Search

Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) comes with a wide range of possible design choices, such as the location and timing of the injection. Different stratospheric aerosol injection strategies can yield different climate responses; therefore, understanding the range of possible climate outcomes is crucial to making informed future decisions on SAI, along with the consideration of other factors. Yet, to date, there has been no systematic exploration of a broad range of SAI strategies. This limits the ability to determine which effects are robust across different strategies and which depend on specific injection choices. This study systematically explores how the choice of SAI strategy affects climate responses in one climate model. Here, we introduce four hemispherically symmetric injection strategies, all of which are designed to maintain the same global mean surface temperature: an annual injection at the Equator (EQ), an annual injection of equal amounts of SO2 at 15° N and 15° S (15N+15S), an annual injection of equal amounts of SO2 at 30° N and 30° S (30N+30S), and a polar injection strategy that injects equal amounts of SO2 at 60° N and 60° S only during spring in each hemisphere (60N+60S). We compare these four hemispherically symmetric SAI strategies with a more complex injection strategy that injects different quantities of SO2 at 30° N, 15° N, 15° S, and 30° S in order to maintain not only the global mean surface temperature but also its large-scale horizontal gradients. All five strategies are simulated using version 2 of the Community Earth System Model with the middle atmosphere version of the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate model, version 6, as the atmospheric component, CESM2(WACCM6-MA), with the global warming scenario, Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP)2-4.5. We find that the choice of SAI strategy affects the spatial distribution of aerosol optical depths, injection efficiency, and various surface climate responses. In addition, injecting in the subtropics produces more global cooling per unit injection, with the EQ and the 60N+60S cases requiring, respectively, 59 % and 50 % more injection than the 30N+30S case to meet the same global mean temperature target. Injecting at higher latitudes results in larger Equator-to-pole temperature gradients. While all five strategies restore Arctic September sea ice, the high-latitude injection strategy is more effective due to the SAI-induced cooling occurring preferentially at higher latitudes. These results suggest trade-offs wherein different strategies appear better or worse, depending on which metrics are deemed important.

Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), as a possible supplement to emission reduction, has the potential to reduce some of the risks associated with climate change. Adding aerosols to the lower stratosphere would result in temporary global cooling. However, different choices for the aerosol injection latitude(s) and season(s) have been shown to lead to significant differences in regional surface climate, introducing a design aspect to SAI. Past research has shown that there are at least three independent degrees of freedom (DOFs) that can be used to simultaneously manage three different climate goals. Knowing how many more DOFs there are, and thus how many independent climate goals can be simultaneously managed, is essential to understanding fundamental limits of how well SAI might compensate for anthropogenic climate change, and evaluating any underlying trade-offs between different climate goals. Here, we quantify the number of meaningfully independent DOFs of the SAI design space. This number of meaningfully independent DOFs depends on both the amount of cooling and the climate variables used for quantifying the changes in surface climate. At low levels of global cooling, only a small set of injection choices yield detectably different surface climate responses. For a cooling level of 1–1.5 ∘C, we find that there are likely between six and eight meaningfully independent DOFs. This narrows down the range of available DOFs and also reveals new opportunities for exploring alternate SAI designs with different distributions of climate impacts.

A new set of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering (SAG) model experiments has been performed with Community Earth System Model version 2 (CESM2) with the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model (WACCM6) that are based on the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6) overshoot scenario (SSP5-34-OS) as a baseline scenario to limit global warming to 1.5 or 2.0 ∘C above 1850–1900 conditions. The overshoot scenario allows us to applying a peak-shaving scenario that reduces the needed duration and amount of SAG application compared to a high forcing scenario. In addition, a feedback algorithm identifies the needed amount of sulfur dioxide injections in the stratosphere at four pre-defined latitudes, 30∘ N, 15∘ N, 15∘ S, and 30∘ S, to reach three surface temperature targets: global mean temperature, and interhemispheric and pole-to-Equator temperature gradients. These targets further help to reduce side effects, including overcooling in the tropics, warming of high latitudes, and large shifts in precipitation patterns. These experiments are therefore relevant for investigating the impacts on society and ecosystems. Comparisons to SAG simulations based on a high emission pathway baseline scenario (SSP5-85) are also performed to investigate the dependency of impacts using different injection amounts to offset surface warming by SAG. We find that changes from present-day conditions around 2020 in some variables depend strongly on the defined temperature target (1.5 ∘C vs. 2.0 ∘C). These include surface air temperature and related impacts, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, which impacts ocean net primary productivity, and changes in ice sheet surface mass balance, which impacts sea level rise. Others, including global precipitation changes and the recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole, depend strongly on the amount of SAG application. Furthermore, land net primary productivity as well as ocean acidification depend mostly on the global atmospheric CO2 concentration and therefore the baseline scenario. Multi-model comparisons of experiments that include strong mitigation and carbon dioxide removal with some SAG application are proposed to assess the robustness of impacts on societies and ecosystems.

Understanding the climate impacts of solar geoengineering is essential for evaluating its benefits and risks. Most previous simulations have prescribed a particular strategy and evaluated its modeled effects. Here we turn this approach around by first choosing example climate objectives and then designing a strategy to meet those objectives in climate models. There are four essential criteria for designing a strategy: (i) an explicit specification of the objectives, (ii) defining what climate forcing agents to modify so the objectives are met, (iii) a method for managing uncertainties, and (iv) independent verification of the strategy in an evaluation model. We demonstrate this design perspective through two multi-objective examples. First, changes in Arctic temperature and the position of tropical precipitation due to CO2 increases are offset by adjusting high-latitude insolation in each hemisphere independently. Second, three different latitude-dependent patterns of insolation are modified to offset CO2-induced changes in global mean temperature, interhemispheric temperature asymmetry, and the Equator-to-pole temperature gradient. In both examples, the "design" and "evaluation" models are state-of-the-art fully coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation models.