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.
Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) is a prospective climate intervention technology that would seek to abate climate change by deflecting back into space a small fraction of the incoming solar radiation. While most consideration given to SAI assumes a global intervention, this paper considers an alternative scenario whereby SAI might be deployed only in the subpolar regions. Subpolar deployment would quickly envelope the poles as well and could arrest or reverse ice and permafrost melt at high latitudes. This would yield global benefit by retarding sea level rise. Given that effective SAI deployment could be achieved at much lower altitudes in these regions than would be required in the tropics, it is commonly assumed that subpolar deployment would present fewer aeronautical challenges. An SAI deployment intended to reduce average surface temperatures in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions by 2 °C is deemed here to be feasible at relatively low cost with conventional technologies. However, we do not find that such a deployment could be undertaken with a small fleet of pre-existing aircraft, nor that relegating such a program to these sparsely populated regions would obviate the myriad governance challenges that would confront any such deployment. Nevertheless, given its feasibility and potential global benefit, the prospect of subpolar-focused SAI warrants greater attention.
more » « less- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10371637
- Publisher / Repository:
- IOP Publishing
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Environmental Research Communications
- Volume:
- 4
- Issue:
- 9
- ISSN:
- 2515-7620
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- Article No. 095009
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) would potentially be effective in limiting global warming and preserving large‐scale temperature patterns; however, there are still gaps in understanding the impact of SAI on wildfire risk. In this study, extreme fire weather is assessed in an Earth system model experiment that deploys SAI beginning in 2035, targeting a global temperature increase of 1.5°C above pre‐industrial levels under a moderate warming scenario. After SAI deployment, increases in extreme fire weather event frequency from climate change are dampened over much of the globe, including the Mediterranean, northeast Brazil, and eastern Europe. However, SAI has little impact over the western Amazon and northern Australia and causes larger increases in extreme fire weather frequency in west central Africa relative to the moderate emissions scenario. Variations in the impacts of warming and SAI on moisture conditions on different time scales determine the spatiotemporal differences in extreme fire weather frequency changes, and are plausibly linked to changes in synoptic‐scale circulation. This study highlights that regional and spatial heterogeneities of SAI climate effects simulated in a model are amplified when assessing wildfire risk, and that these differences must be accounted for when quantifying the possible benefit of SAI.
-
more » « less
Abstract Climate change has been projected to increase the intensity and magnitude of extreme temperature in Indonesia. Solar radiation management (SRM) has been proposed as a strategy to temporarily combat global warming, buying time for negative emissions. Although the global impacts of SRM have been extensively studied in recent years, regional impacts, especially in the tropics, have received much less attention. This article investigates the potential stratospheric sulphate aerosol injection (SAI) to modify mean and extreme temperature, as well as the relative humidity and wet bulb temperature (WBT) change over Indonesian Maritime Continent (IMC) based on simulations from three different earth system models. We applied a simple downscaling method and corrected the bias of model output to reproduce historical temperatures and relative humidity over IMC. We evaluated changes in geoengineering model intercomparison project (GeoMIP) experiment G4, an SAI experiment in 5 Tg of SO2into the equatorial lower stratosphere between 2020 and 2069, concurrent with the RCP4.5 emissions scenario. G4 is able to significantly reduce the temperature means and extremes, and although differences in magnitude of response and spatial pattern occur, there is a generally consistent response. The spatial response of changes forced by RCP4.5 scenario and G4 are notably heterogeneous in the archipelago, highlighting uncertainties that would be critical in assessing socio‐economic consequences of both doing, and not doing G4. In general, SAI has bigger impacts in reducing temperatures over land than oceans, and the southern monsoon region shows more variability. G4 is also effective at reducing the likelihood of WBT > 27°C events compared with RCP4.5 after some years of SAI deployment as well as during the post‐termination period of SAI. Regional downscaling may be an effective tool in obtaining policy‐relevant information about local effects of different future scenarios involving SAI.
-
null (Ed.)As the effects of anthropogenic climate change become more severe, several approaches for deliberate climate intervention to reduce or stabilize Earth’s surface temperature have been proposed. Solar radiation modification (SRM) is one potential approach to partially counteract anthropogenic warming by reflecting a small proportion of the incoming solar radiation to increase Earth’s albedo. While climate science research has focused on the predicted climate effects of SRM, almost no studies have investigated the impacts that SRM would have on ecological systems. The impacts and risks posed by SRM would vary by implementation scenario, anthropogenic climate effects, geographic region, and by ecosystem, community, population, and organism. Complex interactions among Earth’s climate system and living systems would further affect SRM impacts and risks. We focus here on stratospheric aerosol intervention (SAI), a well-studied and relatively feasible SRM scheme that is likely to have a large impact on Earth’s surface temperature. We outline current gaps in knowledge about both helpful and harmful predicted effects of SAI on ecological systems. Desired ecological outcomes might also inform development of future SAI implementation scenarios. In addition to filling these knowledge gaps, increased collaboration between ecologists and climate scientists would identify a common set of SAI research goals and improve the communication about potential SAI impacts and risks with the public. Without this collaboration, forecasts of SAI impacts will overlook potential effects on biodiversity and ecosystem services for humanity.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) has been shown in climate models to reduce some impacts of global warming in the Arctic, including the loss of sea ice, permafrost thaw, and reduction of Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) mass; SAI at high latitudes could preferentially target these impacts. In this study, we use the Community Earth System Model to simulate two Arctic‐focused SAI strategies, which inject at 60°N latitude each spring with injection rates adjusted to either maintain September Arctic sea ice at 2030 levels (“Arctic Low”) or restore it to 2010 levels (“Arctic High”). Both simulations maintain or restore September sea ice to within 10% of their respective targets, reduce permafrost thaw, and increase GrIS surface mass balance by reducing runoff. Arctic High reduces these impacts more effectively than a globally focused SAI strategy that injects similar quantities of SO2at lower latitudes. However, Arctic‐focused SAI is not merely a “reset button” for the Arctic climate, but brings about a novel climate state, including changes to the seasonal cycles of Northern Hemisphere temperature and sea ice and less high‐latitude carbon uptake relative to SSP2‐4.5. Additionally, while Arctic‐focused SAI produces the most cooling near the pole, its effects are not confined to the Arctic, including detectable cooling throughout most of the northern hemisphere for both simulations, increased mid‐latitude sulfur deposition, and a southward shift of the location of the Intertropical Convergence Zone. For these reasons, it would be incorrect to consider Arctic‐focused SAI as “local” geoengineering, even when compared to a globally focused strategy.
