scholarly journals Substantial Climate Response outside the Target Area in an Idealized Experiment of Regional Radiation Management

Climate ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 66
Author(s):  
Sudhakar Dipu ◽  
Johannes Quaas ◽  
Martin Quaas ◽  
Wilfried Rickels ◽  
Johannes Mülmenstädt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiative Forcing ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Heat Waves ◽  
Climate Impacts ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Target Area ◽  
Local Cooling ◽  
Target Region ◽  
Radiation Management

Radiation management (RM) has been proposed as a conceivable climate engineering (CE) intervention to mitigate global warming. In this study, we used a coupled climate model (MPI-ESM) with a very idealized setup to investigate the efficacy and risks of CE at a local scale in space and time (regional radiation management, RRM) assuming that cloud modification is technically possible. RM is implemented in the climate model by the brightening of low-level clouds (solar radiation management, SRM) and thinning of cirrus (terrestrial radiation management, TRM). The region chosen is North America, and we simulated a period of 30 years. The implemented sustained RM resulted in a net local radiative forcing of −9.8 Wm−2 and a local cooling of −0.8 K. Surface temperature (SAT) extremes (90th and 10th percentiles) show negative anomalies in the target region. However, substantial climate impacts were also simulated outside the target area, with warming in the Arctic and pronounced precipitation change in the eastern Pacific. As a variant of RRM, a targeted intervention to suppress heat waves (HW) was investigated in further simulations by implementing intermittent cloud modification locally, prior to the simulated HW situations. In most cases, the intermittent RRM results in a successful reduction of temperatures locally, with substantially smaller impacts outside the target area compared to the sustained RRM.

scholarly journals Radiative and climate impacts of a large volcanic eruption during stratospheric sulfur geoengineering

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 305-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Laakso ◽  
H. Kokkola ◽  
A.-I. Partanen ◽  
U. Niemeier ◽  
C. Timmreck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Volcanic Eruption ◽  
Radiative Forcing ◽  
Climate Changes ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Volcanic Eruptions ◽  
Climate Impacts ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Atmospheric Conditions ◽  
Maximum Increase ◽  
Global Mean

Abstract. Both explosive volcanic eruptions, which emit sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, and stratospheric geoengineering via sulfur injections can potentially cool the climate by increasing the amount of scattering particles in the atmosphere. Here we employ a global aerosol-climate model and an Earth system model to study the radiative and climate changes occurring after an erupting volcano during solar radiation management (SRM). According to our simulations the radiative impacts of the eruption and SRM are not additive and the radiative effects and climate changes occurring after the eruption depend strongly on whether SRM is continued or suspended after the eruption. In the former case, the peak burden of the additional stratospheric sulfate as well as changes in global mean precipitation are fairly similar regardless of whether the eruption takes place in a SRM or non-SRM world. However, the maximum increase in the global mean radiative forcing caused by the eruption is approximately 21 % lower compared to a case when the eruption occurs in an unperturbed atmosphere. In addition, the recovery of the stratospheric sulfur burden and radiative forcing is significantly faster after the eruption, because the eruption during the SRM leads to a smaller number and larger sulfate particles compared to the eruption in a non-SRM world. On the other hand, if SRM is suspended immediately after the eruption, the peak increase in global forcing caused by the eruption is about 32 % lower compared to a corresponding eruption into a clean background atmosphere. In this simulation, only about one-third of the global ensemble-mean cooling occurs after the eruption, compared to that occurring after an eruption under unperturbed atmospheric conditions. Furthermore, the global cooling signal is seen only for the 12 months after the eruption in the former scenario compared to over 40 months in the latter. In terms of global precipitation rate, we obtain a 36 % smaller decrease in the first year after the eruption and again a clearly faster recovery in the concurrent eruption and SRM scenario, which is suspended after the eruption. We also found that an explosive eruption could lead to significantly different regional climate responses depending on whether it takes place during geoengineering or into an unperturbed background atmosphere. Our results imply that observations from previous large eruptions, such as Mount Pinatubo in 1991, are not directly applicable when estimating the potential consequences of a volcanic eruption during stratospheric geoengineering.

scholarly journals Interactions between reducing CO 2 emissions, CO 2 removal and solar radiation management

2012 ◽  
Vol 370 (1974) ◽  
pp. 4343-4364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naomi E. Vaughan ◽  
Timothy M. Lenton
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Dioxide ◽  
Solar Radiation ◽  
Carbon Dioxide Emissions ◽  
Radiative Forcing ◽  
Carbon Capture ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Carbon Capture And Storage ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Radiation Management ◽  
And Storage

We use a simple carbon cycle–climate model to investigate the interactions between a selection of idealized scenarios of mitigated carbon dioxide emissions, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM). Two CO 2 emissions trajectories differ by a 15-year delay in the start of mitigation activity. SRM is modelled as a reduction in incoming solar radiation that fully compensates the radiative forcing due to changes in atmospheric CO 2 concentration. Two CDR scenarios remove 300 PgC by afforestation (added to vegetation and soil) or 1000 PgC by bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (removed from system). Our results show that delaying the start of mitigation activity could be very costly in terms of the CDR activity needed later to limit atmospheric CO 2 concentration (and corresponding global warming) to a given level. Avoiding a 15-year delay in the start of mitigation activity is more effective at reducing atmospheric CO 2 concentrations than all but the maximum type of CDR interventions. The effects of applying SRM and CDR together are additive, and this shows most clearly for atmospheric CO 2 concentration. SRM causes a significant reduction in atmospheric CO 2 concentration due to increased carbon storage by the terrestrial biosphere, especially soils. However, SRM has to be maintained for many centuries to avoid rapid increases in temperature and corresponding increases in atmospheric CO 2 concentration due to loss of carbon from the land.

scholarly journals Radiative and climate impacts of a large volcanic eruption during stratospheric sulfur geoengineering

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (15) ◽  
pp. 21837-21881 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Laakso ◽  
H. Kokkola ◽  
A.-I. Partanen ◽  
U. Niemeier ◽  
C. Timmreck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Volcanic Eruption ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Volcanic Eruptions ◽  
Stratospheric Aerosol ◽  
Climate Impacts ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Atmospheric Conditions ◽  
Concurrent Case ◽  
Radiation Management

Abstract. Both explosive volcanic eruptions, which emit sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, and stratospheric geoengineering via sulfur injections can potentially cool the climate by increasing the amount of scattering particles in the atmosphere. Here we employ a global aerosol-climate model and an earth system model to study the radiative and climate impacts of an erupting volcano during solar radiation management (SRM). According to our simulations, the radiative impacts of an eruption and SRM are not additive: in the simulated case of concurrent eruption and SRM, the peak increase in global forcing is about 40 % lower compared to a corresponding eruption into a clean background atmosphere. In addition, the recovery of the stratospheric sulfate burden and forcing was significantly faster in the concurrent case since the sulfate particles grew larger and thus sedimented faster from the stratosphere. In our simulation where we assumed that SRM would be stopped immediately after a volcano eruption, stopping SRM decreased the overall stratospheric aerosol load. For the same reasons, a volcanic eruption during SRM lead to only about 1/3 of the peak global ensemble-mean cooling compared to an eruption under unperturbed atmospheric conditions. Furthermore, the global cooling signal was seen only for 12 months after the eruption in the former scenario compared to over 40 months in the latter. In terms of the global precipitation rate, we obtain a 36 % smaller decrease in the first year after the eruption and again a clearly faster recovery in the concurrent eruption and SRM scenario. We also found that an explosive eruption could lead to significantly different regional climate responses depending on whether it takes place during geoengineering or into an unperturbed background atmosphere. Our results imply that observations from previous large eruptions, such as Mt Pinatubo in 1991, are not directly applicable when estimating the potential consequences of a volcanic eruption during stratospheric geoengineering.

scholarly journals Radiative and climate effects of stratospheric sulfur geoengineering using seasonally varying injection areas

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (11) ◽  
pp. 6957-6974 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anton Laakso ◽  
Hannele Korhonen ◽  
Sami Romakkaniemi ◽  
Harri Kokkola
Keyword(s):  
Solar Radiation ◽  
Radiative Forcing ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Management Scenarios ◽  
Zonal Distribution ◽  
Climate Effects ◽  
Low Latitudes ◽  
Radiation Management

Abstract. Stratospheric sulfur injections have often been suggested as a cost-effective geoengineering method to prevent or slow down global warming. In geoengineering studies, these injections are commonly targeted to the Equator, where the yearly mean intensity of the solar radiation is the highest and from where the aerosols disperse globally due to the Brewer–Dobson Circulation. However, compensating for greenhouse gas-induced zonal warming by reducing solar radiation would require a relatively larger radiative forcing to the mid- and high latitudes and a lower forcing to the low latitudes than what is achieved by continuous equatorial injections. In this study we employ alternative aerosol injection scenarios to investigate if the resulting radiative forcing can be targeted to be zonally more uniform without decreasing the global the mean radiative forcing of stratospheric sulfur geoengineering. We used a global aerosol–climate model together with an Earth system model to study the radiative and climate effects of stratospheric sulfur injection scenarios with different injection areas. According to our simulations, varying the SO2 injection area seasonally would result in a similar global mean cooling effect as injecting SO2 to the Equator, but with a more uniform zonal distribution of shortwave radiative forcing. Compared to the case of equatorial injections, in the seasonally varying injection scenario where the maximum sulfur production from injected SO2 followed the maximum of solar radiation, the shortwave radiative forcing decreased by 27 % over the Equator (the latitudes between 20° N and 20° S) and increased by 15 % over higher latitudes. Compared to the continuous injections to the Equator, in summer months the radiative forcing was increased by 17 and 14 % and in winter months decreased by 14 and 16 % in Northern and Southern hemispheres, respectively. However, these forcings do not translate into as large changes in temperatures. The changes in forcing would only lead to 0.05 K warmer winters and 0.05 K cooler summers in the Northern Hemisphere, which is roughly 3 % of the cooling resulting from solar radiation management scenarios studied here.

scholarly journals Climate engineering and the ocean: effects on biogeochemistry and primary production

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siv K. Lauvset ◽  
Jerry Tjiputra ◽  
Helene Muri
Keyword(s):  
Primary Production ◽  
Radiative Forcing ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Stratospheric Aerosol ◽  
Climate Impacts ◽  
Environmental Drivers ◽  
Earth System ◽  
Climate Engineering ◽  
Mean Sea Surface ◽  
Radiation Management

Abstract. Here we use an Earth System Model with interactive biogeochemistry to project future ocean biogeochemistry impacts from large-scale deployment of three different radiation management (RM) climate engineering (also known as geoengineering) methods: stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), marine sky brightening (MSB), and cirrus cloud thinning (CCT). We apply RM such that the change in radiative forcing in the RCP8.5 emission scenario is reduced to the change in radiative forcing in the RCP4.5 scenario. The resulting global mean sea surface temperatures in the RM experiments are comparable to those in RCP4.5, but there are regional differences. The forcing from MSB, for example, is applied over the oceans, so the cooling of the ocean is in some regions stronger for this method of RM than for the others. Changes in ocean primary production are much more variable, but SAI and MSB give a global decrease comparable to RCP4.5 (~ 6 % in 2100 relative to 1971–2000), while CCT give a much smaller global decrease of ~ 3 %. The spatially inhomogeneous changes in ocean primary production are partly linked to how the different RM methods affect the drivers of primary production (incoming radiation, temperature, availability of nutrients, and phytoplankton) in the model. The results of this work underscores the complexity of climate impacts on primary production, and highlights that changes are driven by an integrated effect of multiple environmental drivers, which all change in different ways. These results stress the uncertain changes to ocean productivity in the future and advocates caution at any deliberate attempt for large-scale perturbation of the Earth system.

scholarly journals The cloud–aerosol–radiation (CAR) ensemble modeling system

2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (16) ◽  
pp. 8335-8364 ◽  
Author(s):  
X.-Z. Liang ◽  
F. Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Radiative Forcing ◽  
General Circulation ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Climate Modeling ◽  
General Circulation Models ◽  
Climate Impacts ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
General Description ◽  
Ensemble Modeling ◽  
Uncertainty Range

Abstract. A cloud–aerosol–radiation (CAR) ensemble modeling system has been developed to incorporate the largest choices of alternate parameterizations for cloud properties (cover, water, radius, optics, geometry), aerosol properties (type, profile, optics), radiation transfers (solar, infrared), and their interactions. These schemes form the most comprehensive collection currently available in the literature, including those used by the world's leading general circulation models (GCMs). CAR provides a unique framework to determine (via intercomparison across all schemes), reduce (via optimized ensemble simulations), and attribute specific key factors for (via physical process sensitivity analyses) the model discrepancies and uncertainties in representing greenhouse gas, aerosol, and cloud radiative forcing effects. This study presents a general description of the CAR system and illustrates its capabilities for climate modeling applications, especially in the context of estimating climate sensitivity and uncertainty range caused by cloud–aerosol–radiation interactions. For demonstration purposes, the evaluation is based on several CAR standalone and coupled climate model experiments, each comparing a limited subset of the full system ensemble with up to 896 members. It is shown that the quantification of radiative forcings and climate impacts strongly depends on the choices of the cloud, aerosol, and radiation schemes. The prevailing schemes used in current GCMs are likely insufficient in variety and physically biased in a significant way. There exists large room for improvement by optimally combining radiation transfer with cloud property schemes.

scholarly journals Multiple input control strategies for robust and adaptive climate engineering in a low-order 3-box model

2018 ◽  
Vol 474 (2217) ◽  
pp. 20180447 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Bonetti ◽  
C. McInnes
Keyword(s):  
Adaptive Control ◽  
Radiative Forcing ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Control Strategies ◽  
Adaptive Controller ◽  
Multivariable Control ◽  
Balance Model ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Climate Engineering ◽  
Low Order

A low-order 3-box energy balance model for the climate system is employed with a multivariable control scheme for the evaluation of new robust and adaptive climate engineering strategies using solar radiation management. The climate engineering measures are deployed in three boxes thus representing northern, southern and central bands. It is shown that, through heat transport between the boxes, it is possible to effect a degree of latitudinal control through the reduction of insolation. The approach employed consists of a closed-loop system with an adaptive controller, where the required control intervention is estimated under the RCP 4.5 radiative scenario. Through the online estimation of the controller parameters, adaptive control can overcome key issues related to uncertainties of the climate model, the external radiative forcing and the dynamics of the actuator used. In fact, the use of adaptive control offers a robust means of dealing with unforeseeable abrupt perturbations, as well as the parametrization of the model considered, to counteract the RCP 4.5 scenario, while still providing bounds on stability and control performance. Moreover, applying multivariable control theory also allows the formal controllability and observability of the system to be investigated in order to identify all feasible control strategies.

Public Outreach and Interactive Learning with En-ROADS Global Energy and Climate Simulator

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sibel Eker ◽  
Lori Siegel ◽  
Charles Jones ◽  
John Sterman ◽  
Florian Kapmeier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Cycle ◽  
System Dynamics ◽  
Integrated Assessment ◽  
Radiative Forcing ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Climate Impacts ◽  
Time Step ◽  
Integrated Assessment Models ◽  
Carbon Transfer ◽  
Outreach And Education

<p>Simple climate models enable not only rapid simulation of a large number of climate scenarios, especially in connection with the integrated assessment models of economy and environment, but also provide chances for outreach and education. En-ROADS, (Energy Rapid Overview and Decision Support)[1], is a publicly available, online policy simulation model designed to complement integrated assessment models for rapid simulation of climate solutions. En-ROADS is a globally aggregated energy-economy-climate model based on a simple climate model, and supports outreach and education about the causes and effects of climate change.  It has an intuitive user interface and runs essentially instantly on ordinary laptops and tablets, providing policymakers, other leaders, educators, and the public with the ability to learn for themselves about the likely consequences of energy and climate policies and uncertainties.</p><p> </p><p>En-ROADS is a behavioral system dynamics model consisting of a system of nonlinear ordinary differential equations solved numerically from 1990-2100, with a time step of one-eighth year. En-ROADS extends the C-ROADS model, which has been used extensively by officials and policymakers around the world to inform positions of parties to the UNFCCC[2][3]. In En-ROADS’ climate module, the resulting emissions from the energy system, from forestry and land use, and carbon removal technologies, determine the atmospheric concentrations of each GHG, radiative forcing, and climate impacts including global surface temperature anomaly, heat and carbon transfer between the surface and deep ocean, sea level rise, and ocean acidification. It is calibrated to fit historical data of temperature change and carbon cycle elements, as well as the projections within the RCP-SSP framework. Both En-ROADS and C-ROADS are further developed to account for the details of the terrestrial carbon cycle.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><div><br><div> <p>[1] https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html.</p> </div> <div> <p>[2] Sterman J, Fiddaman T, Franck TR, Jones A, McCauley S, Rice P, et al. Climate interactive: the C-ROADS climate policy model. System Dynamics Review 2013 <strong>28</strong> (3): 295–305</p> </div> <div> <p>[3] Sterman JD, Fiddaman T, Franck T, Jones A, McCauley S, Rice P, et al. Management flight simulators to support climate negotiations. Environmental Modelling & Software 2013, <strong>44:</strong> 122-135.</p> </div> </div>

Ozone super recovery cancelled in the Antarctic upper stratosphere

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ville Maliniemi ◽  
Pavle Arsenovic ◽  
Hilde Nesse Tyssøy ◽  
Christine Smith-Johnsen ◽  
Daniel R. Marsh
Keyword(s):  
21St Century ◽  
Radiative Forcing ◽  
Climate Model ◽  
Energetic Electron ◽  
Ozone Production ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
Future Scenarios ◽  
Antarctic Ozone ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Polar Ozone

<p>Ozone is expected to fully recover from the CFC-era by the end of the 21st century. Furthermore, because of the anthropogenic climate change, cooler stratosphere accelerates the ozone production and is projected to lead to a super recovery. We investigate the ozone distribution over the 21st century with four different future scenarios using simulations of the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model (WACCM). At the end of the 21st century, higher polar ozone levels than pre CFC-era are obtained in scenarios that have highest atmospheric radiative forcing. This is true in the Arctic stratosphere and the Antarctic lower stratosphere. The Antarctic upper stratosphere forms an exception, where different scenarios have similar level of ozone during winter. This results from excess nitrogen oxides (NOx) descending from above in stronger future scenarios. NOx is formed by energetic electron precipitation (EEP) in the thermosphere and the upper mesosphere, and descends faster through the mesosphere in stronger scenarios. This indicates that the EEP indirect effect will be important factor for the future Antarctic ozone evolution, and is potentially able to prevent the super recovery in the upper stratosphere.</p>

The Need for Governance of Climate Geoengineering

2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 419-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janos Pasztor
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Climate Impacts ◽  
Solar Radiation Management ◽  
Management Approach ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
New Realism ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Governance Challenges ◽  
Radiation Management ◽  
Ethical Risk Management

AbstractKeeping global temperature rise to within 1.5–2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels is looking increasingly unlikely through mitigation alone. While increased adaptation to inevitable climate impacts will be necessary, a new realism is creeping into the climate debate. A growing number of scientists are proposing geoengineering technologies to deal with the expected shortfall, both through carbon dioxide removal and possibly through solar radiation management. But both approaches bring risks and pose significant governance challenges, and would likely affect different communities in different ways. As geoengineering moves mainstream, it is time to put governance at the heart of future discussion, and to broaden the debate from academia to governments, treaty bodies, faith groups, and civic organizations.The Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative is a major new effort to catalyze this conversation, bringing together players from a wide range of social, geographical, and professional backgrounds. It argues that policymakers need to take an ethical risk management approach, informed by continued research. How should transborder and transgenerational ethical issues be addressed? How will governance frameworks withstand geopolitical change? Can we build on existing international treaties and institutions, or do we need new ones? And most immediately, how should further research on solar engineering be governed—given current plans to start experiments in the stratosphere? In a geoengineered world, who controls the “global thermostat”?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document