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

Visioni, Daniele; MacMartin, Douglas G.; Kravitz, Ben; Boucher, Olivier; Jones, Andy; Lurton, Thibaut; Martine, Michou; Mills, Michael J.; Nabat, Pierre; Niemeier, Ulrike; Séférian, Roland; Tilmes, Simone

doi:10.5194/acp-21-10039-2021

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

Journal Article · Tue Jul 06 00:00:00 EDT 2021 · Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (Online)

DOI:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-10039-2021· OSTI ID:1819883

^[1];

^[2];

^[3];

^[4]; Lurton, Thibaut ^[3]; Martine, Michou ^[5];

^[6]; Nabat, Pierre ^[5];

^[7];

^[5];

^[6]

Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY (United States)
Indiana Univ., Bloomington, IN (United States); Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States)
Sorbonne Univ., Paris (France)
Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter (United Kingdom)
Univ. of Toulouse (France)
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO (United States)
Max Planck Institute for Meterology, Hamburg (Germany)

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.

View Accepted Manuscript (DOE)

Cite

Export

Save

Research Organization:: Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States)

Sponsoring Organization:: USDOE; National Science Foundation (NSF); European Research Council (ERC); French National Research Agency (ANR)

Grant/Contract Number:: AC05-76RL01830; CBET-1818759; CBET-1931641; 11-IDEX-0004-17-EURE-0006; 820829

OSTI ID:: 1819883

Report Number(s):: PNNL-SA-160602

Journal Information:: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (Online), Vol. 21, Issue 13; ISSN 1680-7324

Publisher:: Copernicus Publications, EGUCopyright Statement

Country of Publication:: United States

Language:: English

References (91)

High Climate Sensitivity in the Community Earth System Model Version 2 (CESM2) Gettelman, A.; Hannay, C.; Bacmeister, J. T. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 46, Issue 14 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL083978	journal	July 2019
Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosol Geoengineering Could Alter the High‐Latitude Seasonal Cycle Jiang, Jiu; Cao, Long; MacMartin, Douglas G. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 46, Issue 23 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085758	journal	December 2019
Carbon–concentration and carbon–climate feedbacks in CMIP6 models and their comparison to CMIP5 models Arora, Vivek K.; Katavouta, Anna; Williams, Richard G. Biogeosciences, Vol. 17, Issue 16 https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-4173-2020	journal	January 2020
Forcing Dependence of Atmospheric Lapse Rate Changes Dominates Residual Polar Warming in Solar Radiation Management Climate Scenarios Henry, Matthew; Merlis, Timothy M. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 47, Issue 15 https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL087929	journal	August 2020
An empirical model of global climate – Part 1: A critical evaluation of volcanic cooling Canty, T.; Mascioli, N. R.; Smarte, M. D. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 13, Issue 8 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-3997-2013	journal	January 2013
Changes in West African Summer Monsoon Precipitation Under Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering Da‐Allada, C. Y.; Baloïtcha, E.; Alamou, E. A. Earth's Future, Vol. 8, Issue 7 https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EF001595	journal	July 2020
Efficacy of climate forcings Hansen, J. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 110, Issue D18 https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD005776	journal	January 2005
The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 O'Neill, Brian C.; Tebaldi, Claudia; van Vuuren, Detlef P. Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 9, Issue 9 https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3461-2016	journal	January 2016
Seasonally Modulated Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering Alters the Climate Outcomes Visioni, Daniele; MacMartin, Douglas G.; Kravitz, Ben Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 47, Issue 12 https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL088337	journal	June 2020
Extreme temperature and precipitation response to solar dimming and stratospheric aerosol geoengineering Ji, Duoying; Fang, Songsong; Curry, Charles L. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 18, Issue 14 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-10133-2018	journal	January 2018
Stratospheric Aerosols from Major Volcanic Eruptions: A Composition-Climate Model Study of the Aerosol Cloud Dispersal and e-folding Time Pitari, Giovanni; Di Genova, Glauco; Mancini, Eva Atmosphere, Vol. 7, Issue 6 https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos7060075	journal	May 2016
UKESM1: Description and Evaluation of the U.K. Earth System Model Sellar, Alistair A.; Jones, Colin G.; Mulcahy, Jane P. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001739	journal	December 2019
A new Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) experiment designed for climate and chemistry models Tilmes, S.; Mills, M. J.; Niemeier, U. Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 8, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-43-2015	journal	January 2015
An energetic perspective on hydrological cycle changes in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project: GeoMIP ENERGETIC PERSPECTIVE Kravitz, Ben; Rasch, Philip J.; Forster, Piers M. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 118, Issue 23 https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020502	journal	December 2013
Differences in the quasi-biennial oscillation response to stratospheric aerosol modification depending on injection strategy and species Franke, Henning; Niemeier, Ulrike; Visioni, Daniele Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 21, Issue 11 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-8615-2021	journal	January 2021
The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (GeoMIP6): simulation design and preliminary results Kravitz, B.; Robock, A.; Tilmes, S. Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 8, Issue 10 https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3379-2015	journal	January 2015
Is Turning Down the Sun a Good Proxy for Stratospheric Sulfate Geoengineering? Visioni, Daniele; MacMartin, Douglas G.; Kravitz, Ben Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 126, Issue 5 https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033952	journal	March 2021
The shared socio-economic pathway (SSP) greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions to 2500 Meinshausen, Malte; Nicholls, Zebedee R. J.; Lewis, Jared Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 13, Issue 8 https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3571-2020	journal	January 2020
Quasi‐Additivity of the Radiative Effects of Marine Cloud Brightening and Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosol Injection Boucher, Olivier; Kleinschmitt, Christoph; Myhre, Gunnar Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 44, Issue 21 https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL074647	journal	November 2017
Shortwave radiative forcing, rapid adjustment, and feedback to the surface by sulfate geoengineering: analysis of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project G4 scenario Kashimura, Hiroki; Abe, Manabu; Watanabe, Shingo Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 17, Issue 5 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-3339-2017	journal	January 2017
Halving warming with stratospheric aerosol geoengineering moderates policy-relevant climate hazards Irvine, Peter J.; Keith, David W. Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 15, Issue 4 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab76de	journal	March 2020
Inability of stratospheric sulfate aerosol injections to preserve the West Antarctic Ice Sheet: STRATOSPHERIC AEROSOLS AND WAIS McCusker, K. E.; Battisti, D. S.; Bitz, C. M. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 42, Issue 12 https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL064314	journal	June 2015
Comparing different generations of idealized solar geoengineering simulations in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) Kravitz, Ben; MacMartin, Douglas G.; Visioni, Daniele Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 21, Issue 6 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-4231-2021	journal	January 2021
Soil Moisture and Other Hydrological Changes in a Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering Large Ensemble Cheng, Wei; MacMartin, Douglas G.; Dagon, Katherine Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 124, Issue 23 https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD030237	journal	December 2019
Evaluation of CNRM Earth System Model, CNRM‐ESM2‐1: Role of Earth System Processes in Present‐Day and Future Climate Séférian, Roland; Nabat, Pierre; Michou, Martine Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Vol. 11, Issue 12 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001791	journal	December 2019
The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) Kravitz, Ben; Robock, Alan; Boucher, Olivier Atmospheric Science Letters, Vol. 12, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.1002/asl.316	journal	January 2011
Differing precipitation response between solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal due to fast and slow components Laakso, Anton; Snyder, Peter K.; Liess, Stefan Earth System Dynamics, Vol. 11, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-415-2020	journal	January 2020
Persistent polar ocean warming in a strategically geoengineered climate Fasullo, John T.; Tilmes, Simone; Richter, Jadwiga H. Nature Geoscience, Vol. 11, Issue 12 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0249-7	journal	October 2018
North Atlantic Oscillation response in GeoMIP experiments G6solar and G6sulfur: why detailed modelling is needed for understanding regional implications of solar radiation management Jones, Andy; Haywood, Jim M.; Jones, Anthony C. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 21, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1287-2021	journal	January 2021
Geoengineering as a design problem Kravitz, Ben; MacMartin, Douglas G.; Wang, Hailong Earth System Dynamics, Vol. 7, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-469-2016	journal	January 2016
Robust winter warming over Eurasia under stratospheric sulfate geoengineering – the role of stratospheric dynamics Banerjee, Antara; Butler, Amy H.; Polvani, Lorenzo M. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 21, Issue 9 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6985-2021	journal	January 2021
Tracking Improvement in Simulated Marine Biogeochemistry Between CMIP5 and CMIP6 Séférian, Roland; Berthet, Sarah; Yool, Andrew Current Climate Change Reports https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-020-00160-0	journal	August 2020
Impacts of stratospheric sulfate geoengineering on tropospheric ozone Xia, Lili; Nowack, Peer J.; Tilmes, Simone Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 17, Issue 19 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-11913-2017	journal	January 2017
Solar irradiance reduction via climate engineering: Impact of different techniques on the energy balance and the hydrological cycle: CLIMATIC IMPACT OF DIFFERENT SRM METHODS Niemeier, U.; Schmidt, H.; Alterskjaer, K. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 118, Issue 21 https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020445	journal	November 2013
Stratospheric ozone response to sulfate geoengineering: Results from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP): GeoMIP ozone response Pitari, Giovanni; Aquila, Valentina; Kravitz, Ben Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 119, Issue 5 https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020566	journal	March 2014
Geoengineering Earth's radiation balance to mitigate climate change from a quadrupling of CO2 Govindasamy, B.; Caldeira, K.; Duffy, P. B. Global and Planetary Change, Vol. 37, Issue 1-2 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8181(02)00195-9	journal	June 2003
Context for interpreting equilibrium climate sensitivity and transient climate response from the CMIP6 Earth system models Meehl, Gerald A.; Senior, Catherine A.; Eyring, Veronika Science Advances, Vol. 6, Issue 26 https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba1981	journal	June 2020
Presentation and Evaluation of the IPSL‐CM6A‐LR Climate Model Boucher, Olivier; Servonnat, Jérôme; Albright, Anna Lea Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Vol. 12, Issue 7 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS002010	journal	July 2020
Reaching 1.5 and 2.0 °C global surface temperature targets using stratospheric aerosol geoengineering Tilmes, Simone; MacMartin, Douglas G.; Lenaerts, Jan T. M. Earth System Dynamics, Vol. 11, Issue 3 https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-579-2020	journal	January 2020
The impact of geoengineering on vegetation in experiment G1 of the GeoMIP Glienke, Susanne; Irvine, Peter J.; Lawrence, Mark G. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 120, Issue 19 https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024202	journal	October 2015
Modifications of the quasi-biennial oscillation by a geoengineering perturbation of the stratospheric aerosol layer: Aquila et al.: QBO modifications by geoengineering Aquila, V.; Garfinkel, C. I.; Newman, P. A. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 41, Issue 5 https://doi.org/10.1002/2013GL058818	journal	March 2014
On solar geoengineering and climate uncertainty MacMartin, Douglas G.; Kravitz, Ben; Rasch, Philip J. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 42, Issue 17 https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL065391	journal	September 2015
Sulfate geoengineering impact on methane transport and lifetime: results from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) Visioni, Daniele; Pitari, Giovanni; Aquila, Valentina Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 17, Issue 18 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-11209-2017	journal	January 2017
Geoengineering as an optimization problem Ban-Weiss, George A.; Caldeira, Ken Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 5, Issue 3 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/5/3/034009	journal	July 2010
Multi-model comparison of the volcanic sulfate deposition from the 1815 eruption of Mt. Tambora Marshall, Lauren; Schmidt, Anja; Toohey, Matthew Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 18, Issue 3 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-2307-2018	journal	January 2018
Changes in clouds and thermodynamics under solar geoengineering and implications for required solar reduction Russotto, Rick D.; Ackerman, Thomas P. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 18, Issue 16 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-11905-2018	journal	January 2018
The Interactive Stratospheric Aerosol Model Intercomparison Project (ISA-MIP): motivation and experimental design Timmreck, Claudia; Mann, Graham W.; Aquila, Valentina Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 11, Issue 7 https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2581-2018	journal	January 2018
Solar geoengineering as part of an overall strategy for meeting the 1.5°C Paris target MacMartin, Douglas G.; Ricke, Katharine L.; Keith, David W. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, Vol. 376, Issue 2119 https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0454	journal	April 2018
A Higher-resolution Version of the Max Planck Institute Earth System Model (MPI-ESM1.2-HR) Müller, W. A.; Jungclaus, J. H.; Mauritsen, T. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Vol. 10, Issue 7 https://doi.org/10.1029/2017MS001217	journal	July 2018
Efficient formation of stratospheric aerosol for climate engineering by emission of condensible vapor from aircraft: AEROSOL FROM CONDENSIBLE VAPOR Pierce, Jeffrey R.; Weisenstein, Debra K.; Heckendorn, Patricia Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 37, Issue 18 https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL043975	journal	September 2010
Model physics and chemistry causing intermodel disagreement within the VolMIP-Tambora Interactive Stratospheric Aerosol ensemble Clyne, Margot; Lamarque, Jean-Francois; Mills, Michael J. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 21, Issue 5 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-3317-2021	journal	January 2021
Upper tropospheric ice sensitivity to sulfate geoengineering Visioni, Daniele; Pitari, Giovanni; di Genova, Glauco Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 18, Issue 20 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-14867-2018	journal	January 2018
The hydrological impact of geoengineering in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP): THE HYDROLOGIC IMPACT OF GEOENGINEERING Tilmes, Simone; Fasullo, John; Lamarque, Jean-Francois Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 118, Issue 19 https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50868	journal	October 2013
Reduced Poleward Transport Due to Stratospheric Heating Under Stratospheric Aerosols Geoengineering Visioni, Daniele; MacMartin, Douglas G.; Kravitz, Ben Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 47, Issue 17 https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL089470	journal	September 2020
Estimating Impacts and Trade‐offs in Solar Geoengineering Scenarios With a Moist Energy Balance Model Lutsko, Nicholas J.; Seeley, Jacob T.; Keith, David W. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 47, Issue 9 https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL087290	journal	May 2020
Climate extremes in multi-model simulations of stratospheric aerosol and marine cloud brightening climate engineering Aswathy, V. N.; Boucher, O.; Quaas, M. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 15, Issue 16 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-9593-2015	journal	January 2015
Halving warming with idealized solar geoengineering moderates key climate hazards Irvine, Peter; Emanuel, Kerry; He, Jie Nature Climate Change, Vol. 9, Issue 4 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0398-8	journal	March 2019
The Atmospheric Energy Constraint on Global-Mean Precipitation Change Pendergrass, Angeline G.; Hartmann, Dennis L. Journal of Climate, Vol. 27, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00163.1	journal	January 2014
Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections: A Contribution to Resolve a Policy Dilemma? Crutzen, Paul J. Climatic Change, Vol. 77, Issue 3-4 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9101-y	journal	July 2006
Comparing Surface and Stratospheric Impacts of Geoengineering With Different SO ₂ Injection Strategies Kravitz, Ben; MacMartin, Douglas G.; Tilmes, Simone Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 124, Issue 14 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD030329	journal	July 2019
Present‐Day and Historical Aerosol and Ozone Characteristics in CNRM CMIP6 Simulations Michou, M.; Nabat, P.; Saint‐Martin, D. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Vol. 12, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001816	journal	January 2020
Energy transport, polar amplification, and ITCZ shifts in the GeoMIP G1 ensemble Russotto, Rick D.; Ackerman, Thomas P. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 18, Issue 3 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-2287-2018	journal	January 2018
Sulfate geoengineering: a review of the factors controlling the needed injection of sulfur dioxide Visioni, Daniele; Pitari, Giovanni; Aquila, Valentina Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 17, Issue 6 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-3879-2017	journal	January 2017
Expanding the design space of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering to include precipitation-based objectives and explore trade-offs Lee, Walker; MacMartin, Douglas; Visioni, Daniele Earth System Dynamics, Vol. 11, Issue 4 https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-1051-2020	journal	January 2020
Differing responses of the quasi-biennial oscillation to artificial SO₂ injections in two global models Niemeier, Ulrike; Richter, Jadwiga H.; Tilmes, Simone Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 20, Issue 14 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-8975-2020	journal	January 2020
Effects of Different Stratospheric SO ₂ Injection Altitudes on Stratospheric Chemistry and Dynamics Tilmes, Simone; Richter, Jadwiga H.; Mills, Michael J. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 123, Issue 9 https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD028146	journal	May 2018
Sensitivity of the radiative forcing by stratospheric sulfur geoengineering to the amount and strategy of the SO ₂ injection studied with the LMDZ-S3A model Kleinschmitt, Christoph; Boucher, Olivier; Platt, Ulrich Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 18, Issue 4 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-2769-2018	journal	January 2018
Implementation of the CMIP6 Forcing Data in the IPSL‐CM6A‐LR Model Lurton, Thibaut; Balkanski, Yves; Bastrikov, Vladislav Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Vol. 12, Issue 4 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001940	journal	April 2020
CMIP6 Data Citation of Evolving Data Stockhause, Martina; Lautenschlager, Michael Data Science Journal, Vol. 16 https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2017-030	journal	June 2017
The Regional Hydroclimate Response to Stratospheric Sulfate Geoengineering and the Role of Stratospheric Heating Simpson, I. R.; Tilmes, S.; Richter, J. H. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 124, Issue 23 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD031093	journal	December 2019
Designing a Radiative Antidote to CO ₂ Seeley, Jacob T.; Lutsko, Nicholas J.; Keith, David W. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 48, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL090876	journal	January 2021
CESM1(WACCM) Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering Large Ensemble Project Tilmes, Simone; Richter, Jadwiga H.; Kravitz, Ben Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 99, Issue 11 https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0267.1	journal	November 2018
Climate-driven chemistry and aerosol feedbacks in CMIP6 Earth system models Thornhill, Gillian; Collins, William; Olivié, Dirk Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 21, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1105-2021	journal	January 2021
First Simulations of Designing Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosol Geoengineering to Meet Multiple Simultaneous Climate Objectives Kravitz, Ben; MacMartin, Douglas G.; Mills, Michael J. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 122, Issue 23 https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026874	journal	December 2017
Stratospheric Dynamical Response and Ozone Feedbacks in the Presence of SO ₂ Injections Richter, Jadwiga H.; Tilmes, Simone; Mills, Michael J. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 122, Issue 23 https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026912	journal	December 2017
Changing transport processes in the stratosphere by radiative heating of sulfate aerosols Niemeier, Ulrike; Schmidt, Hauke Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 17, Issue 24 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-14871-2017	journal	January 2017
Seasonal Injection Strategies for Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering Visioni, Daniele; MacMartin, Douglas G.; Kravitz, Ben Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 46, Issue 13 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL083680	journal	July 2019
Tailoring Meridional and Seasonal Radiative Forcing by Sulfate Aerosol Solar Geoengineering Dai, Z.; Weisenstein, D. K.; Keith, D. W. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 45, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076472	journal	January 2018
Experimental reaction rates constrain estimates of ozone response to calcium carbonate geoengineering Dai, Zhen; Weisenstein, Debra K.; Keutsch, Frank N. Communications Earth & Environment, Vol. 1, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-020-00058-7	journal	December 2020
What is the limit of climate engineering by stratospheric injection of SO ₂ ? Niemeier, U.; Timmreck, C. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 15, Issue 16 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-9129-2015	journal	January 2015
Global Cooling After the Eruption of Mount Pinatubo: A Test of Climate Feedback by Water Vapor Soden, B. J. Science, Vol. 296, Issue 5568 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.296.5568.727	journal	April 2002
Climate model response from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP): GEOMIP MODEL RESPONSE Kravitz, Ben; Caldeira, Ken; Boucher, Olivier Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 118, Issue 15 https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50646	journal	August 2013
Evaluating the simulated radiative forcings, aerosol properties, and stratospheric warmings from the 1963 Mt Agung, 1982 El Chichón, and 1991 Mt Pinatubo volcanic aerosol clouds Dhomse, Sandip S.; Mann, Graham W.; Antuña Marrero, Juan Carlos Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 20, Issue 21 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-13627-2020	journal	January 2020
An Assessment of Earth's Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence Sherwood, S. C.; Webb, M. J.; Annan, J. D. Reviews of Geophysics, Vol. 58, Issue 4 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000678	journal	September 2020
The Community Earth System Model Version 2 (CESM2) Danabasoglu, G.; Lamarque, J. ‐F.; Bacmeister, J. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Vol. 12, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001916	journal	February 2020
Uncertainty and the basis for confidence in solar geoengineering research Kravitz, Ben; MacMartin, Douglas G. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, Vol. 1, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-019-0004-7	journal	January 2020
Volcanic eruptions and climate Robock, Alan Reviews of Geophysics, Vol. 38, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.1029/1998RG000054	journal	May 2000
The Climate Response to Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering Can Be Tailored Using Multiple Injection Locations MacMartin, Douglas G.; Kravitz, Ben; Tilmes, Simone Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 122, Issue 23 https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026868	journal	December 2017
Sulfur deposition changes under sulfate geoengineering conditions: quasi-biennial oscillation effects on the transport and lifetime of stratospheric aerosols Visioni, Daniele; Pitari, Giovanni; Tuccella, Paolo Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 18, Issue 4 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-2787-2018	journal	January 2018
Potential ecological impacts of climate intervention by reflecting sunlight to cool Earth Zarnetske, Phoebe L.; Gurevitch, Jessica; Franklin, Janet Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 118, Issue 15 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1921854118	journal	April 2021
Regional Climate Impacts of Stabilizing Global Warming at 1.5 K Using Solar Geoengineering Jones, Anthony C.; Hawcroft, Matthew K.; Haywood, James M. Earth's Future, Vol. 6, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000720	journal	February 2018

Similar Records

North Atlantic Oscillation response in GeoMIP experiments G6solar and G6sulfur: why detailed modelling is needed for understanding regional implications of solar radiation management

Journal Article · Fri Jan 29 00:00:00 EST 2021 · Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (Online) · OSTI ID:1819883

Jones, Andy; Haywood, Jim M.; Jones, Anthony C.; +3 more

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

Journal Article · Mon Mar 07 00:00:00 EST 2022 · Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (Online) · OSTI ID:1819883

Jones, Andy; Haywood, Jim M.; Scaife, Adam A.; +9 more

Climate model projections from the Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) of CMIP6

Journal Article · Mon Mar 01 00:00:00 EST 2021 · Earth System Dynamics (Online) · OSTI ID:1819883

Tebaldi, Claudia; Debeire, Kevin; Eyring, Veronika; +53 more

Related Subjects

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY

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

Citation Formats

References (91)

Similar Records

Related Subjects