Search

Atmospheric rivers (ARs), intrusions of warm and moist air, can effectively drive weather extremes over the Arctic and trigger subsequent impact on sea ice and climate. What controls the observed multi-decadal Arctic AR trends remains unclear. Here, using multiple sources of observations and model experiments, we find that, contrary to the uniform positive trend in climate simulations, the observed Arctic AR frequency increases by twice as much over the Atlantic sector compared to the Pacific sector in 1981-2021. This discrepancy can be reconciled by the observed positive-to-negative phase shift of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) and the negative-to-positive phase shift of Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which increase and reduce Arctic ARs over the Atlantic and Pacific sectors, respectively. Removing the influence of the IPO and AMO can reduce the projection uncertainties in near-future Arctic AR trends by about 24%, which is important for constraining projection of Arctic warming and the timing of an ice-free Arctic.

Climate solutions related to mitigation and adaptation vary across the United States and India, given their unique current socio-political–technological abilities and their histories. Here, we discuss results from online face-to-face interviews undertaken with 33 U.S.-based climate experts and 30 India-based climate experts. Using qualitative grounded theory, we explore open-ended responses to questions related to mitigation and adaptation and find the following: (1) there is broad agreement among experts in both countries on the main mitigation solutions focused on the decarbonization of energy systems, but (2) there are a diversity of views between experts on what to prioritize and how to achieve it. Similarly, there is substantial agreement that adaptation solutions are needed to address agriculture, water management, and infrastructure, but there is a wide variety of perspectives on other priorities and how best to proceed. Experts across both countries generally perceived mitigation as needing national policies to succeed, while adaptation is perceived as more local and challenging given the larger number of stakeholders involved in planning and implementation. Our findings indicate that experts agree on the goals of decarbonization, but there was no consensus on how best to accomplish implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) has been proposed as a potential supplement to mitigate some climate impacts of anthropogenic warming. Using Community Earth System Model ensemble simulation results, we analyze the response of temperature and precipitation extremes to two different SAI strategies: one injects SO2 at the equator to stabilize global mean temperature and the other injects SO2 at multiple locations to stabilize global mean temperature as well as the interhemispheric and equator‐to‐pole temperature gradients. Our analysis shows that in the late 21st century, compared with the present‐day climate, both equatorial and multi‐location injection lead to reduced hot extremes in the tropics, corresponding to overcooling of the mean climate state. In mid‐to‐high latitude regions, in comparison to the present‐day climate, substantial decreases in cold extremes are observed under both equatorial and multi‐location injection, corresponding to residual winter warming of the mean climate state. Both equatorial and multi‐location injection reduce precipitation extremes in the tropics below the present‐day level, associated with the decrease in mean precipitation. Overall, for most regions, temperature and precipitation extremes show reduced change in response to multi‐location injection than to equatorial injection, corresponding to reduced mean climate change for multi‐location injection. In comparison with equatorial injection, in response to multi‐location injection, most land regions experience fewer years with significant change in cold extremes from the present‐day level, and most tropical regions experience fewer years with significant change in hot extremes. The design of SAI strategies to mitigate anthropogenic climate extremes merits further study. Plain Language Summary: Injecting SO2 into the stratosphere to deflect incoming sunlight back to space has been proposed as a possible means to counteract anthropogenic warming. Previous studies focused on the response of the mean climate change to SO2 injection. Here we analyze how SO2 injection would affect climate extremes using two sets of climate model simulations under a high‐CO2 scenario. In one set of simulations, SO2 is injected into the stratosphere at the equator to stabilize global mean warming at the present‐day level; in another set of simulations, SO2 is injected into the stratosphere at four different latitudes to stabilize global mean temperature, interhemispheric temperature gradient, and equator‐to‐pole temperature gradient at the same time. Our analysis shows that both equatorial injection and multi‐location injection can help reduce temperature and precipitation extreme events induced by global warming, but their effectiveness varies across different regions. In general, compared to equatorial injection, multi‐location injection can be more effective in stabilizing climate extremes at the present‐day level over most regions. This is consistent with the fact that multi‐location injection exhibits smaller changes in mean climate state than that of the equatorial injection relative to the present‐day state. Key Points: We examine the climate extreme response to two stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) strategies: equatorial injection and multi‐location injectionThe response of climate extremes to SAI shows similar characteristics to mean climate responseMulti‐location injection is more effective in stabilizing climate extremes at the present‐day level [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous modeling studies indicate that even though marine cloud brightening under a susceptibility‐based strategy is effective in reducing the global average surface temperature, it triggers a La Niña‐like sea‐surface temperature response with cooling mostly confined within lower latitudes. Here we explore a different cloud seeding strategy involving seeding of regions with low susceptibility, primarily over the ocean in midlatitudes during the winter. Simulations with the Community Earth System Model, version 2 reveal that because the regional forcing is weaker and more widespread, cooling is more evenly distributed over the globe. This new strategy also does not result in the La Niña‐like state seen in the other strategies. Plain Language Summary: Most previous marine cloud brightening (MCB) simulations have focused on the regions more likely to induce strong cooling. A common response in these simulations across different climate models is a La Niña‐like sea surface temperature pattern which could disrupt the El Niño Southern Oscillation. We explored simulations in which MCB is deployed over the least susceptible regions rather than the most susceptible. This new seeding strategy cools the globe more evenly and no longer triggers a La Niña‐like response. Key Points: We explore the idea of deploying marine cloud brightening (MCB) over broader regions with low susceptibility to cloud seedingThis approach induces fairly uniform cooling over the globe unlike MCB that targets the most susceptible regionsThis new seeding strategy has fewer climatic side effects and does not trigger a La Niña‐like response [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) has proposed multiple model experiments during phases 5 and 6 of the Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), with the latest set of model experiments proposed in 2015. With phase 7 of CMIP in preparation and with multiple efforts ongoing to better explore the potential space of outcomes for different solar radiation modifications (SRMs) both in terms of deployment strategies and scenarios and in terms of potential impacts, the GeoMIP community has identified the need to propose and conduct a new experiment that could serve as a bridge between past iterations and future CMIP7 experiments. Here we report the details of such a proposed experiment, named G6-1.5K-SAI, to be conducted with the current generation of scenarios and models from CMIP6 and clarify the reasoning behind many of the new choices introduced. Namely, compared to the CMIP6 GeoMIP scenario G6sulfur, we decided on (1) an intermediate emission scenario as a baseline (the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2-4.5), (2) a start date set in the future that includes both considerations for the likelihood of exceeding 1.5 °C above preindustrial levels and some considerations for a likely start date for an SRM implementation, and (3) a deployment strategy for stratospheric aerosol injection that does not inject in the tropical pipe in order to obtain a more latitudinally uniform aerosol distribution. We also offer more details regarding the preferred experiment length and number of ensemble members and include potential options for second-tier experiments that some modeling groups might want to run. The specifics of the proposed experiment will further allow for a more direct comparison between results obtained from CMIP6 models and those obtained from future scenarios for CMIP7. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 SO 2 at 15° N and 15° S (15N + 15S), an annual injection of equal amounts of SO 2 at 30° N and 30° S (30N + 30S), and a polar injection strategy that injects equal amounts of SO 2 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 SO 2 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The impacts of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) on the atmosphere and surface climate depend on when and where the sulfate aerosol precursors are injected, as well as on how much surface cooling is to be achieved. We use a set of CESM2(WACCM6) SAI simulations achieving three different levels of global mean surface cooling and demonstrate that unlike some direct surface climate impacts driven by the reflection of solar radiation by sulfate aerosols, the SAI‐induced changes in the high latitude circulation and ozone are more complex and could be non‐linear. This manifests in our simulations by disproportionally larger Antarctic springtime ozone loss, significantly larger intra‐ensemble spread of the Arctic stratospheric jet and ozone responses, and non‐linear impacts on the extratropical modes of surface climate variability under the strongest‐cooling SAI scenario compared to the weakest one. These potential non‐linearities may add to uncertainties in projections of regional surface impacts under SAI. Plain Language Summary: The injection of reflective aerosols, or their precursors, into the lower stratosphere (Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, SAI) has been proposed as a temporary measure to offset some of the adverse impacts of climate change whilst atmospheric concentrations of greenhouses are being stabilized and, ultimately, reduced. The impacts of SAI on the atmosphere and surface climate would depend on when and where the sulfate aerosol precursors are injected, as well as on how much surface cooling is to be achieved. Here we analyze SAI impacts on stratospheric climate and ozone in a set of Earth system model simulations under varying magnitudes of the SAI‐induced global mean cooling. We demonstrate that unlike some of the direct surface climate impacts from the reflection of solar radiation by sulfate aerosols, the SAI‐induced changes in stratospheric circulation, chemistry and climate are more complex, with the model simulations pointing toward more non‐linear behavior of the high latitude circulation and ozone under higher SAI scenarios. These potential non‐linearities may add to uncertainties in projections of regional surface impacts under SAI. Key Points: Impacts of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) depend on how much surface cooling is to be achievedHigh latitude circulation, ozone and modes of extratropical variability can vary non‐linearly with the SAI‐induced global surface coolingThese potential non‐linearities may add to uncertainties in projections of regional surface impacts under SAI [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite offsetting global mean surface temperature, various studies demonstrated that stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) could influence the recovery of stratospheric ozone and have important impacts on stratospheric and tropospheric circulation, thereby potentially playing an important role in modulating regional and seasonal climate variability. However, so far, most of the assessments of such an approach have come from climate model simulations in which SO 2 is injected only in a single location or a set of locations. Here we use CESM2-WACCM6 SAI simulations under a comprehensive set of SAI strategies achieving the same global mean surface temperature with different locations and/or timing of injections, namely an equatorial injection, an annual injection of equal amounts of SO 2 at 15 ∘ N and 15 ∘ S, an annual injection of equal amounts of SO 2 at 30 ∘ N and 30 ∘ S, and a polar strategy injecting SO 2 at 60 ∘ N and 60 ∘ S only in spring in each hemisphere. We demonstrate that despite achieving the same global mean surface temperature, the different strategies result in contrastingly different magnitudes of the aerosol-induced lower stratospheric warming, stratospheric moistening, strengthening of stratospheric polar jets in both hemispheres, and changes in the speed of the residual circulation. These impacts tend to maximise under the equatorial injection strategy and become smaller as the aerosols are injected away from the Equator into the subtropics and higher latitudes. In conjunction with the differences in direct radiative impacts at the surface, these different stratospheric changes drive different impacts on the extratropical modes of variability (Northern and Southern Annular modes), including important consequences on the northern winter surface climate, and on the intensity of tropical tropospheric Walker and Hadley circulations, which drive tropical precipitation patterns. Finally, we demonstrate that the choice of injection strategy also plays a first-order role in the future evolution of stratospheric ozone under SAI throughout the globe. Overall, our results contribute to an increased understanding of the fine interplay of various radiative, dynamical, and chemical processes driving the atmospheric circulation and ozone response to SAI and lay the foundation for designing an optimal SAI strategy that could form a basis of future multi-model intercomparisons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) has proposed multiple model experiments during the phases 5 and 6 of the Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), with the latest set of model experiment proposed in 2015. With phase 7 of CMIP in preparation, and with multiple efforts ongoing to better explore the potential space of outcomes for different Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) both in terms of deployment strategies and scenarios and in terms of potential impacts, the GeoMIP community has identified the need to propose and conduct a new experiment that could serve as a bridge between past iterations and future CMIP7 experiments. Here we report the details of such a proposed experiment, named G6-1.5K-SAI, to be conducted with the current generation of scenarios and models from CMIP6, and clarify the reasoning behind many of the new choices introduced. Namely, compared to the CMIP6 GeoMIP scenario G6sulfur, here we decided on: 1) an intermediate emission scenario as baseline (the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2-4.5); 2) a start date set in the future that includes both considerations around the likelihood of exceeding 1.5 ºC above preindustrial and some considerations around a likely start date for an SRM implementation; 3) a deployment strategy for Stratospheric Aerosol Injection that does not inject in the tropical pipe in order to obtain a more latitudinally uniform aerosol distribution. We also offer more details over the preferred experiment length and number of ensemble members, and include potential options for second-tier experiments some modeling groups might want to run. The specifics of the proposed experiment will further allow for a more direct comparison between results obtained with CMIP6 models and those obtained with future scenarios for CMIP7. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate change is expected to have far‐reaching effects at both the global and regional scale, but local effects are difficult to determine from coarse‐resolution climate studies. Dynamical downscaling can provide insight into future climate projections on local scales. Here, we present a new dynamically downscaled dataset for Indiana and the surrounding regions. Output from the Community Earth System Model (CESM) version 1 is downscaled using the Weather Research and Forecasting model (WRF). Simulations are run with a 24‐hr reinitialization strategy and a 12‐hr spin‐up window. WRF output is bias corrected to the National Centers for Environmental Protection/National Center for Atmospheric Research 40‐year Reanalysis project (NCEP) using a modified quantile mapping method. Bias‐corrected 2‐m air temperature and accumulated precipitation are the initial focus, with additional variables planned for future releases. Regional climate change signals agree well with larger global studies, and local fine‐scaled features are visible in the resulting dataset, such as urban heat islands, frontal passages, and orographic temperature gradients. This high‐resolution climate dataset could be used for down‐stream applications focused on impacts across the domain, such as urban planning, energy usage, water resources, agriculture and public health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Solar geoengineering, or deliberate climate modification, has been receiving increased attention in recent years. Given the far-reaching consequences of any potential solar geoengineering deployments, it is prudent to identify inherent biases, blind spots, and other potential issues at all stages of the research process. Here we articulate a feminist science-based framework to concretely describe how solar geoengineering researchers can be more inclusive of different perspectives and potentially contradictory conclusions, in the process illuminating potential implicit bias and enhancing the conclusions that can be gained from their studies. Importantly, this framework is an adoptable method of practice that can be refined, with the aim of conducting better research in solar geoengineering. As an illustration, we retrospectively apply this framework to a well-read solar geoengineering study (also led by the first author of this study), improving transparency by revealing its implicit values, conclusions made from its evidence base, and the methodologies that study pursues. We conclude with a set of recommendations for the geoengineering research community whereby more inclusive research can become a regular part of practice. Throughout this process, we illustrate how feminist science scholars can use this approach to study climate modeling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) of reflective sulfate aerosols has been proposed to temporarily reduce the impacts of global warming. In this study, we compare two SAI simulations which inject at different altitudes to provide the same amount of cooling, finding that lower‐altitude SAI requires 64% more injection. SAI at higher altitudes cools the surface more efficiently per unit injection than lower‐altitude SAI through two primary mechanisms: the longer lifetimes of SO2 and SO4 at higher altitudes, and the water vapor feedback, in which lower‐altitude SAI causes more heating in the tropical cold point tropopause region, thereby increasing water vapor transport into the stratosphere and trapping more terrestrial infrared radiation that offsets some of the direct aerosol‐induced cooling. We isolate these individual mechanisms and find that the contribution of lifetime effects to differences in cooling efficiency is approximately five to six times larger than the contribution of the water vapor feedback. Plain Language Summary: Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI)—the artificial introduction of reflective droplets, called aerosols, into the middle atmosphere–could reflect a small portion of sunlight and cool the planet in order to temporarily reduce the impacts from global warming. Injecting the aerosols at higher altitudes would be more expensive, but it would also be more efficient because the aerosols would last longer before falling out of the atmosphere. Additionally, injecting at a lower altitude would cause more water vapor to enter the middle atmosphere; since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this would increase the greenhouse effect, meaning more aerosols would be needed to cool the surface to a desired temperature. In this study, we directly compare high‐altitude SAI to low‐altitude SAI to determine how much more efficient it is to inject at a higher altitude, and we break down the different factors that effect efficiency to see which has the biggest effect. Key Points: We compare two stratospheric aerosol injection strategies which inject SO2 at different altitudes to meet the same temperature targetThe low altitude strategy requires two thirds more injection to provide the same amount of coolingWe isolate and quantify the different factors which cause the high altitude injection strategy to cool the surface more efficiently [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) is a coordinating framework, started in 2010, that includes a series of standardized climate model experiments aimed at understanding the physical processes and projected impacts of solar geoengineering. Numerous experiments have been conducted, and numerous more have been proposed as "test-bed" experiments, spanning a variety of geoengineering techniques aimed at modifying the planetary radiation budget: stratospheric aerosol injection, marine cloud brightening, surface albedo modification, cirrus cloud thinning, and sunshade mirrors. To date, more than 100 studies have been published that used results from GeoMIP simulations. Here we provide a critical assessment of GeoMIP and its experiments. We discuss its successes and missed opportunities, for instance in terms of which experiments elicited more interest from the scientific community and which did not, and the potential reasons why that happened. We also discuss the knowledge that GeoMIP has contributed to the field of geoengineering research and climate science as a whole: what have we learned in terms of intermodel differences, robustness of the projected outcomes for specific geoengineering methods, and future areas of model development that would be necessary in the future? We also offer multiple examples of cases where GeoMIP experiments were fundamental for international assessments of climate change. Finally, we provide a series of recommendations, regarding both future experiments and more general activities, with the goal of continuously deepening our understanding of the effects of potential geoengineering approaches and reducing uncertainties in climate outcomes, important for assessing wider impacts on societies and ecosystems. In doing so, we refine the purpose of GeoMIP and outline a series of criteria whereby GeoMIP can best serve its participants, stakeholders, and the broader science community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite offsetting global mean surface temperature, various studies demonstrated that Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) could influence the recovery of stratospheric ozone and have important impacts on stratospheric and tropospheric circulation, thereby potentially playing an important role in modulating regional and seasonal climate variability. However, so far most of the assessments of such an approach have come from climate model simulations in which SO2 is injected only in a single location or a set of locations. Here we use CESM2-WACCM6 SAI simulations under a comprehensive set of SAI strategies achieving the same global mean surface temperature with different locations and/or timing of injections: an equatorial injection, an annual injection of equal amounts of SO2 at 15° N and 15° S, an annual injection of equal amounts of SO2 at 30° N and 30° S, and a polar strategy injecting SO2 at 60° N and 60° S only in spring in each hemisphere. We demonstrate that despite achieving the same global mean surface temperature, the different strategies result in contrastingly different magnitudes of the aerosol-induced lower stratospheric warming, stratospheric moistening, strengthening of stratospheric polar jets in both hemispheres and changes in the speed of the residual circulation. In conjunction with the differences in direct radiative impacts at the surface, these drive different impacts on the extratropical modes of variability (Northern and Southern Annular Mode), including important consequences on the northern winter surface climate, as well as on the intensity of tropical tropospheric Walker and Hadley Circulations, which drive tropical precipitation patterns. Finally, we demonstrate that the choice of injection strategy also plays a first-order role in the future evolution of stratospheric ozone under SAI throughout the globe. Overall, our results contribute to an increased understanding of the fine interplay of various radiative, dynamical and chemical processes driving the atmospheric response to SAI, as well as lay the ground for designing an optimal SAI strategy that could form a basis of future multi-model intercomparisons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) comes with a wide range of possible design choices, such as the location and timing of the injection. Different injection strategies can yield different climate responses; therefore, making informed future decisions on SAI requires an understanding of the range of possible climate outcomes. Yet to date, there has been no systematic exploration of a comprehensive set of SAI strategies. This limits the ability to determine which effects are robust across different strategies and which depend on specific injection choices, or to determine if there are underlying trade-offs between different climate goals. This study systematically explores how the choice of SAI strategy affects climate responses. 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. We find that the choice of SAI strategy notably affects the spatial distribution of aerosol optical depths, injection efficiency, and various surface climate responses. Among other findings, we show that injecting in 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 September Arctic sea ice, the high-latitude injection one is more effective due to the SAI-induced cooling occurring preferentially at higher latitudes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) comes with a wide range of possible design choices, such as the location and timing of the injection. Different injection strategies can yield different climate responses; therefore, making informed future decisions on SAI requires an understanding of the range of possible climate outcomes. Yet to date, there has been no systematic exploration of a comprehensive set of SAI strategies. This limits the ability to determine which effects are robust across different strategies and which depend on specific injection choices, or to determine if there are underlying trade-offs between different climate goals. This study systematically explores how the choice of SAI strategy affects climate responses. 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 hemisphericallysymmetric 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. We find that the choice of SAI strategy notably affects the spatial distribution of aerosol optical depths, injection efficiency, and various surface climate responses. Among other findings, we show that injecting in 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 September Arctic sea ice, the high-latitude injection one is more effective due to the SAI-induced cooling occurring preferentially at higher latitudes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 SO2 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. Plain Language Summary: The injection of reflective particles called sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight, commonly called "stratospheric aerosol injection" (SAI) or simply "geoengineering," could be used alongside emission cuts and CO2 removal to cool the planet and reduce global warming. Concentrating this particle injection at high latitudes could be used to preserve the Arctic. We simulate such "Arctic‐focused" geoengineering and find that it does indeed preserve sea ice, permafrost, and the Greenland Ice Sheet. However, focusing on the Arctic also introduces complications: large quantities of carbon are stored by plants at mid‐to‐high latitudes, and cooling the Arctic may reduce their ability to take up carbon from the atmosphere. Additionally, cooling the Arctic more than the tropics could affect the way heat is transported around the planet, changing important precipitation patterns near the equator. Finally, most of the injected sulfur would come back down in the highly populated middle latitudes and the relatively pristine high latitudes, likely affecting ecosystems in both regions. For these reasons, we find that even though such an "Arctic‐focused" geoengineering would predominantly cool the Arctic, it would be incorrect to think of it as a "local" intervention, as it would affect the rest of the planet too. Key Points: Stratospheric aerosol injection at high latitudes could preferentially reduce the impacts of global warming in the ArcticSimulations of such injection increase sea ice and permafrost extents and preserve Greenland ice sheet massHigh latitude injection preserves the Arctic more efficiently than tropical injection but also substantially affects tropical precipitation [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is now substantial literature on climate model studies of equatorial or tropical stratospheric SO 2 injections that aim to counteract the surface warming produced by rising concentrations of greenhouse gases. Here we present the results from the first systematic intercomparison of climate responses in three Earth system models wherein the injection of SO 2 occurs at different latitudes in the lower stratosphere: CESM2-WACCM6, UKESM1.0 and GISS-E2.1-G. The first two use a modal aerosol microphysics scheme, while two versions of GISS-E2.1-G use a bulk aerosol (One-Moment Aerosol, OMA) and a two-moment (Multiconfiguration Aerosol TRacker of mIXing state, MATRIX) microphysics approach, respectively. Our aim in this work is to determine commonalities and differences between the climate model responses in terms of the distribution of the optically reflective sulfate aerosols produced from the oxidation of SO 2 and in terms of the surface response to the resulting reduction in solar radiation. A focus on understanding the contribution of characteristics of models transport alongside their microphysical and chemical schemes, and on evaluating the resulting stratospheric responses in different models, is given in the companion paper. The goal of this exercise is not to evaluate these single-point injection simulations as stand-alone proposed strategies to counteract global warming; instead we determine sources and areas of agreement and uncertainty in the simulated responses and, ultimately, the possibility of designing a comprehensive intervention strategy capable of managing multiple simultaneous climate goals through the combination of different injection locations. We find large disagreements between GISS-E2.1-G and the CESM2-WACCM6 and UKESM1.0 models regarding the magnitude of cooling per unit of aerosol optical depth (AOD) produced, which varies from 4.7 K per unit of AOD in CESM2-WACCM6 to 16.7 K in the GISS-E2.1-G version with two-moment aerosol microphysics. By normalizing the results with the global mean response in each of the models and thus assuming that the amount of SO 2 injected is a free parameter that can be managed independently, we highlight some commonalities in the overall distributions of the aerosols, in the inter-hemispheric surface temperature response and in shifts to the Intertropical Convergence Zone, as well as some areas of disagreement, such as the extent of the aerosol confinement in the equatorial region and the efficiency of the transport to polar latitudes. In conclusion, we demonstrate that it is possible to use these simulations to produce more comprehensive injection strategies in multiple climate models. However, large differences in the injection magnitudes can be expected, potentially increasing inter-model spreads in some stratospheric quantities (such as aerosol distribution) while reducing the spread in the surface response in terms of temperature and precipitation; furthermore, the selection of the injection locations may be dependent on the models' specific stratospheric transport. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper constitutes Part 2 of a study performing a first systematic inter-model comparison of the atmospheric responses to stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) at various single latitudes in the tropics, as simulated by three state-of-the-art Earth system models – CESM2-WACCM6, UKESM1.0, and GISS-E2.1-G. Building on Part 1 (Visioni et al., 2023) we demonstrate the role of biases in the climatological circulation and specific aspects of the model microphysics in driving the inter-model differences in the simulated sulfate distributions. We then characterize the simulated changes in stratospheric and free-tropospheric temperatures, ozone, water vapor, and large-scale circulation, elucidating the role of the above aspects in the surface SAI responses discussed in Part 1. We show that the differences in the aerosol spatial distribution can be explained by the significantly faster shallow branches of the Brewer–Dobson circulation in CESM2, a relatively isolated tropical pipe and older tropical age of air in UKESM, and smaller aerosol sizes and relatively stronger horizontal mixing (thus very young stratospheric age of air) in the two GISS versions used. We also find a large spread in the magnitudes of the tropical lower-stratospheric warming amongst the models, driven by microphysical, chemical, and dynamical differences. These lead to large differences in stratospheric water vapor responses, with significant increases in stratospheric water vapor under SAI in CESM2 and GISS that were largely not reproduced in UKESM. For ozone, good agreement was found in the tropical stratosphere amongst the models with more complex microphysics, with lower stratospheric ozone changes consistent with the SAI-induced modulation of the large-scale circulation and the resulting changes in transport. In contrast, we find a large inter-model spread in the Antarctic ozone responses that can largely be explained by the differences in the simulated latitudinal distributions of aerosols as well as the degree of implementation of heterogeneous halogen chemistry on sulfate in the models. The use of GISS runs with bulk microphysics demonstrates the importance of more detailed treatment of aerosol processes, with contrastingly different stratospheric SAI responses to the models using the two-moment aerosol treatment; however, some problems in halogen chemistry in GISS are also identified that require further attention. Overall, our results contribute to an increased understanding of the underlying physical mechanisms as well as identifying and narrowing the uncertainty in model projections of climate impacts from SAI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) is a coordinating framework, started in 2010, that includes a series of standardized climate model experiments aimed at understanding the physical processes and projected impacts of solar geoengineering. Numerous experiments have been conducted, and numerous more have been proposed as "testbed' experiments, spanning a variety of geoengineering techniques aimed at modifying the planetary radiation budget: stratospheric aerosol injection, marine cloud brightening, surface albedo modification, cirrus cloud thinning and sunshade mirrors. To date, more than one hundred studies have been published that used results from GeoMIP simulations. Here we provide a critical assessment of GeoMIP and its experiments. We discuss its successes and missed opportunities, for instance in terms of which experiments elicited more interest from the scientific community and which didn't, and the potential reasons why that happened. We also discuss the knowledge that GeoMIP has contributed to the field of geoengineering research and climate science as a whole: what have we learned in terms of inter-model differences, robustness of the projected outcomes for specific geoengineering methods and future areas of models' development that would be necessary in the future. We also offer multiple examples of cases where GeoMIP experiments were fundamental for international assessments of climate change. Finally, we provide a series of recommendations, regarding both future experiments and more general activities, with the goal of continuously deepening our understanding of the effects of potential geoengineering approaches, as well as reducing uncertainties in climate outcomes, important for assessing wider impacts on societies and ecosystems. In doing so, we refine the purpose of GeoMIP and outline a series of criteria whereby GeoMIP can best serve its participants, stakeholders, and the broader science community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Extreme weather events have been demonstrated to be increasing in frequency and intensity across the globe and are anticipated to increase further with projected changes in climate. Solar climate intervention strategies, specifically stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), have the potential to minimize some of the impacts of a changing climate while more robust reductions in greenhouse gas emissions take effect. However, to date little attention has been paid to the possible responses of extreme weather and climate events under climate intervention scenarios. We present an analysis of 16 extreme surface temperature and precipitation indices, as well as associated vegetation responses, applied to the Geoengineering Large Ensemble (GLENS). GLENS is an ensemble of simulations performed with the Community Earth System Model (CESM1) wherein SAI is simulated to offset the warming produced by a high-emission scenario throughout the 21st century, maintaining surface temperatures at 2020 levels. GLENS is generally successful at maintaining global mean temperature near 2020 levels; however, it does not completely offset some of the projected warming in northern latitudes. Some regions are also projected to cool substantially in comparison to the present day, with the greatest decreases in daytime temperatures. The differential warming–cooling also translates to fewer very hot days but more very hot nights during the summer and fewer very cold days or nights compared to the current day. Extreme precipitation patterns, for the most part, are projected to reduce in intensity in areas that are wet in the current climate and increase in intensity in dry areas. We also find that the distribution of daily precipitation becomes more consistent with more days with light rain and fewer very intense events than currently occur. In many regions there is a reduction in the persistence of long dry and wet spells compared to present day. However, asymmetry in the night and day temperatures, together with changes in cloud cover and vegetative responses, could exacerbate drying in regions that are already sensitive to drought. Overall, our results suggest that while SAI may ameliorate some of the extreme weather hazards produced by global warming, it would also present some significant differences in the distribution of climate extremes compared to the present day. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Quantifying the spatiotemporal dynamics in subsurface hydrological flows over a long time window usually employs a network of monitoring wells. However, such observations are often spatially sparse with potential temporal gaps due to poor quality or instrument failure. In this study, we explore the ability of recurrent neural networks to fill gaps in a spatially distributed time-series dataset. We use a well network that monitors the dynamic and heterogeneous hydrologic exchanges between the Columbia River and its adjacent groundwater aquifer at the U.S. Department of Energy's Hanford site. This 10-year-long dataset contains hourly temperature, specific conductance, and groundwater table elevation measurements from 42 wells with gaps of various lengths. We employ a long short-term memory (LSTM) model to capture the temporal variations in the observed system behaviors needed for gap filling. The performance of the LSTM-based gap-filling method was evaluated against a traditional autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) method in terms of error statistics and accuracy in capturing the temporal patterns of river corridor wells with various dynamics signatures. Our study demonstrates that the ARIMA models yield better average error statistics, although they tend to have larger errors during time windows with abrupt changes or high-frequency (daily and subdaily) variations. The LSTM-based models excel in capturing both high-frequency and low-frequency (monthly and seasonal) dynamics. However, the inclusion of high-frequency fluctuations may also lead to overly dynamic predictions in time windows that lack such fluctuations. The LSTM can take advantage of the spatial information from neighboring wells to improve the gap-filling accuracy, especially for long gaps in system states that vary at subdaily scales. While LSTM models require substantial training data and have limited extrapolation power beyond the conditions represented in the training data, they afford great flexibility to account for the spatial correlations, temporal correlations, and nonlinearity in data without a priori assumptions. Thus, LSTMs provide effective alternatives to fill in data gaps in spatially distributed time-series observations characterized by multiple dominant frequencies of variability, which are essential for advancing our understanding of dynamic complex systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Modeling experiments reducing surface temperatures via an idealized reduction of the solar constant have often been used as analogs for Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI), thereby implicitly assuming that solar dimming captures the essential physical mechanism through which SAI influences surface climate. While the omission of some important processes that otherwise operate under SAI was identified before, here we demonstrate that the imposed reduction in the incoming solar radiation also induces a different stratospheric dynamical response, manifested through a weakening of the polar vortex, that propagates from the upper stratosphere down to the troposphere. The coupled stratospheric‐tropospheric response exerts a previously overlooked first‐order influence on southern hemispheric surface climate in the solar dimming experiments, including on the position of the tropospheric jet and Hadley Circulation and thus, ultimately, precipitation patterns. This perturbation, opposite to that expected under SAI, highlights the need for caution when attributing responses in idealized experiments. Plain Language Summary: Adverse impacts of climate change have pushed research on temperature reduction strategies like geoengineering into the spotlight. Possible impacts of geoengineering have long been assessed using "solar dimming" climate model experiments, which reduce surface temperatures via an idealized reduction of the incoming solar radiation as an analogue for injecting sulfate aerosols into the lower stratosphere (Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, SAI). We demonstrate that solar dimming induces previously overlooked circulation changes in the stratosphere that propagate down to the troposphere and exert a first‐order influence on the Southern Hemisphere surface climate. This allows for an erroneous attribution of the simulated surface responses to the impacts of SAI geoengineering. The results also emphasize the importance of the stratosphere as an active contributor to the Southern Hemisphere near‐surface climate change, and have implications for paleoclimate studies. Key Points: Solar dimming induces previously overlooked stratospheric dynamical responseThe coupled stratospheric‐tropospheric response exerts a first‐order influence on the Southern Hemisphere (SH) surface climate in the solar dimming experimentsThe results emphasize the importance of the stratosphere, as well as the troposphere, as an active contributor to the SH climate change [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is now a substantial literature of climate model studies of equatorial or tropical stratospheric SO2 injections that aim to counteract the surface warming produced by rising concentrations of greenhouse gases. Here we present the results from the first systematic intercomparison of climate responses in three Earth System Models where the injection of SO2 occours at different latitudes in the lower stratosphere. Our aim is to determine commonalities and differences between the climate model responses in terms of the distribution of the optically reflective sulfate aerosols produced from the oxidation of SO2, and in terms of the surface response to the resulting reduction in solar radiation. A focus on understanding the contribution of characteristics of models transport alongside their microphysical and chemical schemes, and on evaluating the resulting stratospheric responses in different models is given in the companion paper (Bednarz et al., 2022). The goal of this exercise is not to evaluate these single point injection simulations as stand-alone proposed strategies to counteract global warming; instead we determine sources and areas of agreement and uncertainty in the simulated responses and, ultimately, the possibility of designing a comprehensive intervention strategy capable of managing multiple simultaneous climate goals through the combination of different injection locations. We find large disagreements between GISS-E2.1-G and the CESM2-WACCM6 and UKESM1.0 models regarding the magnitude of cooling per unit of aerosol optical depth (AOD) produced, from 4.7 K per unit of AOD in CESM2-WACCM6 to 16.7 K in the GISS-E2.1-G version with modal aerosol microphysics. By normalizing the results with the global mean response in each of the models, and thus assuming that the amount of SO2 injected is a free parameter that can be managed independently, we highlight some commonalities in the overall distributions of the aerosols, in the inter-hemispheric surface temperature response and in shifts to the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone, and also some areas of disagreement, such as the aerosol confinement in the equatorial region and the transport to polar latitudes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper constitutes part 2 of a study performing a first systematic inter-model comparison of the atmospheric responses to stratospheric sulfate aerosol injections (SAI) at various latitudes as simulated by three state-of-the-art Earth System Models - CESM2(WACCM6), UKESM1.0, and GISS-E2.1-G. We use a set of five sensitivity experiments with constant annual injections of SO2 in the lower stratosphere at either 30° S, 15° S, 0°, 15° N or 30° N. We identify the similarities and differences in the simulated responses amongst the models as well as demonstrate the role of biases in the climatological circulation and specific aspects of the model microphysics and chemistry in driving the inter-model differences. Building on part 1 (Visioni et al., 2022), we explain the simulated differences in the aerosol spatial distribution between the models: CESM2 shows significantly faster shallow branches of the Brewer Dobson circulation facilitating transport of the relatively larger-sized aerosol to higher latitudes; UKESM shows a relatively isolated tropical pipe and older tropical age-of-air confining the relatively smaller-sized aerosols to the tropics; and the two GISS versions with either bulk or modal aerosol microphysics show elevated sulfate levels at higher latitudes as the result of smaller aerosol sizes and relatively stronger horizontal mixing (thus very young stratospheric age-of-air). We then elucidate the role of these factors in driving the stratospheric responses to SAI. We find a large spread in the magnitudes of the tropical lower stratospheric warming amongst the models, which can be partially attributed to the differences in aerosol distribution and sizes. Regarding the stratospheric ozone responses, we find a good agreement in the tropics between the models with modal microphysics, with lower stratospheric ozone changes consistent with the SAI-induced modulation of the large-scale circulation and the resulting changes in transport. In contrast to the relative agreement at low latitudes, we find a large inter-model spread in the Antarctic ozone responses that can largely be explained by the differences in the simulated latitudinal distributions of aerosols as well as the degree of implementation of heterogeneous halogen chemistry on sulfate. Finally, we also find large differences in stratospheric water vapour responses amongst the models, with CESM2 and GISS with modal microphysics both showing significant increases in stratospheric water vapour under SAI consistent with the increase in cold point temperatures that were largely not reproduced in UKESM. For the GISS runs with bulk microphysics, the SAI simulations show contrastingly different stratospheric responses to the models using the modal aerosol treatment, including the absence of lower stratospheric warming as well as significant reductions in stratospheric water vapour and ozone. The results point towards the importance of detailed treatment of aerosol processes, although some problems in halogen chemistry in GISS are identified that require further attention. Overall, our results contribute to an increased understanding of the underlying physical mechanisms as well as the sources of uncertainty in model projections of climate impacts from SAI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sulfate geoengineering (SG) methods based on lower stratospheric tropical injection of sulfur dioxide (SO2) have been widely discussed in recent years, focusing on the direct and indirect effects they would have on the climate system. Here a potential alternative method is discussed, where sulfur emissions are located at the surface or in the troposphere in the form of carbonyl sulfide (COS) gas. There are two time-dependent chemistry–climate model experiments designed from the years 2021 to 2055, assuming a 40 Tg-Syr-1 artificial global flux of COS, which is geographically distributed following the present-day anthropogenic COS surface emissions (SG-COS-SRF) or a 6 Tg-Syr-1 injection of COS in the tropical upper troposphere (SG-COS-TTL). The budget of COS and sulfur species is discussed, as are the effects of both SG-COS strategies on the stratospheric sulfate aerosol optical depth (∼Δτ=0.080 in the years 2046–2055), aerosol effective radius (0.46 µm), surface SOx deposition (+ 8.9 % for SG-COS-SRF; + 3.3 % for SG-COS-TTL), and tropopause radiative forcing (RF; ∼-1.5 Wm-2 in all-sky conditions in both SG-COS experiments). Indirect effects on ozone, methane and stratospheric water vapour are also considered, along with the COS direct contribution. According to our model results, the resulting net RF is - 1.3 Wm-2 , for SG-COS-SRF, and - 1.5 Wm-2 , for SG-COS-TTL, and it is comparable to the corresponding RF of - 1.7 Wm-2 obtained with a sustained injection of 4 Tg-Syr-1 in the tropical lower stratosphere in the form of SO2 (SG-SO2, which is able to produce a comparable increase of the sulfate aerosol optical depth). Significant changes in the stratospheric ozone response are found in both SG-COS experiments with respect to SG-SO2 (∼5 DU versus + 1.4 DU globally). According to the model results, the resulting ultraviolet B (UVB) perturbation at the surface accounts for - 4.3 % as a global and annual average (versus - 2.4 % in the SG-SO2 case), with a springtime Antarctic decrease of - 2.7 % (versus a + 5.8 % increase in the SG-SO2 experiment). Overall, we find that an increase in COS emissions may be feasible and produce a more latitudinally uniform forcing without the need for the deployment of stratospheric aircraft. However, our assumption that the rate of COS uptake by soils and plants does not vary with increasing COS concentrations will need to be investigated in future work, and more studies are needed on the prolonged exposure effects to higher COS values in humans and ecosystems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate change has been projected to increase the intensity and magnitude of extreme temperature in Indonesia. Solar radiation management (SRM) has been proposed as a strategy to temporarily combat global warming, buying time for negative emissions. Although the global impacts of SRM have been extensively studied in recent years, regional impacts, especially in the tropics, have received much less attention. This article investigates the potential stratospheric sulphate aerosol injection (SAI) to modify mean and extreme temperature, as well as the relative humidity and wet bulb temperature (WBT) change over Indonesian Maritime Continent (IMC) based on simulations from three different earth system models. We applied a simple downscaling method and corrected the bias of model output to reproduce historical temperatures and relative humidity over IMC. We evaluated changes in geoengineering model intercomparison project (GeoMIP) experiment G4, an SAI experiment in 5 Tg of SO2 into the equatorial lower stratosphere between 2020 and 2069, concurrent with the RCP4.5 emissions scenario. G4 is able to significantly reduce the temperature means and extremes, and although differences in magnitude of response and spatial pattern occur, there is a generally consistent response. The spatial response of changes forced by RCP4.5 scenario and G4 are notably heterogeneous in the archipelago, highlighting uncertainties that would be critical in assessing socio‐economic consequences of both doing, and not doing G4. In general, SAI has bigger impacts in reducing temperatures over land than oceans, and the southern monsoon region shows more variability. G4 is also effective at reducing the likelihood of WBT > 27°C events compared with RCP4.5 after some years of SAI deployment as well as during the post‐termination period of SAI. Regional downscaling may be an effective tool in obtaining policy‐relevant information about local effects of different future scenarios involving SAI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As part of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project a numerical experiment known as G6sulfur has been designed in which temperatures under a high-forcing future scenario (SSP5-8.5) are reduced to those under a medium-forcing scenario (SSP2-4.5) using the proposed geoengineering technique of stratospheric aerosol intervention (SAI). G6sulfur involves introducing sulfuric acid aerosol into the tropical stratosphere where it reflects incoming sunlight back to space, thus cooling the planet. Here, we compare the results from six Earth-system models that have performed the G6sulfur experiment and examine how SAI affects two important modes of natural variability, the northern wintertime North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO). Although all models show that SAI is successful in reducing global mean temperature as designed, they are also consistent in showing that it forces an increasingly positive phase of the NAO as the injection rate increases over the course of the 21st century, exacerbating precipitation reductions over parts of southern Europe compared with SSP5-8.5. In contrast to the robust result for the NAO, there is less consistency for the impact on the QBO, but the results nevertheless indicate a risk that equatorial SAI could cause the QBO to stall and become locked in a phase with permanent westerly winds in the lower stratosphere. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simulating the complex aerosol microphysical processes in a comprehensive Earth system model can be very computationally intensive; therefore many models utilize a modal approach, where aerosol size distributions are represented by observation-derived lognormal functions, and internal mixing between different aerosol species within an aerosol mode is often assumed. This approach has been shown to yield satisfactory results across a large array of applications, but there may be cases where the simplification in this approach may produce some shortcomings. In this work we show specific conditions under which the current approximations used in some modal approaches might yield incorrect answers. Using results from the Community Earth System Model v1 (CESM1) Geoengineering Large Ensemble (GLENS) project, we analyze the effects in the troposphere of a continuous increasing load of sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere, with the aim of counteracting the surface warming produced by non-mitigated increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations between 2020–2100. We show that the simulated results pertaining to the evolution of sea salt and dust aerosols in the upper troposphere are not realistic due to internal mixing assumptions in the modal aerosol treatment, which in this case reduces the size, and thus the settling velocities, of those particles and ultimately changes their mixing ratio below the tropopause. The unnatural increase of these aerosol species affects, in turn, the simulation of upper tropospheric ice formation, resulting in an increase in ice clouds that is not due to any meaningful physical mechanisms. While we show that this does not significantly affect the overall results of the simulations, we point to some areas where results should be interpreted with care in modeling simulations using similar approximations: in particular, in the evolution of upper tropospheric clouds when large amounts of sulfate are present in the stratosphere, as after a large explosive volcanic eruption or in similar stratospheric aerosol injection cases. Finally, we suggest that this can be avoided if sulfate aerosols in the coarse mode, the predominant species in these situations, are treated separately from other aerosol species in the model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]