Search for: All records

Abstract Sulfur‐rich volcanic eruptions happen sporadically. If Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) were to be deployed, it is likely that explosive volcanic eruptions would happen during such a deployment. Here we use an ensemble of Earth System Model simulations to show how changing the injection strategy post‐eruption could be used to reduce the climate risks of a large volcanic eruption; the risks are also modified even without any change to the strategy. For a medium‐size eruption (10 Tg‐SO₂) comparable to the SAI injection rate, the volcanic‐induced cooling would be reduced if it occurs under SAI, especially if artificial sulfur dioxide injections were immediately suspended. Alternatively, suspending injection only in the eruption hemisphere and continuing injection in the opposite would reduce shifts in precipitation in the tropical belt and thus mitigate eruption‐induced drought. Finally, we show that for eruptions much larger than the SAI deployment, changes in SAI strategy would have minimal effect. 

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. 

Abstract Owing to increasing greenhouse gas emissions, the Antarctic Ice Sheet is vulnerable to rapid ice loss in the upcoming decades and centuries. This study examines the effectiveness of using stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) that minimizes global mean temperature (GMT) change to slow projected 21st century Antarctic ice loss. We simulate 11 different SAI cases which vary by the latitudinal location(s) and the amount(s) of the injection(s) to examine the climatic response near Antarctica in each case as compared to the reference climate at the turn of the last century. We demonstrate that injecting at a single latitude in the northern hemisphere or at the Equator increases Antarctic shelf ocean temperatures pertinent to ice shelf basal melt, while injecting only in the southern hemisphere minimizes this temperature change. We use these results to analyze the results of more complex multi‐latitude injection strategies that maintain GMT at or below 1.5°C above the pre‐industrial. All these multi‐latitude cases will slow Antarctic ice loss relative to the mid‐to‐late 21st century SSP2‐4.5 emissions pathway. Yet, to avoid a GMT threshold estimated by previous studies pertaining to rapid West Antarctic ice loss (1.5°C above the pre‐industrial GMT, though large uncertainty), our study suggests SAI would need to cool about 1.0°C below this threshold and predominately inject at low southern hemisphere latitudes (∼15°S ‐ 30°S). These results highlight the complexity of factors impacting the Antarctic response to SAI and the critical role of the injection strategy in preventing future ice loss. 

Abstract 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.