More Like this

1. Impact of solar geoengineering on wildfires in the 21st century in CESM2/WACCM6

   https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5467-2023  

   Tang, Wenfu ; Tilmes, Simone ; Lawrence, David M. ; Li, Fang ; He, Cenlin ; Emmons, Louisa K. ; Buchholz, Rebecca R. ; Xia, Lili ( January 2023 , Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics)

   Abstract. We quantify future changes in wildfire burned area and carbon emissions inthe 21st century under four Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) scenariosand two SSP5-8.5-based solar geoengineering scenarios with a target surfacetemperature defined by SSP2-4.5 – solar irradiance reduction (G6solar) andstratospheric sulfate aerosol injections (G6sulfur) – and explore themechanisms that drive solar geoengineering impacts on fires. This study isbased on fully coupled climate–chemistry simulations with simulatedoccurrence of fires (burned area and carbon emissions) using the WholeAtmosphere Community Climate Model version 6 (WACCM6) as the atmosphericcomponent of the Community Earth System Model version 2 (CESM2). Globally,total wildfire burned area is projected to increase over the 21st centuryunder scenarios without geoengineering and decrease under the twogeoengineering scenarios. By the end of the century, the two geoengineeringscenarios have lower burned area and fire carbon emissions than not onlytheir base-climate scenario SSP5-8.5 but also the targeted-climate scenarioSSP2-4.5. Geoengineering reduces wildfire occurrence by decreasing surfacetemperature and wind speed and increasing relative humidity and soil water,with the exception of boreal regions where geoengineering increases theoccurrence of wildfires due to a decrease in relative humidity and soilwater compared with the present day. This leads to a global reduction in burnedarea and fire carbon emissions by the end of the century relative to theirbase-climate scenario SSP5-8.5. However, geoengineering also yieldsreductions in precipitation compared with a warming climate, which offsetssome of the fire reduction. Overall, the impacts of the different drivingfactors are larger on burned area than fire carbon emissions. In general,the stratospheric sulfate aerosol approach has a stronger fire-reducingeffect than the solar irradiance reduction approach.

    

   more » « less
2. Impact of solar geoengineering on temperatures over the Indonesian Maritime Continent

   https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.7391  

   Kuswanto, Heri ; Kravitz, Ben ; Miftahurrohmah, Brina ; Fauzi, Fatkhurokhman ; Sopahaluwaken, Ardhasena ; Moore, John ( September 2021 , International Journal of Climatology)

   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.

    

   more » « less
3. Atmospheric rivers impacting western North America in a world with climate intervention

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-022-00260-8  

   Shields, Christine A. ; Richter, Jadwiga H. ; Pendergrass, Angeline ; Tilmes, Simone ( May 2022 , npj Climate and Atmospheric Science)

   Atmospheric rivers (ARs) impacting western North America are analyzed under climate intervention applying stratospheric aerosol injections (SAI) using simulations produced by the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model. Sulfur dioxide injections are strategically placed to maintain present-day global, interhemispheric, and equator-to-pole surface temperatures between 2020 and 2100 using a high forcing climate scenario. Three science questions are addressed: (1) How will western North American ARs change by the end of the century with SAI applied, (2) How is this different from 2020 conditions, and (3) How will the results differ with no future climate intervention. Under SAI, ARs are projected to increase by the end of the 21st century for southern California and decrease in the Pacific Northwest and coastal British Columbia, following changes to the low-level wind. Compared to 2020 conditions, the increase in ARs is not significant. The character of AR precipitation changes under geoengineering results in fewer extreme rainfall events and more moderate ones.

    

   more » « less
4. Identifying the sources of uncertainty in climate model simulations of solar radiation modification with the G6sulfur and G6solar Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) simulations

   https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-10039-2021  

   Visioni, Daniele ; MacMartin, Douglas G. ; Kravitz, Ben ; Boucher, Olivier ; Jones, Andy ; Lurton, Thibaut ; Martine, Michou ; Mills, Michael J. ; Nabat, Pierre ; Niemeier, Ulrike ; et al ( January 2021 , Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics)

   Abstract. We present here results from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) simulations for the experiments G6sulfur and G6solar for six Earth system models participating in the Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) Phase 6. The aim of the experiments is to reduce the warming that results from a high-tier emission scenario (Shared Socioeconomic Pathways SSP5-8.5) to that resulting from a medium-tier emission scenario (SSP2-4.5). These simulations aim to analyze the response of climate models to a reduction in incoming surface radiation as a means to reduce global surface temperatures, and they do so either by simulating a stratospheric sulfate aerosol layer or, in a more idealized way, through a uniform reduction in the solar constant in the model. We find that over the final two decades of this century there are considerable inter-model spreads in the needed injection amounts of sulfate (29 ± 9 Tg-SO2/yr between 2081 and 2100), in the latitudinal distribution of the aerosol cloud and in the stratospheric temperature changes resulting from the added aerosol layer. Even in the simpler G6solar experiment, there is a spread in the needed solar dimming to achieve the same global temperature target (1.91 ± 0.44 %). The analyzed models already show significant differences in the response to the increasing CO2 concentrations for global mean temperatures and global mean precipitation (2.05 K ± 0.42 K and 2.28 ± 0.80 %, respectively, for SSP5-8.5 minus SSP2-4.5 averaged over 2081–2100). With aerosol injection, the differences in how the aerosols spread further change some of the underlying uncertainties, such as the global mean precipitation response (−3.79 ± 0.76 % for G6sulfur compared to −2.07 ± 0.40 % for G6solar against SSP2-4.5 between 2081 and 2100). These differences in the behavior of the aerosols also result in a larger uncertainty in the regional surface temperature response among models in the case of the G6sulfur simulations, suggesting the need to devise various, more specific experiments to single out and resolve particular sources of uncertainty. The spread in the modeled response suggests that a degree of caution is necessary when using these results for assessing specific impacts of geoengineering in various aspects of the Earth system. However, all models agree that compared to a scenario with unmitigated warming, stratospheric aerosol geoengineering has the potential to both globally and locally reduce the increase in surface temperatures. 

   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