. and Irvine, P. J.: The Risk of Termination Shock From Solar
Geoengineering, Earth's Future, 6, 456–467,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000735, 2018.
Pathak, R. Slade, Shukla, P. R., Skea, J., Pichs-Madruga, R.,
and Ürge-Vorsatz, D.: Technical Summary, in: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of
Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Shukla, P. R.,
Skea, J., Slade, R., Al Khourdajie, A., van Diemen, R., McCollum, D., Pathak, M.,
Some, S., Vyas, P., Fradera, R., Belkacemi, M., Hasija, A., Lisboa, G., Luz, S., and
Malley, J., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY,
USA, 2022.
Pierrehumbert, R.: There is no Plan B for dealing with the climate crisis,
Bull. Atom. Sci., 75, 215–221,
https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2019.1654255, 2019.
Raimi, K. T., Maki, A., Dana, D., and Vandenbergh, M. P.: Framing of
Geoengineering Affects Support for Climate Change Mitigation, Environ.
Commun., 13, 300–319, https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1575258,
2019.
Reynolds, J. L.: Solar geoengineering to reduce climate change: A review of
governance proposals, Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 475, 20190255,
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2019.0255, 2019.
Riahi, K., Schaeffer, R., Arango, J., Calvin, K., Guivarch, C., Hasegawa, T.,
Jiang, K., Kriegler, E., Matthews, R., Peters, G. P., Rao, A., Robertson, S.,
Sebbit, A. M., Steinberger, J., Tavoni, M., and van Vuuren, D. P.: Mitigation pathways
compatible with long-term goals, in: IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022:
Mitigation of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by:
Shukla, P. R., Skea, J., Slade, R., Al Khourdajie, A., van Diemen, R., McCollum, D.,
Pathak, M., Some, S., Vyas, P., Fradera, R., Belkacemi, M., Hasija, A., Lisboa, G.,
Luz, S., and Malley, J., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New
York, NY, USA, 2022.
Rogelj, J., Huppmann, D., Krey, V., Riahi, K., Clarke, L., Gidden, M.,
Nicholls, Z., and Meinshausen, M.: A new scenario logic for the Paris
Agreement long-term temperature goal, Nature, 573, 357–363,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1541-4, 2019.
Rogelj, J., Shindell, D., Jiang, K., Fifita, S., Forster, P., Ginzburg, V.,
Handa, C., Kheshgi, H., Kobayashi, S., Kriegler, E., Mundaca, L.,
Séférian, R., and Vilariño, M. V.: Mitigation Pathways
Compatible with 1.5 ∘C in the Context of Sustainable Development,
in: Global Warming of 1.5 ∘C, An IPCC Special Report on the
impacts of global warming of 1.5 ∘C above pre-industrial levels
and related global greenhouse gas emission pathw, IPCC Special Report Global
Warming of 1.5 ∘C, 82 pp.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/SR15_Chapter2_Low_Res.pdf (last access: 11 October 2022), 2018.
Schleussner, C.-F., Rogelj, J., Schaeffer, M., Lissner, T., Licker, R.,
Fischer, E. M., Knutti, R., Levermann, A., Frieler, K., and Hare, W.:
Science and policy characteristics of the Paris Agreement temperature goal,
Nat. Clim. Change, 6, 827–835, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3096, 2016.
Shepherd, J., Caldeira, K., Haigh, J., Keith, D., Launder, B., Mace, G., MacKerron, G.,
Pyle, J., Rayner, S., Redgwell, C., and Watson, A.: Geoengineering the climate:
science, governance and uncertainty, Roy. Acad., RS1636, ISBN: 978-0-85403-773-5, 2009.
Shue, H.: Climate dreaming: Negative emissions, risk transfer, and
irreversibility, J. Human Right. Environ., 8,
203–216, https://doi.org/10.4337/jhre.2017.02.02, 2017.
Smith, P., Davis, S. J., Creutzig, F., Fuss, S., Minx, J., Gabrielle, B.,
Kato, E., Jackson, R. B., Cowie, A., Kriegler, E., Van Vuuren, D. P.,
Rogelj, J., Ciais, P., Milne, J., Canadell, J. G., McCollum, D., Peters, G.,
Andrew, R., Krey, V., Shrestha, G., Friedlingstein, P., Gasser, T.,
Grübler, A., Heidug, W. K., Jonas, M., Jones, C. D., Kraxner, F.,
Littleton, E., Lowe, J., Moreira, J. R., Nakicenovic, N., Obersteiner, M.,
Patwardhan, A., Rogner, M., Rubin, E., Sharifi, A., Torvanger, A., Yamagata,
Y., Edmonds, J., and Yongsung, C.: Biophysical and economic limits to
negative CO2 emissions, Nat. Clim. Change, 6, 42–50,
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2870, 2015.
Svoboda, T., Keller, K., Goes, M., and Tuana, N.: Sulfate aerosol
geoengineering: the question of justice, Public Aff. Q., 25, 157–179, 2011.
Tilmes, S., Sanderson, B. M., and O'Neill, B. C.: Climate impacts of
geoengineering in a delayed mitigation scenario, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 43, 8222–8229, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL070122, 2016.
Tjiputra, J. F., Grini, A., and Lee, H.: Impact of idealized future
stratospheric aerosol injection on the large-scale ocean and land carbon
cycles, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 121, 2–27,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JG003045, 2016.
Tokarska, K. B., Gillett, N. P., Weaver, A. J., Arora, V. K., and Eby, M.:
The climate response to five trillion tonnes of carbon, Nat. Clim. Change,
6, 851–855, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3036, 2016.
UNFCCC: Conference of the Parties (COP), 30 November–11 December 2015, Paris, France, 2015.
Vakilifard, N., Williams, R. G., Holden, P. B., Turner, K., Edwards, N. R.,
and Beerling, D. J.: Impact of negative and positive CO2 emissions on global
warming metrics using an ensemble of Earth system model simulations,
Biogeosciences, 19, 4249–4265, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-4249-2022,
2022.
Wibeck, V., Hansson, A., and Anshelm, J.: Questioning the technological fix to
climate change – Lay sense-making of geoengineering in Sweden, Energ.
Res. Soc. Sci., 7, 23–30,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.03.001, 2015.
Zickfeld, K., MacDougall, A. H., and Matthews, H. D.: On the proportionality
between global temperature change and cumulative CO2 emissions during
periods of net negative CO2 emissions, Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 055006,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/055006, 2016.
Short summary
Solar radiation modification (SRM) artificially cools global temperature without acting on the cause of climate change. This study looks at how long SRM would have to be deployed to limit warming to 1.5 °C and how this timeframe is affected by different levels of mitigation, negative emissions and climate uncertainty. None of the three factors alone can guarantee short SRM deployment. Due to their uncertainty at the time of SRM initialization, any deployment risks may be several centuries long.
Solar radiation modification (SRM) artificially cools global temperature without acting on the...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint