Articles | Volume 15, issue 2
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-191-2024
© Author(s) 2024. 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-15-191-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| Highlight paper
| 
13 Mar 2024
Research article | Highlight paper |
| 13 Mar 2024
| 13 Mar 2024
Hemispherically symmetric strategies for stratospheric aerosol injection
Yan Zhang
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Douglas G. MacMartin
Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Daniele Visioni
Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Ewa M. Bednarz
Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
CIRES, University of Colorado, Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA
NOAA Chemical Sciences Laboratory, Boulder, CO, USA
Ben Kravitz
Department of Earth and Atmospheric Science, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
Atmospheric Sciences and Global Change Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA
Related authors
Ewa M. Bednarz, Amy H. Butler, Daniele Visioni, Yan Zhang, Ben Kravitz, and Douglas G. MacMartin
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 13665–13684, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13665-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13665-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We use a state-of-the-art Earth system model and a set of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) strategies to achieve the same level of global mean surface cooling through different combinations of location and/or timing of the injection. We demonstrate that the choice of SAI strategy can lead to contrasting impacts on stratospheric and tropospheric temperatures, circulation, and chemistry (including stratospheric ozone), thereby leading to different impacts on regional surface climate.
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.
Matthew Henry, Ewa M. Bednarz, and Jim Haywood
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 13253–13268, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13253-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13253-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) refers to a climate intervention by which aerosols are intentionally added to the high atmosphere to increase the amount of reflected sunlight and reduce Earth's temperature. The climate outcomes of SAI depend on the latitude of injection. While injecting aerosols at the Equator has undesirable side effects, injecting away from the Equator has different effects on temperature, rainfall, ozone, and atmospheric circulation, which are analysed in this work.
Ilaria Quaglia and Daniele Visioni
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1527–1541, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1527-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1527-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
On 1 January 2020, international shipping vessels were required to substantially reduce the amount of particulate they emit to improve air quality. In this work we demonstrate how this regulatory change contributed to the anomalous warming observed in recent months using climate model simulations that include such a change. Future policies should also perhaps consider their impact on climate, and climate modelers should promptly include those changes in future modeling efforts.
Simone Tilmes, Ewa M. Bednarz, Andrin Jörimann, Daniele Visioni, Douglas E. Kinnison, Gabriel Chiodo, and David Plummer
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3586, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3586, 2024
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes the details of a new multi-model intercomparison experiment to assess the effects of Stratospheric Aerosol Injections on stratospheric chemistry and dynamics and, therefore, ozone. In this experiment, all models will use the same prescribed stratospheric aerosol distribution and fixed sea-surface temperatures and sea ice. We discuss the advantages and differences of this more constrained experiment compared to previous more interactive model experiments.
Yunqian Zhu, Hideharu Akiyoshi, Valentina Aquila, Elisabeth Asher, Ewa M. Bednarz, Slimane Bekki, Christoph Brühl, Amy H. Butler, Parker Case, Simon Chabrillat, Gabriel Chiodo, Margot Clyne, Lola Falletti, Peter R. Colarco, Eric Fleming, Andrin Jörimann, Mahesh Kovilakam, Gerbrand Koren, Ales Kuchar, Nicolas Lebas, Qing Liang, Cheng-Cheng Liu, Graham Mann, Michael Manyin, Marion Marchand, Olaf Morgenstern, Paul Newman, Luke D. Oman, Freja F. Østerstrøm, Yifeng Peng, David Plummer, Ilaria Quaglia, William Randel, Samuel Rémy, Takashi Sekiya, Stephen Steenrod, Timofei Sukhodolov, Simone Tilmes, Kostas Tsigaridis, Rei Ueyama, Daniele Visioni, Xinyue Wang, Shingo Watanabe, Yousuke Yamashita, Pengfei Yu, Wandi Yu, Jun Zhang, and Zhihong Zhuo
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3412, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3412, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
To understand the climate impact of the 2022 Hunga volcanic eruption, we developed a climate model-observation comparison project. The paper describes the protocols and models that participate in the experiments. We designed several experiments to achieve our goal of this activity: 1. evaluate the climate model performance; 2. understand the Earth system responses to this eruption.
Martin Juckes, Karl E. Taylor, Fabrizio Antonio, David Brayshaw, Carlo Buontempo, Jian Cao, Paul J. Durack, Michio Kawamiya, Hyungjun Kim, Tomas Lovato, Chloe Mackallah, Matthew Mizielinski, Alessandra Nuzzo, Martina Stockhause, Daniele Visioni, Jeremy Walton, Briony Turner, Eleanor O’Rourke, and Beth Dingley
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2363, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2363, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The Baseline Climate Variables for Earth System Modelling (ESM-BCVs) are defined as a list of 132 variables which have high utility for the evaluation and exploitation of climate simulations. The list reflects the most heavily used variables from Earth System Models, based on an assessment of data publication and download records from the largest archive of global climate projects.
Christina V. Brodowsky, Timofei Sukhodolov, Gabriel Chiodo, Valentina Aquila, Slimane Bekki, Sandip S. Dhomse, Michael Höpfner, Anton Laakso, Graham W. Mann, Ulrike Niemeier, Giovanni Pitari, Ilaria Quaglia, Eugene Rozanov, Anja Schmidt, Takashi Sekiya, Simone Tilmes, Claudia Timmreck, Sandro Vattioni, Daniele Visioni, Pengfei Yu, Yunqian Zhu, and Thomas Peter
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 5513–5548, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-5513-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-5513-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The aerosol layer is an essential part of the climate system. We characterize the sulfur budget in a volcanically quiescent (background) setting, with a special focus on the sulfate aerosol layer using, for the first time, a multi-model approach. The aim is to identify weak points in the representation of the atmospheric sulfur budget in an intercomparison of nine state-of-the-art coupled global circulation models.
Anton Laakso, Daniele Visioni, Ulrike Niemeier, Simone Tilmes, and Harri Kokkola
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 405–427, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-405-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-405-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study is the second in a two-part series in which we explore the dependency of the impacts of stratospheric sulfur injections on both the model employed and the strategy of injection utilized. The study uncovers uncertainties associated with these techniques to cool climate, highlighting how the simulated climate impacts are dependent on both the selected model and the magnitude of the injections. We also show that estimating precipitation impacts of aerosol injection is a complex task.
Daniele Visioni, Alan Robock, Jim Haywood, Matthew Henry, Simone Tilmes, Douglas G. MacMartin, Ben Kravitz, Sarah J. Doherty, John Moore, Chris Lennard, Shingo Watanabe, Helene Muri, Ulrike Niemeier, Olivier Boucher, Abu Syed, Temitope S. Egbebiyi, Roland Séférian, and Ilaria Quaglia
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2583–2596, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2583-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2583-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes a new experimental protocol for the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). In it, we describe the details of a new simulation of sunlight reflection using the stratospheric aerosols that climate models are supposed to run, and we explain the reasons behind each choice we made when defining the protocol.
Ewa M. Bednarz, Amy H. Butler, Daniele Visioni, Yan Zhang, Ben Kravitz, and Douglas G. MacMartin
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 13665–13684, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13665-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13665-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We use a state-of-the-art Earth system model and a set of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) strategies to achieve the same level of global mean surface cooling through different combinations of location and/or timing of the injection. We demonstrate that the choice of SAI strategy can lead to contrasting impacts on stratospheric and tropospheric temperatures, circulation, and chemistry (including stratospheric ozone), thereby leading to different impacts on regional surface climate.
Ewa M. Bednarz, Ryan Hossaini, and Martyn P. Chipperfield
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 13701–13711, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13701-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13701-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We quantify, for the first time, the time-varying impact of uncontrolled emissions of chlorinated very short-lived substances (Cl-VSLSs) on stratospheric ozone using a state-of-the-art chemistry-climate model. We demonstrate that Cl-VSLSs already have a non-negligible impact on stratospheric ozone, including a local reduction of up to ~7 DU in Arctic ozone in the cold winter of 2019/20, and any so future growth in emissions will continue to offset some of the benefits of the Montreal Protocol.
Ewa M. Bednarz, Ryan Hossaini, N. Luke Abraham, and Martyn P. Chipperfield
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 6187–6209, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6187-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6187-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Development and performance of the new DEST chemistry scheme of UM–UKCA is described. The scheme extends the standard StratTrop scheme by including important updates to the halogen chemistry, thus allowing process-oriented studies of stratospheric ozone depletion and recovery, including impacts from both controlled long-lived ozone-depleting substances and emerging issues around uncontrolled, very short-lived substances. It will thus aid studies in support of future ozone assessment reports.
Matthew Henry, Jim Haywood, Andy Jones, Mohit Dalvi, Alice Wells, Daniele Visioni, Ewa M. Bednarz, Douglas G. MacMartin, Walker Lee, and Mari R. Tye
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 13369–13385, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13369-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13369-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Solar climate interventions, such as injecting sulfur in the stratosphere, may be used to offset some of the adverse impacts of global warming. We use two independently developed Earth system models to assess the uncertainties around stratospheric sulfur injections. The injection locations and amounts are optimized to maintain the same pattern of surface temperature. While both models show reduced warming, the change in rainfall patterns (even without sulfur injections) is uncertain.
Daniele Visioni, Ben Kravitz, Alan Robock, Simone Tilmes, Jim Haywood, Olivier Boucher, Mark Lawrence, Peter Irvine, Ulrike Niemeier, Lili Xia, Gabriel Chiodo, Chris Lennard, Shingo Watanabe, John C. Moore, and Helene Muri
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 5149–5176, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5149-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5149-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Geoengineering indicates methods aiming to reduce the temperature of the planet by means of reflecting back a part of the incoming radiation before it reaches the surface or allowing more of the planetary radiation to escape into space. It aims to produce modelling experiments that are easy to reproduce and compare with different climate models, in order to understand the potential impacts of these techniques. Here we assess its past successes and failures and talk about its future.
Ilaria Quaglia, Claudia Timmreck, Ulrike Niemeier, Daniele Visioni, Giovanni Pitari, Christina Brodowsky, Christoph Brühl, Sandip S. Dhomse, Henning Franke, Anton Laakso, Graham W. Mann, Eugene Rozanov, and Timofei Sukhodolov
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 921–948, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-921-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-921-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The last very large explosive volcanic eruption we have measurements for is the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. It is therefore often used as a benchmark for climate models' ability to reproduce these kinds of events. Here, we compare available measurements with the results from multiple experiments conducted with climate models interactively simulating the aerosol cloud formation.
Daniele Visioni, Ewa M. Bednarz, Walker R. Lee, Ben Kravitz, Andy Jones, Jim M. Haywood, and Douglas G. MacMartin
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 663–685, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-663-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-663-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The paper constitutes Part 1 of a study performing a first systematic inter-model comparison of the atmospheric responses to stratospheric sulfate aerosol injections (SAIs) at various latitudes as simulated by three state-of-the-art Earth system models. We identify similarities and differences in the modeled aerosol burden, investigate the differences in the aerosol approaches between the models, and ultimately show the differences produced in surface climate, temperature and precipitation.
Ewa M. Bednarz, Daniele Visioni, Ben Kravitz, Andy Jones, James M. Haywood, Jadwiga Richter, Douglas G. MacMartin, and Peter Braesicke
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 687–709, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-687-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-687-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Building on Part 1 of this two-part study, we demonstrate the role of biases in climatological circulation and specific aspects of model microphysics in driving the differences in simulated sulfate distributions amongst three Earth system models. We then characterize the simulated changes in stratospheric and free-tropospheric temperatures, ozone, water vapor, and large-scale circulation, elucidating the role of the above aspects in the surface responses discussed in Part 1.
Jadwiga H. Richter, Daniele Visioni, Douglas G. MacMartin, David A. Bailey, Nan Rosenbloom, Brian Dobbins, Walker R. Lee, Mari Tye, and Jean-Francois Lamarque
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 8221–8243, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8221-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8221-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Solar climate intervention using stratospheric aerosol injection is a proposed method of reducing global mean temperatures to reduce the worst consequences of climate change. We present a new modeling protocol aimed at simulating a plausible deployment of stratospheric aerosol injection and reproducibility of simulations using other Earth system models: Assessing Responses and Impacts of Solar climate intervention on the Earth system with stratospheric aerosol injection (ARISE-SAI).
Mari R. Tye, Katherine Dagon, Maria J. Molina, Jadwiga H. Richter, Daniele Visioni, Ben Kravitz, and Simone Tilmes
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1233–1257, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1233-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1233-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We examined the potential effect of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) on extreme temperature and precipitation. SAI may cause daytime temperatures to cool but nighttime to warm. Daytime cooling may occur in all seasons across the globe, with the largest decreases in summer. In contrast, nighttime warming may be greatest at high latitudes in winter. SAI may reduce the frequency and intensity of extreme rainfall. The combined changes may exacerbate drying over parts of the global south.
Ewa M. Bednarz, Ryan Hossaini, Martyn P. Chipperfield, N. Luke Abraham, and Peter Braesicke
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 10657–10676, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-10657-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-10657-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Atmospheric impacts of chlorinated very short-lived substances (Cl-VSLS) over the first two decades of the 21st century are assessed using the UM-UKCA chemistry–climate model. Stratospheric input of Cl from Cl-VSLS is estimated at ~130 ppt in 2019. The use of model set-up with constrained meteorology significantly increases the abundance of Cl-VSLS in the lower stratosphere relative to the free-running set-up. The growth in Cl-VSLS emissions significantly impacted recent HCl and COCl2 trends.
Ilaria Quaglia, Daniele Visioni, Giovanni Pitari, and Ben Kravitz
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 5757–5773, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-5757-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-5757-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Carbonyl sulfide is a gas that mixes very well in the atmosphere and can reach the stratosphere, where it reacts with sunlight and produces aerosol. Here we propose that, by increasing surface fluxes by an order of magnitude, the number of stratospheric aerosols produced may be enough to partially offset the warming produced by greenhouse gases. We explore what effect this would have on the atmospheric composition.
Simone Tilmes, Daniele Visioni, Andy Jones, James Haywood, Roland Séférian, Pierre Nabat, Olivier Boucher, Ewa Monica Bednarz, and Ulrike Niemeier
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 4557–4579, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-4557-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-4557-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This study assesses the impacts of climate interventions, using stratospheric sulfate aerosol and solar dimming on stratospheric ozone, based on three Earth system models with interactive stratospheric chemistry. The climate interventions have been applied to a high emission (baseline) scenario in order to reach global surface temperatures of a medium emission scenario. We find significant increases and decreases in total column ozone, depending on regions and seasons.
Huiying Ren, Erol Cromwell, Ben Kravitz, and Xingyuan Chen
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 1727–1743, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1727-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1727-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We used a deep learning method called long short-term memory (LSTM) to fill gaps in data collected by hydrologic monitoring networks. LSTM accounted for correlations in space and time and nonlinear trends in data. Compared to a traditional regression-based time-series method, LSTM performed comparably when filling gaps in data with smooth patterns, while it better captured highly dynamic patterns in data. Capturing such dynamics is critical for understanding dynamic complex system behaviors.
Andy Jones, Jim M. Haywood, Adam A. Scaife, Olivier Boucher, Matthew Henry, Ben Kravitz, Thibaut Lurton, Pierre Nabat, Ulrike Niemeier, Roland Séférian, Simone Tilmes, and Daniele Visioni
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 2999–3016, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2999-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2999-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Simulations by six Earth-system models of geoengineering by introducing sulfuric acid aerosols into the tropical stratosphere are compared. A robust impact on the northern wintertime North Atlantic Oscillation is found, exacerbating precipitation reduction over parts of southern Europe. In contrast, the models show no consistency with regard to impacts on the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation, although results do indicate a risk that the oscillation could become locked into a permanent westerly phase.
Debra K. Weisenstein, Daniele Visioni, Henning Franke, Ulrike Niemeier, Sandro Vattioni, Gabriel Chiodo, Thomas Peter, and David W. Keith
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 2955–2973, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2955-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2955-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper explores a potential method of geoengineering that could be used to slow the rate of change of climate over decadal scales. We use three climate models to explore how injections of accumulation-mode sulfuric acid aerosol change the large-scale stratospheric particle size distribution and radiative forcing response for the chosen scenarios. Radiative forcing per unit sulfur injected and relative to the change in aerosol burden is larger with particulate than with SO2 injections.
Daniele Visioni, Simone Tilmes, Charles Bardeen, Michael Mills, Douglas G. MacMartin, Ben Kravitz, and Jadwiga H. Richter
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 1739–1756, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-1739-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-1739-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Aerosols are simulated in a simplified way in climate models: in the model analyzed here, they are represented in every grid as described by three simple logarithmic distributions, mixing all different species together. The size can evolve when new particles are formed, particles merge together to create a larger one or particles are deposited to the surface. This approximation normally works fairly well. Here we show however that when large amounts of sulfate are simulated, there are problems.
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.
Anton Laakso, Ulrike Niemeier, Daniele Visioni, Simone Tilmes, and Harri Kokkola
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 93–118, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-93-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-93-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The use of different spatio-temporal sulfur injection strategies with different magnitudes to create an artificial reflective aerosol layer to cool the climate is studied using sectional and modal aerosol schemes in a climate model. There are significant differences in the results depending on the aerosol microphysical module used. Different spatio-temporal injection strategies have a significant impact on the magnitude and zonal distribution of radiative forcing and atmospheric dynamics.
Dawn L. Woodard, Alexey N. Shiklomanov, Ben Kravitz, Corinne Hartin, and Ben Bond-Lamberty
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 4751–4767, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4751-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4751-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We have added a representation of the permafrost carbon feedback to the simple, open-source global carbon–climate model Hector and calibrated the results to be consistent with historical data and Earth system model projections. Our results closely match previous work, estimating around 0.2 °C of warming from permafrost this century. This capability will be useful to explore uncertainties in this feedback and for coupling with integrated assessment models for policy and economic analysis.
Daniele Visioni, Douglas G. MacMartin, Ben Kravitz, Olivier Boucher, Andy Jones, Thibaut Lurton, Michou Martine, Michael J. Mills, Pierre Nabat, Ulrike Niemeier, Roland Séférian, and Simone Tilmes
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 10039–10063, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-10039-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-10039-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
A new set of simulations is used to investigate commonalities, differences and sources of uncertainty when simulating the injection of SO2 in the stratosphere in order to mitigate the effects of climate change (solar geoengineering). The models differ in how they simulate the aerosols and how they spread around the stratosphere, resulting in differences in projected regional impacts. Overall, however, the models agree that aerosols have the potential to mitigate the warming produced by GHGs.
Nikolas O. Aksamit, Ben Kravitz, Douglas G. MacMartin, and George Haller
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 8845–8861, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-8845-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-8845-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
There exist robust and influential material features evolving within turbulent fluids that behave as the skeleton for fluid transport pathways. Recent developments in applied mathematics have made the identification of these time-varying structures more rigorous and insightful than ever. Using short-range wind forecasts, we detail how and why these material features can be exploited in an effort to optimize the spread of aerosols in the stratosphere for climate geoengineering.
Henning Franke, Ulrike Niemeier, and Daniele Visioni
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 8615–8635, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-8615-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-8615-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric aerosol modification (SAM) can alter the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO). Our simulations with two different models show that the characteristics of the QBO response are primarily determined by the meridional structure of the aerosol-induced heating. Therefore, the QBO response to SAM depends primarily on the location of injection, while injection type and rate act to scale the specific response. Our results have important implications for evaluating adverse side effects of SAM.
Ben Kravitz, Douglas G. MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, Olivier Boucher, Jason N. S. Cole, Jim Haywood, Andy Jones, Thibaut Lurton, Pierre Nabat, Ulrike Niemeier, Alan Robock, Roland Séférian, and Simone Tilmes
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 4231–4247, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-4231-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-4231-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates multi-model response to idealized geoengineering (high CO2 with solar reduction) across two different generations of climate models. We find that, with the exception of a few cases, the results are unchanged between the different generations. This gives us confidence that broad conclusions about the response to idealized geoengineering are robust.
Andy Jones, Jim M. Haywood, Anthony C. Jones, Simone Tilmes, Ben Kravitz, and Alan Robock
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 1287–1304, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1287-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1287-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Two different methods of simulating a geoengineering scenario are compared using data from two different Earth system models. One method is very idealised while the other includes details of a plausible mechanism. The results from both models agree that the idealised approach does not capture an impact found when detailed modelling is included, namely that geoengineering induces a positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation which leads to warmer, wetter winters in northern Europe.
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.
Bethany Sutherland, Ben Kravitz, Philip J. Rasch, and Hailong Wang
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-228, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-228, 2020
Preprint withdrawn
Short summary
Short summary
Through a cascade of physical mechanisms, a change in one location can trigger a response in a different location. These responses and the mechanisms that cause them are difficult to detect. Here we propose a method, using global climate models, to detect possible relationships between changes in one region and responses throughout the globe caused by that change. A change in the Pacific ocean is used as a test case to determine the effectiveness of the method.
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.
Simone Tilmes, Douglas G. MacMartin, Jan T. M. Lenaerts, Leo van Kampenhout, Laura Muntjewerf, Lili Xia, Cheryl S. Harrison, Kristen M. Krumhardt, Michael J. Mills, Ben Kravitz, and Alan Robock
Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 579–601, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-579-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-579-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
This paper introduces new geoengineering model experiments as part of a larger model intercomparison effort, using reflective particles to block some of the incoming solar radiation to reach surface temperature targets. Outcomes of these applications are contrasted based on a high greenhouse gas emission pathway and a pathway with strong mitigation and negative emissions after 2040. We compare quantities that matter for societal and ecosystem impacts between the different scenarios.
Daniele Visioni, Giovanni Pitari, Vincenzo Rizi, Marco Iarlori, Irene Cionni, Ilaria Quaglia, Hideharu Akiyoshi, Slimane Bekki, Neal Butchart, Martin Chipperfield, Makoto Deushi, Sandip S. Dhomse, Rolando Garcia, Patrick Joeckel, Douglas Kinnison, Jean-François Lamarque, Marion Marchand, Martine Michou, Olaf Morgenstern, Tatsuya Nagashima, Fiona M. O'Connor, Luke D. Oman, David Plummer, Eugene Rozanov, David Saint-Martin, Robyn Schofield, John Scinocca, Andrea Stenke, Kane Stone, Kengo Sudo, Taichu Y. Tanaka, Simone Tilmes, Holger Tost, Yousuke Yamashita, and Guang Zeng
Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2020-525, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2020-525, 2020
Preprint withdrawn
Short summary
Short summary
In this work we analyse the trend in ozone profiles taken at L'Aquila (Italy, 42.4° N) for seventeen years, between 2000 and 2016 and compare them against already available measured ozone trends. We try to understand and explain the observed trends at various heights in light of the simulations from seventeen different model, highlighting the contribution of changes in circulation and chemical ozone loss during this time period.
Theodore Weber, Austin Corotan, Brian Hutchinson, Ben Kravitz, and Robert Link
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 2303–2317, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-2303-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-2303-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Climate model emulators can save computer time but are less accurate than full climate models. We use neural networks to build emulators of precipitation, trained on existing climate model runs. By doing so, we can capture nonlinearities and how the past state of a model (to some degree) shapes the future state. Our emulator outperforms a persistence forecast of precipitation.
Andreas Chrysanthou, Amanda C. Maycock, Martyn P. Chipperfield, Sandip Dhomse, Hella Garny, Douglas Kinnison, Hideharu Akiyoshi, Makoto Deushi, Rolando R. Garcia, Patrick Jöckel, Oliver Kirner, Giovanni Pitari, David A. Plummer, Laura Revell, Eugene Rozanov, Andrea Stenke, Taichu Y. Tanaka, Daniele Visioni, and Yousuke Yamashita
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 11559–11586, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-11559-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-11559-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
We perform the first multi-model comparison of the impact of nudged meteorology on the stratospheric residual circulation (RC) in chemistry–climate models. Nudging meteorology does not constrain the mean strength of RC compared to free-running simulations, and despite the lack of agreement in the mean circulation, nudging tightly constrains the inter-annual variability in the tropical upward mass flux in the lower stratosphere. In summary, nudging strongly affects the representation of RC.
Kévin Lamy, Thierry Portafaix, Béatrice Josse, Colette Brogniez, Sophie Godin-Beekmann, Hassan Bencherif, Laura Revell, Hideharu Akiyoshi, Slimane Bekki, Michaela I. Hegglin, Patrick Jöckel, Oliver Kirner, Ben Liley, Virginie Marecal, Olaf Morgenstern, Andrea Stenke, Guang Zeng, N. Luke Abraham, Alexander T. Archibald, Neil Butchart, Martyn P. Chipperfield, Glauco Di Genova, Makoto Deushi, Sandip S. Dhomse, Rong-Ming Hu, Douglas Kinnison, Michael Kotkamp, Richard McKenzie, Martine Michou, Fiona M. O'Connor, Luke D. Oman, Giovanni Pitari, David A. Plummer, John A. Pyle, Eugene Rozanov, David Saint-Martin, Kengo Sudo, Taichu Y. Tanaka, Daniele Visioni, and Kohei Yoshida
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 10087–10110, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-10087-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-10087-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we simulate the ultraviolet radiation evolution during the 21st century on Earth's surface using the output from several numerical models which participated in the Chemistry-Climate Model Initiative. We present four possible futures which depend on greenhouse gases emissions. The role of ozone-depleting substances, greenhouse gases and aerosols are investigated. Our results emphasize the important role of aerosols for future ultraviolet radiation in the Northern Hemisphere.
Ewa M. Bednarz, Amanda C. Maycock, Peter Braesicke, Paul J. Telford, N. Luke Abraham, and John A. Pyle
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 9833–9846, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-9833-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-9833-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
The atmospheric response to the amplitude of 11-year solar cycle in UM-UKCA is separated into the contributions from changes in direct radiative heating and photolysis rates, and the results compared with a control case with both effects included. We find that while the tropical responses are largely additive, this is not necessarily the case in the high latitudes. We suggest that solar-induced changes in ozone are important for modulating the SH dynamical response to the 11-year solar cycle.
Ewa M. Bednarz, Amanda C. Maycock, Paul J. Telford, Peter Braesicke, N. Luke Abraham, and John A. Pyle
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 5209–5233, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-5209-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-5209-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
Following model improvements, the atmospheric response to the 11-year solar cycle forcing simulated in the UM-UKCA chemistry–climate model is discussed for the first time. In contrast to most previous studies in the literature, we compare the results diagnosed using both a composite and a MLR methodology, and we show that apparently different signals can be diagnosed in the troposphere. In addition, we look at the role of internal atmospheric variability for the detection of the solar response.
Robert Link, Abigail Snyder, Cary Lynch, Corinne Hartin, Ben Kravitz, and Ben Bond-Lamberty
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 1477–1489, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1477-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1477-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
Earth system models (ESMs) produce the highest-quality future climate data available, but they are costly to run, so only a few runs from each model are publicly available. What is needed are emulators that tell us what would have happened, if we had been able to perform as many ESM runs as we might have liked. Much of the existing work on emulators has focused on deterministic projections of average values. Here we present a way to imbue emulators with the variability seen in ESM runs.
Roland Eichinger, Simone Dietmüller, Hella Garny, Petr Šácha, Thomas Birner, Harald Bönisch, Giovanni Pitari, Daniele Visioni, Andrea Stenke, Eugene Rozanov, Laura Revell, David A. Plummer, Patrick Jöckel, Luke Oman, Makoto Deushi, Douglas E. Kinnison, Rolando Garcia, Olaf Morgenstern, Guang Zeng, Kane Adam Stone, and Robyn Schofield
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 921–940, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-921-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-921-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
To shed more light upon the changes in stratospheric circulation in the 21st century, climate projection simulations of 10 state-of-the-art global climate models, spanning from 1960 to 2100, are analyzed. The study shows that in addition to changes in transport, mixing also plays an important role in stratospheric circulation and that the properties of mixing vary over time. Furthermore, the influence of mixing is quantified and a dynamical framework is provided to understand the changes.
Christopher G. Fletcher, Ben Kravitz, and Bakr Badawy
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 17529–17543, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-17529-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-17529-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
The most important number for future climate projections is Earth's climate sensitivity (CS), or how much warming will result from increased carbon dioxide. We cannot know the true CS, and estimates of CS from climate models have a wide range. This study identifies the major factors that control this range, and we show that the choice of methods used in creating a climate model are three times more important than fine-tuning the details of the model after it is created.
Laura E. Revell, Andrea Stenke, Fiona Tummon, Aryeh Feinberg, Eugene Rozanov, Thomas Peter, N. Luke Abraham, Hideharu Akiyoshi, Alexander T. Archibald, Neal Butchart, Makoto Deushi, Patrick Jöckel, Douglas Kinnison, Martine Michou, Olaf Morgenstern, Fiona M. O'Connor, Luke D. Oman, Giovanni Pitari, David A. Plummer, Robyn Schofield, Kane Stone, Simone Tilmes, Daniele Visioni, Yousuke Yamashita, and Guang Zeng
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 16155–16172, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-16155-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-16155-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Global models such as those participating in the Chemistry-Climate Model Initiative (CCMI) consistently simulate biases in tropospheric ozone compared with observations. We performed an advanced statistical analysis with one of the CCMI models to understand the cause of the bias. We found that emissions of ozone precursor gases are the dominant driver of the bias, implying either that the emissions are too large, or that the way in which the model handles emissions needs to be improved.
Daniele Visioni, Giovanni Pitari, Glauco di Genova, Simone Tilmes, and Irene Cionni
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 14867–14887, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-14867-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-14867-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Many side effects of sulfate geoengineering have to be analyzed before the world can even consider deploying this method of solar radiation management. In particular, we show that ice clouds in the upper troposphere are modified by a sulfate injection, producing a change that (by allowing for more planetary radiation to escape to space) would produce a further cooling. This might be important when considering the necessary amount of sulfate that needs to be injected to achieve a certain target.
Ben Kravitz, Philip J. Rasch, Hailong Wang, Alan Robock, Corey Gabriel, Olivier Boucher, Jason N. S. Cole, Jim Haywood, Duoying Ji, Andy Jones, Andrew Lenton, John C. Moore, Helene Muri, Ulrike Niemeier, Steven Phipps, Hauke Schmidt, Shingo Watanabe, Shuting Yang, and Jin-Ho Yoon
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 13097–13113, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-13097-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-13097-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Marine cloud brightening has been proposed as a means of geoengineering/climate intervention, or deliberately altering the climate system to offset anthropogenic climate change. In idealized simulations that highlight contrasts between land and ocean, we find that the globe warms, including the ocean due to transport of heat from land. This study reinforces that no net energy input into the Earth system does not mean that temperature will necessarily remain unchanged.
Duoying Ji, Songsong Fang, Charles L. Curry, Hiroki Kashimura, Shingo Watanabe, Jason N. S. Cole, Andrew Lenton, Helene Muri, Ben Kravitz, and John C. Moore
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 10133–10156, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-10133-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-10133-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
We examine extreme temperature and precipitation under climate-model-simulated solar dimming and stratospheric aerosol injection geoengineering schemes. Both types of geoengineering lead to lower minimum temperatures at higher latitudes and greater cooling of minimum temperatures and maximum temperatures over land compared with oceans. Stratospheric aerosol injection is more effective in reducing tropical extreme precipitation, while solar dimming is more effective over extra-tropical regions.
Sandip S. Dhomse, Douglas Kinnison, Martyn P. Chipperfield, Ross J. Salawitch, Irene Cionni, Michaela I. Hegglin, N. Luke Abraham, Hideharu Akiyoshi, Alex T. Archibald, Ewa M. Bednarz, Slimane Bekki, Peter Braesicke, Neal Butchart, Martin Dameris, Makoto Deushi, Stacey Frith, Steven C. Hardiman, Birgit Hassler, Larry W. Horowitz, Rong-Ming Hu, Patrick Jöckel, Beatrice Josse, Oliver Kirner, Stefanie Kremser, Ulrike Langematz, Jared Lewis, Marion Marchand, Meiyun Lin, Eva Mancini, Virginie Marécal, Martine Michou, Olaf Morgenstern, Fiona M. O'Connor, Luke Oman, Giovanni Pitari, David A. Plummer, John A. Pyle, Laura E. Revell, Eugene Rozanov, Robyn Schofield, Andrea Stenke, Kane Stone, Kengo Sudo, Simone Tilmes, Daniele Visioni, Yousuke Yamashita, and Guang Zeng
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 8409–8438, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-8409-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-8409-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
We analyse simulations from the Chemistry-Climate Model Initiative (CCMI) to estimate the return dates of the stratospheric ozone layer from depletion by anthropogenic chlorine and bromine. The simulations from 20 models project that global column ozone will return to 1980 values in 2047 (uncertainty range 2042–2052). Return dates in other regions vary depending on factors related to climate change and importance of chlorine and bromine. Column ozone in the tropics may continue to decline.
Clara Orbe, Huang Yang, Darryn W. Waugh, Guang Zeng, Olaf Morgenstern, Douglas E. Kinnison, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Simone Tilmes, David A. Plummer, John F. Scinocca, Beatrice Josse, Virginie Marecal, Patrick Jöckel, Luke D. Oman, Susan E. Strahan, Makoto Deushi, Taichu Y. Tanaka, Kohei Yoshida, Hideharu Akiyoshi, Yousuke Yamashita, Andreas Stenke, Laura Revell, Timofei Sukhodolov, Eugene Rozanov, Giovanni Pitari, Daniele Visioni, Kane A. Stone, Robyn Schofield, and Antara Banerjee
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 7217–7235, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-7217-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-7217-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
In this study we compare a few atmospheric transport properties among several numerical models that are used to study the influence of atmospheric chemistry on climate. We show that there are large differences among models in terms of the timescales that connect the Northern Hemisphere midlatitudes, where greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances are emitted, to the Southern Hemisphere. Our results may have important implications for how models represent atmospheric composition.
Simone Dietmüller, Roland Eichinger, Hella Garny, Thomas Birner, Harald Boenisch, Giovanni Pitari, Eva Mancini, Daniele Visioni, Andrea Stenke, Laura Revell, Eugene Rozanov, David A. Plummer, John Scinocca, Patrick Jöckel, Luke Oman, Makoto Deushi, Shibata Kiyotaka, Douglas E. Kinnison, Rolando Garcia, Olaf Morgenstern, Guang Zeng, Kane Adam Stone, and Robyn Schofield
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 6699–6720, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-6699-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-6699-2018, 2018
David P. Keller, Andrew Lenton, Vivian Scott, Naomi E. Vaughan, Nico Bauer, Duoying Ji, Chris D. Jones, Ben Kravitz, Helene Muri, and Kirsten Zickfeld
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1133–1160, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1133-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1133-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
There is little consensus on the impacts and efficacy of proposed carbon dioxide removal (CDR) methods as a potential means of mitigating climate change. To address this need, the Carbon Dioxide Removal Model Intercomparison Project (or CDR-MIP) has been initiated. This project brings together models of the Earth system in a common framework to explore the potential, impacts, and challenges of CDR. Here, we describe the first set of CDR-MIP experiments.
Daniele Visioni, Giovanni Pitari, Paolo Tuccella, and Gabriele Curci
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 2787–2808, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-2787-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-2787-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Sulfate geoengineering is a proposed technique that would mimic explosive volcanic eruptions by injecting sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the stratosphere to counteract global warming produced by greenhouse gases by reflecting part of the incoming solar radiation. In this study we use two models to simulate how the injected aerosols would react to dynamical changes in the stratosphere (due to the quasi-biennial oscillation - QBO) and how this would affect the deposition of sulfate at the surface.
Olaf Morgenstern, Kane A. Stone, Robyn Schofield, Hideharu Akiyoshi, Yousuke Yamashita, Douglas E. Kinnison, Rolando R. Garcia, Kengo Sudo, David A. Plummer, John Scinocca, Luke D. Oman, Michael E. Manyin, Guang Zeng, Eugene Rozanov, Andrea Stenke, Laura E. Revell, Giovanni Pitari, Eva Mancini, Glauco Di Genova, Daniele Visioni, Sandip S. Dhomse, and Martyn P. Chipperfield
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 1091–1114, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-1091-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-1091-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
We assess how ozone as simulated by a group of chemistry–climate models responds to variations in man-made climate gases and ozone-depleting substances. We find some agreement, particularly in the middle and upper stratosphere, but also considerable disagreement elsewhere. Such disagreement affects the reliability of future ozone projections based on these models, and also constitutes a source of uncertainty in climate projections using prescribed ozone derived from these simulations.
Camilla W. Stjern, Helene Muri, Lars Ahlm, Olivier Boucher, Jason N. S. Cole, Duoying Ji, Andy Jones, Jim Haywood, Ben Kravitz, Andrew Lenton, John C. Moore, Ulrike Niemeier, Steven J. Phipps, Hauke Schmidt, Shingo Watanabe, and Jón Egill Kristjánsson
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 621–634, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-621-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-621-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Marine cloud brightening (MCB) has been proposed to help limit global warming. We present here the first multi-model assessment of idealized MCB simulations from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project. While all models predict a global cooling as intended, there is considerable spread between the models both in terms of radiative forcing and the climate response, largely linked to the substantial differences in the models' representation of clouds.
James Keeble, Ewa M. Bednarz, Antara Banerjee, N. Luke Abraham, Neil R. P. Harris, Amanda C. Maycock, and John A. Pyle
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 13801–13818, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-13801-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-13801-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
In this study we explore the chemical and transport processes controlling ozone abundances in different altitude regions in the tropics for the present day and how these processes may change in the future in order to determine when total-column ozone values in the tropics will recover to pre-1980s values following the implementation of the Montreal Protocol and its subsequent amendments, which imposed bans on the use and emissions of CFCs.
Lars Ahlm, Andy Jones, Camilla W. Stjern, Helene Muri, Ben Kravitz, and Jón Egill Kristjánsson
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 13071–13087, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-13071-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-13071-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
We present results from coordinated simulations with three Earth system models focusing on the response of Earth’s radiation balance to the injection of sea salt particles. We find that in most regions the effective radiative forcing by the injected particles is equally large in cloudy and clear-sky conditions, suggesting a more important role of the aerosol direct effect in sea spray climate engineering than previously thought.
Daniele Visioni, Giovanni Pitari, Valentina Aquila, Simone Tilmes, Irene Cionni, Glauco Di Genova, and Eva Mancini
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 11209–11226, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-11209-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-11209-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
Sulfate geoengineering (SG), the sustained injection of SO2 in the lower stratosphere, is being discussed as a way to counterbalance surface warming, mimicking volcanic eruptions. In this paper, we analyse results from two models part of the GeoMIP project in order to understand the effect SG might have on the concentration and lifetime of methane, which acts in the atmosphere as a greenhouse gas. Understanding possible side effects of SG is a crucial step if its viability is to be assessed.
Cary Lynch, Corinne Hartin, Ben Bond-Lamberty, and Ben Kravitz
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 9, 281–292, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-9-281-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-9-281-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
Pattern scaling climate model output is a computationally efficient way to produce a large amount of data for purposes of uncertainty quantification. Using a multi-model ensemble we explore pattern scaling methodologies across two future forcing scenarios. We find that the simple least squares approach to pattern scaling produces a close approximation of actual model output, and we use this as a justification for the creation of an open-access pattern library at multiple time increments.
Ben Kravitz, Cary Lynch, Corinne Hartin, and Ben Bond-Lamberty
Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1889–1902, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1889-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1889-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
Pattern scaling is a way of approximating regional changes without needing to run a full, complex global climate model. We compare two methods of pattern scaling for precipitation and evaluate which methods is
betterin particular circumstances. We also decompose precipitation into a CO2 portion and a non-CO2 portion. The methodologies discussed in this paper can help provide precipitation fields for other models for a wide variety of scenarios of future climate change.
Daniele Visioni, Giovanni Pitari, and Valentina Aquila
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 3879–3889, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-3879-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-3879-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
This review paper summarizes the state-of-the-art knowledge of the direct and indirect side effects of sulfate geoengineering, that is, the injection of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere in order to offset the warming caused by the anthropic increase in greenhouse gasses. An overview of the various effects and their uncertainties, using results from published scientific articles, may help fine-tune the best amount of sulfate to be injected in an eventual realization of the experiment.
Hiroki Kashimura, Manabu Abe, Shingo Watanabe, Takashi Sekiya, Duoying Ji, John C. Moore, Jason N. S. Cole, and Ben Kravitz
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 3339–3356, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-3339-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-3339-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
This study analyses shortwave radiation (SW) in the G4 experiment of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project. G4 involves stratospheric injection of 5 Tg yr−1 of SO2 against the RCP4.5 scenario. The global mean forcing of the sulphate geoengineering has an inter-model variablity of −3.6 to −1.6 W m−2, implying a high uncertainty in modelled processes of sulfate aerosols. Changes in water vapour and cloud amounts due to the SO2 injection weaken the forcing at the surface by around 50 %.
Ben Kravitz, Douglas G. MacMartin, Philip J. Rasch, and Hailong Wang
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 2525–2541, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-2525-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-2525-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce system identification techniques to climate science wherein multiple dynamic input–output relationships can be simultaneously characterized in a single simulation. This method, involving multiple small perturbations (in space and time) of an input field while monitoring output fields to quantify responses, allows for identification of different timescales of climate response to forcing without substantially pushing the climate far away from a steady state.
Corey J. Gabriel, Alan Robock, Lili Xia, Brian Zambri, and Ben Kravitz
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 595–613, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-595-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-595-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
The National Center for Atmospheric Research CESM-CAM4-CHEM global climate model was modified to simulate a scheme in which the albedo of the ocean surface is raised over the subtropical ocean gyres in the Southern Hemisphere. Global mean surface temperature in G4Foam is 0.6K lower than RCP6.0, with statistically significant cooling relative to RCP6.0 south of 30° N and an increase in rainfall over land, most pronouncedly during the JJA season, relative to both G4SSA and RCP6.0.
Douglas G. MacMartin and Ben Kravitz
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 15789–15799, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-15789-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-15789-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
Solar geoengineering has been proposed as a possible additional approach for managing risks of climate change, by reflecting some sunlight back to space. To project climate effects resulting from future choices regarding both greenhouse gas emissions and solar geoengineering, it is useful to have a computationally efficient "emulator" that approximates the behavior of more complex climate models. We present such an emulator here, and validate the underlying assumption of linearity.
Ewa M. Bednarz, Amanda C. Maycock, N. Luke Abraham, Peter Braesicke, Olivier Dessens, and John A. Pyle
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 12159–12176, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-12159-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-12159-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
Future trends in springtime Arctic ozone, and its chemical dynamical and radiative drivers, are analysed using a 7-member ensemble of chemistry–climate model integrations, allowing for a detailed assessment of interannual variability. Despite the future long-term recovery of Arctic ozone, there is large interannual variability and episodic reductions in springtime Arctic column ozone. Halogen chemistry will become a smaller but non-negligible driver of Arctic ozone variability over the century.
Cary Lynch, Corinne Hartin, Ben Bond-Lamberty, and Ben Kravitz
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2016-170, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2016-170, 2016
Revised manuscript not accepted
Short summary
Short summary
Pattern scaling is used to explore uncertainty in future forcing scenarios and assess local climate sensitivity to global temperature change. This paper examines the two dominant pattern scaling methods using a multi-model ensemble with two future socio-economic storylines. We find that high latitudes show the strongest sensitivity to global temperature change and that the simple least squared regression approach to generation of patterns is a better fit to projected global temperature.
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.
B. Kravitz, A. Robock, S. Tilmes, O. Boucher, J. M. English, P. J. Irvine, A. Jones, M. G. Lawrence, M. MacCracken, H. Muri, J. C. Moore, U. Niemeier, S. J. Phipps, J. Sillmann, T. Storelvmo, H. Wang, and S. Watanabe
Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 3379–3392, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3379-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3379-2015, 2015
S. Tilmes, M. J. Mills, U. Niemeier, H. Schmidt, A. Robock, B. Kravitz, J.-F. Lamarque, G. Pitari, and J. M. English
Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 43–49, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-43-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-43-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
A new Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) experiment “G4 specified stratospheric aerosols” (G4SSA) is proposed to investigate the impact of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering on atmosphere, chemistry, dynamics, climate, and the environment. In contrast to the earlier G4 GeoMIP experiment, which requires an emission of sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the model, a prescribed aerosol forcing file is provided to the community, to be consistently applied to future model experiments.
Related subject area
Topics: Geoengineering | Interactions: Human/Earth system interactions | Methods: Earth system and climate modeling
Dependency of the impacts of geoengineering on the stratospheric sulfur injection strategy – Part 2: How changes in the hydrological cycle depend on the injection rate and model used
Anton Laakso, Daniele Visioni, Ulrike Niemeier, Simone Tilmes, and Harri Kokkola
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 405–427, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-405-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-405-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study is the second in a two-part series in which we explore the dependency of the impacts of stratospheric sulfur injections on both the model employed and the strategy of injection utilized. The study uncovers uncertainties associated with these techniques to cool climate, highlighting how the simulated climate impacts are dependent on both the selected model and the magnitude of the injections. We also show that estimating precipitation impacts of aerosol injection is a complex task.
Cited articles
Allen, M. R. and Ingram, W. J.: Constraints on future changes in climate and the hydrological cycle, Nature, 419, 224–232, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01092, 2002. a
Anderson, K., Broderick, J., and Stoddard, I.: A factor of two: how the mitigation plans of “climate progressive” nations fall far short of Paris-compliant pathways, Clim. Policy, 20, 1290–1304, https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1728209, 2020. a
Bala, G., Duffy, P. B., and Taylor, K. E.: Impact of geoengineering schemes on the global hydrological cycle, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 105, 7664–7669, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0711648105, 2008. a
Bala, G., Caldeira, K., and Nemani, R.: Fast versus slow response in climate change: implications for the global hydrological cycle, Clim. Dynam., 35, 423–434, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-009-0583-y, 2010. a
Bamber, J. L., Oppenheimer, M., Kopp, R. E., Aspinall, W., and Cooke, R.: Ice sheet contributions to future sea-level rise from structured expert judgment, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 116, 11195–11200, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1817205116, 2019. a
Bednarz, E. M., Visioni, D., Richter, J. H., Butler, A. H., and MacMartin, D. G.: Impact of the Latitude of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection on the Southern Annular Mode, Geophys. Res. Lett., 49, e2022GL100353, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL100353, 2022. a
Bednarz, E. M., Butler, A. H., Visioni, D., Zhang, Y., Kravitz, B., and MacMartin, D. G.: Injection strategy – a driver of atmospheric circulation and ozone response to stratospheric aerosol geoengineering, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 13665–13684, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13665-2023, 2023a. a, b, c, d, e
Bednarz, E. M., Visioni, D., Kravitz, B., Jones, A., Haywood, J. M., Richter, J., MacMartin, D. G., and Braesicke, P.: Climate response to off-equatorial stratospheric sulfur injections in three Earth system models – Part 2: Stratospheric and free-tropospheric response, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 687–709, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-687-2023, 2023b. a
Bednarz, E. M., Visioni, D., Kravitz, B., Jones, A., Haywood, J. M., Richter, J., MacMartin, D. G., and Braesicke, P.: Climate response to off-equatorial stratospheric sulfur injections in three Earth system models – Part 2: Stratospheric and free-tropospheric response, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 687–709, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-687-2023, 2023c. a
Bengtsson, L., Hodges, K. I., and Esch, M.: Tropical cyclones in a T159 resolution global climate model: comparison with observations and re-analyses, Tellus A, 59, 396–416, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2007.00236.x, 2007. a, b
Bittner, M., Schmidt, H., Timmreck, C., and Sienz, F.: Using a large ensemble of simulations to assess the Northern Hemisphere stratospheric dynamical response to tropical volcanic eruptions and its uncertainty, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 9324–9332, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL070587, 2016. a, b
Bjordal, J., Trude, S., Alterskjær, K., and Carlsen, T.: Equilibrium climate sensitivity above 5 °C plausible due to state-dependent cloud feedback, Nat. Geosci., 13, 718–721, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-020-00649-1, 2020. a
Burgess, M. G., Ritchie, J., Shapland, J., and Pielke, R.: IPCC baseline scenarios have over-projected CO2 emissions and economic growth, Environ. Res. Lett., 16, 014016, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abcdd2, 2021. a
Butchart, N.: The Brewer-Dobson circulation, Rev. Geophys., 52, 157–184, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013RG000448, 2014. a, b
Byrne, M., Pendergrass, A., Rapp, A., and Wodzicki, K.: Response of the Intertropical Convergence Zone to Climate Change: Location, Width, and Strength, Current Climate Change Reports, 4, 355–370, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-018-0110-5, 2018. a, b
Camargo, S. J.: Global and Regional Aspects of Tropical Cyclone Activity in the CMIP5 Models, J. Climate, 26, 9880–9902, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00549.1, 2013. a, b
Chemke, R., Zanna, L., and Polvani, L. M.: Identifying a human signal in the North Atlantic warming hole, Nat. Commun., 11, 1540, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15285-x, 2020. a, b
Cheng, W., MacMartin, D. G., Kravitz, B.and Visioni, D., Bednarz, E. M., Xu, Y., Luo, Y., Huang, L., Hu, Y., Staten, P. W., Hitchcock, P., Moore, J. C., Guo, A., and Deng, X.: Changes in Hadley circulation and intertropical convergence zone under strategic stratospheric aerosol geoengineering, npj Climate and Atmospheric Science, 5, 32, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-022-00254-6, 2022. a
Chiang, J. C. and Friedman, A. R.: Extratropical Cooling, Interhemispheric Thermal Gradients, and Tropical Climate Change, Annu. Rev. Earth Pl. Sc., 40, 383–412, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105545, 2012. a
Danabasoglu, G.: On Multidecadal Variability of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation in the Community Climate System Model Version 3, J. Climate, 21, 5524–5544, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2019.1, 2008. a
Danabasoglu, G., Lamarque, J.-F., Bacmeister, J., Bailey, D. A., DuVivier, A. K., Edwards, J., Emmons, L. K., Fasullo, J., Garcia, R., Gettelman, A., Hannay, C., Holland, M. M., Large, W. G., Lauritzen, P. H., Lawrence, D. M., Lenaerts, J. T. M., Lindsay, K., Lipscomb, W. H., Mills, M. J., Neale, R., Oleson, K. W., Otto-Bliesner, B., Phillips, A. S., Sacks, W., Tilmes, S., van Kampenhout, L., Vertenstein, M., Bertini, A., Dennis, J., Deser, C., Fischer, C., Fox-Kemper, B., Kay, J. E., Kinnison, D., Kushner, P. J., Larson, V. E., Long, M. C., Mickelson, S., Moore, J. K., Nienhouse, E., Polvani, L., Rasch, P. J., and Strand, W. G.: The Community Earth System Model Version 2 (CESM2), J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS001916, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001916, 2020. a, b
Davis, N. A., Visioni, D., Garcia, R. R., Kinnison, D. E., Marsh, D. R., Mills, M. J., Richter, J. H., Tilmes, S., Bardeen, C., Gettelman, A., Glanville, A. A., MacMartin, D. G., Smith, A. K., and Vitt, F.: Climate, variability, and climate sensitivity of “Middle Atmosphere” chemistry configurations of the Community Earth System Model Version 2, Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model Version 6 (CESM2(WACCM6)), J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 15, e2022MS003579, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022MS003579, 2023. a, b
Donohoe, A., Marshall, J., Ferreira, D., and Mcgee, D.: The Relationship between ITCZ Location and Cross-Equatorial Atmospheric Heat Transport: From the Seasonal Cycle to the Last Glacial Maximum, J. Climate, 26, 3597–3618, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00467.1, 2013. a
Dunstone, N., Smith, D., Booth, B., Hermanson, L., and Eade, R.: Anthropogenic aerosol forcing of Atlantic tropical storms, Nat. Geosci., 6, 534–539, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1854, 2013. a, b
Dvorak, M. T., Armour, K. C., Frierson, D. M. W., Proistosescu, C., Baker, M. B., and Smith, C. J.: Estimating the timing of geophysical commitment to 1.5 and 2.0 °C of global warming, Nat. Clim. Change, 12, 547–552, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01372-y, 2022. a
Frierson, D. M. W. and Hwang, Y.-T.: Extratropical Influence on ITCZ Shifts in Slab Ocean Simulations of Global Warming, J. Climate, 25, 720–733, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00116.1, 2012. a
Gettelman, A., Mills, M. J., Kinnison, D. E., Garcia, R. R., Smith, A. K., Marsh, D. R., Tilmes, S., Vitt, F., Bardeen, C. G., McInerny, J., Liu, H.-L., Solomon, S. C., Polvani, L. M., Emmons, L. K., Lamarque, J.-F., Richter, J. H., Glanville, A. S., Bacmeister, J. T., Phillips, A. S., Neale, R. B., Simpson, I. R., DuVivier, A. K., Hodzic, A., and Randel, W. J.: The Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model Version 6 (WACCM6), J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 12380–12403, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD030943, 2019. a
Goddard, P. B., Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Visioni, D., Bednarz, E. M., and Lee, W. R.: Stratospheric Aerosol Injection Can Reduce Risks to Antarctic Ice Loss Depending on Injection Location and Amount, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 128, e2023JD039434, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023JD039434, 2023. a
Hahn, L. C., Armour, K. C., Zelinka, M. D., Bitz, C. M., and Donohoe, A.: Contributions to Polar Amplification in CMIP5 and CMIP6 Models, Front. Earth Sci., 9, 710036, https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2021.710036, 2021. a
Hari, V., Villarini, G., Karmakar, S., Wilcox, L. J., and Collins, M.: Northward Propagation of the Intertropical Convergence Zone and Strengthening of Indian Summer Monsoon Rainfall, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL089823, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL089823, 2020. a
Haywood, J. M., Jones, A., Bellouin, N., and Stephenson, D.: Asymmetric forcing from stratospheric aerosols impacts Sahelian rainfall, Nat. Clim. Change, 3, 660–665, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1857, 2013. a
Holland, M. M. and Bitz, C. M.: Polar amplification of climate change in coupled models, Clim. Dynam., 21, 221–232, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-003-0332-6, 2003. a
IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2021 – The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896, 2023. a, b, c, d
Irvine, P., Emanuel, K., He, J., Horowitz, L. W., Vecchi, G., and Keith, D.: Halving warming with idealized solar geoengineering moderates key climate hazards, Nat. Clim. Change, 9, 295–299, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0398-8, 2019. a, b
Jiménez-Muñoz, J. C., Mattar, C., Barichivich, J., Santamaría-Artigas, A., Takahashi, K., Malhi, Y., Sobrino, J. A., and van der Schrier, G.: Record-breaking warming and extreme drought in the Amazon rainforest during the course of El Niño 2015–2016, Sci. Rep., 6, 33130, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep33130, 2016. a, b
Jones, A. C., Haywood, J. M., Dunstone, N., Emanuel, K., Hawcroft, M. K., Hodges, K. I., and Jones, A.: Impacts of hemispheric solar geoengineering on tropical cyclone frequency, Nat. Commun., 8, 1382, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01606-0, 2017. a
Kang, S. M., Xie, S.-P., Shin, Y., Kim, H., Hwang, Y.-T., Stuecker, M. F., Xiang, B., and Hawcroft, M.: Walker circulation response to extratropical radiative forcing, Sci. Adv., 6, eabd3021, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd3021, 2020. a
Keil, P., Mauritsen, T., Jungclaus, J., Hedemann, C., Olonscheck, D., and Ghosh, R.: Multiple drivers of the North Atlantic warming hole, Nat. Clim. Change, 10, 667–671, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0819-8, 2020. a, b, c
Kleinschmitt, C., Boucher, O., and Platt, U.: Sensitivity of the radiative forcing by stratospheric sulfur geoengineering to the amount and strategy of the SO2 injection studied with the LMDZ-S3A model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 2769–2786, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-2769-2018, 2018. a
Knutson, T., McBride, J., Chan, J., Emanuel, K., Holland, G., Landsea, C., Held, I., Kossin, J. P., Srivastava, A. K., and Sugi, M.: Tropical cyclones and climate change, Nat. Geosci., 3, 1752–0908, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo779, 2010. a, b
Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Wang, H., and Rasch, P. J.: Geoengineering as a design problem, Earth Syst. Dynam., 7, 469–497, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-469-2016, 2016. a, b
Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Mills, M. J., Richter, J. H., Tilmes, S., Lamarque, J.-F., Tribbia, J. J., and Vitt, F.: First simulations of designing stratospheric sulfate aerosol geoengineering to meet multiple simultaneous climate objectives, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 12616–12634, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026874, 2017. a, b, c, d, e, f
Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., Mills, M. J., Cheng, W., Dagon, K., Glanville, A. S., Lamarque, J.-F., Simpson, I. R., Tribbia, J., and Vitt, F.: Comparing surface and stratospheric impacts of geoengineering with different SO2 injection strategies, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 7900–7918, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD030329, 2019. a, b, c, d, e
Lee, W., MacMartin, D., Visioni, D., and Kravitz, B.: Expanding the design space of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering to include precipitation-based objectives and explore trade-offs, Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 1051–1072, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-1051-2020, 2020. a, b, c
Lee, W., MacMartin, D., Visioni, D., and Kravitz, B.: High-Latitude stratospheric aerosol geoengineering can be more effective if injection is limited to spring, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2021GL092696, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL092696, 2021. a, b, c
Lee, W. R., MacMartin, D. G., Visioni, D., Kravitz, B., Chen, Y., Moore, J. C., Leguy, G., Lawrence, D. M., and Bailey, D. A.: High-Latitude Stratospheric Aerosol Injection to Preserve the Arctic, Earth's Future, 11, e2022EF003052, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EF003052, 2023a. a, b, c, d
Lee, W. R., Visioni, D., Bednarz, E. M., MacMartin, D. G., Kravitz, B., and Tilmes, S.: Quantifying the Efficiency of Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering at Different Altitudes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 50, e2023GL104417, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL104417, 2023b. a
MacMartin, D. G., Kravitz, B., Keith, D. W., and Jarvis, A. J.: Dynamics of the coupled human-climate system resulting from closed-loop control of solar geoengineering, Clim. Dynam., 43, 243–258, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1822-9, 2014. a
MacMartin, D. G., Kravitz, B., Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., Mills, M. J., Lamarque, J.-F., Tribbia, J. J., and Vitt, F.: The climate response to stratospheric aerosol geoengineering can be tailored using multiple injection locations, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 12574–12590, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026868, 2017. a
MacMartin, D. G., Wang, W., Kravitz, B., Tilmes, S., Richter, J., and Mills, M. J.: Timescale for detecting the climate response to stratospheric aerosol geoengineering, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 1233–1247, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD028906, 2019. a
MacMartin, D. G., Visioni, D., Kravitz, B., Richter, J., 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. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m
Marengo, J. A. and Espinoza, J. C.: Extreme seasonal droughts and floods in Amazonia: causes, trends and impacts, Int. J. Climatol., 36, 1033–1050, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.4420, 2016. a, b
McGregor, S., Cassou, C., Kosaka, Y., and Phillips, A. S.: Projected ENSO Teleconnection Changes in CMIP6, Geophys. Res. Lett., 49, e2021GL097511, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL097511, 2022. a
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. a
Meinshausen, M., Lewis, J., McGlade, C., Gütschow, J., Nicholls, Z., Burdon, R., Cozzi, L., and Hackmann, B.: Realization of Paris Agreement pledges may limit warming just below 2 °C, Nature, 604, 304–309, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-04553-z, 2022. a
Mills, M., Richter, J. H., Tilmes, S., Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Glanville, A. A., Tribbia, J. J., Lamarque, J.-F., Vitt, F., Schmidt, A., Gettelman, A., Hannay, C., Bacmeister, J. T., and Kinnison, D. E.: Radiative and chemical response to interactive stratospheric aerosols in fully coupled CESM1(WACCM), J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 13061–13078, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD027006, 2017. a, b
Niemeier, U. and Timmreck, C.: What is the limit of climate engineering by stratospheric injection of SO2?, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 9129–9141, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-9129-2015, 2015. a, b
Niemeier, U., Schmidt, H., Alterskjær, K., and Kristjánsson, J. E.: Solar irradiance reduction via climate engineering: Impact of different techniques on the energy balance and the hydrological cycle, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 11905–11917, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020445, 2013. a
Notz, D. and Stroeve, J.: The Trajectory Towards a Seasonally Ice-Free Arctic Ocean, Current Climate Change Reports, 4, 407–416, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-018-0113-2, 2018. a
O'Gorman, P. A., Allan, R. P., Byrne, M. P., and Previdi, M.: Energetic Constraints on Precipitation Under Climate Change, Surv. Geophys., 33, 585–608, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-011-9159-6, 2012. a
Pausata, F. S. R., Grini, A., Caballero, R., Hannachi, A., and Øyvind Seland: High-latitude volcanic eruptions in the Norwegian Earth System Model: the effect of different initial conditions and of the ensemble size, Tellus B, 67, 26728, https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v67.26728, 2015. a, b
Previdi, M., Smith, K. L., and Polvani, L. M.: Arctic amplification of climate change: a review of underlying mechanisms, Environ. Res. Lett., 16, 093003, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac1c29, 2021. a
Rahmstorf, S.: Ocean circulation and climate during the past 120,000 years, Nature, 419, 207–214, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01090, 2002. a
Richter, J. H., Visioni, D., MacMartin, D. G., Bailey, D. A., Rosenbloom, N., Dobbins, B., Lee, W. R., Tye, M., and Lamarque, J.-F.: Assessing Responses and Impacts of Solar climate intervention on the Earth system with stratospheric aerosol injection (ARISE-SAI): protocol and initial results from the first simulations, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 8221–8243, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8221-2022, 2022. a, b, c
Rogelj, J., den Elzen, M., Höhne, N., Fransen, T., Fekete, H., Winkler, H., Schaeffer, R., Sha, F., Riaha, K., and Meinshausen, M.: Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C, Nature, 534, 631–639, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18307, 2016. a
Salzmann, M.: The polar amplification asymmetry: role of Antarctic surface height, Earth Syst. Dynam., 8, 323–336, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-323-2017, 2017. a
Serreze, M. and Barry, R.: Processes and impacts of Arctic amplification: A research synthesis, Global Planet. Change, 77, 85–96, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2011.03.004, 2011. a
Sherwood, S. C., Webb, M. J., Annan, J. D., Armour, K. C., Forster, P. M., Hargreaves, J. C., Hegerl, G., Klein, S. A., Marvel, K. D., Rohling, E. J., Watanabe, M., Andrews, T., Braconnot, P., Bretherton, C. S., Foster, G. L., Hausfather, Z., von der Heydt, A. S., Knutti, R., Mauritsen, T., Norris, J. R., Proistosescu, C., Rugenstein, M., Schmidt, G. A., Tokarska, K. B., and Zelinka, M. D.: An Assessment of Earth's Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence, Rev. Geophys., 58, e2019RG000678, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000678, 2020. a
Simpson, I. R., Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Mills, M. J., Fasullo, J. T., and Pendergrass, A. G.: The Regional Hydroclimate Response to Stratospheric Sulfate Geoengineering and the Role of Stratospheric Heating, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 12587–12616, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD031093, 2019. a
Tebaldi, C., Debeire, K., Eyring, V., Fischer, E., Fyfe, J., Friedlingstein, P., Knutti, R., Lowe, J., O'Neill, B., Sanderson, B., van Vuuren, D., Riahi, K., Meinshausen, M., Nicholls, Z., Tokarska, K. B., Hurtt, G., Kriegler, E., Lamarque, J.-F., Meehl, G., Moss, R., Bauer, S. E., Boucher, O., Brovkin, V., Byun, Y.-H., Dix, M., Gualdi, S., Guo, H., John, J. G., Kharin, S., Kim, Y., Koshiro, T., Ma, L., Olivié, D., Panickal, S., Qiao, F., Rong, X., Rosenbloom, N., Schupfner, M., Séférian, R., Sellar, A., Semmler, T., Shi, X., Song, Z., Steger, C., Stouffer, R., Swart, N., Tachiiri, K., Tang, Q., Tatebe, H., Voldoire, A., Volodin, E., Wyser, K., Xin, X., Yang, S., Yu, Y., and Ziehn, T.: Climate model projections from the Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) of CMIP6, Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 253–293, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-253-2021, 2021. a
Tilmes, S., Fasullo, J., Lamarque, J.-F., Marsh, D. R., Mills, M., Alterskjær, K., Muri, H., Kristjánsson, J. E., Boucher, O., Schulz, M., Cole, J. N. S., Curry, C. L., Jones, A., Haywood, J., Irvine, P. J., Ji, D., Moore, J. C., Karam, D. B., Kravitz, B., Rasch, P. J., Singh, B., Yoon, J.-H., Niemeier, U., Schmidt, H., Robock, A., Yang, S., and Watanabe, S.: The hydrological impact of geoengineering in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP), J. Geophys. Res., 118, 11036–11058, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50868, 2013. a
Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., Mills, M. J., Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Vitt, F., Tribbia, J. J., and Lamarque, J.-F.: Sensitivity of aerosol distribution and climate response to stratospheric SO2 injection locations, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 12591–12615, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026888, 2017. a
Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Mills, M. J., Simpson, I., Glanville, A. S., Fasullo, J. T., Phillips, A. S., Lamarque, J.-F., Tribbia, J., Edwards, J., Mickelson, S., and Gosh, S.: CESM1(WACCM) stratospheric aerosol geoengineering large ensemble (GLENS) project, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 99, 2361–2371, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0267.1, 2018. a, b, c, d
Tilmes, S., MacMartin, D. G., Lenaerts, J. T. M., van Kampenhout, L., Muntjewerf, L., Xia, L., Harrison, C. S., Krumhardt, K. M., Mills, M. J., Kravitz, B., and Robock, A.: Reaching 1.5 and 2.0 °C global surface temperature targets using stratospheric aerosol geoengineering, Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 579–601, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-579-2020, 2020. a
UNEP: Emissions Gap Report 2021: The Heat Is On – A World of Climate Promises Not Yet Delivered, https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/36990 (last access: 1 December 2022), 2021. a
UNFCCC: Adoption of the Paris Agreement, https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf (last access: 1 December 2022), 2015. a
van Oldenborgh, G. J., Hendon, H., Stockdale, T., L'Heureux, M., de Perez, E. C., Singh, R., and van Aalst, M.: Defining El Niño indices in a warming climate, Environ. Res. Lett., 16, 044003, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abe9ed, 2021. a
Visioni, D.: Data from: Scenarios for modeling solar radiation modification, Cornell University eCommons Repository [data set], https://doi.org/10.7298/xr82-sv86, 2022. a
Visioni, D., Pitari, G., Aquila, V., Tilmes, S., Cionni, I., Di Genova, G., and Mancini, E.: Sulfate geoengineering impact on methane transport and lifetime: results from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 11209–11226, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-11209-2017, 2017. a
Visioni, D., MacMartin, D. G., Kravitz, B., Lee, W., Simpson, I. R., and Richter, J. H.: Reduced Poleward Transport Due to Stratospheric Heating Under Stratospheric Aerosols Geoengineering, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL089470, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL089470, 2020a. a, b
Visioni, D., MacMartin, D. G., Kravitz, B., Richter, J. H., Tilmes, S., and Mills, M. J.: Seasonally Modulated Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering Alters the Climate Outcomes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL088337, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL088337, 2020b. a, b, c
Visioni, D., MacMartin, D. G., Kravitz, B., Boucher, O., Jones, A., Lurton, T., Martine, M., Mills, M. J., Nabat, P., Niemeier, U., Séférian, R., and Tilmes, S.: Identifying the sources of uncertainty in climate model simulations of solar radiation modification with the G6sulfur and G6solar Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 10039–10063, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-10039-2021, 2021. a
Visioni, D., Bednarz, E. M., Lee, W. R., Kravitz, B., Jones, A., Haywood, J. M., and MacMartin, D. G.: Climate response to off-equatorial stratospheric sulfur injections in three Earth system models – Part 1: Experimental protocols and surface changes, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 663–685, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-663-2023, 2023a. a, b, c, d, e, f
Visioni, D., Bednarz, E. M., MacMartin, D. G., Kravitz, B., and Goddard, P. B.: The Choice of Baseline Period Influences the Assessments of the Outcomes of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, Earth's Future, 11, e2023EF003851, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023EF003851, 2023b. a, b, c
Wilks, D. S.: “The Stippling Shows Statistically Significant Grid Points”: How Research Results are Routinely Overstated and Overinterpreted, and What to Do about It, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 97, 2263–2273, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00267.1, 2016. a
Zhang, Y., MacMartin, D. G., Visioni, D., Bednarz, E., and Kravitz, B.: Data from: Introducing a Comprehensive Set of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection Strategies, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7545452, 2023. a
Zhao, M., Cao, L., Bala, G., and Duan, L.: Climate Response to Latitudinal and Altitudinal Distribution of Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosols, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126, e2021JD035379, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JD035379, 2021. a
Chief editor
This study provides an intercomparison of different Stratospheric Aerosol Injection strategies. The strategy choice affects the distribution of aerosol optical depth, the injection efficiency and, crucially, the surface climate response. These results lay the foundation for future trade-off analyses and design strategy optimization.
This study provides an intercomparison of different Stratospheric Aerosol Injection strategies....
Short summary
Injecting SO2 into the lower stratosphere can temporarily reduce global mean temperature and mitigate some risks associated with climate change, but injecting it at different latitudes and seasons would have different impacts. This study introduces new stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) strategies and explores the importance of the choice of SAI strategy, demonstrating that it notably affects the distribution of aerosol cloud, injection efficiency, and various surface climate impacts.
Injecting SO2 into the lower stratosphere can temporarily reduce global mean temperature and...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint