Search

There is now substantial literature on climate model studies of equatorial or tropical stratospheric SO2 injections that aim to counteract the surface warming produced by rising concentrations of greenhouse gases. Here we present the results from the first systematic intercomparison of climate responses in three Earth system models wherein the injection of SO2 occurs at different latitudes in the lower stratosphere: CESM2-WACCM6, UKESM1.0 and GISS-E2.1-G. The first two use a modal aerosol microphysics scheme, while two versions of GISS-E2.1-G use a bulk aerosol (One-Moment Aerosol, OMA) and a two-moment (Multiconfiguration Aerosol TRacker of mIXing state, MATRIX) microphysics approach, respectively. Our aim in this work is to determine commonalities and differences between the climate model responses in terms of the distribution of the optically reflective sulfate aerosols produced from the oxidation of SO2 and in terms of the surface response to the resulting reduction in solar radiation. A focus on understanding the contribution of characteristics of models transport alongside their microphysical and chemical schemes, and on evaluating the resulting stratospheric responses in different models, is given in the companion paper (Bednarz et al., 2023). The goal of this exercise is not to evaluate these single-point injection simulations as stand-alone proposed strategies to counteract global warming; instead we determine sources and areas of agreement and uncertainty in the simulated responses and, ultimately, the possibility of designing a comprehensive intervention strategy capable of managing multiple simultaneous climate goals through the combination of different injection locations. We find large disagreements between GISS-E2.1-G and the CESM2-WACCM6 and UKESM1.0 models regarding the magnitude of cooling per unit of aerosol optical depth (AOD) produced, which varies from 4.7 K per unit of AOD in CESM2-WACCM6 to 16.7 K in the GISS-E2.1-G version with two-moment aerosol microphysics. By normalizing the results with the global mean response in each of the models and thus assuming that the amount of SO2 injected is a free parameter that can be managed independently, we highlight some commonalities in the overall distributions of the aerosols, in the inter-hemispheric surface temperature response and in shifts to the Intertropical Convergence Zone, as well as some areas of disagreement, such as the extent of the aerosol confinement in the equatorial region and the efficiency of the transport to polar latitudes. In conclusion, we demonstrate that it is possible to use these simulations to produce more comprehensive injection strategies in multiple climate models. However, large differences in the injection magnitudes can be expected, potentially increasing inter-model spreads in some stratospheric quantities (such as aerosol distribution) while reducing the spread in the surface response in terms of temperature and precipitation; furthermore, the selection of the injection locations may be dependent on the models' specific stratospheric transport.

Solar climate intervention using stratospheric aerosol injection is a proposed method of reducing global mean temperatures to reduce the worst consequences of climate change. A detailed assessment of responses and impacts of such an intervention is needed with multiple global models to support societal decisions regarding the use of these approaches to help address climate change. We present a new modeling protocol aimed at simulating a plausible deployment of stratospheric aerosol injection and reproducibility of simulations using other Earth system models: Assessing Responses and Impacts of Solar climate intervention on the Earth system with stratospheric aerosol injection (ARISE-SAI). The protocol and simulations are aimed at enabling community assessment of responses of the Earth system to solar climate intervention. ARISE-SAI simulations are designed to be more policy-relevant than existing large ensembles or multi-model simulation sets. We describe in detail the first set of ARISE-SAI simulations, ARISE-SAI-1.5, which utilize a moderate emissions scenario, introduce stratospheric aerosol injection at ∼21.5 km in the year 2035, and keep global mean surface air temperature near 1.5 ∘C above the pre-industrial value utilizing a feedback or control algorithm. We present the detailed setup, aerosol injection strategy, and preliminary climate analysis from a 10-member ensemble of these simulations carried out with the Community Earth System Model version 2 with the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model version 6 as its atmospheric component.

Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), as a possible supplement to emission reduction, has the potential to reduce some of the risks associated with climate change. Adding aerosols to the lower stratosphere would result in temporary global cooling. However, different choices for the aerosol injection latitude(s) and season(s) have been shown to lead to significant differences in regional surface climate, introducing a design aspect to SAI. Past research has shown that there are at least three independent degrees of freedom (DOFs) that can be used to simultaneously manage three different climate goals. Knowing how many more DOFs there are, and thus how many independent climate goals can be simultaneously managed, is essential to understanding fundamental limits of how well SAI might compensate for anthropogenic climate change, and evaluating any underlying trade-offs between different climate goals. Here, we quantify the number of meaningfully independent DOFs of the SAI design space. This number of meaningfully independent DOFs depends on both the amount of cooling and the climate variables used for quantifying the changes in surface climate. At low levels of global cooling, only a small set of injection choices yield detectably different surface climate responses. For a cooling level of 1–1.5 ∘C, we find that there are likely between six and eight meaningfully independent DOFs. This narrows down the range of available DOFs and also reveals new opportunities for exploring alternate SAI designs with different distributions of climate impacts.

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: 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. In conjunction with the differences in direct radiative impacts at the surface, these drive different impacts on the extratropical modes of variability (Northern and Southern Annular Mode), including important consequences on the northern winter surface climate, as well as 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 response to SAI, as well as lay the ground for designing an optimal SAI strategy that could form a basis of future multi-model intercomparisons.

Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) comes with a wide range of possible design choices, such as the location and timing of the injection. Different injection strategies can yield different climate responses; therefore, making informed future decisions on SAI requires an understanding of the range of possible climate outcomes. Yet to date, there has been no systematic exploration of a comprehensive set of SAI strategies. This limits the ability to determine which effects are robust across different strategies and which depend on specific injection choices, or to determine if there are underlying trade-offs between different climate goals. This study systematically explores how the choice of SAI strategy affects climate responses. Here, we introduce four hemispherically-symmetric injection strategies, all of which are designed to maintain the same global mean surface temperature: an annual injection at the equator (EQ), an annual injection of equal amounts of SO2 at 15° N and 15° S (15N+15S), an annual injection of equal amounts of SO2 at 30° N and 30° S (30N+30S), and a polar injection strategy that injects equal amounts of SO2 at 60° N and 60° S only during spring in each hemisphere (60N+60S). We compare these four hemispherically-symmetric SAI strategies with a more complex injection strategy that injects different quantities of SO2 at 30° N, 15° N, 15° S, and 30° S in order to maintain not only the global mean surface temperature but also its large scale horizontal gradients. We find that the choice of SAI strategy notably affects the spatial distribution of aerosol optical depths, injection efficiency, and various surface climate responses. Among other findings, we show that injecting in subtropics produces more global cooling per unit injection, with the EQ and the 60N+60S cases requiring, respectively, 59 % and 50 % more injection than the 30N+30S case to meet the same global mean temperature target. Injecting at higher latitudes results in larger equator-to-pole temperature gradients. While all five strategies restore September Arctic sea ice, the high-latitude injection one is more effective due to the SAI-induced cooling occurring preferentially at higher latitudes.

Simulating whole atmosphere dynamics, chemistry, and physics is computationally expensive. It can require high vertical resolution throughout the middle and upper atmosphere, as well as a comprehensive chemistry and aerosol scheme coupled to radiation physics. An unintentional outcome of the development of one of the most sophisticated and hence computationally expensive model configurations is that it often excludes a broad community of users with limited computational resources. Here, we analyze two configurations of the Community Earth System Model Version 2, Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model Version 6 (CESM2(WACCM6)) with simplified “middle atmosphere” chemistry at nominal 1 and 2 degree horizontal resolutions. Using observations, a reanalysis, and direct model comparisons, we find that these configurations generally reproduce the climate, variability, and climate sensitivity of the 1 degree nominal horizontal resolution configuration with comprehensive chemistry. While the background stratospheric aerosol optical depth is elevated in the middle atmosphere configurations as compared to the comprehensive chemistry configuration, it is comparable between all configurations during volcanic eruptions. For any purposes other than those needing an accurate representation of tropospheric organic chemistry and secondary organic aerosols, these simplified chemistry configurations deliver reliable simulations of the whole atmosphere that require 35% to 86% fewer computational resources at nominal 1 and 2 degree horizontal resolution, respectively.

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.

The paper constitutes part 2 of a study performing a first systematic inter-model comparison of the atmospheric responses to stratospheric sulfate aerosol injections (SAI) at various latitudes as simulated by three state-of-the-art Earth System Models – CESM2(WACCM6), UKESM1.0, and GISS-E2.1-G. We use a set of five sensitivity experiments with constant annual injections of SO2 in the lower stratosphere at either 30° S, 15° S, 0°, 15° N or 30° N. We identify the similarities and differences in the simulated responses amongst the models as well as demonstrate the role of biases in the climatological circulation and specific aspects of the model microphysics and chemistry in driving the inter-model differences. Building on part 1 (Visioni et al., 2022), we explain the simulated differences in the aerosol spatial distribution between the models: CESM2 shows significantly faster shallow branches of the Brewer Dobson circulation facilitating transport of the relatively larger-sized aerosol to higher latitudes; UKESM shows a relatively isolated tropical pipe and older tropical age-of-air confining the relatively smaller-sized aerosols to the tropics; and the two GISS versions with either bulk or modal aerosol microphysics show elevated sulfate levels at higher latitudes as the result of smaller aerosol sizes and relatively stronger horizontal mixing (thus very young stratospheric age-of-air). We then elucidate the role of these factors in driving the stratospheric responses to SAI. We find a large spread in the magnitudes of the tropical lower stratospheric warming amongst the models, which can be partially attributed to the differences in aerosol distribution and sizes. Regarding the stratospheric ozone responses, we find a good agreement in the tropics between the models with modal microphysics, with lower stratospheric ozone changes consistent with the SAI-induced modulation of the large-scale circulation and the resulting changes in transport. In contrast to the relative agreement at low latitudes, we find a large inter-model spread in the Antarctic ozone responses that can largely be explained by the differences in the simulated latitudinal distributions of aerosols as well as the degree of implementation of heterogeneous halogen chemistry on sulfate. Finally, we also find large differences in stratospheric water vapour responses amongst the models, with CESM2 and GISS with modal microphysics both showing significant increases in stratospheric water vapour under SAI consistent with the increase in cold point temperatures that were largely not reproduced in UKESM. For the GISS runs with bulk microphysics, the SAI simulations show contrastingly different stratospheric responses to the models using the modal aerosol treatment, including the absence of lower stratospheric warming as well as significant reductions in stratospheric water vapour and ozone. The results point towards the importance of detailed treatment of aerosol processes, although some problems in halogen chemistry in GISS are identified that require further attention. Overall, our results contribute to an increased understanding of the underlying physical mechanisms as well as the sources of uncertainty in model projections of climate impacts from SAI.

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 over-compensates sea ice, while the second under-compensates 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.

Solar geoengineering is an emerging topic in climate-change discussions. To support future decisions on the deployment of this technology, society requires better estimates of its environmental impacts and limitations. As solar geoengineering has never been deployed, conclusions about its climatic effects are primarily obtained through models and natural analogues. As such, our confidence in projections of solar geoengineering, the basis for that confidence and how our confidence can be improved is limited. In this Perspective, we review our current understanding of uncertainty and risk in solar geoengineering via stratospheric aerosols. Using a risk-register framework, we illustrate key uncertainties, such as sub-grid-scale mixing or effects of stratospheric heating, investigations of which should be prioritized to transition the field to a mission-driven research agenda. We conclude with recommendations for possible avenues of research, including targeted model intercomparisons and appropriately governed small-scale field experiments. Discussions surrounding stratospheric aerosol geoengineering have increased in climate-change discourse, but our understanding of its impacts is relatively limited. This Perspective discusses the uncertainty and risk associated with stratospheric aerosol geoengineering, offering suggestions on research topics that should be prioritized.

Simulating the complex aerosol microphysical processes in a comprehensive Earth System Model can be very computationally intensive and therefore many models utilize a modal approach, where aerosol size distributions are represented by observations-derived lognormal functions. This approach has been shown to yield satisfactory results in a large array of applications, but there may be cases where the simplification in this approach may produce some shortcomings. In this work we show specific conditions under which the current approximations used in modal approaches might yield some incorrect answers. Using results from the Community Earth System Model v1 (CESM1) Geoengineering Large Ensemble (GLENS) project, we analyze the effects in the troposphere of a continuous increasing load of sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere, with the aim of counteracting the surface warming produced by non-mitigated increasing greenhouse gases concentration between 2020–2100. We show that the simulated results pertaining to the evolution of sea salt and dust aerosols in the upper troposphere are not realistic due to internal mixing assumptions in the modal aerosol treatment, which in this case reduces the size, and thus the settling velocities, of those particles and ultimately changes their mixing ratio below the tropopause. The unnatural increase of these aerosol species affects, in turn, the simulation of upper tropospheric ice formation, resulting in an increase in ice clouds that is not due to any meaningful physical mechanisms. While we show that this does not significantly affect the overall results of the simulations, we point to some areas where results should be interpreted with care in modeling simulations using similar approximations: in particular, the evolution of upper tropospheric clouds when large amount of sulfate is present in the stratosphere, as after a large explosive volcanic eruption or in similar stratospheric aerosol injection cases. Finally, we suggest that this could be avoided if sulfate aerosols in the coarse mode, the predominant species in these situation, are treated separately from other aerosol species in the model.

Consideration of solar geoengineering as a potential response to climate change will demand complex decisions. These include not only the choice of whether to deploy solar engineering, but decision...

The last decade has seen broad exploratory research into stratospheric aerosol (SA) geoengineering, motivated by concern that reducing greenhouse gas emissions may be insufficient to avoid significant impacts from climate change. Based on this research, it is plausible that a limited deployment of SA geoengineering, provided it is used in addition to cutting emissions, could reduce many climate risks for most people. However, “plausible” is an insufficient basis on which to support future decisions. Developing the necessary knowledge requires a transition toward mission-driven research that has the explicit goal of supporting informed decisions. We highlight two important observations that follow from considering such a comprehensive, prioritized natural-science research effort. First, while field experiments may eventually be needed to reduce some of the uncertainties, we expect that the next phase of research will continue to be primarily model-based, with one outcome being to assess and prioritize which uncertainties need to be reduced (and, as a corollary, which field experiments can reduce those uncertainties). Second, we anticipate a clear separation in scale and character between small-scale experimental research to resolve specific process uncertainties and global-scale activities. We argue that the latter, even if the radiative forcing is negligible, should more appropriately be considered after a decision regarding whether and how to deploy SA geoengineering, rather than within the scope of “research” activities.

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 geoengineering focused on the Arctic could substantially reduce local and worldwide impacts of anthropogenic global warming. Because the Arctic receives little sunlight during...

Deliberately blocking out a small portion of the incoming solar radiation would cool the climate. One such approach would be injecting SO$_2$ into the stratosphere, which would produce sulfate aero...

We explore the impact of different stratospheric sulfur injection strategies to counter greenhouse gas induced warming on total column ozone (TCO), including high and low altitude injections at four latitudes, equatorial injections, and using a configuration with higher vertical resolution, based on a state-of-the-art Earth system model. The experiments maintain global surface temperatures at 2020 conditions, while following the unmitigated future scenario. Within the first 10 years of the injection, we find an abrupt deepening of the Antarctic ozone hole by 8%–20% and changes up to 5% for other regions and seasons. The ozone hole recovery is delayed by ∼25 to over 55 years, with the fastest recovery for low-altitude injections and slowest for equatorial injections. Mid to high-latitude TCO increases by 15% in Northern Hemisphere winter and spring between 2010–2019 and 2080–2089 due to both increasing greenhouse gases and increasing sulfur injections. Implications for ecosystems need to be investigated.

Most socio-economic activities in Africa depend on the continent’s river basins, but effectively managing drought risks over the basins in response to climate change remains a big challenge. While studies have shown that the stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) intervention could mitigate temperature-related climate change impacts over Africa, there is a dearth of information on how the SAI intervention could influence drought characteristics and drought risk managements over the river basins. The present study thus examines the potential impacts of climate change and the SAI intervention on droughts and drought management over the major river basins in Africa. Multi-ensemble climate simulation datasets from the Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering Large Ensemble (GLENS) Project were analysed for the study. The Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI) and the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) were used to characterize the upper and lower limits of future drought severity, respectively, over the basins. The SPEI is a function of rainfall and potential evapotranspiration, whereas the SPI is only a function of rainfall, so the difference between the two indices is influenced by atmospheric evaporative demand. The results of the study show that, while the SAI intervention, as simulated in GLENS, may offset the impacts of climate change on temperature and atmospheric evaporative demand, the level of SAI that compensates for temperature change would overcompensate for the impacts on precipitation and therefore impose a climate water balance deficit in the tropics. SAI would narrow the gaps between SPEI and SPI projections over the basins by reducing SPEI drought frequency through reduced temperature and atmospheric evaporative demand while increasing SPI drought frequency through reduced rainfall. The narrowing of this gap lowers the level of uncertainty regarding future changes in drought frequency, but nonetheless has implications for future drought management in the basins, because while SAI lowers the upper limit of the future drought stress, it also raises the lower limit of the drought stress.