Ben Kravitz

Stratospheric ozone response to sulfate geoengineering: Results from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP)

Geoengineering with stratospheric sulfate aerosols has been proposed as a means of temporarily cooling the planet, alleviating some of the side effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. However, one of the known side effects of stratospheric injections of sulfate aerosols under present-day conditions is a general decrease in ozone concentrations. Here we present the results from two general circulation models and two coupled chemistry-climate models within the experiments G3 and G4 of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project. On average, the models simulate in G4 an increase in sulfate aerosol surface area density similar to conditions a year after the Mount Pinatubo eruption and a decrease in globally averaged ozone by 1.1−2.1 DU (Dobson unit, 1 DU = 0.001 atm cm) during the central decade of the experiment (2040–2049). Enhanced heterogeneous chemistry on sulfate aerosols leads to an ozone increase in low and middle latitudes, whereas enhanced heterogeneous reactions in polar regions and increased tropical upwelling lead to a reduction of stratospheric ozone. The increase in UV-B radiation at the surface due to ozone depletion is offset by the screening due to the aerosols in the tropics and midlatitudes, while in polar regions the UV-B radiation is increased by 5% on average, with 12% peak increases during springtime. The contribution of ozone changes to the tropopause radiative forcing during 2040–2049 is found to be less than −0.1 W m−2. After 2050, because of decreasing ClOx concentrations, the suppression of the NOx cycle becomes more important than destruction of ozone by ClOx, causing an increase in total stratospheric ozone.

A Test for Geoengineering

Stratospheric geoengineering cannot be tested in the atmosphere without full-scale implementation. Scientific and political interest in the possibility of geoengineering the climate is rising (1). There are currently no means of implementing geoengineering, but if a viable technology is produced in the next decade, how could it be tested? We argue that geoengineering cannot be tested without full-scale implementation. The initial production of aerosol droplets can be tested on a small scale, but how they will grow in size (which determines the injection rate needed to produce a particular cooling) can only be tested by injection into an existing aerosol cloud, which cannot be confined to one location. Furthermore, weather and climate variability preclude observation of the climate response without a large, decade-long forcing. Such full-scale implementation could disrupt food production on a large scale.

A multi-model assessment of regional climate disparities caused by solar geoengineering

Global-scale solar geoengineering is the deliberate modification of the climate system to offset some amount of anthropogenic climate change by reducing the amount of incident solar radiation at the surface. These changes to the planetary energy budget result in differential regional climate effects. For the first time, we quantitatively evaluate the potential for regional disparities in a multi-model context using results from a model experiment that offsets the forcing from a quadrupling of CO2 via reduction in solar irradiance. We evaluate temperature and precipitation changes in 22 geographic regions spanning most of Earthʼs continental area. Moderate amounts of solar reduction (up to 85% of the amount that returns global mean temperatures to preindustrial levels) result in regional temperature values that are closer to preindustrial levels than an un-geoengineered, high CO2 world for all regions and all models. However, in all but one model, there is at least one region for which no amount of solar reduction can restore precipitation toward its preindustrial value. For most metrics considering simultaneous changes in both variables,

A multimodel examination of climate extremes in an idealized geoengineering experiment

Temperature and precipitation extremes are examined in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project experiment G1, wherein an instantaneous quadrupling of CO2 from its preindustrial control value is offset by a commensurate reduction in solar irradiance. Compared to the preindustrial climate, changes in climate extremes under G1 are generally much smaller than under 4 × CO2 alone. However, it is also the case that extremes of temperature and precipitation in G1 differ significantly from those under preindustrial conditions. Probability density functions of standardized anomalies of monthly surface temperature T and precipitation P in G1 exhibit an extension of the high-T tail over land, of the low-T tail over ocean, and a shift of P to drier conditions. Using daily model output, we analyzed the frequency of extreme events, such as the coldest night (TNn), warmest day (TXx), and maximum 5 day precipitation amount, and also duration indicators such as cold and warm spells and consecutive dry days. The strong heating at northern high latitudes simulated under 4 × CO2 is much alleviated in G1, but significant warming remains, particularly for TNn compared to TXx. Internal feedbacks lead to regional increases in absorbed solar radiation at the surface, increasing temperatures over Northern Hemisphere land in summer. Conversely, significant cooling occurs over the tropical oceans, increasing cold spell duration there. Globally, G1 is more effective in reducing changes in temperature extremes compared to precipitation extremes and for reducing changes in precipitation extremes versus means but somewhat less effective at reducing changes in temperature extremes compared to means.

An overview of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP)

[1] The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) was designed to determine robust climate system model responses to solar geoengineering. GeoMIP currently consists of four standardized simulations involving reduction of insolation or increased amounts of stratospheric sulfate aerosols. Three more experiments involving marine cloud brightening are planned. This project has improved confidence in the expected climate effects of geoengineering in several key areas, such as the effects of geoengineering on spatial patterns of temperature and the spatial distribution of precipitation, especiallyextreme precipitationevents. However, GeoMIP has also highlighted several important research gaps, such as the effects on terrestrial net primary productivity and the importance of the CO2 physiological effect in determining the hydrologic cycle response to geoengineering. Future efforts will endeavor to address these gaps, as well as encourage cooperation with the chemistry modeling communities, the impact assessment communities, and other groups interested in model output.

Solar radiation management impacts on agriculture in China: A case study in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP)

Geoengineering via solar radiation management could affect agricultural productivity due to changes in temperature, precipitation, and solar radiation. To study rice and maize production changes in China, we used results from 10 climate models participating in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) G2 scenario to force the Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) crop model. G2 prescribes an insolation reduction to balance a 1% a−1 increase in CO2 concentration (1pctCO2) for 50 years. We first evaluated the DSSAT model using 30 years (1978–2007) of daily observed weather records and agriculture practices for 25 major agriculture provinces in China and compared the results to observations of yield. We then created three sets of climate forcing for 42 locations in China for DSSAT from each climate model experiment: (1) 1pctCO2, (2) G2, and (3) G2 with constant CO2 concentration (409 ppm) and compared the resulting agricultural responses. In the DSSAT simulations: (1) Without changing management practices, the combined effect of simulated climate changes due to geoengineering and CO2 fertilization during the last 15 years of solar reduction would change rice production in China by −3.0 ± 4.0 megaton (Mt) (2.4 ± 4.0%) as compared with 1pctCO2 and increase Chinese maize production by 18.1 ± 6.0 Mt (13.9 ± 5.9%). (2) The termination of geoengineering shows negligible impacts on rice production but a 19.6 Mt (11.9%) reduction of maize production as compared to the last 15 years of geoengineering. (3) The CO2 fertilization effect compensates for the deleterious impacts of changes in temperature, precipitation, and solar radiation due to geoengineering on rice production, increasing rice production by 8.6 Mt. The elevated CO2 concentration enhances maize production in G2, contributing 7.7 Mt (42.4%) to the total increase. Using the DSSAT crop model, virtually all of the climate models agree on the sign of the responses, even though the spread across models is large. This suggests that solar radiation management would have little impact on rice production in China but could increase maize production.

Explicit feedback and the management of uncertainty in meeting climate objectives with solar geoengineering

Solar geoengineering has been proposed as a method of meeting climate objectives, such as reduced globally averaged surface temperatures. However, because of incomplete understanding of the effects of geoengineering on the climate system, its implementation would be in the presence of substantial uncertainties. In our study, we use two fully coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation models: one in which the geoengineering strategy is designed, and one in which geoengineering is implemented (a real-world proxy). We show that regularly adjusting the amount of solar geoengineering in response to departures of the observed global mean climate state from the predetermined objective (sequential decision making; an explicit feedback approach) can manage uncertainties and result in achievement of the climate objective in both the design model and the real-world proxy. This approach results in substantially less error in meeting global climate objectives than using a predetermined time series of how much geoengineering to use, especially if the estimated sensitivity to geoengineering is inaccurate.

Arctic sea ice and atmospheric circulation under the GeoMIP G1 scenario

We analyze simulated sea ice changes in eight different Earth System Models that have conducted experiment G1 of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). The simulated response of balancing abrupt quadrupling of CO2 (abrupt4xCO2) with reduced shortwave radiation successfully moderates annually averaged Arctic temperature rise to about 1°C, with modest changes in seasonal sea ice cycle compared with the preindustrial control simulations (piControl). Changes in summer and autumn sea ice extent are spatially correlated with temperature patterns but much less in winter and spring seasons. However, there are changes of ±20% in sea ice concentration in all seasons, and these will induce changes in atmospheric circulation patterns. In summer and autumn, the models consistently simulate less sea ice relative to preindustrial simulations in the Beaufort, Chukchi, East Siberian, and Laptev Seas, and some models show increased sea ice in the Barents/Kara Seas region. Sea ice extent increases in the Greenland Sea, particularly in winter and spring and is to some extent associated with changed sea ice drift. Decreased sea ice cover in winter and spring in the Barents Sea is associated with increased cyclonic activity entering this area under G1. In comparison, the abrupt4xCO2 experiment shows almost total sea ice loss in September and strong correlation with regional temperatures in all seasons consistent with open ocean conditions. The tropospheric circulation displays a Pacific North America pattern-like anomaly with negative phase in G1-piControl and positive phase under abrupt4xCO2-piControl.

Arctic cryosphere response in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project G3 and G4 scenarios

We analyzed output from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project for the two most “realistic” scenarios, which use the representative concentration pathway of 4.5 Wm−2 by 2100 (RCP4.5) as the control run and inject sulfate aerosol precursors into the stratosphere. The first experiment, G3, is specified to keep RCP4.5 top of atmosphere net radiation at 2020 values by injection of sulfate aerosols, and the second, G4, injects 5 Tg SO2 per year. We ask whether geoengineering by injection of sulfate aerosols into the lower stratosphere from the years 2020 to 2070 is able to prevent the demise of Northern Hemispere minimum annual sea ice extent or slow spring Northern Hemispere snow cover loss. We show that in all available models, despite geoengineering efforts, September sea ice extents still decrease from 2020 to 2070, although not as quickly as in RCP4.5. In two of five models, total September ice loss occurs before 2060. Spring snow extent is increased from 2020 to 2070 compared to RCP4.5 although there is still a negative trend in 3 of 4 models. Because of the climate system lag in responding to the existing radiative forcing, to stop Arctic sea ice and snow from continuing to melt, the imposed forcing would have to be large enough to also counteract the existing radiative imbalance. After the cessation of sulfate aerosol injection in 2070, the climate system rebounds to the warmer RCP4.5 state quickly, and thus, any sea ice or snow retention as a result of geoengineering is lost within a decade.

Atlantic hurricane surge response to geoengineering

Significance We estimate that stratospheric sulfate aerosol geoengineering may somewhat ameliorate Atlantic hurricane intensity and frequency, but there will be more “Katrina”-level events than during the past 30 y. Geoengineering would likely be reasonably effective at controlling coastal flood risk relative to the coastal flood risk expected under the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 greenhouse gas warming, in part, due to its impact on global sea level rise, although flood risk would still be significantly larger than at present. Devastating floods due to Atlantic hurricanes are relatively rare events. However, the frequency of the most intense storms is likely to increase with rises in sea surface temperatures. Geoengineering by stratospheric sulfate aerosol injection cools the tropics relative to the polar regions, including the hurricane Main Development Region in the Atlantic, suggesting that geoengineering may mitigate hurricanes. We examine this hypothesis using eight earth system model simulations of climate under the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) G3 and G4 schemes that use stratospheric aerosols to reduce the radiative forcing under the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 scenario. Global mean temperature increases are greatly ameliorated by geoengineering, and tropical temperature increases are at most half of those temperature increases in the RCP4.5. However, sulfate injection would have to double (to nearly 10 teragrams of SO2 per year) between 2020 and 2070 to balance the RCP4.5, approximately the equivalent of a 1991 Pinatubo eruption every 2 y, with consequent implications for stratospheric ozone. We project changes in storm frequencies using a temperature-dependent generalized extreme value statistical model calibrated by historical storm surges and observed temperatures since 1923. The number of storm surge events as big as the one caused by the 2005 Katrina hurricane are reduced by about 50% compared with no geoengineering, but this reduction is only marginally statistically significant. Nevertheless, when sea level rise differences in 2070 between the RCP4.5 and geoengineering are factored into coastal flood risk, we find that expected flood levels are reduced by about 40 cm for 5-y events and about halved for 50-y surges.