Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project Research Articles

G6-1.5K-SAI: a new Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) experiment integrating recent advances in solar radiation modification studies

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.

Climate intervention using marine cloud brightening (MCB) compared with stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) in the UKESM1 climate model

Abstract. The difficulties in using conventional mitigation techniques to maintain global-mean temperatures well below 2 ∘C compared with pre-industrial levels have been well documented, leading to so-called “climate intervention” or “geoengineering” research whereby the planetary albedo is increased to counterbalance global warming and ameliorate some impacts of climate change. In the scientific literature, the most prominent climate intervention proposal is that of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), although proposals for marine cloud brightening (MCB) have also received considerable attention. In this study, we design a new MCB experiment (G6MCB) for the UKESM1 Earth-system model which follows the same baseline and cooling scenarios as the well-documented G6sulfur SAI scenario developed by the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP), and we compare the results from G6MCB with those from G6sulfur. The deployment strategy used in G6MCB injects sea-salt aerosol into four cloudy areas of the eastern Pacific. This deployment strategy appears capable of delivering a radiative forcing of up to −1 W m−2 from MCB, but at higher injection rates, much of the radiative effect in G6MCB is found to derive from the direct interaction of the injected sea-salt aerosols with solar radiation, i.e. marine sky brightening (MSB). The results show that while G6MCB can achieve its target in terms of reducing high-end global warming to moderate levels, there are several side effects. Some are common to SAI, including overcooling of the tropics and residual warming of middle and high latitudes. Other side effects specific to the choice of the targeted MCB regions include changes in monsoon precipitation, year-round increases in precipitation over Australia and the maritime continent, and increased sea-level rise around western Australia and the maritime continent; these results are all consistent with a permanent and very strong La Niña-like response being induced in G6MCB. The results emphasize that considerable attention needs to be given to oceanic feedbacks for spatially inhomogeneous MCB radiative forcings. It should be stressed that the results are extremely dependent upon the strategy chosen for MCB deployment. As demonstrated by the development of SAI strategies which can achieve multiple temperature targets and ameliorate some of the residual impacts of climate change, much further work is required in multiple models to obtain a robust understanding of the practical scope, limitations, and pitfalls of any proposed MCB deployment.

Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosols Impacts on West African Monsoon Precipitation Using GeoMIP Models

AbstractStratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering (SAG) is proposed to offset global warming; however, the use of this approach can an impact on the hydrological cycle. We used simulations from Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) and Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (G3 simulation) to analyze the impacts of SAG on precipitation (P) and to determine its responsible causes in West Africa and Sahel region. CMIP5 historical data were first validated, the results obtained are consistent with observational data. Under the Representative Concentration Pathway scenario RCP4.5, a slight increase is found in the West Africa Region relative to present‐day climate. The dynamic processes especially, the monsoon shifts are responsible for this precipitation change. Under RCP4.5, during the monsoon period, reductions in P are 0.86%, 0.80% relative to the present‐day climate in the Northern and Southern Sahel, respectively, while precipitation is increased by 1.04% in the West African Region. Under SAG, we find a 3.71% decrease of precipitation in the West African Region while the precipitation decrease is 17.4% and 8.47% respectively in the North Sahel and South Sahel. This decrease in monsoon precipitation is mainly explained by changes in dynamics, which lead to weakened monsoon circulation and a shift in the distribution of monsoon precipitation. This result suggests that SAG deployment to balance all warming can be harmful to rainfall in WAR if the amount of SO2 to be injected into this tropical area is not taken into consideration.

A review of the effects of solar radiation management on hydrological extremes

Solar radiation management (SRM) is one of the proposed climate mitigation strategies to cool the planet rapidly. The injection of aerosol particles into the stratosphere for reflecting solar radiation back to the space is one of the SRM methods that are widely discussed. Theoretically, SRM might lower the earth’s temperature within a few months of deployment, reducing the impacts of climate change on natural disasters, i.e., floods and drought, which lead to huge losses in economic and human life. Solar radiation variability was identified to be a substantial factor that induced the hydrological changes, particularly in precipitation extreme. The effects of SRM on hydrological cycles, however, fluctuate depending on the location and environment. Hence, this article reviews the past SRM studies that related to the analysis of the hydrological cycle changes. A total of 17 articles were identified and collected from the Web of Science and Scopus databases. The results show that there have been an increasing number of articles in recent years studying the effects of SRM on the hydro-climatic changes. The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) and the Geoengineering Large Ensemble (GLENS) are two commonly used SRM-based general circulation models. In general, SRM is projected to slow down the global hydrological cycle. In comparison to the RCP 8.5 scenario, SRM generally tends to lower flood risk in many parts of the world. However, the majority of SRM research in hydrology has been conducted on a global scale, which results in a lack of robust basin-scale assessment needed for flood control policy formulation. In addition, more SRM climate models and scenario experiments should be considered to minimize the uncertainty in the framework for hydro-climatic modelling framework.

Opinion: The scientific and community-building roles of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) – past, present, and future

Abstract. The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) is a coordinating framework, started in 2010, that includes a series of standardized climate model experiments aimed at understanding the physical processes and projected impacts of solar geoengineering. Numerous experiments have been conducted, and numerous more have been proposed as “test-bed” experiments, spanning a variety of geoengineering techniques aimed at modifying the planetary radiation budget: stratospheric aerosol injection, marine cloud brightening, surface albedo modification, cirrus cloud thinning, and sunshade mirrors. To date, more than 100 studies have been published that used results from GeoMIP simulations. Here we provide a critical assessment of GeoMIP and its experiments. We discuss its successes and missed opportunities, for instance in terms of which experiments elicited more interest from the scientific community and which did not, and the potential reasons why that happened. We also discuss the knowledge that GeoMIP has contributed to the field of geoengineering research and climate science as a whole: what have we learned in terms of intermodel differences, robustness of the projected outcomes for specific geoengineering methods, and future areas of model development that would be necessary in the future? We also offer multiple examples of cases where GeoMIP experiments were fundamental for international assessments of climate change. Finally, we provide a series of recommendations, regarding both future experiments and more general activities, with the goal of continuously deepening our understanding of the effects of potential geoengineering approaches and reducing uncertainties in climate outcomes, important for assessing wider impacts on societies and ecosystems. In doing so, we refine the purpose of GeoMIP and outline a series of criteria whereby GeoMIP can best serve its participants, stakeholders, and the broader science community.

Impact of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection on the East Asian Winter Monsoon

AbstractStratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) has been proposed as a potential measure to alleviate global warming; however, uncertainties exist in its regional climate impacts. This study investigates the influence of the SAI on the East Asian winter monsoon (EAWM) by analyzing the G6sulfur simulation from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project. Our results show that the SAI intensifies the Siberian high and Aleutian low, enhances the low‐level northerly winds along the coast of East Asia and deepens the East Asian trough during 2080–2099, reversing the weakening of EAWM in high‐emission Shared Socioeconomic Pathway scenario (SSP5‐8.5). Comparison between the G6sulfur and SSP5‐8.5 simulations indicates that, the SAI‐induced strong cooling in the central equatorial Pacific excites a poleward‐propagating Rossby wave train and strengthen the EAWM. Meanwhile, the negative vorticity advection in the middle troposphere and the radiative cooling over the Siberian high region caused by SAI also intensify the EAWM.

Implication of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering on compound precipitation and temperature extremes in Africa

Three Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) models that simulated the G4 experiment of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) were used to investigate the impact of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) on combined temperature and precipitation extremes in Africa that can have greater negative impacts on human and the environment than individual rainfall or temperature extremes. The examined compound extremes included the dry (Rwarm׀dry and Rcold׀dry) and wet (Rwarm׀wet and Rcold׀wet) modes assessed during the injection (SAI, 2050–2069) and post-injection (postSAI, 2070–2089) periods compared with the historical period (1986–2005). We found a significant projected change in the occurrence of both wet and dry modes during SAI and postSAI related to the historical period. The magnitude and sign of this change depend on the season and the geographical location. During the SAI and postSAI, the wet (Rwarm׀wet and Rcold׀wet) modes are projected to be significantly lower while the dry modes are noted to increase in a large part of African continent depending on the season and the geographical location and may consequently leads to an increase of the droughts prone areas. The termination effect is noted to reduce the occurrence of dry modes, which may reduce the potential negative effects of the injection after halting. As the effect may vary from one region to another and according to the season, it suggested assessing the key sector impacts of SAI. Thus, this change in dry modes due to SAI could affect all activities which depend on water resources such as water supply, agriculture and food production, energy demand, and production with adverse effects on health, security, and sustainable development, but this needs to be assessed and quantified at regional scales.

Influence of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering on temperature mean and precipitation extremes indices in Africa

PurposeThree Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 models involved in the G4 experiment of the Geoengineering Model Inter-comparison Project (GeoMIP) project were used to investigate the impact of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) on the mean surface air temperature and precipitation extremes in Africa.Design/methodology/approachThis impact was examined under G4 and Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 scenarios on the total precipitation, the number of rainy days (RR1) and of days with heavy rainfall (R20 mm), the rainfall intensity (SDII), the maximum length of consecutive wet (CWD) and dry (CDD) days and on the maximum rainfall in five consecutive days (Rx5day) across four regions: Western Africa (WAF), Eastern Africa (EAF), Northern Africa and Southern Africa (SAF).FindingsDuring the 50 years (2020–2069) of SAI, mean continental warming is −0.40°C lower in G4 than under RCP4.5. During the post-injection period (2070–2090), the temperature continues to increase, but at a lower rate (−0.19°C) than in RCP4.5. During SAI, annual rainfall in G4 is significantly greater than in RCP4.5 over the high latitudes (especially over SAF) and lower over the tropics. The termination of SAI leads to a significant increase of rainfall over Sahel and EAF and a decrease over SAF and Guinea Coast (WAF).Practical implicationsCompared to RCP4.5, SAI will contribute to reducing significantly regional warming but with a significant decrease of rainfall in the tropics where rainfed agriculture account for a large part of the economies. After the SAI period, the risk of drought over the extratropical regions (especially in SAF) will be mitigated, while the risk of floods will be exacerbated in the Central Sahel.Originality/valueTo meet the Paris Agreement, African countries will implement mitigation measures to contribute to keep the surface air temperature below 2°C. Geoengineering with SAI is suggested as an option to meet this challenge, but its implication on the African climate system needs a deep investigation in the aim to understand the impacts on temperature and precipitation extremes. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to investigate the potential impact of SAI using the G4 experiment of GeoMIP on temperature and precipitation extremes of the African continent.

Impact of stratospheric aerosol intervention geoengineering on surface air temperature in China: a surface energy budget perspective

Abstract. Stratospheric aerosol intervention (SAI) geoengineering is a proposed scheme to counteract anthropogenic global warming, but the climate response to SAI, with great regional disparities, remains uncertain. In this study, we use Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project G4 experiment simulations from six models that counteract anthropogenic forcing under medium–low emissions (Representative Concentration Pathway 4.5 – RCP4.5) by injecting a certain amount of SO2 into the stratosphere every year to investigate the surface air temperature response to SAI geoengineering over China. We have found that SAI has led to surface cooling over China during the last 40 years of injection simulation (2030–2069), which varies among models, regions, and seasons. Decreased tropospheric temperature and water vapor and increased stratospheric aerosols induce robust decreases in downward clear-sky longwave and shortwave radiation fluxes at the surface, respectively, dominating the temperature change over China. Changes in cloud effective forcing and surface albedo feedback also relate to the temperature response but with large spatial and seasonal variations. We find that the increased summer cloud cover and winter surface albedo lead to strong cooling, while the decreased summer cloud cover and winter surface albedo lead to weak cooling or even insignificant warming for the certain subregions and models. Our results suggest that cloud and land surface processes in models dominate the spatial pattern of SAI-induced surface air temperature change over China.

Assessing the consequences of including aerosol absorption in potential stratospheric aerosol injection climate intervention strategies

Abstract. Theoretical stratospheric aerosol intervention (SAI) strategies model the deliberate injection of aerosols or their precursors into the stratosphere, thereby reflecting incident sunlight back to space and counterbalancing a fraction of the warming due to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. This cooling mechanism is known to be relatively robust through analogues from explosive volcanic eruptions which have been documented to cool the climate of the Earth. However, a practical difficulty of SAI strategies is how to deliver the injection high enough to ensure dispersal of the aerosol within the stratosphere on a global scale. Recently, it has been suggested that including a small amount of absorbing material in a dedicated 10 d intensive deployment might enable aerosols or precursor gases to be injected at significantly lower, more technologically feasible altitudes. The material then absorbs sunlight, causing a localised heating and “lofting” of the particles and enabling them to penetrate into the stratosphere. Such self-lofting has recently been observed following the intensive wildfires in 2019–2020 in south-eastern Australia, where the resulting absorbing aerosol penetrated into the stratosphere and was monitored by satellite instrumentation for many months subsequent to emission. This study uses the fully coupled UKESM1 climate model simulations performed for the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) and new simulations where the aerosol optical properties have been adjusted to include a moderate degree of absorption. The results indicate that partially absorbing aerosols (i) reduce the cooling efficiency per unit mass of aerosol injected, (ii) increase deficits in global precipitation, (iii) delay the recovery of the stratospheric ozone hole, (iv) disrupt the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation when global-mean temperatures are reduced by as little as 0.1 K, and (v) enhance the positive phase of the wintertime North Atlantic Oscillation which is associated with floods in northern Europe and droughts in southern Europe. While these results are dependent upon the exact details of the injection strategies and our simulations use 10 times the ratio of black carbon to sulfate that is considered in the recent intensive deployment studies, they demonstrate some of the potential pitfalls of injecting an absorbing aerosol into the stratosphere to combat the global warming problem.

Impacts of three types of solar geoengineering on the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation

Abstract. Climate models simulate lower rates of North Atlantic heat transport under greenhouse gas climates than at present due to a reduction in the strength of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). Solar geoengineering whereby surface temperatures are cooled by reduction of incoming shortwave radiation may be expected to ameliorate this effect. We investigate this using six Earth system models running scenarios from GeoMIP (Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project) in the cases of (i) reduction in the solar constant, mimicking dimming of the sun; (ii) sulfate aerosol injection into the lower equatorial stratosphere; and (iii) brightening of the ocean regions, mimicking enhancing tropospheric cloud amounts. We find that despite across-model differences, AMOC decreases are attributable to reduced air–ocean temperature differences and reduced September Arctic sea ice extent, with no significant impact from changing surface winds or precipitation − evaporation. Reversing the surface freshening of the North Atlantic overturning regions caused by decreased summer sea ice sea helps to promote AMOC. When comparing the geoengineering types after normalizing them for the differences in top-of-atmosphere radiative forcing, we find that solar dimming is more effective than either marine cloud brightening or stratospheric aerosol injection.

Stratospheric ozone response to sulfate aerosol and solar dimming climate interventions based on the G6 Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) simulations

Abstract. This study assesses the impacts of stratospheric aerosol intervention (SAI) and solar dimming on stratospheric ozone based on the G6 Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) experiments, called G6sulfur and G6solar. For G6sulfur, an enhanced stratospheric sulfate aerosol burden reflects some of the incoming solar radiation back into space to cool the surface climate, while for G6solar, the reduction in the global solar constant in the model achieves the same goal. Both experiments use the high emissions scenario of SSP5-8.5 as the baseline experiment and define surface temperature from the medium emission scenario of SSP2-4.5 as the target. In total, six Earth system models (ESMs) performed these experiments, and three out of the six models include interactive stratospheric chemistry. The increase in absorbing sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere results in a heating of the lower tropical stratospheric temperatures by between 5 to 13 K for the six different ESMs, leading to changes in stratospheric transport, water vapor, and other related changes. The increase in the aerosol burden also increases aerosol surface area density, which is important for heterogeneous chemical reactions. The resulting changes in the springtime Antarctic ozone between the G6sulfur and SSP5-8.5, based on the three models with interactive chemistry, include an initial reduction in total column ozone (TCO) of 10 DU (ranging between 0–30 DU for the three models) and up to 20 DU (between 10–40 DU) by the end of the century. The relatively small reduction in TCO for the multi-model mean in the first 2 decades results from variations in the required sulfur injections in the models and differences in the complexity of the chemistry schemes. In contrast, in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) high latitudes, no significant changes can be identified due to the large natural variability in the models, with little change in TCO by the end of the century. However, all three models with interactive chemistry consistently simulate an increase in TCO in the NH mid-latitudes up to 20 DU, compared to SSP5-8.5, in addition to the 20 DU increase resulting from increasing greenhouse gases between SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5. In contrast to G6sulfur, G6solar does not significantly change stratospheric temperatures compared to the baseline simulation. Solar dimming results in little change in TCO compared to SSP5-8.5. Only in the tropics does G6solar result in an increase of TCO of up to 8 DU, compared to SSP2-4.5, which may counteract the projected reduction in SSP5-8.5. This work identifies differences in the response of SAI and solar dimming on ozone for three ESMs with interactive chemistry, which are partly due to the differences and shortcomings in the complexity of aerosol microphysics, chemistry, and the description of ozone photolysis. It also identifies that solar dimming, if viewed as an analog to SAI using a predominantly scattering aerosol, would succeed in reducing tropospheric and surface temperatures, but any stratospheric changes due to the high forcing greenhouse gas scenario, including the potential harmful increase in TCO beyond historical values, would prevail.

The impact of stratospheric aerosol intervention on the North Atlantic and Quasi-Biennial Oscillations in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) G6sulfur experiment

Abstract. As part of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project a numerical experiment known as G6sulfur has been designed in which temperatures under a high-forcing future scenario (SSP5-8.5) are reduced to those under a medium-forcing scenario (SSP2-4.5) using the proposed geoengineering technique of stratospheric aerosol intervention (SAI). G6sulfur involves introducing sulfuric acid aerosol into the tropical stratosphere where it reflects incoming sunlight back to space, thus cooling the planet. Here, we compare the results from six Earth-system models that have performed the G6sulfur experiment and examine how SAI affects two important modes of natural variability, the northern wintertime North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO). Although all models show that SAI is successful in reducing global mean temperature as designed, they are also consistent in showing that it forces an increasingly positive phase of the NAO as the injection rate increases over the course of the 21st century, exacerbating precipitation reductions over parts of southern Europe compared with SSP5-8.5. In contrast to the robust result for the NAO, there is less consistency for the impact on the QBO, but the results nevertheless indicate a risk that equatorial SAI could cause the QBO to stall and become locked in a phase with permanent westerly winds in the lower stratosphere.

An interactive stratospheric aerosol model intercomparison of solar geoengineering by stratospheric injection of SO<sub>2</sub> or accumulation-mode sulfuric acid aerosols

Abstract. Studies of stratospheric solar geoengineering have tended to focus on modification of the sulfuric acid aerosol layer, and almost all climate model experiments that mechanistically increase the sulfuric acid aerosol burden assume injection of SO2. A key finding from these model studies is that the radiative forcing would increase sublinearly with increasing SO2 injection because most of the added sulfur increases the mass of existing particles, resulting in shorter aerosol residence times and aerosols that are above the optimal size for scattering. Injection of SO3 or H2SO4 from an aircraft in stratospheric flight is expected to produce particles predominantly in the accumulation-mode size range following microphysical processing within an expanding plume, and such injection may result in a smaller average stratospheric particle size, allowing a given injection of sulfur to produce more radiative forcing. We report the first multi-model intercomparison to evaluate this approach, which we label AM-H2SO4 injection. A coordinated multi-model experiment designed to represent this SO3- or H2SO4-driven geoengineering scenario was carried out with three interactive stratospheric aerosol microphysics models: the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Community Earth System Model (CESM2) with the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model (WACCM) atmospheric configuration, the Max-Planck Institute's middle atmosphere version of ECHAM5 with the HAM microphysical module (MAECHAM5-HAM) and ETH's SOlar Climate Ozone Links with AER microphysics (SOCOL-AER) coordinated as a test-bed experiment within the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). The intercomparison explores how the injection of new accumulation-mode particles changes the large-scale particle size distribution and thus the overall radiative and dynamical response to stratospheric sulfur injection. Each model used the same injection scenarios testing AM-H2SO4 and SO2 injections at 5 and 25 Tg(S) yr−1 to test linearity and climate response sensitivity. All three models find that AM-H2SO4 injection increases the radiative efficacy, defined as the radiative forcing per unit of sulfur injected, relative to SO2 injection. Increased radiative efficacy means that when compared to the use of SO2 to produce the same radiative forcing, AM-H2SO4 emissions would reduce side effects of sulfuric acid aerosol geoengineering that are proportional to mass burden. The model studies were carried out with two different idealized geographical distributions of injection mass representing deployment scenarios with different objectives, one designed to force mainly the midlatitudes by injecting into two grid points at 30∘ N and 30∘ S, and the other designed to maximize aerosol residence time by injecting uniformly in the region between 30∘ S and 30∘ N. Analysis of aerosol size distributions in the perturbed stratosphere of the models shows that particle sizes evolve differently in response to concentrated versus dispersed injections depending on the form of the injected sulfur (SO2 gas or AM-H2SO4 particulate) and suggests that prior model results for concentrated injection of SO2 may be strongly dependent on model resolution. Differences among models arise from differences in aerosol formulation and differences in model dynamics, factors whose interplay cannot be easily untangled by this intercomparison.

Impact of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection Geoengineering on the Summer Climate Over East Asia

AbstractAs a potential approach to counteract global warming, geoengineering has attracted much attention in recent years. We investigate the impacts of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) geoengineering on summer (June‐August, JJA) temperature and precipitation over East Asia as well as the East Asian summer monsoon (EASM) by using model outputs archived in the G4 stratospheric aerosol injection experiments of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). In the G4 experiment, injected sulfate aerosols cause decreases in top‐of‐atmosphere radiative forcing, surface air temperature, and precipitation, and changes in the EASM and drought/flood pattern in summer over East Asia. The SAI‐induced temperature changes show consistent cooling with strong magnitudes over the East Asian continent, while the precipitation and EASM changes vary among regions and models. SAI leads to anomalous anticyclones in the lower troposphere, mainly due to the strong cooling in the middle‐to‐upper troposphere. The thermodynamic and dynamic mechanisms of SAI‐induced summer precipitation change over East Asia are analyzed through the moisture budget equation. The results show that the spatial pattern of precipitation change is dominated by a dynamic divergent component under SAI forcing, indicating the leading role of atmospheric circulation change. This change is closely associated with anomalous cyclones and anticyclones in the lower troposphere.

Impact of solar geoengineering on temperatures over the Indonesian Maritime Continent

AbstractClimate 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 SO2 into 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.

Identifying the sources of uncertainty in climate model simulations of solar radiation modification with the G6sulfur and G6solar Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) simulations

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.

Response of the Indian summer monsoon to global warming, solar geoengineering and its termination

The response of the Indian Summer Monsoon (ISM) to global warming, solar geoengineering and its termination is examined using the multi-model mean of seven global climate model simulations from G2 experiment of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project. Under the global warming scenario, land–ocean temperature contrasts and low-level monsoon circulation progressively strengthen accompanied by enhanced precipitation over the Indian subcontinent. Notably, in the solar geoengineered scenario, marginal surface cooling is projected over the majority of the ISM region, and there is strengthening of both upper and lower level circulation. However, preferential precipitation near Western Ghats leads to dry bias over majority of Indian land. Upon the termination of the geoengineering, the climatic conditions—temperature, precipitation, winds and moisture would abruptly change to what it would have been under the global warming scenario. Thus, this may be important to note that such changes may need attention for the future mitigation and adaptation purposes if solar geoengineering is required to implement in future.

Comparing different generations of idealized solar geoengineering simulations in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP)

Abstract. Solar geoengineering has been receiving increased attention in recent years as a potential temporary solution to offset global warming. One method of approximating global-scale solar geoengineering in climate models is via solar reduction experiments. Two generations of models in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) have now simulated offsetting a quadrupling of the CO2 concentration with solar reduction. This simulation is idealized and designed to elicit large responses in the models. Here, we show that energetics, temperature, and hydrological cycle changes in this experiment are statistically indistinguishable between the two ensembles. Of the variables analyzed here, the only major differences involve highly parameterized and uncertain processes, such as cloud forcing or terrestrial net primary productivity. We conclude that despite numerous structural differences and uncertainties in models over the past two generations of models, including an increase in climate sensitivity in the latest generation of models, the models are consistent in their aggregate climate response to global solar dimming.

The Caribbean and 1.5 °C: Is SRM an Option?

The Caribbean, along with other small island developing states (SIDS), have advocated for restricting global warming to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the current century. Solar radiation management (SRM) may be one way to achieve this goal. This paper examines the mean Caribbean climate under various scenarios of an SRM-altered versus an SRM-unaltered world for three global warming targets, namely, 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. Data from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project Phase 1 (GeoMIP1) were examined for two SRM scenarios: the G3 experiment where there is a gradual injection of sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the tropical lower stratosphere starting in 2020 and terminating after 50 years, and the G4 experiment where a fixed 5 Teragram (Tg) of SO2 per year is injected into the atmosphere starting in 2020 and ending after 50 years. The results show that SRM has the potential to delay attainment of the 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 °C global warming targets. The extent of the delay varies depending on the SRM methodology but may be beyond mid-century for the 1.5 °C goal. In comparison, however, the higher temperature thresholds are both still attained before the end of century once SRM is ceased, raising questions about the value of the initial delay. The application of SRM also significantly alters mean Caribbean climate during the global warming target years (determined for a representative concentration pathway 4.5 (RCP4.5) world without SRM). The Caribbean is generally cooler but drier during the 1.5 °C years and similarly cool but less dry for years corresponding to the higher temperature targets. Finally, the mean Caribbean climate at 1.5 °C differs if the global warming target is achieved under SRM versus RCP4.5. The same is true for the higher warming targets. The implications of all the results are discussed as a background for determining whether SRM represents a viable consideration for Caribbean SIDS to achieve their “1.5 to stay alive” goal.