Search

14th GeoMIP Meeting What: The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) held its 14th annual workshop, with almost 70 in-person participants and 15 remote participants for a robust discussion about future experiments and community needs in light of phase 7 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP7). When: 10-12 July 2024 Where: Cornell University, Ithaca, New York KEYWORDS: Climate models; Model comparison, 1. Introduction The 14th GeoMIP meeting was held in Ithaca, New York, USA, 10-12 July 2024, at Cornell University. Issues with visas from Global South countries notwithstanding, it was one [...]

The 14th annual workshop of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) took place at Cornell University in July 2024, with a focus on future experiments and community needs for phase 7 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP7). The meeting included discussions on solar radiation modification research, potential new experiments, and data needs for analyzing climate intervention impacts. The community agreed on a series of CMIP7 experiments and emphasized the importance of engaging with policymakers and expanding expertise within the GeoMIP community. The next GeoMIP workshop will be held in Cape Town, South Africa in May 2025, coinciding with the first DEGREES Global Forum. [Extracted from the article]

Solar geoengineering refers to deliberately reducing net radiative forcing by reflecting some sunlight back to space, in order to reduce anthropogenic climate changes; a possible such approach would be adding aerosols to the stratosphere. If future mitigation proves insufficient to limit the rise in global mean temperature to less than 1.5°C above preindustrial, it is plausible that some additional and limited deployment of solar geoengineering could reduce climate damages. That is, these approaches could eventually be considered as part of an overall strategy to manage the risks of climate change, combining emissions reduction, net-negative emissions technologies and solar geoengineering to meet climate goals. We first provide a physical-science review of current research, research trends and some of the key gaps in knowledge that would need to be addressed to support informed decisions. Next, since few climate model simulations have considered these limited-deployment scenarios, we synthesize prior results to assess the projected response if solar geoengineering were used to limit global mean temperature to 1.5°C above preindustrial in an overshoot scenario that would otherwise peak near 3°C. While there are some important differences, the resulting climate is closer in many respects to a climate where the 1.5°C target is achieved through mitigation alone than either is to the 3°C climate with no geoengineering. This holds for both regional temperature and precipitation changes; indeed, there are no regions where a majority of models project that this moderate level of geoengineering would produce a statistically significant shift in precipitation further away from preindustrial levels.This article is part of the theme issue 'The Paris Agreement: understanding the physical and social challenges for a warming world of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels'.

We analyze the global carbon cycle response to a set of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) simulations performed by the CESM2(WACCM6‐MA) model. The simulations are performed under the specified SSP2‐4.5 CO2 concentration pathway. It is found that both the temperature stabilization target and the SO2 injection strategy have important effects on the global carbon sink. Relative to the SSP2‐4.5 scenario, averaged over the last 20 years of our simulations (year 2050–2069), simultaneous multi‐location SO2 injection causes an increase in cumulative land carbon uptake of 45 and 23 PgC, and an increase in cumulative ocean carbon uptake of 6 and 2 PgC for temperature stabilization targets of 0.5°C and 1.5°C respectively. For a temperature stabilization target of 1.0°C, SO2 injections increase land and ocean carbon sinks by 22–42 PgC and 4–7 PgC, respectively, depending on the strategies of SO2 injections (low latitude, mid‐to‐high latitude, and multi‐objective injection). Relative to SSP2‐4.5, by year 2069, SAI increases diagnosed cumulative CO2 emissions by 25–53 PgC (3%–6%), implying a decrease in atmospheric CO2 if SO2 injections were performed under a prescribed CO2 emission pathway. Stratospheric SO2 injections slow permafrost thaw, but do not restore permafrost to the previous extent at the same warming level for all injection strategies. An abrupt termination of SO2 injection weakens both the ocean and land carbon sink, and causes a rapid decline of permafrost extent. A gradual phaseout of SO2 injection slows sharp decline of permafrost and delays the rebound of carbon sink. Plain Language Summary: Stratospheric SO2 injections are proposed as a possible additional tool to help counteract global warming. This method would affect aspects of the climate system such as temperature, precipitation, and ocean circulation, which would in turn alter the global carbon cycle. We use an Earth system model to examine how SO2 injections would affect the ability of land and ocean to absorb CO2. Under a moderate CO2 concentration increase scenario (SSP2‐4.5), SO2 is injected into the stratosphere to maintain global temperature at the level of 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5°C above pre‐industrial, respectively. Compared to the background scenario, SO2 injections increase the land and ocean CO2 sinks and reduce atmospheric CO2 (diagnosed here as 3%–6% increase in cumulative CO2 emissions that would lead to specific CO2 concentration). For the same 1°C target, the location of SO2 injections (low‐latitudes, high‐latitudes, multi‐latitudes) could produce a range of response in land and ocean CO2 sinks that is as large as that caused by different cooling targets. Both land and ocean CO2 sinks are weakened in response to an abrupt or gradual termination of SO2 injection. SO2 injections slow permafrost thaw but do not entirely restore permafrost to past extents at the same warming level. Key Points: Both temperature stabilization goals and strategy for stratospheric aerosol injection are important in affecting land and ocean CO2 uptakeAerosol injections reduce CO2 concentrations, diagnosed here as a 3%–6% increase in CO₂ emissions leading to specific CO2 concentrationsA gradual phaseout compared to an abrupt termination is shown to result in a slower rebound of the carbon sink [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) 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. Plain Language Summary: Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) is a method to tackle the impacts of global warming and involves reflecting some of the sun's rays away from Earth. Different strategies for implementing SAI can have various effects on the climate. This study compares two strategies—one injecting at the equator and the other at different latitudes. Both strategies successfully lower global temperatures, but they also lead to different regional climate changes. The equatorial strategy cools the tropics too much and doesn't cool the poles enough. Whereas the off‐equatorial strategy minimizes some of the negative impacts seen in the equatorial strategy. In summary, injecting aerosols away from the equator avoids unfavorable climate impacts. Key Points: We compare the climate impacts of equatorial and multi‐latitude Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) strategies under the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project G6 frameworkWe demonstrate that an off‐equatorial multi‐latitude injection strategy minimizes unfavorable climate impactsThis research highlights the importance of injection location in determining the impacts of SAI on the climate [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]