More Like this

1. The Choice of Baseline Period Influences the Assessments of the Outcomes of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection

   https://doi.org/10.1029/2023EF003851  

   Visioni, D. ; Bednarz, E. M. ; MacMartin, D. G. ; Kravitz, B. ; Goddard, P. B. ( August 2023 , Earth's Future)

   The specifics of the simulated injection choices in the case of stratospheric aerosol injections (SAI) are part of the crucial context necessary for meaningfully discussing the impacts that a deployment of SAI would have on the planet. One of the main choices is the desired amount of cooling that the injections are aiming to achieve. Previous SAI simulations have usually either simulated a fixed amount of injection, resulting in a fixed amount of warming being offset, or have specified one target temperature, so that the amount of cooling is only dependent on the underlying trajectory of greenhouse gases. Here, we use three sets of SAI simulations achieving different amounts of global mean surface cooling while following a middle‐of‐the‐road greenhouse gas emission trajectory: one SAI scenario maintains temperatures at 1.5°C above preindustrial levels (PI), and two other scenarios which achieve additional cooling to 1.0°C and 0.5°C above PI. We demonstrate that various surface impacts scale proportionally with respect to the amount of cooling, such as global mean precipitation changes, changes to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and to the Walker Cell. We also highlight the importance of the choice of the baseline period when comparing the SAI responses to one another and to the greenhouse gas emission pathway. This analysis leads to policy‐relevant discussions around the concept of a reference period altogether, and to what constitutes a relevant, or significant, change produced by SAI.

    

   more » « less
2. Expanding the design space of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering to include precipitation-based objectives and explore trade-offs

   https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-1051-2020  

   Lee, Walker ; MacMartin, Douglas ; Visioni, Daniele ; Kravitz, Ben ( January 2020 , Earth System Dynamics)

   null (Ed.)

   Abstract. Previous climate modeling studies demonstrate the ability of feedback-regulated, stratospheric aerosol geoengineering with injection at multiple independent latitudes to meet multiple simultaneous temperature-based objectives in the presence of anthropogenic climate change. However, the impacts of climate change are not limited to rising temperatures but also include changes in precipitation, loss of sea ice, and many more; knowing how a given geoengineering strategy will affect each of these climate metrics is vital to understanding the limits and trade-offs of geoengineering. In this study, we first introduce a new method of visualizing the design space in which desired climate outcomes are represented by 2-D surfaces on a 3-D graph. Surface orientations represent how different injection choices influence that objective, and intersecting surfaces represent objectives which can be met simultaneously. Using this representation as a guide, we present simulations of two new strategies for feedback-regulated aerosol injection, using the Community Earth System Model with the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model – CESM1(WACCM). The first simultaneously manages global mean temperature, tropical precipitation centroid, and Arctic sea ice extent, while the second manages global mean precipitation, tropical precipitation centroid, and Arctic sea ice extent. Both simulations control the tropical precipitation centroid to within 5 % of the goal, and the latter controls global mean precipitation to within 1 % of the goal. Additionally, the first simulation overcompensates sea ice, while the second undercompensates sea ice; all of these results are consistent with the expectations of our design space model. In addition to showing that precipitation-based climate metrics can be managed using feedback alongside other goals, our simulations validate the utility of our design space visualization in predicting our climate model behavior under a given geoengineering strategy, and together they help illustrate the fundamental limits and trade-offs of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering. 

   more » « less
3. Scenarios for modeling solar radiation modification

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2202230119  

   MacMartin, D. G. ; Visioni, D. ; Kravitz, B. ; Richter, J.H. ; Felgenhauer, T. ; Lee, W. R. ; Morrow, D. R. ; Parson, E. A. ; Sugiyama, M. ( August 2022 , Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)

   Making informed future decisions about solar radiation modification (SRM; also known as solar geoengineering)—approaches such as stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) that would cool the climate by reflecting sunlight—requires projections of the climate response and associated human and ecosystem impacts. These projections, in turn, will rely on simulations with global climate models. As with climate-change projections, these simulations need to adequately span a range of possible futures, describing different choices, such as start date and temperature target, as well as risks, such as termination or interruptions. SRM modeling simulations to date typically consider only a single scenario, often with some unrealistic or arbitrarily chosen elements (such as starting deployment in 2020), and have often been chosen based on scientific rather than policy-relevant considerations (e.g., choosing quite substantial cooling specifically to achieve a bigger response). This limits the ability to compare risks both between SRM and non-SRM scenarios and between different SRM scenarios. To address this gap, we begin by outlining some general considerations on scenario design for SRM. We then describe a specific set of scenarios to capture a range of possible policy choices and uncertainties and present corresponding SAI simulations intended for broad community use. 

   more » « less
4. Potential Non‐Linearities in the High Latitude Circulation and Ozone Response to Stratospheric Aerosol Injection

   https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL104726  

   Bednarz, Ewa M. ; Visioni, Daniele ; Butler, Amy H. ; Kravitz, Ben ; MacMartin, Douglas G. ; Tilmes, Simone ( November 2023 , Geophysical Research Letters)

   The impacts of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) on the atmosphere and surface climate depend on when and where the sulfate aerosol precursors are injected, as well as on how much surface cooling is to be achieved. We use a set of CESM2(WACCM6) SAI simulations achieving three different levels of global mean surface cooling and demonstrate that unlike some direct surface climate impacts driven by the reflection of solar radiation by sulfate aerosols, the SAI‐induced changes in the high latitude circulation and ozone are more complex and could be non‐linear. This manifests in our simulations by disproportionally larger Antarctic springtime ozone loss, significantly larger intra‐ensemble spread of the Arctic stratospheric jet and ozone responses, and non‐linear impacts on the extratropical modes of surface climate variability under the strongest‐cooling SAI scenario compared to the weakest one. These potential non‐linearities may add to uncertainties in projections of regional surface impacts under SAI.

    

   more » « less
5. Comparison of UKESM1 and CESM2 simulations using the same multi-target stratospheric aerosol injection strategy

   https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13369-2023  

   Henry, Matthew ; Haywood, Jim ; Jones, Andy ; Dalvi, Mohit ; Wells, Alice ; Visioni, Daniele ; Bednarz, Ewa M. ; MacMartin, Douglas G. ; Lee, Walker ; Tye, Mari R. ( January 2023 , Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics)

   Abstract. Solar climate intervention using stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) has been proposed as a method which could offset some of the adverse effects of global warming. The Assessing Responses and Impacts of Solar climate intervention on the Earth system with Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (ARISE-SAI) set of simulations is based on a moderate-greenhouse-gas-emission scenario and employs injection of sulfur dioxide at four off-equatorial locations using a control algorithm which maintains the global-mean surface temperature at 1.5 K above pre-industrial conditions (ARISE-SAI-1.5), as well as the latitudinal gradient and inter-hemispheric difference in surface temperature. This is the first comparison between two models (CESM2 and UKESM1) applying the same multi-target SAI strategy. CESM2 is successful in reaching its temperature targets, but UKESM1 has considerable residual Arctic warming. This occurs because the pattern of temperature change in a climate with SAI is determined by both the structure of the climate forcing (mainly greenhouse gases and stratospheric aerosols) and the climate models' feedbacks, the latter of which favour a strong Arctic amplification of warming in UKESM1. Therefore, research constraining the level of future Arctic warming would also inform any hypothetical SAI deployment strategy which aims to maintain the inter-hemispheric and Equator-to-pole near-surface temperature differences. Furthermore, despite broad agreement in the precipitation response in the extratropics, precipitation changes over tropical land show important inter-model differences, even under greenhouse gas forcing only. In general, this ensemble comparison is the first step in comparing policy-relevant scenarios of SAI and will help in the design of an experimental protocol which both reduces some known negative side effects of SAI and is simple enough to encourage more climate models to participate.

    

   more » « less