Search for: All records

Abstract Solar radiation modification (SRM) is a climate intervention method that would reflect a portion of incoming solar radiation to cool the Earth and could be used to ameliorate the impacts of climate change, but that provokes strong reactions from experts and the public alike. Research has explored both the biophysical and human behavioral aspects of SRM but has not integrated these processes in a single framework. Our expectations for SRM development and deployment will be inaccurate until we integrate the feedbacks between human behavioral and cognitive processes and the biophysical and climate system. We propose a framework for describing these feedbacks and how they may mediate transitions in the development and operationalization of SRM as a climate intervention. We consider components such as public trust in SRM, moral hazard concerns, climate risk perceptions, and societal disruptions, and illustrate how the driving processes could change across the pre-development, post-development, and post-deployment phases of SRM operationalization to affect outcomes around SRM deployment and climate change. Our framework illustrates the importance of feedbacks between climate change, risk perceptions, and the human response and the necessity to integrate such feedbacks in the development of future scenarios for SRM. 

The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) held its 14th annual workshop, with almost 70 in-person participants and 15 remote participants for a robust discussion about future experiments and community needs in light of phase 7 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP7). 

ABSTRACT Methane emissions by global wetlands are anticipated to increase due to climate warming. The increase in methane represents a sizable emissions source (32–68 Tg CH₄year⁻¹greater in 2099 than 2010, for RCP2.6–4.5) that threatens long‐term climate stability and poses a significant positive feedback that magnifies climate warming. However, management of this feedback, which is ultimately driven by human‐caused warming and thus “indirectly” anthropogenic, has been largely unexplored. Here, we review the known range of options for direct management of rising wetland methane emissions, outline contexts for their application, and explore a global scale thought experiment to gauge their potential impact. Among potential management options for methane emissions from wetlands, substrate amendments, particularly sulfate, are the most well studied, although the majority have only been tested in laboratory settings and without considering potential environmental externalities. Using published models, we find that the bulk (64%–80%) of additional wetland methane will arise from hotspots making up only about 8% of global wetland extent, primarily occurring in the tropics and subtropics. If applied to these hotspots, sulfate might suppress 10%–21% of the total additional wetland methane emissions, but this treatment comes with considerable negative consequences for the environment. This thought experiment leverages results from experimental simulations of sulfate from acid rain, as there is essentially no research on the use of sulfate for intentional suppression of additional wetland methane emissions. Given the magnitude of the potential climate forcing feedback of methane from wetlands, it is critical to explore management options and their impacts to ensure that decisions made to directly manage—or not manage—this process be made with the best available science. 

Abstract Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) would involve the addition of sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere to reflect part of the incoming solar radiation, thereby cooling the climate. Studies trying to explore the impacts of SAI have often focused on idealized scenarios without explicitly introducing what we call ‘inconsistencies’ in a deployment. A concern often discussed is what would happen to the climate system after an abrupt termination of its deployment, whether inadvertent or deliberate. However, there is a much wider range of plausible inconsistencies in deployment than termination that should be evaluated to better understand associated risks. In this work, we simulate a few representative inconsistencies in a pre-existing SAI scenario: an abrupt termination, a decade-long gradual phase-out, and 1 year and 2 year temporary interruptions of deployment. After examining their climate impacts, we use these simulations to train an emulator, and use this to project global mean temperature response for a broader set of inconsistencies in deployment. Our work highlights the capacity of a finite set of explicitly simulated scenarios that include inconsistencies to inform an emulator that is capable of expanding the space of scenarios that one might want to explore far more quickly and efficiently. 

Abstract Climate change is a prevalent threat, and it is unlikely that current mitigation efforts will be enough to avoid unwanted impacts. One potential option to reduce climate change impacts is the use of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI). Even if SAI is ultimately deployed, it might be initiated only after some temperature target is exceeded. The consequences of such a delay are assessed herein. This study compares two cases, with the same target global mean temperature of ∼1.5° C above preindustrial, but start dates of 2035 or a ‘delayed’ start in 2045. We make use of simulations in the Community Earth System Model version 2 with the Whole Atmosphere Coupled Chemistry Model version 6 (CESM2-WACCM6), using SAI under the SSP2-4.5 emissions pathway. We find that delaying the start of deployment (relative to the target temperature) necessitates lower net radiative forcing (−30%) and thus larger sulfur dioxide injection rates (+20%), even after surface temperatures converge, to compensate for the extra energy absorbed by the Earth system. Southern hemisphere ozone is higher from 2035 to 2050 in the delayed start scenario, but converges to the same value later in the century. However, many of the surface climate differences between the 2035 and 2045 start simulations appear to be small during the 10–25 years following the delayed SAI start, although longer simulations would be needed to assess any longer-term impacts in this model. In addition, irreversibilities and tipping points that might be triggered during the period of increased warming may not be adequately represented in the model but could change this conclusion in the real world. 

Abstract. The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) has proposed multiple model experiments during phases 5 and 6 of the Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), with the latest set of model experiments proposed in 2015. With phase 7 of CMIP in preparation and with multiple efforts ongoing to better explore the potential space of outcomes for different solar radiation modifications (SRMs) both in terms of deployment strategies and scenarios and in terms of potential impacts, the GeoMIP community has identified the need to propose and conduct a new experiment that could serve as a bridge between past iterations and future CMIP7 experiments. Here we report the details of such a proposed experiment, named G6-1.5K-SAI, to be conducted with the current generation of scenarios and models from CMIP6 and clarify the reasoning behind many of the new choices introduced. Namely, compared to the CMIP6 GeoMIP scenario G6sulfur, we decided on (1) an intermediate emission scenario as a baseline (the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2-4.5), (2) a start date set in the future that includes both considerations for the likelihood of exceeding 1.5 °C above preindustrial levels and some considerations for a likely start date for an SRM implementation, and (3) a deployment strategy for stratospheric aerosol injection that does not inject in the tropical pipe in order to obtain a more latitudinally uniform aerosol distribution. We also offer more details regarding the preferred experiment length and number of ensemble members and include potential options for second-tier experiments that some modeling groups might want to run. The specifics of the proposed experiment will further allow for a more direct comparison between results obtained from CMIP6 models and those obtained from future scenarios for CMIP7. 

Abstract. Despite offsetting global mean surface temperature, various studies demonstrated that stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) could influence the recovery of stratospheric ozone and have important impacts on stratospheric and tropospheric circulation, thereby potentially playing an important role in modulating regional and seasonal climate variability. However, so far, most of the assessments of such an approach have come from climate model simulations in which SO2 is injected only in a single location or a set of locations. Here we use CESM2-WACCM6 SAI simulations under a comprehensive set of SAI strategies achieving the same global mean surface temperature with different locations and/or timing of injections, namely an equatorial injection, an annual injection of equal amounts of SO2 at 15∘ N and 15∘ S, an annual injection of equal amounts of SO2 at 30∘ N and 30∘ S, and a polar strategy injecting SO2 at 60∘ N and 60∘ S only in spring in each hemisphere. We demonstrate that despite achieving the same global mean surface temperature, the different strategies result in contrastingly different magnitudes of the aerosol-induced lower stratospheric warming, stratospheric moistening, strengthening of stratospheric polar jets in both hemispheres, and changes in the speed of the residual circulation. These impacts tend to maximise under the equatorial injection strategy and become smaller as the aerosols are injected away from the Equator into the subtropics and higher latitudes. In conjunction with the differences in direct radiative impacts at the surface, these different stratospheric changes drive different impacts on the extratropical modes of variability (Northern and Southern Annular modes), including important consequences on the northern winter surface climate, and on the intensity of tropical tropospheric Walker and Hadley circulations, which drive tropical precipitation patterns. Finally, we demonstrate that the choice of injection strategy also plays a first-order role in the future evolution of stratospheric ozone under SAI throughout the globe. Overall, our results contribute to an increased understanding of the fine interplay of various radiative, dynamical, and chemical processes driving the atmospheric circulation and ozone response to SAI and lay the foundation for designing an optimal SAI strategy that could form a basis of future multi-model intercomparisons.