Articles | Volume 16, issue 3
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-667-2025
© Author(s) 2025. 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-16-667-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
05 May 2025
Research article |
| 05 May 2025
| 05 May 2025
Change in negative emission burden between an overshoot versus peak-shaved stratospheric aerosol injection pathway
CECI, Université de Toulouse, CERFACS, CNRS, Toulouse, France
Benjamin M. Sanderson
Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research (CICERO), Oslo, Norway
Roland Séférian
CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Météo-France/CNRS, Toulouse, France
Laurent Terray
CECI, Université de Toulouse, CERFACS, CNRS, Toulouse, France
Related authors
Marit Sandstad, Norman Julius Steinert, Susanne Baur, and Benjamin Mark Sanderson
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1038, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1038, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In this article we present METEORv1.0.0, a climate model emulator, that can be trained on full spacially resolved and widely available climate model data to reproduce climate variables, and make predictions from unseen emission trajectories. The methodology which consists of identifying patterns associated with various timescales of impact for one or more forcers using idealised experiments and anomaly calculations. Results for precipitation and temperature show good model performance.
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.
Susanne Baur, Alexander Nauels, Zebedee Nicholls, Benjamin M. Sanderson, and Carl-Friedrich Schleussner
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 367–381, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-367-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-367-2023, 2023
Short summary
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.
Colin Jones, Isaline Bossert, Donovan P. Dennis, Hazel Jeffery, Chris D. Jones, Torben Koenigk, Sina Loriani, Benjamin Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Klaus Wyser, Shuting Yang, Manabu Abe, Sebastian Bathiany, Pascale Braconnot, Victor Brovkin, Friedrich A. Burger, Patrica Cadule, Frederic S. Castruccio, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Andrea Dittus, Jonathan F. Donges, Friederike Fröb, Thomas Frölicher, Goran Georgievski, Chuncheng Guo, Aixue Hu, Peter Lawrence, Paul Lerner, José Licón-Saláiz, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Anastasia Romanou, Elena Shevliakova, Yona Silvy, Didier Swingedouw, Jerry Tjiputra, Jeremy Walton, Andy Wiltshire, Ricarda Winkelmann, Richard Wood, Tokuta Yokohata, and Tilo Ziehn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3604, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3604, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce a new Earth system model experiment protocol to help researchers understand how Earth might respond to positive, zero, and negative carbon emissions. This protocol enables different models to be compared following similar warming and cooling rates. Researchers use the models to explore how the Earth reacts to different climate futures, including the risk of tipping points being exceeded and whether changes can be reversed. The results will support improved long-term climate policy.
Ken S. Carslaw, Leighton A. Regayre, Ulrike Proske, Andrew Gettelman, David M. H. Sexton, Yun Qian, Lauren Marshall, Oliver Wild, Marcus van Lier-Walqui, Annika Oertel, Saloua Peatier, Ben Yang, Jill S. Johnson, Sihan Li, Daniel T. McCoy, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Christina J. Williamson, Gregory S. Elsaesser, Kuniko Yamazaki, and Ben B. B. Booth
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4341, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4341, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
Short summary
A major challenge in climate science is reducing projection uncertainty despite advances in models and observational constraints. Perturbed parameter ensembles (PPEs) offer a powerful tool to explore and reduce uncertainty by revealing model weaknesses and guiding development. PPEs are now widely applied across climate systems and scales. We argue they should be prioritized alongside complexity and resolution in model resource planning.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Victor Brovkin, Rosie A. Fisher, David Hohn, Tatiana Ilyina, Chris D. Jones, Torben Koenigk, Charles Koven, Hongmei Li, David M. Lawrence, Peter Lawrence, Spencer Liddicoat, Andrew H. MacDougall, Nadine Mengis, Zebedee Nicholls, Eleanor O'Rourke, Anastasia Romanou, Marit Sandstad, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Lori T. Sentman, Isla R. Simpson, Chris Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Abigail L. S. Swann, Jerry Tjiputra, and Tilo Ziehn
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 5699–5724, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-5699-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-5699-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates how climate models warm in response to simplified carbon emissions trajectories, refining the understanding of climate reversibility and commitment. Metrics are defined for warming response to cumulative emissions and for the cessation of emissions or ramp-down to net-zero and net-negative levels. Results indicate that previous concentration-driven experiments may have overstated the Zero Emissions Commitment due to emissions rates exceeding historical levels.
Victor Brovkin, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Noel G. Brizuela, Tomohiro Hajima, Tatiana Ilyina, Chris D. Jones, Charles Koven, David Lawrence, Peter Lawrence, Hongmei Li, Spencer Liddcoat, Anastasia Romanou, Roland Séférian, Lori T. Sentman, Abigail L. S. Swann, Jerry Tjiputra, Tilo Ziehn, and Alexander J. Winkler
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3270, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3270, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Idealized experiments with Earth system models provide a basis for understanding the response of the carbon cycle to emissions. We show that most models exhibit a quasi-linear relationship between cumulative carbon uptake on land and in the ocean and hypothesize that this relationship does not depend on emission pathways. We reduce the coupled system to only one differential equation, which represents a powerful simplification of the Earth system dynamics as a function of fossil fuel emissions.
Norman J. Steinert and Benjamin M. Sanderson
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1714, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1714, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we explore how carbon emissions from thawing permafrost, known as the permafrost carbon feedback, affect two important climate metrics: how much the Earth warms per amount of carbon we emit, and how much warming continues after we stop emitting carbon. Our study tackles a major gap in how we estimate future climate change. Using simplified climate models, we find a generalizable relationship between the permafrost carbon feedback and its additional warming impact on climate.
Tomohiro Hajima, Michio Kawamiya, Akihiko Ito, Kaoru Tachiiri, Chris D. Jones, Vivek Arora, Victor Brovkin, Roland Séférian, Spencer Liddicoat, Pierre Friedlingstein, and Elena Shevliakova
Biogeosciences, 22, 1447–1473, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-1447-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-1447-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study analyzes atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global carbon budgets simulated by multiple Earth system models, using several types of simulations (CO2 concentration- and emission-driven experiments). We successfully identified problems with regard to the global carbon budget in each model. We also found urgent issues with regard to land use change CO2 emissions that should be solved in the latest generation of models.
Nikolina Mileva, Julia Pongratz, Vivek K. Arora, Akihiko Ito, Sebastiaan Luyssaert, Sonali S. McDermid, Paul A. Miller, Daniele Peano, Roland Séférian, Yanwu Zhang, and Wolfgang Buermann
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-979, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-979, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Despite forests being so important for mitigating climate change, there are still uncertainties about how much the changes in forest cover contribute to the cooling/warming of the climate. Climate models and real-world observations often disagree about the magnitude and even the direction of these changes. We constrain climate models scenarios of widespread deforestation with satellite and in-situ data and show that models still have difficulties representing the movement of heat and water.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Judith Hauck, Peter Landschützer, Corinne Le Quéré, Hongmei Li, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Almut Arneth, Vivek Arora, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Carla F. Berghoff, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp, Patricia Cadule, Katie Campbell, Matthew A. Chamberlain, Naveen Chandra, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Thomas Colligan, Jeanne Decayeux, Laique M. Djeutchouang, Xinyu Dou, Carolina Duran Rojas, Kazutaka Enyo, Wiley Evans, Amanda R. Fay, Richard A. Feely, Daniel J. Ford, Adrianna Foster, Thomas Gasser, Marion Gehlen, Thanos Gkritzalis, Giacomo Grassi, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Matthew Hefner, Jens Heinke, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Andrew R. Jacobson, Atul K. Jain, Tereza Jarníková, Annika Jersild, Fei Jiang, Zhe Jin, Etsushi Kato, Ralph F. Keeling, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Xin Lan, Siv K. Lauvset, Nathalie Lefèvre, Zhu Liu, Junjie Liu, Lei Ma, Shamil Maksyutov, Gregg Marland, Nicolas Mayot, Patrick C. McGuire, Nicolas Metzl, Natalie M. Monacci, Eric J. Morgan, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Craig Neill, Yosuke Niwa, Tobias Nützel, Lea Olivier, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Denis Pierrot, Zhangcai Qin, Laure Resplandy, Alizée Roobaert, Thais M. Rosan, Christian Rödenbeck, Jörg Schwinger, T. Luke Smallman, Stephen M. Smith, Reinel Sospedra-Alfonso, Tobias Steinhoff, Qing Sun, Adrienne J. Sutton, Roland Séférian, Shintaro Takao, Hiroaki Tatebe, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Olivier Torres, Etienne Tourigny, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Francesco Tubiello, Guido van der Werf, Rik Wanninkhof, Xuhui Wang, Dongxu Yang, Xiaojuan Yang, Zhen Yu, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, Ning Zeng, and Jiye Zeng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 965–1039, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-965-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-965-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2024 describes the methodology, main results, and datasets used to quantify the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land ecosystems, and the ocean over the historical period (1750–2024). These living datasets are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Marit Sandstad, Norman Julius Steinert, Susanne Baur, and Benjamin Mark Sanderson
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1038, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1038, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In this article we present METEORv1.0.0, a climate model emulator, that can be trained on full spacially resolved and widely available climate model data to reproduce climate variables, and make predictions from unseen emission trajectories. The methodology which consists of identifying patterns associated with various timescales of impact for one or more forcers using idealised experiments and anomaly calculations. Results for precipitation and temperature show good model performance.
Detlef van Vuuren, Brian O'Neill, Claudia Tebaldi, Louise Chini, Pierre Friedlingstein, Tomoko Hasegawa, Keywan Riahi, Benjamin Sanderson, Bala Govindasamy, Nico Bauer, Veronika Eyring, Cheikh Fall, Katja Frieler, Matthew Gidden, Laila Gohar, Andrew Jones, Andrew King, Reto Knutti, Elmar Kriegler, Peter Lawrence, Chris Lennard, Jason Lowe, Camila Mathison, Shahbaz Mehmood, Luciana Prado, Qiang Zhang, Steven Rose, Alexander Ruane, Carl-Friederich Schleussner, Roland Seferian, Jana Sillmann, Chris Smith, Anna Sörensson, Swapna Panickal, Kaoru Tachiiri, Naomi Vaughan, Saritha Vishwanathan, Tokuta Yokohata, and Tilo Ziehn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3765, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3765, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a set of six plausible 21st century emission scenarios, and their multi-century extensions, that will be used by the international community of climate modeling centers to produce the next generation of climate projections. These projections will support climate, impact and mitigation researchers, provide information to practitioners to address future risks from climate change, and contribute to policymakers’ considerations of the trade-offs among various levels of mitigation.
John Patrick Dunne, Helene T. Hewitt, Julie Arblaster, Frédéric Bonou, Olivier Boucher, Tereza Cavazos, Paul J. Durack, Birgit Hassler, Martin Juckes, Tomoki Miyakawa, Matthew Mizielinski, Vaishali Naik, Zebedee Nicholls, Eleanor O’Rourke, Robert Pincus, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Isla R. Simpson, and Karl E. Taylor
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3874, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3874, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This manuscript provides the motivation and experimental design for the seventh phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP7) to coordinate community based efforts to answer key and timely climate science questions and facilitate delivery of relevant multi-model simulations for: prediction and projection, characterization, attribution and process understanding; vulnerability, impacts and adaptations analysis; national and international climate assessments; and society at large.
Fang Li, Xiang Song, Sandy P. Harrison, Jennifer R. Marlon, Zhongda Lin, L. Ruby Leung, Jörg Schwinger, Virginie Marécal, Shiyu Wang, Daniel S. Ward, Xiao Dong, Hanna Lee, Lars Nieradzik, Sam S. Rabin, and Roland Séférian
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8751–8771, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8751-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8751-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study provides the first comprehensive assessment of historical fire simulations from 19 Earth system models in phase 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). Most models reproduce global totals, spatial patterns, seasonality, and regional historical changes well but fail to simulate the recent decline in global burned area and underestimate the fire response to climate variability. CMIP6 simulations address three critical issues of phase-5 models.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
Ali Asaadi, Jörg Schwinger, Hanna Lee, Jerry Tjiputra, Vivek Arora, Roland Séférian, Spencer Liddicoat, Tomohiro Hajima, Yeray Santana-Falcón, and Chris D. Jones
Biogeosciences, 21, 411–435, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-411-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-411-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Carbon cycle feedback metrics are employed to assess phases of positive and negative CO2 emissions. When emissions become negative, we find that the model disagreement in feedback metrics increases more strongly than expected from the assumption that the uncertainties accumulate linearly with time. The geographical patterns of such metrics over land highlight that differences in response between tropical/subtropical and temperate/boreal ecosystems are a major source of model disagreement.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Dorothee C. E. Bakker, Judith Hauck, Peter Landschützer, Corinne Le Quéré, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Peter Anthoni, Leticia Barbero, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Bertrand Decharme, Laurent Bopp, Ida Bagus Mandhara Brasika, Patricia Cadule, Matthew A. Chamberlain, Naveen Chandra, Thi-Tuyet-Trang Chau, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Margot Cronin, Xinyu Dou, Kazutaka Enyo, Wiley Evans, Stefanie Falk, Richard A. Feely, Liang Feng, Daniel J. Ford, Thomas Gasser, Josefine Ghattas, Thanos Gkritzalis, Giacomo Grassi, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Matthew Hefner, Jens Heinke, Richard A. Houghton, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Andrew R. Jacobson, Atul Jain, Tereza Jarníková, Annika Jersild, Fei Jiang, Zhe Jin, Fortunat Joos, Etsushi Kato, Ralph F. Keeling, Daniel Kennedy, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Arne Körtzinger, Xin Lan, Nathalie Lefèvre, Hongmei Li, Junjie Liu, Zhiqiang Liu, Lei Ma, Greg Marland, Nicolas Mayot, Patrick C. McGuire, Galen A. McKinley, Gesa Meyer, Eric J. Morgan, David R. Munro, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Kevin M. O'Brien, Are Olsen, Abdirahman M. Omar, Tsuneo Ono, Melf Paulsen, Denis Pierrot, Katie Pocock, Benjamin Poulter, Carter M. Powis, Gregor Rehder, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Thais M. Rosan, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, T. Luke Smallman, Stephen M. Smith, Reinel Sospedra-Alfonso, Qing Sun, Adrienne J. Sutton, Colm Sweeney, Shintaro Takao, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Francesco Tubiello, Guido R. van der Werf, Erik van Ooijen, Rik Wanninkhof, Michio Watanabe, Cathy Wimart-Rousseau, Dongxu Yang, Xiaojuan Yang, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, Jiye Zeng, and Bo Zheng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5301–5369, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2023 describes the methodology, main results, and data sets used to quantify the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land ecosystems, and the ocean over the historical period (1750–2023). These living datasets are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Christoph Heinze, Thorsten Blenckner, Peter Brown, Friederike Fröb, Anne Morée, Adrian L. New, Cara Nissen, Stefanie Rynders, Isabel Seguro, Yevgeny Aksenov, Yuri Artioli, Timothée Bourgeois, Friedrich Burger, Jonathan Buzan, B. B. Cael, Veli Çağlar Yumruktepe, Melissa Chierici, Christopher Danek, Ulf Dieckmann, Agneta Fransson, Thomas Frölicher, Giovanni Galli, Marion Gehlen, Aridane G. González, Melchor Gonzalez-Davila, Nicolas Gruber, Örjan Gustafsson, Judith Hauck, Mikko Heino, Stephanie Henson, Jenny Hieronymus, I. Emma Huertas, Fatma Jebri, Aurich Jeltsch-Thömmes, Fortunat Joos, Jaideep Joshi, Stephen Kelly, Nandini Menon, Precious Mongwe, Laurent Oziel, Sólveig Ólafsdottir, Julien Palmieri, Fiz F. Pérez, Rajamohanan Pillai Ranith, Juliano Ramanantsoa, Tilla Roy, Dagmara Rusiecka, J. Magdalena Santana Casiano, Yeray Santana-Falcón, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Miriam Seifert, Anna Shchiptsova, Bablu Sinha, Christopher Somes, Reiner Steinfeldt, Dandan Tao, Jerry Tjiputra, Adam Ulfsbo, Christoph Völker, Tsuyoshi Wakamatsu, and Ying Ye
Biogeosciences Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2023-182, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2023-182, 2023
Revised manuscript not accepted
Short summary
Short summary
For assessing the consequences of human-induced climate change for the marine realm, it is necessary to not only look at gradual changes but also at abrupt changes of environmental conditions. We summarise abrupt changes in ocean warming, acidification, and oxygen concentration as the key environmental factors for ecosystems. Taking these abrupt changes into account requires greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced to a larger extent than previously thought to limit respective damage.
Steve Delhaye, Rym Msadek, Thierry Fichefet, François Massonnet, and Laurent Terray
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1748, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1748, 2023
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
The climate impact of Arctic sea ice loss may depend on the region of sea ice loss and the methodology used to study this impact. This study uses two approaches across seven climate models to investigate the winter atmospheric circulation response to regional sea ice loss. Our findings indicate a consistent atmospheric circulation response to pan-Arctic sea ice loss in most models and across both approaches. In contrast, more uncertainty emerges in the responses linked to regional sea ice loss.
Sarah Berthet, Julien Jouanno, Roland Séférian, Marion Gehlen, and William Llovel
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 399–412, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-399-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-399-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Phytoplankton absorbs the solar radiation entering the ocean surface and contributes to keeping the associated energy in surface waters. This natural effect is either not represented in the ocean component of climate models or its representation is simplified. An incomplete representation of this biophysical interaction affects the way climate models simulate ocean warming, which leads to uncertainties in projections of oceanic emissions of an important greenhouse gas (nitrous oxide).
Alban Planchat, Lester Kwiatkowski, Laurent Bopp, Olivier Torres, James R. Christian, Momme Butenschön, Tomas Lovato, Roland Séférian, Matthew A. Chamberlain, Olivier Aumont, Michio Watanabe, Akitomo Yamamoto, Andrew Yool, Tatiana Ilyina, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Kristen M. Krumhardt, Jörg Schwinger, Jerry Tjiputra, John P. Dunne, and Charles Stock
Biogeosciences, 20, 1195–1257, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-1195-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-1195-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Ocean alkalinity is critical to the uptake of atmospheric carbon and acidification in surface waters. We review the representation of alkalinity and the associated calcium carbonate cycle in Earth system models. While many parameterizations remain present in the latest generation of models, there is a general improvement in the simulated alkalinity distribution. This improvement is related to an increase in the export of biotic calcium carbonate, which closer resembles observations.
Susanne Baur, Alexander Nauels, Zebedee Nicholls, Benjamin M. Sanderson, and Carl-Friedrich Schleussner
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 367–381, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-367-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-367-2023, 2023
Short summary
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.
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.
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.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Luke Gregor, Judith Hauck, Corinne Le Quéré, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Clemens Schwingshackl, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Ramdane Alkama, Almut Arneth, Vivek K. Arora, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Margot Cronin, Wiley Evans, Stefanie Falk, Richard A. Feely, Thomas Gasser, Marion Gehlen, Thanos Gkritzalis, Lucas Gloege, Giacomo Grassi, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Matthew Hefner, Richard A. Houghton, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Atul K. Jain, Annika Jersild, Koji Kadono, Etsushi Kato, Daniel Kennedy, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Peter Landschützer, Nathalie Lefèvre, Keith Lindsay, Junjie Liu, Zhu Liu, Gregg Marland, Nicolas Mayot, Matthew J. McGrath, Nicolas Metzl, Natalie M. Monacci, David R. Munro, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Kevin O'Brien, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Naiqing Pan, Denis Pierrot, Katie Pocock, Benjamin Poulter, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Carmen Rodriguez, Thais M. Rosan, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Jamie D. Shutler, Ingunn Skjelvan, Tobias Steinhoff, Qing Sun, Adrienne J. Sutton, Colm Sweeney, Shintaro Takao, Toste Tanhua, Pieter P. Tans, Xiangjun Tian, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Francesco Tubiello, Guido R. van der Werf, Anthony P. Walker, Rik Wanninkhof, Chris Whitehead, Anna Willstrand Wranne, Rebecca Wright, Wenping Yuan, Chao Yue, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, Jiye Zeng, and Bo Zheng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 4811–4900, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2022 describes the datasets and methodology used to quantify the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and their partitioning among the atmosphere, the land ecosystems, and the ocean. These living datasets are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Aurélien Ribes, Julien Boé, Saïd Qasmi, Brigitte Dubuisson, Hervé Douville, and Laurent Terray
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1397–1415, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1397-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1397-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We use a novel statistical method to combine climate simulations and observations, and we deliver an updated assessment of past and future warming over France. As a key result, we find that the warming over that region was underestimated in previous multi-model ensembles by up to 50 %. We also assess the contribution of greenhouse gases, aerosols, and other factors to the observed warming, as well as the impact on the seasonal temperature cycle, and we discuss implications for climate services.
Laurent Bopp, Olivier Aumont, Lester Kwiatkowski, Corentin Clerc, Léonard Dupont, Christian Ethé, Thomas Gorgues, Roland Séférian, and Alessandro Tagliabue
Biogeosciences, 19, 4267–4285, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-4267-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-4267-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The impact of anthropogenic climate change on the biological production of phytoplankton in the ocean is a cause for concern because its evolution could affect the response of marine ecosystems to climate change. Here, we identify biological N fixation and its response to future climate change as a key process in shaping the future evolution of marine phytoplankton production. Our results show that further study of how this nitrogen fixation responds to environmental change is essential.
Pradeebane Vaittinada Ayar, Laurent Bopp, Jim R. Christian, Tatiana Ilyina, John P. Krasting, Roland Séférian, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Michio Watanabe, Andrew Yool, and Jerry Tjiputra
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1097–1118, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1097-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1097-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The El Niño–Southern Oscillation is the main driver for the natural variability of global atmospheric CO2. It modulates the CO2 fluxes in the tropical Pacific with anomalous CO2 influx during El Niño and outflux during La Niña. This relationship is projected to reverse by half of Earth system models studied here under the business-as-usual scenario. This study shows models that simulate a positive bias in surface carbonate concentrations simulate a shift in the ENSO–CO2 flux relationship.
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.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Matthew W. Jones, Michael O'Sullivan, Robbie M. Andrew, Dorothee C. E. Bakker, Judith Hauck, Corinne Le Quéré, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Rob B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Peter Anthoni, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Laurent Bopp, Thi Tuyet Trang Chau, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Margot Cronin, Kim I. Currie, Bertrand Decharme, Laique M. Djeutchouang, Xinyu Dou, Wiley Evans, Richard A. Feely, Liang Feng, Thomas Gasser, Dennis Gilfillan, Thanos Gkritzalis, Giacomo Grassi, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Richard A. Houghton, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Atul Jain, Steve D. Jones, Etsushi Kato, Daniel Kennedy, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Arne Körtzinger, Peter Landschützer, Siv K. Lauvset, Nathalie Lefèvre, Sebastian Lienert, Junjie Liu, Gregg Marland, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, David R. Munro, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Tsuneo Ono, Denis Pierrot, Benjamin Poulter, Gregor Rehder, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Thais M. Rosan, Jörg Schwinger, Clemens Schwingshackl, Roland Séférian, Adrienne J. Sutton, Colm Sweeney, Toste Tanhua, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Francesco Tubiello, Guido R. van der Werf, Nicolas Vuichard, Chisato Wada, Rik Wanninkhof, Andrew J. Watson, David Willis, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Wenping Yuan, Chao Yue, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, and Jiye Zeng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 1917–2005, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1917-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1917-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2021 describes the data sets and methodology used to quantify the emissions of carbon dioxide and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land, and ocean. These living data are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Irina Melnikova, Olivier Boucher, Patricia Cadule, Katsumasa Tanaka, Thomas Gasser, Tomohiro Hajima, Yann Quilcaille, Hideo Shiogama, Roland Séférian, Kaoru Tachiiri, Nicolas Vuichard, Tokuta Yokohata, and Philippe Ciais
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 779–794, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-779-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-779-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The deployment of bioenergy crops for capturing carbon from the atmosphere facilitates global warming mitigation via generating negative CO2 emissions. Here, we explored the consequences of large-scale energy crops deployment on the land carbon cycle. The land-use change for energy crops leads to carbon emissions and loss of future potential increase in carbon uptake by natural ecosystems. This impact should be taken into account by the modeling teams and accounted for in mitigation policies.
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.
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.
Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Louis-Philippe Caron, Saskia Loosveldt Tomas, Javier Vegas-Regidor, Oliver Gutjahr, Marie-Pierre Moine, Dian Putrasahan, Christopher D. Roberts, Malcolm J. Roberts, Retish Senan, Laurent Terray, Etienne Tourigny, and Pier Luigi Vidale
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 269–289, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-269-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-269-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Climate models do not fully reproduce observations: they show differences (biases) in regional temperature, precipitation, or cloud cover. Reducing model biases is important to increase our confidence in their ability to reproduce present and future climate changes. Model realism is set by its resolution: the finer it is, the more physical processes and interactions it can resolve. We here show that increasing resolution of up to ~ 25 km can help reduce model biases but not remove them entirely.
Laurent Terray
Weather Clim. Dynam., 2, 971–989, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-971-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-971-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Attribution of the causes of extreme temperature events has become active research due to the wide-ranging impacts of recent heat waves and cold spells. Here we show that a purely observational approach based on atmospheric circulation analogues and resampling provides a robust quantification of the various dynamic and thermodynamic contributions to specific extreme temperature events. The approach can easily be integrated in the toolbox of any real-time extreme event attribution system.
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.
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.
Xavier Fettweis, Stefan Hofer, Roland Séférian, Charles Amory, Alison Delhasse, Sébastien Doutreloup, Christoph Kittel, Charlotte Lang, Joris Van Bever, Florent Veillon, and Peter Irvine
The Cryosphere, 15, 3013–3019, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-3013-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-3013-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Without any reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions, the Greenland ice sheet surface mass loss can be brought in line with a medium-mitigation emissions scenario by reducing the solar downward flux at the top of the atmosphere by 1.5 %. In addition to reducing global warming, these solar geoengineering measures also dampen the well-known positive melt–albedo feedback over the ice sheet by 6 %. However, only stronger reductions in solar radiation could maintain a stable ice sheet in 2100.
Josué Bock, Martine Michou, Pierre Nabat, Manabu Abe, Jane P. Mulcahy, Dirk J. L. Olivié, Jörg Schwinger, Parvadha Suntharalingam, Jerry Tjiputra, Marco van Hulten, Michio Watanabe, Andrew Yool, and Roland Séférian
Biogeosciences, 18, 3823–3860, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-3823-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-3823-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
In this study we analyse surface ocean dimethylsulfide (DMS) concentration and flux to the atmosphere from four CMIP6 Earth system models over the historical and ssp585 simulations.
Our analysis of contemporary (1980–2009) climatologies shows that models better reproduce observations in mid to high latitudes. The models disagree on the sign of the trend of the global DMS flux from 1980 onwards. The models agree on a positive trend of DMS over polar latitudes following sea-ice retreat dynamics.
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.
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.
Gillian Thornhill, William Collins, Dirk Olivié, Ragnhild B. Skeie, Alex Archibald, Susanne Bauer, Ramiro Checa-Garcia, Stephanie Fiedler, Gerd Folberth, Ada Gjermundsen, Larry Horowitz, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Martine Michou, Jane Mulcahy, Pierre Nabat, Vaishali Naik, Fiona M. O'Connor, Fabien Paulot, Michael Schulz, Catherine E. Scott, Roland Séférian, Chris Smith, Toshihiko Takemura, Simone Tilmes, Kostas Tsigaridis, and James Weber
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 1105–1126, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1105-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1105-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We find that increased temperatures affect aerosols and reactive gases by changing natural emissions and their rates of removal from the atmosphere. Changing the composition of these species in the atmosphere affects the radiative budget of the climate system and therefore amplifies or dampens the climate response of climate models of the Earth system. This study found that the largest effect is a dampening of climate change as warmer temperatures increase the emissions of cooling aerosols.
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.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Judith Hauck, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Stephen Sitch, Corinne Le Quéré, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone Alin, Luiz E. O. C. Aragão, Almut Arneth, Vivek Arora, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Alice Benoit-Cattin, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp, Selma Bultan, Naveen Chandra, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Wiley Evans, Liesbeth Florentie, Piers M. Forster, Thomas Gasser, Marion Gehlen, Dennis Gilfillan, Thanos Gkritzalis, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Ian Harris, Kerstin Hartung, Vanessa Haverd, Richard A. Houghton, Tatiana Ilyina, Atul K. Jain, Emilie Joetzjer, Koji Kadono, Etsushi Kato, Vassilis Kitidis, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Peter Landschützer, Nathalie Lefèvre, Andrew Lenton, Sebastian Lienert, Zhu Liu, Danica Lombardozzi, Gregg Marland, Nicolas Metzl, David R. Munro, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Kevin O'Brien, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Denis Pierrot, Benjamin Poulter, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Ingunn Skjelvan, Adam J. P. Smith, Adrienne J. Sutton, Toste Tanhua, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Guido van der Werf, Nicolas Vuichard, Anthony P. Walker, Rik Wanninkhof, Andrew J. Watson, David Willis, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, and Sönke Zaehle
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 3269–3340, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2020 describes the data sets and methodology used to quantify the emissions of carbon dioxide and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land, and ocean. These living data are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Lena R. Boysen, Victor Brovkin, Julia Pongratz, David M. Lawrence, Peter Lawrence, Nicolas Vuichard, Philippe Peylin, Spencer Liddicoat, Tomohiro Hajima, Yanwu Zhang, Matthias Rocher, Christine Delire, Roland Séférian, Vivek K. Arora, Lars Nieradzik, Peter Anthoni, Wim Thiery, Marysa M. Laguë, Deborah Lawrence, and Min-Hui Lo
Biogeosciences, 17, 5615–5638, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-5615-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-5615-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We find a biogeophysically induced global cooling with strong carbon losses in a 20 million square kilometre idealized deforestation experiment performed by nine CMIP6 Earth system models. It takes many decades for the temperature signal to emerge, with non-local effects playing an important role. Despite a consistent experimental setup, models diverge substantially in their climate responses. This study offers unprecedented insights for understanding land use change effects in CMIP6 models.
Cited articles
Ballantyne, A. P., Andres, R., Houghton, R., Stocker, B. D., Wanninkhof, R., Anderegg, W., Cooper, L. A., DeGrandpre, M., Tans, P. P., Miller, J. B., Alden, C., and White, J. W. C.: Audit of the global carbon budget: estimate errors and their impact on uptake uncertainty, Biogeosciences, 12, 2565–2584, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-2565-2015, 2015.
Baur, S.: Code for journal article Change in negative emission burden between an overshoot versus peak-shaved Stratospheric Aerosol Injections pathway (0.1.0), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14753918, 2025a.
Baur, S.: Data for journal article Change in negative emission burden between an overshoot versus peak-shaved Stratospheric Aerosol Injections pathway, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15303675, 2025b.
Baur, S., Nauels, A., Nicholls, Z., Sanderson, B. M., and Schleussner, C.-F.: The deployment length of solar radiation modification: an interplay of mitigation, net-negative emissions and climate uncertainty, Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 367–381, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-367-2023, 2023.
Baur, S., Sanderson, B. M., Séférian, R., and Terray, L.: Change in Wind Renewable Energy Potential under Stratospheric Aerosol Injections, https://doi.org/10.22541/essoar.171052547.77190222/v1, 2024a.
Baur, S., Sanderson, B. M., Séférian, R., and Terray, L.: Solar radiation modification challenges decarbonization with renewable solar energy, Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 307–322, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-307-2024, 2024b.
Beerling, D. J., Kantzas, E. P., Lomas, M. R., Wade, P., Eufrasio, R. M., Renforth, P., Sarkar, B., Andrews, M. G., James, R. H., Pearce, C. R., Mercure, J. F., Pollitt, H., Holden, P. B., Edwards, N. R., Khanna, M., Koh, L., Quegan, S., Pidgeon, N. F., Janssens, I. A., Hansen, J., and Banwart, S. A.: Potential for large-scale CO2 removal via enhanced rock weathering with croplands, Nature, 583, 242–248, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2448-9, 2020.
Byers, E., Krey, V., Kriegler, E., Riahi, K., Schaeffer, R., Kikstra, J., Lamboll, R., Nicholls, Z., Sandstad, M., Smith, C., van der Wijst, K., Al-Khourdajie, A., Lecocq, F., Portugal Pereira, J., Saheb, Y., Stromman, 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. B., Werning, M., Calvin, K., Forster, P., Guivarch, C., Hasegawa, T., Meinshausen, M., Peters, G. P., Rogelj, J., Samset, B. H., Steinberger, J., Tavoni, M., and Van Vuuren, D. P.: AR6 Scenarios Database, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7197970, 2022.
Chen, Y., Ji, D., Zhang, Q., Moore, J. C., Boucher, O., Jones, A., Lurton, T., Mills, M. J., Niemeier, U., Séférian, R., and Tilmes, S.: Northern-high-latitude permafrost and terrestrial carbon response to two solar geoengineering scenarios, Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 55–79, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-55-2023, 2023.
Clark, B., Xia, L., Robock, A., Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., Visioni, D., and Rabin, S. S.: Optimal climate intervention scenarios for crop production vary by nation, Nat. Food, 4, 902–911, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00853-3, 2023.
Climate Overshoot Commission: The Climate Overshoot Report: Reducing the Risks of Climate Overshoot, Paris Peace Forum, Paris, Climate Overshoot Commission, 2023.
Decharme, B., Delire, C., Minvielle, M., Colin, J., Vergnes, J., Alias, A., Saint-Martin, D., Séférian, R., Sénési, S., and Voldoire, A.: Recent Changes in the ISBA-CTRIP Land Surface System for Use in the CNRM-CM6 Climate Model and in Global Off-Line Hydrological Applications, J. Adv. Model Earth Syst., 11, 1207–1252, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001545, 2019.
Delire, C., Séférian, R., Decharme, B., Alkama, R., Calvet, J., Carrer, D., Gibelin, A., Joetzjer, E., Morel, X., Rocher, M., and Tzanos, D.: The Global Land Carbon Cycle Simulated With ISBA-CTRIP: Improvements Over the Last Decade, J. Adv. Model Earth Syst., 12, e2019MS001886, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001886, 2020.
Dowling, D. A. and Venki, R.: Greenhouse Gas Removal, Report by the UK Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering, Royal Society, 1–136, ISBN: 978-1-78252-349-9, 2018.
Duan, L., Cao, L., Bala, G., and Caldeira, K.: A Model-Based Investigation of Terrestrial Plant Carbon Uptake Response to Four Radiation Modification Approaches, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 125, 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD031883, 2020.
Egbebiyi, T. S., Lennard, C., Quagraine, K., Odoulami, R. C., Pinto, I., Abiodun, B. J., Wolski, P., and Tilmes, S.: Potential Impact of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection on Horticulture Suitability in Africa?, EGU General Assembly 2024, Vienna, Austria, 14–19 Apr 2024, EGU24-918, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu24-918, 2024.
Eliseev, A. V.: Climate change mitigation via sulfate injection to the stratosphere: Impact on the global carbon cycle and terrestrial biosphere, Atmo. Ocean Opt., 25, 405–413, 2012.
Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1937–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, 2016.
Fan, Y.: Unequal effects of climate intervention on agriculture, Nat. Food, 4, 835–836, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-023-00861-3, 2023.
Fan, Y., Tjiputra, J., Muri, H., Lombardozzi, D., Park, C.-E., Wu, S., and Keith, D.: Solar geoengineering can alleviate climate change pressures on crop yields, Nat. Food, 2, 373–381, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00278-w, 2021.
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.
Glienke, S., Irvine, P. J., and Lawrence, M. G.: The impact of geoengineering on vegetation in experiment G1 of the GeoMIP, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 120, 10196-10213, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024202, 2015.
Govindasamy, B., Thompson, S., Duffy, P. B., Caldeira, K., and Delire, C.: Impact of geoengineering schemes on the terrestrial biosphere, Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, 18-1–18-4, https://doi.org/10.1029/2002gl015911, 2002.
Gu, L., Baldocchi, D., Verma, S. B., Black, T. A., Vesala, T., Falge, E. M., and Dowty, P. R.: Advantages of diffuse radiation for terrestrial ecosystem productivity, J. Geophys. Res., 107, 4050, https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JD001242, 2002.
Jin, X., Cao, L., and Zhang, J.: Effects of solar radiation modification on the ocean carbon cycle: An earth system modeling study, Atmos. Ocean. Sc. Lett., 15, 100187, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aosl.2022.100187, 2022.
Jin, X.-Y. and Cao, L.: Comparison of the carbon cycle and climate response to artificial ocean alkalinization and solar radiation modification, Adv. Clim. Change Res., 14, 322–334, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accre.2023.03.002, 2023.
Jones, A., Haywood, J. M., Alterskjær, K., Boucher, O., Cole, J. N. S., Curry, C. L., Irvine, P. J., Ji, D., Kravitz, B., Egill Kristjánsson, J., Moore, J. C., Niemeier, U., Robock, A., Schmidt, H., Singh, B., Tilmes, S., Watanabe, S., and Yoon, J. H.: The impact of abrupt suspension of solar radiation management (termination effect) in experiment G2 of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP), J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 9743–9752, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50762, 2013.
Jones, A., Haywood, J. M., Scaife, A. A., Boucher, O., Henry, M., Kravitz, B., Lurton, T., Nabat, P., Niemeier, U., Séférian, R., Tilmes, S., and Visioni, D.: The impact of stratospheric aerosol intervention on the North Atlantic and Quasi-Biennial Oscillations in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) G6sulfur experiment, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 2999–3016, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2999-2022, 2022.
Kalidindi, S., Bala, G., Modak, A., and Caldeira, K.: Modeling of solar radiation management: a comparison of simulations using reduced solar constant and stratospheric sulphate aerosols, Clim. Dynam., 44, 2909–2925, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-014-2240-3, 2015.
Keith, D. W., Wagner, G., and Zabel, C. L.: Solar geoengineering reduces atmospheric carbon burden, Nat. Clim. Change, 7, 617–619, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3376, 2017.
Koven, C. D., Arora, V. K., Cadule, P., Fisher, R. A., Jones, C. D., Lawrence, D. M., Lewis, J., Lindsay, K., Mathesius, S., Meinshausen, M., Mills, M., Nicholls, Z., Sanderson, B. M., Séférian, R., Swart, N. C., Wieder, W. R., and Zickfeld, K.: Multi-century dynamics of the climate and carbon cycle under both high and net negative emissions scenarios, Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 885–909, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-885-2022, 2022.
Kravitz, B., Caldeira, K., Boucher, O., Robock, A., Rasch, P. J., Alterskjær, K., Karam, D. B., Cole, J. N. S., Curry, C. L., Haywood, J. M., Irvine, P. J., Ji, D., Jones, A., Kristjánsson, J. E., Lunt, D. J., Moore, J. C., Niemeier, U., Schmidt, H., Schulz, M., Singh, B., Tilmes, S., Watanabe, S., Yang, S., and Yoon, J. H.: Climate model response from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP), J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 8320–8332, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50646, 2013.
Kravitz, B., Robock, A., Tilmes, S., Boucher, O., English, J. M., Irvine, P. J., Jones, A., Lawrence, M. G., MacCracken, M., Muri, H., Moore, J. C., Niemeier, U., Phipps, S. J., Sillmann, J., Storelvmo, T., Wang, H., and Watanabe, S.: The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (GeoMIP6): Simulation design and preliminary results, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 3379–3392, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3379-2015, 2015.
Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., Mills, M. J., Cheng, W., Dagon, K., Glanville, A. S., Lamarque, J., Simpson, I. R., Tribbia, J., and Vitt, F.: Comparing Surface and Stratospheric Impacts of Geoengineering With Different SO 2 Injection Strategies, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 7900–7918, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD030329, 2019.
Kwiatkowski, L., Torres, O., Bopp, L., Aumont, O., Chamberlain, M., Christian, J. R., Dunne, J. P., Gehlen, M., Ilyina, T., John, J. G., Lenton, A., Li, H., Lovenduski, N. S., Orr, J. C., Palmieri, J., Santana-Falcón, Y., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Stock, C. A., Tagliabue, A., Takano, Y., Tjiputra, J., Toyama, K., Tsujino, H., Watanabe, M., Yamamoto, A., Yool, A., and Ziehn, T.: Twenty-first century ocean warming, acidification, deoxygenation, and upper-ocean nutrient and primary production decline from CMIP6 model projections, Biogeosciences, 17, 3439–3470, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-3439-2020, 2020.
Lauvset, S. K., Tjiputra, J., and Muri, H.: Climate engineering and the ocean: effects on biogeochemistry and primary production, Biogeosciences, 14, 5675–5691, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-5675-2017, 2017.
Lee, H., Muri, H., Ekici, A., Tjiputra, J., and Schwinger, J.: The response of terrestrial ecosystem carbon cycling under different aerosol-based radiation management geoengineering, Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 313–326, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-313-2021, 2021.
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, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 553–672, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.006, 2021.
Liddicoat, S. K., Wiltshire, A. J., Jones, C. D., Arora, V. K., Brovkin, V., Cadule, P., Hajima, T., Lawrence, D. M., Pongratz, J., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Tjiputra, J. F., and Ziehn, T.: Compatible Fossil Fuel CO2 Emissions in the CMIP6 Earth System Models' Historical and Shared Socioeconomic Pathway Experiments of the Twenty-First Century, J. Clim., 34, 2853–2875, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0991.1, 2021.
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. Roy. Soc. A, 376, 20160454, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0454, 2018.
Mathiot, P., Jenkins, A., Harris, C., and Madec, G.: Explicit representation and parametrised impacts of under ice shelf seas in the z* coordinate ocean model NEMO 3.6, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 2849–2874, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2849-2017, 2017.
Muri, H., Niemeier, U., and Kristjánsson, J. E.: Tropical rainforest response to marine sky brightening climate engineering, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 2951–2960, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063363, 2015.
Muri, H., Tjiputra, J., Otterå, O. H., Adakudlu, M., Lauvset, S. K., Grini, A., Schulz, M., Niemeier, U., and Kristjánsson, J. E.: Climate response to aerosol geoengineering: A multimethod comparison, J. Clim., 31, 6319–6340, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0620.1, 2018.
NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine): Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., https://doi.org/10.17226/25762, 2021.
O'Neill, B. C., Tebaldi, C., Van Vuuren, D. P., Eyring, V., Friedlingstein, P., Hurtt, G., Knutti, R., Kriegler, E., Lamarque, J.-F., Lowe, J., Meehl, G. A., Moss, R., Riahi, K., and Sanderson, B. M.: The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3461–3482, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3461-2016, 2016.
Plazzotta, M., Séférian, R., and Douville, H.: Impact of Solar Radiation Modification on Allowable CO2 Emissions: What Can We Learn From Multimodel Simulations?, Earth's Future, 7, 664–676, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EF001165, 2019.
Pongratz, J., Lobell, D. B., and Caldeira, K.: Crop yields in a geoengineered climate, Nat. Clim. Change, 2, 101–105, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1373, 2012.
Proctor, J.: Atmospheric opacity has a nonlinear effect on global crop yields, Nat. Food, 2, 166–173, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00240-w, 2021.
Proctor, J., Hsiang, S., Burney, J., Burke, M., and Schlenker, W.: Estimating global agricultural effects of geoengineering using volcanic eruptions, Nature, 560, 480–483, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0417-3, 2018.
Rap, A., Spracklen, D. V., Mercado, L., Reddington, C. L., Haywood, J. M., Ellis, R. J., Phillips, O. L., Artaxo, P., Bonal, D., Restrepo Coupe, N., and Butt, N.: Fires increase Amazon forest productivity through increases in diffuse radiation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 4654–4662, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063719, 2015.
Sanderson, B. M., Booth, B. B. B., Dunne, J., Eyring, V., Fisher, R. A., Friedlingstein, P., Gidden, M. J., Hajima, T., Jones, C. D., Jones, C., King, A., Koven, C. D., Lawrence, D. M., Lowe, J., Mengis, N., Peters, G. P., Rogelj, J., Smith, C., Snyder, A. C., Simpson, I. R., Swann, A. L. S., Tebaldi, C., Ilyina, T., Schleussner, C.-F., Seferian, R., Samset, B. H., van Vuuren, D., and Zaehle, S.: The need for carbon emissions-driven climate projections in CMIP7, EGUsphere [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2127, 2023.
Séférian, R., Nabat, P., Michou, M., Saint-Martin, D., Voldoire, A., Colin, J., Decharme, B., Delire, C., Berthet, S., Chevallier, M., Sénési, S., Franchisteguy, L., Vial, J., Mallet, M., Joetzjer, E., Geoffroy, O., Guérémy, J.-F., Moine, M.-P., Msadek, R., Ribes, A., Rocher, M., Roehrig, R., Salas-y-Mélia, D., Sanchez, E., Terray, L., Valcke, S., Waldman, R., Aumont, O., Bopp, L., Deshayes, J., Éthé, C., and Madec, G.: Evaluation of CNRM Earth System Model, CNRM-ESM2-1: Role of Earth System Processes in Present-Day and Future Climate, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 4182–4227, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001791, 2019.
Smith, S., Geden, O., Nemet, G., Gidden, M., Lamb, W., Powis, C., Bellamy, R., Callaghan, M., Cowie, A., Cox, E., Fuss, S., Gasser, T., Grassi, G., Greene, J., Lueck, S., Mohan, A., Müller-Hansen, F., Peters, G., Pratama, Y., Repke, T., Riahi, K., Schenuit, F., Steinhauser, J., Strefler, J., Valenzuela, J., and Minx, J.: State of Carbon Dioxide Removal – 1st Edition, OSFHome, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W3B4Z, 2023.
Sugiyama, M., Arino, Y., Kosugi, T., Kurosawa, A., and Watanabe, S.: Next steps in geoengineering scenario research: limited deployment scenarios and beyond, Clim. Policy, 18, 681–689, https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1323721, 2018.
Tang, W., Tilmes, S., Lawrence, D. M., Li, F., He, C., Emmons, L. K., Buchholz, R. R., and Xia, L.: Impact of solar geoengineering on wildfires in the 21st century in CESM2/WACCM6, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 5467–5486, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5467-2023, 2023.
Tilmes, S., Mills, M. J., Niemeier, U., Schmidt, H., Robock, A., Kravitz, B., Lamarque, J.-F., Pitari, G., and English, J. M.: A new Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) experiment designed for climate and chemistry models, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 43–49, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-43-2015, 2015.
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.
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.
Tilmes, S., Visioni, D., Jones, A., Haywood, J., Séférian, R., Nabat, P., Boucher, O., Bednarz, E. M., and Niemeier, U.: Stratospheric ozone response to sulfate aerosol and solar dimming climate interventions based on the G6 Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 4557–4579, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-4557-2022, 2022.
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.
Trisos, C. H., Amatulli, G., Gurevitch, J., Robock, A., Xia, L., and Zambri, B.: Potentially dangerous consequences for biodiversity of solar geoengineering implementation and termination, Nat. Ecol. Evol., 2, 475–482, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0431-0, 2018.
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.
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, 2023.
WMO: Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2022, Geneva, Switzerland, ISBN: 978-9914-733-97-6, 2022.
Xia, L., Robock, A., Cole, J., Curry, C. L., Ji, D., Jones, A., Kravitz, B., Moore, J. C., Muri, H., Niemeier, U., Singh, B., Tilmes, S., Watanabe, S., and Yoon, J.: Solar radiation management impacts on agriculture in China: A case study in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP), J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 8695–8711, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020630, 2014.
Xia, L., Robock, A., Tilmes, S., and Neely, R. R.: Stratospheric sulfate geoengineering could enhance the terrestrial photosynthesis rate, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 1479–1489, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-1479-2016, 2016.
Yan, Z., Bond-Lamberty, B., Todd-Brown, K. E., Bailey, V. L., Li, S., Liu, C., and Liu, C.: A moisture function of soil heterotrophic respiration that incorporates microscale processes, Nat. Commun., 9, 2562, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04971-6, 2018.
Yang, C.-E., Hoffman, F. M., Ricciuto, D. M., Tilmes, S., Xia, L., MacMartin, D. G., Kravitz, B., Richter, J. H., Mills, M., and Fu, J. S.: Assessing terrestrial biogeochemical feedbacks in a strategically geoengineered climate, Environ. Res. Lett., 15, 104043, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abacf7, 2020.
Zhang, Y., Goll, D., Bastos, A., Balkanski, Y., Boucher, O., Cescatti, A., Collier, M., Gasser, T., Ghattas, J., Li, L., Piao, S., Viovy, N., Zhu, D., and Ciais, P.: Increased Global Land Carbon Sink Due to Aerosol-Induced Cooling, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 33, 439–457, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GB006051, 2019.
Short summary
Stratospheric aerosol injection (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 SAI deployment from start to after termination. We show how the initial CO2 uptake benefit, and hence lower mitigation burden, is reduced in later stages of SAI, where the reduction in natural CO2 uptake turns into an additional mitigation burden.
Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) could be used alongside mitigation to reduce global...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint