Search

Abstract Sulfur‐rich volcanic eruptions happen sporadically. If Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) were to be deployed, it is likely that explosive volcanic eruptions would happen during such a deployment. Here we use an ensemble of Earth System Model simulations to show how changing the injection strategy post‐eruption could be used to reduce the climate risks of a large volcanic eruption; the risks are also modified even without any change to the strategy. For a medium‐size eruption (10 Tg‐SO2) comparable to the SAI injection rate, the volcanic‐induced cooling would be reduced if it occurs under SAI, especially if artificial sulfur dioxide injections were immediately suspended. Alternatively, suspending injection only in the eruption hemisphere and continuing injection in the opposite would reduce shifts in precipitation in the tropical belt and thus mitigate eruption‐induced drought. Finally, we show that for eruptions much larger than the SAI deployment, changes in SAI strategy would have minimal effect.

Abstract Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) is a proposed method of climate intervention aiming to reduce the impacts of human‐induced global warming by reflecting a portion of incoming solar radiation. Many studies have demonstrated that SAI would successfully reduce global‐mean surface air temperatures; however the vast array of model scenarios and strategies result in a diverse range of climate impacts. Here we compare two SAI strategies—a quasi‐ equatorial injection and a multi‐latitude off‐equatorial injection—simulated with the UK Earth System Model (UKESM1), both aiming to reduce the global‐mean surface temperature from that of a high‐end emissions scenario to that of a moderate emissions scenario. We compare changes in the surface and stratospheric climate under each strategy to determine how the climate response depends on the injection location. In agreement with previous studies, an equatorial injection results in a tropospheric overcooling in the tropics and a residual warming in the polar regions, with substantial changes to stratospheric temperatures, water vapor and circulation. Previous comparisons of equatorial versus off‐equatorial injection strategies are limited to two studies using different versions of the Community Earth System Model. Our study evaluates how the climate responds in UKESM1 under these injection strategies. Our results are broadly consistent with previous findings, concluding that an off‐equatorial injection strategy can minimize regional surface temperature and precipitation changes relative to the target. We also present more in‐depth analysis of the associated changes in Hadley Circulation and regional temperature changes, and call for a new series of inter‐model SAI comparisons using an off‐equatorial strategy.

Abstract 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.

Abstract The specifics of the simulated injection choices in the case of stratospheric aerosol injections (SAI) are part of the crucial context necessary for meaningfully discussing the impacts that a deployment of SAI would have on the planet. One of the main choices is the desired amount of cooling that the injections are aiming to achieve. Previous SAI simulations have usually either simulated a fixed amount of injection, resulting in a fixed amount of warming being offset, or have specified one target temperature, so that the amount of cooling is only dependent on the underlying trajectory of greenhouse gases. Here, we use three sets of SAI simulations achieving different amounts of global mean surface cooling while following a middle‐of‐the‐road greenhouse gas emission trajectory: one SAI scenario maintains temperatures at 1.5°C above preindustrial levels (PI), and two other scenarios which achieve additional cooling to 1.0°C and 0.5°C above PI. We demonstrate that various surface impacts scale proportionally with respect to the amount of cooling, such as global mean precipitation changes, changes to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and to the Walker Cell. We also highlight the importance of the choice of the baseline period when comparing the SAI responses to one another and to the greenhouse gas emission pathway. This analysis leads to policy‐relevant discussions around the concept of a reference period altogether, and to what constitutes a relevant, or significant, change produced by SAI.

Abstract 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.