The Climate Response to Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering Can Be Tailored Using Multiple Injection Locations

MacMartin, Douglas G.; Kravitz, Ben; Tilmes, Simone; Richter, Jadwiga H.; Mills, Michael J.; Lamarque, Jean‐Francois; Tribbia, Joseph J.; Vitt, Francis

doi:10.1002/2017JD026868

Title: The Climate Response to Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering Can Be Tailored Using Multiple Injection Locations

Journal Article · Thu Dec 07 00:00:00 EST 2017 · Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026868· OSTI ID:1430440

^[1];

^[2];

^[3];

^[4];

^[3];

^[3]

Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY (United States); California Inst. of Technology (CalTech), Pasadena, CA (United States)
Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States). Atmospheric Science and Global Change Div. (ASGC)
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO (United States)
Climate and Global Dynamics LaboratoryNational Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA

By injecting different amounts of SO₂ at multiple different latitudes, the spatial pattern of aerosol optical depth (AOD) can be partially controlled. This leads to the ability to influence the climate response to geoengineering with stratospheric aerosols, providing the potential for design. In this work, we use simulations from the fully coupled whole-atmosphere chemistry climate model CESM1(WACCM) to demonstrate that by appropriately combining injection at just four different locations, 30°S, 15°S, 15°N, and 30°N, then three spatial degrees of freedom of AOD can be achieved: an approximately spatially uniform AOD distribution, the relative difference in AOD between Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and the relative AOD in high versus low latitudes. For forcing levels that yield 1–2°C cooling, the AOD and surface temperature response are sufficiently linear in this model so that the response to different combinations of injection at different latitudes can be estimated from single-latitude injection simulations; nonlinearities associated with both aerosol growth and changes to stratospheric circulation will be increasingly important at higher forcing levels. Optimized injection at multiple locations is predicted to improve compensation of CO₂-forced climate change relative to a case using only equatorial aerosol injection (which overcools the tropics relative to high latitudes). The additional degrees of freedom can be used, for example, to balance the interhemispheric temperature gradient and the equator to pole temperature gradient in addition to the global mean temperature. Further research is needed to better quantify the impacts of these strategies on changes to long-term temperature, precipitation, and other climate parameters.

View Accepted Manuscript (DOE)

Cite

Export

Save

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

Sponsoring Organization:: National Science Foundation (NSF); USDOE Office of Science (SC), Biological and Environmental Research (BER); Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)

Grant/Contract Number:: AC05-76RL01830

OSTI ID:: 1430440

Report Number(s):: PNNL-SA-124473; 453040135

Journal Information:: Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 122, Issue 23; ISSN 2169-897X

Publisher:: American Geophysical UnionCopyright Statement

Country of Publication:: United States

Language:: English

Citation Metrics:

Cited by: 63 works

Citation information provided by
Web of Science

References (45)

Dynamics of the coupled human–climate system resulting from closed-loop control of solar geoengineering MacMartin, Douglas G.; Kravitz, Ben; Keith, David W. Climate Dynamics, Vol. 43, Issue 1-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1822-9	journal	June 2013
The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300 Meinshausen, Malte; Smith, S. J.; Calvin, K. Climatic Change, Vol. 109, Issue 1-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0156-z	journal	August 2011
Asymmetric forcing from stratospheric aerosols impacts Sahelian rainfall Haywood, Jim M.; Jones, Andy; Bellouin, Nicolas Nature Climate Change, Vol. 3, Issue 7 https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1857	journal	March 2013
The frequency response of temperature and precipitation in a climate model: CLIMATE FREQUENCY RESPONSE MacMynowski, Douglas G.; Shin, Ho-Jeong; Caldeira, Ken Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 38, Issue 16 https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL048623	journal	August 2011
Emergence of healing in the Antarctic ozone layer Solomon, Susan; Ivy, Diane J.; Kinnison, Doug Science, Vol. 353, Issue 6296 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aae0061	journal	June 2016
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
Regional climate responses to geoengineering with tropical and Arctic SO ₂ injections Robock, Alan; Oman, Luke; Stenchikov, Georgiy L. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 113, Issue D16 https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010050	journal	January 2008
Aerosol microphysics modules in the framework of the ECHAM5 climate model – intercomparison under stratospheric conditions Kokkola, H.; Hommel, R.; Kazil, J. Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 2, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2-97-2009	journal	January 2009
Solar geoengineering using solid aerosol in the stratosphere Weisenstein, D. K.; Keith, D. W.; Dykema, J. A. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 15, Issue 20 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-11835-2015	journal	January 2015
A Numerical Study of the Possible Perturbation of Stratospheric Dynamics Due to Pinatubo Aerosols: Implications for Tracer Transport Pitari, Giovanni Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Vol. 50, Issue 15 https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1993)050<2443:ANSOTP>2.0.CO;2	journal	August 1993
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
Radiative and Chemical Response to Interactive Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosols in Fully Coupled CESM1(WACCM) Mills, Michael J.; Richter, Jadwiga H.; Tilmes, Simone Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 122, Issue 23 https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD027006	journal	December 2017
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
Global volcanic aerosol properties derived from emissions, 1990-2014, using CESM1(WACCM): VOLCANIC AEROSOLS DERIVED FROM EMISSIONS Mills, Michael J.; Schmidt, Anja; Easter, Richard Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 121, Issue 5 https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024290	journal	March 2016
Stratospheric solar geoengineering without ozone loss Keith, David W.; Weisenstein, Debra K.; Dykema, John A. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 113, Issue 52 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1615572113	journal	December 2016
Toward a minimal representation of aerosols in climate models: description and evaluation in the Community Atmosphere Model CAM5 Liu, X.; Easter, R. C.; Ghan, S. J. Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 5, Issue 3 https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-709-2012	journal	January 2012
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
Early growth dynamical implications for the steerability of stratospheric solar radiation management via sulfur aerosol particles: Steerability of Stratospheric SRM Benduhn, François; Schallock, Jennifer; Lawrence, Mark G. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 43, Issue 18 https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL070701	journal	September 2016
The impact of geoengineering aerosols on stratospheric temperature and ozone Heckendorn, P.; Weisenstein, D.; Fueglistaler, S. Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 4, Issue 4 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045108	journal	October 2009
The Sensitivity of Polar Ozone Depletion to Proposed Geoengineering Schemes Tilmes, S.; Muller, R.; Salawitch, R. Science, Vol. 320, Issue 5880 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1153966	journal	May 2008
Microphysical simulations of large volcanic eruptions: Pinatubo and Toba: MICROPHYSICS OF PINATUBO/TOBA ERUPTIONS English, Jason M.; Toon, Owen B.; Mills, Michael J. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 118, Issue 4 https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50196	journal	February 2013
Modeling of solar radiation management: a comparison of simulations using reduced solar constant and stratospheric sulphate aerosols Kalidindi, Sirisha; Bala, Govindasamy; Modak, Angshuman Climate Dynamics, Vol. 44, Issue 9-10 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-014-2240-3	journal	July 2014
Regional climate response to solar-radiation management Ricke, Katharine L.; Morgan, M. Granger; Allen, Myles R. Nature Geoscience, Vol. 3, Issue 8 https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo915	journal	July 2010
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
A comparison of temperature and precipitation responses to different Earth radiation management geoengineering schemes Crook, J. A.; Jackson, L. S.; Osprey, S. M. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 120, Issue 18 https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023269	journal	September 2015
Geoengineering with stratospheric aerosols: What do we not know after a decade of research?: GEOENGINEERING: WHAT DO WE NOT KNOW? MacMartin, Douglas G.; Kravitz, Ben; Long, Jane C. S. Earth's Future, Vol. 4, Issue 11 https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000418	journal	November 2016
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
Projections of the pace of warming following an abrupt increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration Caldeira, K.; Myhrvold, N. P. Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 8, Issue 3 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034039	journal	September 2013
Climate response to imposed solar radiation reductions in high latitudes MacCracken, M. C.; Shin, H. -J.; Caldeira, K. Earth System Dynamics, Vol. 4, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-4-301-2013	journal	January 2013
Management of trade-offs in geoengineering through optimal choice of non-uniform radiative forcing MacMartin, Douglas G.; Keith, David W.; Kravitz, Ben Nature Climate Change, Vol. 3, Issue 4 https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1722	journal	October 2012
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
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
Contributions of Stratospheric Water Vapor to Decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming Solomon, S.; Rosenlof, K. H.; Portmann, R. W. Science, Vol. 327, Issue 5970 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182488	journal	January 2010
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
Radiative and climate effects of stratospheric sulfur geoengineering using seasonally varying injection areas Laakso, Anton; Korhonen, Hannele; Romakkaniemi, Sami Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 17, Issue 11 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-6957-2017	journal	January 2017
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
Sensitivity of Aerosol Distribution and Climate Response to Stratospheric SO ₂ Injection Locations Tilmes, Simone; Richter, Jadwiga H.; Mills, Michael J. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 122, Issue 23 https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026888	journal	December 2017
Geoengineering Earth's radiation balance to mitigate CO ₂ -induced climate change Govindasamy, Bala; Caldeira, Ken Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 27, Issue 14 https://doi.org/10.1029/1999GL006086	journal	July 2000
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
Microphysical simulations of sulfur burdens from stratospheric sulfur geoengineering English, J. M.; Toon, O. B.; Mills, M. J. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 12, Issue 10 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-4775-2012	journal	January 2012
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
Can regional climate engineering save the summer Arctic sea ice?: TILMES ET AL. Tilmes, S.; Jahn, Alexandra; Kay, Jennifer E. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 41, Issue 3 https://doi.org/10.1002/2013GL058731	journal	February 2014
Global 2-D intercomparison of sectional and modal aerosol modules Weisenstein, D. K.; Penner, J. E.; Herzog, M. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 7, Issue 9 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-2339-2007	journal	January 2007
A multi-model assessment of regional climate disparities caused by solar geoengineering Kravitz, Ben; MacMartin, Douglas G.; Robock, Alan Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 9, Issue 7 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/7/074013	journal	July 2014

Cited By (15)

A continuous latitudinal energy balance model to explore non-uniform climate engineering strategies Bonetti, Federica; McInnes, Colin Climate Dynamics, Vol. 52, Issue 9-10 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-018-4474-y	journal	October 2018
Best Scale for Detecting the Effects of Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosol Geoengineering on Surface Temperature Lo, Y. T. E.; Charlton‐Perez, Andrew J.; Highwood, Eleanor J. Earth's Future https://doi.org/10.1029/2018ef000933	journal	December 2018
Comparison of the Fast and Slow Climate Response to Three Radiation Management Geoengineering Schemes Duan, Lei; Cao, Long; Bala, Govindasamy Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 123, Issue 21 https://doi.org/10.1029/2018jd029034	journal	November 2018
Holistic Assessment of SO ₂ Injections Using CESM1(WACCM): Introduction to the Special Issue Kravitz, Ben; MacMartin, Douglas G.; Tilmes, Simone Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 124, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.1029/2018jd029293	journal	January 2019
Climate Response to Pulse Versus Sustained Stratospheric Aerosol Forcing Duan, Lei; Cao, Long; Bala, Govindasamy Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 46, Issue 15 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019gl083701	journal	August 2019
Mission-driven research for stratospheric aerosol geoengineering MacMartin, Douglas G.; Kravitz, Ben Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 116, Issue 4 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1811022116	journal	January 2019
Technical characteristics of a solar geoengineering deployment and implications for governance MacMartin, Douglas G.; Irvine, Peter J.; Kravitz, Ben Climate Policy, Vol. 19, Issue 10 https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1668347	journal	September 2019
Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years of deployment Smith, Wake; Wagner, Gernot Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 13, Issue 12 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aae98d	journal	November 2018
Multiple input control strategies for robust and adaptive climate engineering in a low-order 3-box model Bonetti, F.; McInnes, C. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, Vol. 474, Issue 2217 https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2018.0447	journal	September 2018
Retrieval of volcanic and man-made stratospheric aerosols from orbital polarimetric measurements Mishchenko, Michael I.; Dlugach, Janna M.; Lacis, Andrew A. Optics Express, Vol. 27, Issue 4 https://doi.org/10.1364/oe.27.00a158	journal	January 2019
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
Global streamflow and flood response to stratospheric aerosol geoengineering Wei, Liren; Ji, Duoying; Miao, Chiyuan Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 18, Issue 21 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-16033-2018	journal	January 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
Exploring accumulation-mode H ₂ SO ₄ versus SO ₂ stratospheric sulfate geoengineering in a sectional aerosol–chemistry–climate model Vattioni, Sandro; Weisenstein, Debra; Keith, David Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 19, Issue 7 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-4877-2019	journal	January 2019
Climate system response to stratospheric sulfate aerosols: sensitivity to altitude of aerosol layer Krishnamohan, Krishna-Pillai Sukumara-Pillai; Bala, Govindasamy; Cao, Long Earth System Dynamics, Vol. 10, Issue 4 https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-885-2019	journal	January 2019

Similar Records

Comparing surface and stratospheric impacts of geoengineering with different SO2 injection strategies

Journal Article · Sat Jul 27 00:00:00 EDT 2019 · Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres · OSTI ID:1430440

Kravitz, Benjamin S.; MacMartin, Douglas; Tilmes, S; +9 more

Reaching 1.5 and 2.0 °C global surface temperature targets using stratospheric aerosol geoengineering

Journal Article · Tue Jul 14 00:00:00 EDT 2020 · Earth System Dynamics (Online) · OSTI ID:1430440

Tilmes, Simone; MacMartin, Douglas G.; Lenaerts, Jan T. M.; +8 more

Changes in Hadley circulation and intertropical convergence zone under strategic stratospheric aerosol geoengineering

Journal Article · Tue Apr 19 00:00:00 EDT 2022 · npj Climate and Atmospheric Science · OSTI ID:1430440

Cheng, Wei; MacMartin, Douglas G.; Kravitz, Ben; +11 more

Related Subjects

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
geoengineering
stratospheric aerosols
design

Title: The Climate Response to Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering Can Be Tailored Using Multiple Injection Locations

Citation Formats

References (45)

Cited By (15)

Similar Records

Related Subjects