Abstract

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 ยฑ 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 ยฑ 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 ยฑ 0.42 K and 2.28 ยฑ 0.80 %, respectively, for SSP5-8.5 minus SSP2-4.5 averaged over 2081โ€“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 (โˆ’3.79 ยฑ 0.76 % for G6sulfur compared to โˆ’2.07 ยฑ 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.

Highlights

  • Solar radiation modification (SRM) is defined as the proposed artificial altering of the radiative balance of the planet in order to temporarily counteract some of the imbalance produced by the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs)

  • We have shown in this work some preliminary results from the G6sulfur and G6solar modeling experiments proposed in Kravitz et al (2015) for the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project as part of the Climate Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6

  • These two new experiments aim to reduce global temperatures in the 21st century from those simulated under a high-tier emissions scenario (SSP58.5) to those simulated under a medium-tier emissions scenario (SSP2-4.5), either by simulating the artificial injection of stratospheric aerosol precursors in the stratosphere or by reducing the solar constant in the models

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Solar radiation modification (SRM) is defined as the proposed artificial altering of the radiative balance of the planet in order to temporarily counteract some of the imbalance produced by the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs). There are multiple uncertainties that can be investigated with a multi-model intercomparison when considering the climate modelsโ€™ responses to an artificial, deliberate modification of surface temperatures by means of stratospheric aerosols (Kravitz and MacMartin, 2020) In the stratosphere, these include the conversion of injected SO2 into stratospheric aerosol and the subsequent large-scale distribution of the aerosols by stratospheric circulation (not dissimilar to multi-model analyses of simulations of explosive volcanic eruptions; Marshall et al, 2018; Clyne et al, 2021), the chemical response of key stratospheric components (ozone, methane) to the aerosol layer (Pitari et al, 2014; Visioni et al, 2017b), the magnitude of the produced local heating (Niemeier et al, 2020) and the dynamical response. Even given similar simulated aerosol distribution, the stratospheric response might differ due to differences in aerosol optics and in the radiative transfer calculation and in the representation of chemical processes in the stratosphere (i.e., if interactive chemistry is considered in the stratosphere; Franke et al, 2021) resulting in a different dynamical and surface response (Simpson et al, 2019; Jiang et al, 2019; Banerjee et al, 2021), which we discuss in Sect. 3.3 for annual mean temperature and precipitation

Description of simulations
Magnitude of geoengineering required
Differences in the stratospheric response
Surface climate response
Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call