Search for: All records

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.

 

Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) of reflective sulfate aerosols has been proposed to temporarily reduce the impacts of global warming. In this study, we compare two SAI simulations which inject at different altitudes to provide the same amount of cooling, finding that lower‐altitude SAI requires 64% more injection. SAI at higher altitudes cools the surface more efficiently per unit injection than lower‐altitude SAI through two primary mechanisms: the longer lifetimes of SO₂and SO₄at higher altitudes, and the water vapor feedback, in which lower‐altitude SAI causes more heating in the tropical cold point tropopause region, thereby increasing water vapor transport into the stratosphere and trapping more terrestrial infrared radiation that offsets some of the direct aerosol‐induced cooling. We isolate these individual mechanisms and find that the contribution of lifetime effects to differences in cooling efficiency is approximately five to six times larger than the contribution of the water vapor feedback.

 

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. 

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.

 

Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering focused on the Arctic could substantially reduce local and worldwide impacts of anthropogenic global warming. Because the Arctic receives little sunlight during the winter, stratospheric aerosols present in the winter at high latitudes have little impact on the climate, whereas stratospheric aerosols present during the summer achieve larger changes in radiative forcing. Injecting SO₂in the spring leads to peak aerosol optical depth (AOD) in the summer. We demonstrate that spring injection produces approximately twice as much summer AOD as year‐round injection and restores approximately twice as much September sea ice, resulting in less increase in stratospheric sulfur burden, stratospheric heating, and stratospheric ozone depletion per unit of sea ice restored. We also find that differences in AOD between different seasonal injection strategies are small compared to the difference between annual and spring injection.

 

By injecting SO₂into the stratosphere at four latitudes (30°, 15°N/S), it might be possible not only to reduce global mean surface temperature but also to minimize changes in the equator‐to‐pole and inter‐hemispheric gradients of temperature, further reducing some of the impacts arising from climate change relative to equatorial injection. This can happen only if the aerosols are transported to higher latitudes by the stratospheric circulation, ensuring that a greater part of the solar radiation is reflected back to space at higher latitudes, compensating for the reduced sunlight. However, the stratospheric heating produced by these aerosols modifies the circulation and strengthens the stratospheric polar vortex which acts as a barrier to the transport of air toward the poles. We show how the heating results in a feedback where increasing injection rates lead to stronger high‐latitudinal transport barriers. This implies a potential limitation in the high‐latitude aerosol burden and subsequent cooling.