Journal cover Journal topic
Earth System Dynamics An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic

Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 3.866 IF 3.866
  • IF 5-year value: 4.135 IF 5-year
    4.135
  • CiteScore value: 7.0 CiteScore
    7.0
  • SNIP value: 1.182 SNIP 1.182
  • IPP value: 3.86 IPP 3.86
  • SJR value: 1.883 SJR 1.883
  • Scimago H <br class='hide-on-tablet hide-on-mobile'>index value: 33 Scimago H
    index 33
  • h5-index value: 30 h5-index 30
Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2019-76
© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2019-76
© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Submitted as: research article 03 Dec 2019

Submitted as: research article | 03 Dec 2019

Review status
A revised version of this preprint was accepted for the journal ESD and is expected to appear here in due course.

Reaching 1.5 °C and 2.0 °C global surface temperature targets using stratospheric aerosol geoengineering

Simone Tilmes1, Douglas E. MacMartin2, Jan T. M. Lenaerts3, Leo van Kampenhout4, Laura Muntjewerf5, Lili Xia6, Cheryl S. Harrison7, Kristen M. Krumhardt8, Michael J. Mills1, Ben Kravitz9,10, and Alan Robock6 Simone Tilmes et al.
  • 1Atmospheric Chemistry, Observations, and Modeling Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA
  • 2Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
  • 3Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, CO, USA
  • 4Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
  • 5Department of Geoscience and Remote Sensing, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands
  • 6Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, USA
  • 7Port Isabel Campus, University of Texas, Rio Grande Valley, USA
  • 8Climate Global Dynamics Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA
  • 9Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
  • 10Atmospheric Sciences and Global Change Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA

Abstract. We propose new testbed model experiments for the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) that are designed to limit global warming to 1.5 °C or 2.0 °C above 1850–1900 conditions using stratospheric aerosol geoengineering (SAG). The new modeling experiments use the overshoot scenario defined in CMIP6 (SSP5-34-OS) as a baseline scenario and are designed to reduce side effects of SAG in reaching three temperature targets: global mean surface temperature, and inter-hemispheric and pole-to-equator surface temperature gradients. We further compare results to another SAG simulation using a high emission scenario (SSP5-85) as a baseline scenario in order to investigate the dependency of impacts using different injection amounts to offset different amounts of warming by SAG. The new testbed simulations are performed with the CESM2(WACCM6). We use a feedback algorithm that identifies the needed amount of sulfur dioxide injections in the stratosphere at four predefined latitudes, 30° N, 15° N, 15° S, and 30° S, to reach the three temperature targets. Here we analyze climate variables and quantities that matter for societal and ecosystem impacts. We find that changes from present day conditions (2015–2025) in some variables depend strongly on the defined temperature target (1.5 °C vs 2.0 °C). These include surface air temperature and related impacts, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which impacts ocean net primary productivity, and changes in ice sheet surface mass balance, which impacts sea-level rise. Others, including global precipitation changes and the recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole, depend strongly on the amount of SAG application. Furthermore, land net primary productivity as well as ocean acidification depend mostly on the global atmospheric CO2 concentration and therefore the baseline scenario. Multi-model comparisons of the experiments proposed here would help identify consequences of scenarios that include strong mitigation, carbon dioxide removal with some SAG application, on societal impacts and ecosystems.

Simone Tilmes et al.

Interactive discussion

Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

Interactive discussion

Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

Simone Tilmes et al.

Simone Tilmes et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 731 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
508 207 16 731 24 24
  • HTML: 508
  • PDF: 207
  • XML: 16
  • Total: 731
  • BibTeX: 24
  • EndNote: 24
Views and downloads (calculated since 03 Dec 2019)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 03 Dec 2019)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 623 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 623 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Saved

No saved metrics found.

Discussed

No discussed metrics found.
Latest update: 12 Jul 2020
Publications Copernicus
Download
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 that are 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.
This paper introduces new geoengineering model experiments as part of a larger model...
Citation