Sibley School for Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Cornell University NY Ithaca USA
Department of Earth and Atmospheric Science Indiana University IN Bloomington USA, Atmospheric Sciences and Global Change Division Pacific Northwest National Laboratory WA Richland USA
College of Global Change and Earth System Science Beijing Normal University Beijing China, College of Geography and Environment Shandong Normal University Jinan China
College of Global Change and Earth System Science Beijing Normal University Beijing China, CAS Center for Excellence in Tibetan Plateau Earth Sciences Beijing China, Arctic Centre University of Lapland Rovaniemi Finland
Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research CO Boulder USA
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 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 produces the most cooling near the pole, 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. For these reasons, it would be incorrect to consider Arctic‐focused SAI as “local” geoengineering, even when compared to a globally focused strategy.
Lee, Walker Raymond, MacMartin, Douglas G., Visioni, Daniele, Kravitz, Ben, Chen, Yating, Moore, John C., Leguy, Gunter, Lawrence, David M., & Bailey, David A. (2023). High‐Latitude Stratospheric Aerosol Injection to Preserve the Arctic. Earth's Future, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EF003052
@article{osti_1909936,
author = {Lee, Walker Raymond and MacMartin, Douglas G. and Visioni, Daniele and Kravitz, Ben and Chen, Yating and Moore, John C. and Leguy, Gunter and Lawrence, David M. and Bailey, David A.},
title = {High‐Latitude Stratospheric Aerosol Injection to Preserve the Arctic},
annote = {Abstract 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 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 produces the most cooling near the pole, 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. For these reasons, it would be incorrect to consider Arctic‐focused SAI as “local” geoengineering, even when compared to a globally focused strategy. },
doi = {10.1029/2022EF003052},
url = {https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1909936},
journal = {Earth's Future},
issn = {ISSN 2328-4277},
number = {1},
volume = {11},
place = {United States},
publisher = {American Geophysical Union (AGU)},
year = {2023},
month = {01}}