Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosol Geoengineering Could Alter the High‐Latitude Seasonal Cycle

Jiang, Jiu; Cao, Long; MacMartin, Douglas G.; Simpson, Isla R.; Kravitz, Ben; Cheng, Wei; Visioni, Daniele; Tilmes, Simone; Richter, Jadwiga H.; Mills, Michael J.

doi:10.1029/2019gl085758

Cited by 54 publications

(124 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

115

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The SSI surface intersects with all four of the previous surfaces, indicating that SSI is mutually compatible with any of these climate goals. For example, T 0 and SSI intersect very near to the point [ 0 ≈ 0.15, 1 ≈ 2 ≈ 0], indicating that while our T 0 and SSI objectives may be achieved together, this is only possible with very low quantities of 1 and 2 ; this is again consistent with the GLENS simulations, which controlled T 0 but overcompensated SSI (Jiang et al, 2019) because they produced non-zero quantities of 1 and 2 to manage T 1 and T 2 , respectively. Likewise, P 0 and SSI are also mutually compatible, but the intersection of…”

Section: Visualizing the Design Spacesupporting

confidence: 76%

Expanding the Design Space of Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering to Include Precipitation-Based Objectives and Explore Trade-offs

Lee¹,

MacMartin²,

Visioni³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. 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.

show abstract

Section: Visualizing the Design Spacesupporting

confidence: 76%

Expanding the Design Space of Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering to Include Precipitation-Based Objectives and Explore Trade-offs

Lee¹,

MacMartin²,

Visioni³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…pole temperature gradient, over the course of the 21 st century. A robust strengthening of the stratospheric polar jets has indeed been found under sulfate geoengineering scenarios (Ferraro et al, 2015;Richter et al, 2018;Tilmes et al, 2018b), and the GLENS simulations do show warmer winters over several high latitude locations (Jiang et al, 2019). Our aim here is to link these two aspects of the geoengineering response.…”

mentioning

confidence: 76%

“…1a. That winter warming is found despite stabilization of the annual-mean equator-to-pole temperature gradient by the feedback control algorithm, and contributes to a dampened seasonal cycle in temperature (Jiang et al, 2019). Continental warming is largely absent in summer (Fig.…”

Section: Surface Air Temperature and Precipitation Responsesmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…We consider three scenarios, all of which were performed under the Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5) emissions scenario for greenhouse gases: (i) Base: 20 ensemble members performed between 2010-2030; (ii) RCP8.5: 3 members of Base that were extended out to 2097; and (iii) GEO8.5: 20 ensemble members with added stratospheric geoengineering performed between 2020-2099, which were branched off from the 20 Base members; this experiment is named "Geoengineering" in Tilmes et al (2018a) and "GLENS" in a few other studies (e.g. Jiang et al, 2019;Simpson et al, 2019).…”

Section: Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The literature offers some explanation for these temperature residuals: annual-mean forced warming around Greenland has been linked to changes in the hydrological cycle over the North Atlantic and an acceleration of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), although this might be a model dependent feature (Fasullo et al, 2018). The warming over the Barents-Kara sea is associated with sea ice losses in mid-winter and spring (Jiang et al, 2019), but the feedbacks remain to be investigated. For precipitation, the residual is a drying over northwestern Europe and a wetting to the south (Fig.…”

Section: Quantifying the Impact Of Stratospheric Dynamics On Surface mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Robust winter warming over Eurasia under stratospheric sulfate geoengineering – the role of stratospheric dynamics

Banerjee¹,

Butler²,

Polvani³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. It has been suggested that increased stratospheric sulfate aerosol loadings following large, low latitude volcanic eruptions can lead to wintertime warming over Eurasia through dynamical stratosphere-troposphere coupling. We here investigate the proposed connection in the context of hypothetical future stratospheric sulfate geoengineering in the Geoengineering Large Ensemble simulations. In those geoengineering simulations, we find that stratospheric circulation anomalies that resemble the positive phase of the Northern Annular Mode in winter is a distinguishing climate response which is absent when increasing greenhouse gases alone are prescribed. This stratospheric dynamical response projects onto the positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation, leading to associated side-effects of this climate intervention strategy, such as continental Eurasian warming and precipitation changes. Seasonality is a key signature of the dynamically-driven surface response. We find an opposite response of the North Atlantic Oscillation in summer, when no dynamical role of the stratosphere is expected. The robustness of the wintertime forced response stands in contrast to previously proposed volcanic responses.

show abstract

High-latitude stratospheric aerosol injection to preserve the Arctic

Lee

MacMartin

Visioni

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) has been shown in climate models to reduce some impacts of global warming in the Arctic, including the loss of sea ice, permafrost thaw, and reduction of Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) mass; SAI at high latitudes could preferentially target these impacts. In this study, we use the Community Earth System Model to simulate two Arctic-focused SAI strategies, which inject at 60°N latitude each spring with injection rates adjusted to either maintain September Arctic sea ice at 2030 levels ("Arctic Low") or restore it to 2010 levels ("Arctic High"). Both simulations maintain or restore September Arctic sea ice to within 10% of their respective targets, reduce permafrost thaw, and increase GrIS surface mass balance by reducing runoff. Arctic High reduces these impacts more effectively than a globally-focused SAI strategy that injects similar quantities of SO 2 at lower latitudes. However, Arctic-focused SAI is not merely a "reset button" for the Arctic climate, but brings about a novel climate state, including changes to the seasonal cycles of Northern Hemisphere temperature and sea ice and less high-latitude carbon uptake relative to SSP2-4.5. Additionally, while Arctic-focused SAI predominantly cools the Arctic, its effects are not confined to the Arctic, including detectable cooling throughout most of the northern hemisphere for both simulations, increased mid-latitude sulfur deposition, and a southward shift of the location of the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ).

show abstract

Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosol Geoengineering Could Alter the High‐Latitude Seasonal Cycle

Cited by 54 publications

References 55 publications

Expanding the Design Space of Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering to Include Precipitation-Based Objectives and Explore Trade-offs

Expanding the Design Space of Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering to Include Precipitation-Based Objectives and Explore Trade-offs

Robust winter warming over Eurasia under stratospheric sulfate geoengineering – the role of stratospheric dynamics

High-latitude stratospheric aerosol injection to preserve the Arctic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About