<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">ACP</journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">ACP</abbrev-journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Atmos. Chem. Phys.</abbrev-journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="epub">1680-7324</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>

    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/acp-17-595-2017</article-id><title-group><article-title>The G4Foam Experiment: global climate impacts of regional <?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>ocean albedo
modification</article-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{The G4Foam Experiment: global climate impacts}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{C. J. Gabriel et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Gabriel</surname><given-names>Corey J.</given-names></name>
          <email>cjgabriel7@gmail.com</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7010-3051</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Robock</surname><given-names>Alan</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6319-5656</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Xia</surname><given-names>Lili</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7821-9756</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Zambri</surname><given-names>Brian</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1497-1954</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Kravitz</surname><given-names>Ben</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6318-1150</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, New
Brunswick, NJ, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Atmospheric Sciences and Global Change Division, Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, USA</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Corey J. Gabriel (cjgabriel7@gmail.com)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>12</day><month>January</month><year>2017</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>17</volume>
      <issue>1</issue>
      <fpage>595</fpage><lpage>613</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>29</day><month>September</month><year>2016</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>5</day><month>October</month><year>2016</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>1</day><month>December</month><year>2016</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>22</day><month>December</month><year>2016</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
<license license-type="open-access">
<license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/</ext-link></license-p>
</license>
</permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.html">This article is available from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.html</self-uri>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/.pdf</self-uri>


      <abstract>
    <p>Reducing insolation has been proposed as a geoengineering
response to global warming. Here we present the results of climate model
simulations of a unique Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project Testbed
experiment to investigate the benefits and risks of a scheme that would
brighten certain oceanic regions. The National Center for Atmospheric
Research CESM CAM4-Chem global climate model was modified to simulate a
scheme in which the albedo of the ocean surface is increased over the
subtropical ocean gyres in the Southern Hemisphere. In theory, this could be
accomplished using a stable, nondispersive foam, comprised of tiny, highly
reflective microbubbles. Such a foam has been developed under idealized
conditions, although deployment at a large scale is presently infeasible. We
conducted three ensemble members of a simulation (G4Foam) from 2020 through
to 2069 in which the albedo of the ocean surface is set to 0.15 (an increase of
150 %) over the three subtropical ocean gyres in the Southern Hemisphere,
against a background of the RCP6.0 (representative concentration pathway
resulting in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6 W m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> radiative forcing by 2100) scenario. After
2069, geoengineering is ceased, and the simulation is run for an additional
20 years. Global mean surface temperature in G4Foam is 0.6 K lower than
RCP6.0, with statistically significant cooling relative to RCP6.0 south of
30<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N. There is an increase in rainfall over land, most
pronouncedly in the tropics during the June–July–August season, relative to
both G4SSA (specified stratospheric aerosols) and RCP6.0. Heavily populated
and highly cultivated regions throughout the tropics, including the Sahel,
southern Asia, the Maritime Continent, Central America, and much of the
Amazon experience a statistically significant increase in precipitation
minus evaporation. The temperature response to the relatively modest global
average forcing of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.5 W m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> is amplified through a series of
positive cloud feedbacks, in which more shortwave radiation is reflected.
The precipitation response is primarily the result of the intensification of
the southern Hadley cell, as its mean position migrates northward and away
from the Equator in response to the asymmetric cooling.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Applied forcing and global mean temperature response. Ocean albedo
changed from a daily average of 0.06, which includes a very small daily
cycle, to a fixed value of 0.15 with no daily cycle, over “foam regions”,
20<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N–20<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, 90–170<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W (South
Pacific Ocean), 20<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N–20<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, 30<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W–0<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E
(South Atlantic Ocean) and 20<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N–20<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, 55–105<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E (South Indian Ocean). Each foamed region is outlined in black.
Control-run sea-level pressure (mb) is shown with contours and 10 m winds
(m s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) are shaded.</p></caption>
      <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/595/2017/acp-17-595-2017-f01.png"/>

    </fig>

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S1.SS1">
  <title>Background</title>
      <p>The current rate of increase in global mean surface temperature is
unprecedented in the last 1000 years (Marcott et al., 2013). The
atmospheric concentration of CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> is higher now than at any time in
the last 650 000 years (Siegenthaler et al., 2005). It is extremely likely
that the warming since 1950 is primarily the result of anthropogenic
emission of heat-trapping gases rather than natural climate variability
(IPCC, 2013). Motivated by insufficient progress in setting and achieving
mitigation targets, solar radiation management (SRM) has been proposed as a
method of reducing global mean temperature, thereby ameliorating many of the
negative effects of global warming (Crutzen, 2006). The most discussed SRM
approach involves injection of sulfur dioxide (SO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> into the tropical
stratosphere. Other suggested SRM geoengineering methods include marine
cloud brightening (Jones et al., 2009; Rasch et al., 2009; Latham
et al., 2012) and surface albedo modification (Irvine et al., 2011;
Cvijanovic et al., 2015; Mengis et al., 2016). Each of these methods has the potential to cool
Earth's surface, but each comes with known potential side effects. For
example, Robock (2008, 2014, 2016) enumerated and described specific risks
and benefits of stratospheric geoengineering.</p>
      <p>Here we present a Geoengineering Model intercomparison Project (GeoMIP)
Testbed experiment (Kravitz et al., 2011, 2015), consisting of the novel
implementation of an ocean surface albedo modification scheme in a climate
model, which simulates the placement of a reflective foam, consisting of
microbubbles, on the ocean surface. RCP6.0 and G4SSA are run with an ocean
surface albedo with a very small diurnal cycle, and the daily average albedo
is very close to 0.06. In our experiment, the albedo of the ocean surface is
raised from this daily mean of 0.06 to a constant value of 0.15, with no
daily cycle, over the subtropical ocean gyres in the Southern Hemisphere,
specifically 20<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N–20<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, 90–170<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W (South Pacific Ocean), 20<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N–20<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, 30<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W–0<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E
(South Atlantic Ocean) and 20<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N–20<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S,
55–105<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E (South Indian Ocean; Fig. 1). Everywhere else,
ocean surface albedo in G4Foam is calculated in the same way as in RCP6.0
and G4SSA. It is possible that the absence of a small daily cycle in albedo
would result in a slightly different surface energy budget than would occur
if the foamed regions exhibited variations in albedo. However, the foamed
regions' albedos would likely fluctuate as a function of many things,
including some movement of the foam itself, foam interaction with
precipitation or aerosols, wind speed, and sun angle. Further study of the
properties of the foam, including in ocean water with some turbulence, could
provide information that would allow future modeling of the foam to include
albedo fluctuations. This is the G4Foam experiment, which simulates a
particular implementation of an idealized form of the technology described
by Aziz et al. (2014), where stable reflective foam, suitable for use as SRM
in ocean regions with limited nutrients that support little marine life, is
made in the laboratory.</p>
      <p>The broad idea of microbubble deployment as a form of SRM is explored by
Seitz (2010). Here we only examine the potential benefits and risks of such
a scheme, and do not advocate deployment of any form of geoengineering
regardless of its present feasibility. Robock (2011) has cautioned against
the potential implications of ocean albedo modification as presented by
Seitz (2010).</p>
      <p>Stratospheric sulfate injection (SSI) is the most discussed form of
geoengineering and, given the current state of research, the most feasible
(Dykema et al., 2014; Keith et al., 2014). Implementation of the G4Foam
regional ocean albedo modification scheme could be considered with or
without concurrent SSI. G4Foam could be used as a potential SSI concurrent
scheme aimed at correcting possible adverse impacts on the hydrological
cycle brought about by ongoing SSI. G4Foam is also a potential alternative
to SSI, with a far different latitudinal distribution of benefits. The focus
here is solely on the second scenario, as it allows for the elucidation of
the impacts of the G4Foam experiment forcing alone.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S1.SS2">
  <title>Motivation and research question</title>
      <p>Is it possible to cool the planet while concurrently maintaining or
increasing precipitation in highly populated and heavily cultivated regions,
particularly in regions dependent on monsoon precipitation? We begin by
determining whether a forcing can be applied in a global climate model (GCM)
that will result in the model responding with a northward and landward shift
of tropical precipitation needed to achieve our objective. To that end we
conducted simulations with the Community Earth System Model 1 and Community
Atmospheric Model 4 fully coupled to tropospheric and stratospheric
chemistry (CESM1 CAM4-Chem) model (Lamarque et al., 2012; Tilmes et al.,
2015, 2016). We ran the model with horizontal resolution of
0.9<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1.25<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> latitude–longitude and 26 levels from the surface to about 40 km
(3.5 mb), as was done for G4SSA (specified stratospheric aerosol) by Xia et al. (2016).</p>
      <p>The experiments consisted of three ensemble members of a simulation from
2020 to 2089 in which the ocean surface albedo is raised as described above
from an average of 0.06, which includes a small diurnal cycle of albedo, to
a daytime constant 0.15 on the SH subtropical ocean gyres for 50 years,
2020–2069, and then returned to unforced values from 2070 to 2089 to assess
termination. Our hypothesis is that the tropical rain belts will move
northward largely as a result of increased moisture convergence over land
regions, particularly during Northern Hemisphere (NH) summer
(June–July–August, JJA) in NH monsoon regions. Enhanced divergence over the
already strong subtropical highs, due to increased subsidence over the
increased albedo ocean regions in the subtropical Southern Hemisphere (SH),
would help the cooler air from the forced subtropical regions advect
throughout the SH troposphere.</p>
      <p>The asymmetric cooling would force changes in the Hadley cell, enhancing
cross-equatorial flow, which would cool the surface in the NH tropics,
especially during JJA, when heat mortality and morbidity is highest.
However, despite a reduction in the JJA mean temperature in the tropics,
extreme events are responsible for most heat-related mortality and
morbidity, and the reduction in the mean temperature does not necessarily
mean that there will be a reduction in the type of extreme heat events that
cause human tragedy. While Kharin et al. (2007) showed that, in general,
temperature extremes track with the mean temperature, this is not always the
case. The changes in extreme events may, for example, be greater at high
latitudes and the variability of temperatures over land may increase in a
warmer climate.</p>
      <p>Specific to geoengineering, Aswathy et al. (2015) showed that different
climate engineering methods produce spatially heterogeneous changes in
extreme precipitation and temperature events. They showed that one SRM
scheme may be more effective than another in reducing different types of
extreme events despite relatively similar global and regional mean
responses. In particular, a marine cloud brightening scheme that brightens
ocean areas between 30<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N and 30<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S is shown to be less
effective in reducing extreme precipitation and temperature events over land
than the G3 experiment is.</p>
      <p>Finally, the resulting cooling of low-latitude NH land areas would not
dampen the monsoon. The wet-season monsoon circulation is initiated and
maintained by the moist static energy gradient, not the surface temperature
gradient. A wetter, more cloudy land mass will strengthen, not dampen, the
circulation relative to a warmer, drier continent (Hurley and Boos, 2013),
especially with a cooler, lower specific humidity environment under the
descending branch of the meridional circulation.</p>
      <p>The strength of this response will be very sensitive to any cloud feedbacks
that result from the surface albedo forcing. The basis of this comprehensive
hypothesis is described in detail, below, specifically in Sect. 1.3 and 1.4. The details of the experiment are discussed in detail in Sect. 2.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S1.SS3">
  <title>Stratospheric geoengineering weakens the hydrological cycle</title>
      <p>With global warming, low-level specific humidity will increase by about
7 % K<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> within the tropical planetary boundary layer. This response
will be spatially homogeneous throughout the tropics. However, the
precipitation response will be different. Increased moisture convergence in
areas that already get a lot of precipitation will result in the “wet
getting wetter,” while increased moisture divergence in dry areas will
result in the “dry getting drier” (Held and Soden, 2006).</p>
      <p>The “rich get richer, poor get poorer” paradigm does not hold up in an SRM
world, where the response is very different from that under global warming.
Based on the results of an observational study, Trenberth and Dai (2007)
pointed out the possibility that drought, particularly in the tropics, could
result from geoengineering. Tilmes et al. (2013) analyzed the hydrological
cycle in most of the GeoMIP participating Coupled Model Intercomparison
Project 5 (CMIP5; Taylor et al., 2012) models by comparing abrupt 4xCO2,
piControl, and G1. They found a robust reduction in global monsoon rainfall,
including in the Asian and west African monsoon regions in G1 relative to
both abrupt 4xCO2 and piControl. Haywood et al. (2013) explored the impact
of SSI in one hemisphere only and found a movement of the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) away from the
hemisphere that was cooler as a result of the asymmetric SSI.</p>
      <p>This consensus about the potential for less tropical rainfall under a regime
of stratospheric SRM motivates us to identify an alternative or
SSI-adjunctive geoengineering approach that could cool the planet, without
reducing monsoon precipitation in highly cultivated areas.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S1.SS4">
  <title>Extratropical forcing impacts the position of the ITCZ</title>
      <p>Under global warming, tropical rain belts will move toward the hemisphere that
warms more (Chiang and Bitz, 2005; Frierson and Hwang, 2012). This ITCZ
migration was first seen in early atmosphere–ocean coupled models. Clouds
were prescribed in those models, and when clouds were changed in such a way
to preferentially cool one hemisphere, the ITCZ responded to changes by
moving toward the warmer hemisphere. Increasing low-cloud cover, and thereby
inducing cooling, in one hemisphere relative to the other caused the
tropical rain belts over the Pacific Ocean to move toward the other
hemisphere (Manabe and Stouffer, 1980). The impacts of asymmetric heating of
the hemispheres became highly relevant during the Sahel drought. Much of the
rainfall deficit during the devastating 20–30 year drought can be attributed
to cooling initiated by increased tropospheric sulfate emissions in the NH
(Hwang et al., 2013). The forced cooling over the NH was enhanced by a
positive dynamical feedback in the North Atlantic Ocean (Broccoli et al.,
2006; Kang et al., 2008), and the ITCZ and associated tropical rain belts
migrated south. Since the Sahel is at the northern margin of the ITCZ's
annual migration, or at the northern terminus of the west African monsoon,
southward displacement of the ITCZ led to a devastating drought (Folland et al.,
1986).</p>
      <p>Broccoli et al. (2006) diagnosed the energy balance mechanism that causes
the ITCZ to shift in response to asymmetric heating of the extratropics.
Using models of varying complexity, Broccoli et al. (2006) imposed an
anomalous cooling of the NH, either via a last glacial maximum simulation,
or via hosing of the North Atlantic. The heating asymmetry causes the
extratropics in the NH to demand more heat and the extratropics in the SH to
demand less heat. Since cross-equatorial heat transport is achieved
principally via the Hadley cell, the SH Hadley cell strengthens,
particularly in austral summer, in response to the NH cooling, and net
energy flow in the upper branch intensifies, redistributing energy into the
NH from the relatively warm SH.</p>
      <p>Net flow of energy in the Hadley cell can be described in terms of the flow
of moist static energy, which flows in the direction of the upper-troposphere branch of the Hadley cell. This is because moist static energy
is higher at higher altitudes in the troposphere due to the increased
contribution of the geopotential energy term overwhelming the moisture and
internal energy terms in the moist static energy equation for the high-altitude air. Net transport of energy, occurring in the upper branch of the
Hadley cell from the SH to the NH, leads to increased moisture advection to
the SH in the lower branch of the Hadley cell. This redistribution of energy
causes the ascending branch of the Hadley cell to migrate to the warmer SH
where moisture convergence is increased and convective quasi-equilibrium is
achieved under the relatively narrow poleward-shifted ascending branch of
the stronger SH winter Hadley cell. This mechanism leads to the
southward-displaced tropical rain belts (Broccoli et al., 2006).</p>
      <p>This result is consistent with Lindzen and Hou (1988), who used a relatively
simple model to show that even a small movement of maximum heating poleward
into one hemisphere causes great asymmetry in the Hadley cell, with the
winter cell intensifying tremendously and the summer cell becoming rather
modest. More recent work continues to elucidate the mechanism of
extratropical forcing of the ITCZ (Kang et al., 2008). The ocean also plays a
vital role in pushing the ITCZ into the warmer hemisphere (Xie and
Philander, 1994).</p>
      <p>GCM results confirm this mechanism and connect the changes due to northward
displacement of the ITCZ with the onset of active periods in the Asian
summer monsoon (Chao and Chen, 2001). It is evident that a geoengineering
technique that could preferentially cool the SH could shift the tropical
rain bands northward. However, in a GCM there are clouds. How would clouds
respond in the hemisphere cooled by geoengineering? Would clouds change in
the area being directly cooled? Would a cooling of the subtropics either
directly, or indirectly via eddy flux from the artificially cool high
latitudes, cause an increase in subtropical subsidence? Would this increase
in the sinking of air above the intensified subtropical highs cause water
vapor to be trapped in the lower troposphere, forming low clouds and
suppressing water vapor mixing into the free troposphere, where the water
vapor may instead be used up in formation of high clouds, which tend to
reduce outgoing long-wave radiation? Informed by these established diagnostic
mechanisms associated with the impacts of asymmetric heating of the
hemispheres, we seek to concurrently cool the entire SH and the NH tropics,
modestly cool the NH extratropics and, most importantly, induce an anomalous
overturning circulation and redistribute rainfall from ocean to land and
from south to north across the tropics.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>Design of experiment and model configuration</title>
      <p>Figure 1 shows the regions selected for albedo enhancement. These regions
were chosen because of their low-cloud fraction, low wind speeds, weak
currents, and lack of biological productivity.</p>
      <p>We used the Community Land Model (CLM) version 4.0 with prescribed satellite
phenology (CLM4SP) instead of the version of CLM with a carbon–nitrogen
cycle, coupled with CAM4–chem. Vegetation photosynthesis is calculated
under the assumption of prescribed phenology and no explicit nutrient
limitations (Bonan et al., 2011; Xia et al., 2016). Dynamic vegetation is
not turned on in this study. The ocean model does not include any
biogeochemical responses.</p>
      <p>The fundamental question we wish to answer concerns representation of the
physical processes that lead to realistic simulation tropical precipitation.
The Asian monsoon is of great importance in that investigation. Fortunately,
monsoon processes and regimes are depicted well in our atmospheric
component, CAM4 (Meehl et al., 2012). Some important features of CAM4 that
illustrate its good monsoon representation include the amount and
location of precipitation over the southern Tibetan Plateau and over the
Western Ghats (a mountain range near the west coast of south India). This is
improved when compared to earlier versions of the model. The rain shadow
leeward of this range is often not resolved by GCMs, however CAM4 shows some
evidence of this rain shadow. These changes related to orography and
horizontal resolution are important and likely generalize to similar land
surface features outside of India, where model biases have not been as
carefully studied as they have been in heavily populated southern India.
This improvement can be attributed to the CCSM4 finite-volume dynamical
core, which replaces the spectral version of the CCSM3 and the
interconnected higher horizontal resolution (Neale et al., 2013).
Additionally, large-scale features are improved. For example, the
representation of the ITCZ during NH winter southward migration over the
Maritime Continent is improved (Meehl et al., 2012).</p>
      <p>There is an important process associated with monsoon precipitation,
however, that may be imperfectly simulated across many CMIP5 GCMs. Zonal
mean absorbed shortwave radiation is too high over the Southern Ocean (Kay
et al., 2016). This cloud problem leads to a warmer Southern Ocean, which
leads to anomalous SH atmospheric eddy flux to the subtropics from the
extratropics, potentially damping the cooling response of our negative
surface radiative forcing in the subtropical oceans. The effect of a
transfer of heat from the SH extratropics into the Hadley cell already
causes a relatively weak negative bias in the amount of interhemispheric
heat transport from the south to north. Therefore, the manifestation of this
bias in G4Foam would be to partially offset our imposed cooling, lessening
the need for interhemispheric energy transport to the SH and suppressing the
surface return flow of moisture advection into the NH. Lower than observed
interhemispheric energy transport would be associated with a weaker Asian
monsoon. However, this feature is equally present in our G4Foam experiment
and the comparison experiments G4SSA and RCP6.0, so is unlikely to
appreciably affect the differences.</p>
      <p>We compare G4Foam to two experiments. First is a specific sulfate injection
scenario, G4 Specified Stratospheric Aerosol (G4SSA; Xia et al., 2016). They
used a prescribed stratospheric aerosol distribution roughly analogous to
annual tropical emission into the stratosphere (at 60 mb) of
8 Tg SO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> from 2020 to 2070. This produces a radiative forcing of about
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.5 W m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The G4SSA forcing ramps down from 2069 to 2071 and then
continues without additional forcing from 2072 to 2089. In G4SSA tropospheric
aerosols are not affected by the prescribed stratospheric aerosols.
Therefore we cannot evaluate how stratospheric aerosols would actually fall
out and impact the chemistry, dynamics and thermodynamics of the troposphere
from this experiment. Neely et al. (2016) offers more detail on the
prescription of stratospheric aerosols in CAM4–Chem. The second simulation
for comparison, which serves as the reference simulation for both G4Foam
and G4SSA, is the Representative Concentration Pathway 6.0 (RCP6.0)
(Meinshausen et al., 2011) from 2004 to 2089. We have run three ensemble
members each for G4Foam, G4SSA, and RCP6.0.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Changes in temperature and precipitation in G4Foam
relative to both G4SSA and RCP6.0, for the entire globe and for the Tropics
(20<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S–20<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N) annually and in Northern Hemisphere
summer, for the 40-year period beginning 10 years after the start of climate
engineering.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="3">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Global, 2030–2069</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">G4Foam – G4SSA</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">G4Foam – RCP6.0</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(% change)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(% change)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Precipitation (mm day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.02</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.61)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.06 (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.98)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Land precipitation (mm day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.07</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3.19)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.01</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.32)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Ocean precipitation (mm day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.01 (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.36)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.08 (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.57)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Temperature (K)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.27</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.53</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Land temperature (K)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.63</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.44</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col3" align="center">Global, 2030–2069, June–July–August </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Precipitation (mm day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.02</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.70)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.05 (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.85)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Land precipitation (mm day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.08</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3.35)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.02</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.70)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Ocean precipitation (mm day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.01</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.29)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.08 (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.51)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Temperature (K)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.32</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.60</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Land temperature (K)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.71</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.53</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col3" align="center">Tropical, 2030–2069 </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Precipitation (mm day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.06</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.59)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.03 (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.06)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Land precipitation (mm day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.16</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>3.93)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.07</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.43)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Ocean precipitation (mm day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.03</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.77)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.07 (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.92)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Temperature (K)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.60</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Land temperature (K)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.43</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.61</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col3" align="center">Tropical, 2030–2069, June–July–August  </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Precipitation (mm day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.06</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.52)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.03 (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.84)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Land precipitation (mm day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.16</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4.66)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.07</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.02)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Ocean precipitation (mm day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.03</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.67)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.06 (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.61)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Temperature (K)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.18</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.61</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Land temperature (K)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.37</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.70</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><caption><p><bold>(a)</bold> Net all-sky SW flux at top of atmosphere and <bold>(b)</bold> time
series of global mean net cloud forcing. Each ensemble member and the
ensemble mean are shown for each forcing.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/595/2017/acp-17-595-2017-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><caption><p><bold>(a)</bold> Net clear-sky SW flux at top of atmosphere, which
includes the effects of changes in radiation caused by changes in ocean
surface albedo or land albedo (ice and snow), as well as stratospheric
aerosols (stratospheric geoengineering) and <bold>(b)</bold> time series of global mean
temperature. In G4Foam, temperature is more than twice as sensitive to ocean
albedo forcing as it is to stratospheric geoengineering, as applied in
G4SSA, albeit with very different latitudinal distributions of temperature
changes. Each ensemble member and the ensemble mean are shown for each
forcing.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=355.659449pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/595/2017/acp-17-595-2017-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>Ocean albedo enhancement approach</title>
      <p>A plausible technology now exists to make quantities of long-lasting foam,
or engineered microbubbles, to enhance ocean albedo. Ocean albedo
modification gained attention when Seitz (2010) suggested that since
air–water and air–sea interfaces are similarly refractive, dispersing
microbubbles onto the surface of the ocean would reflect sunlight in much
the same way as cloud droplets do. While engineering refractive or stable
foams is commonly done and applied in both food science and firefighting,
engineering a stable and refractive foam appropriate for a geoengineering
scheme appeared fanciful until Aziz et al. (2014) produced a long-lasting
refractive foam made with biodegradable and non-toxic additives. Aziz et al.
identified foam lifetime of 3 months or more per microbubble as lasting
long enough that the input of energy to create the microbubbles would not be
prohibitive. After experimenting with protein-only solutions, Aziz et al. (2014) added high methyl ester pectin to type A gelatin and created a foam
in salt water, which was still intact and stable at the cessation of the
experiment after 3 months. The reflectance of the foam was about 50 %,
which is comparable to that of whitecaps. The creation of these stable
microbubbles makes enhancing ocean albedo in this manner “feasible” (Aziz
et al., 2014). However, there are a number of other potential risks
associated with microbubble deployment, even if the feasibility issues are
set aside. Robock (2011) pointed out that vertical mixing in the ocean,
changes in ocean circulation, impacts on photosynthesis, and risks to the
biosphere could all impair the efficacy of this geoengineering approach.
Robock (2011) also pointed out that a cooler ocean would serve as a more
effective CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> sink, helping to offset the CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> increase that comes
about as a feedback of warming. Other potentially attractive attributes of
this technique include the possibility that it could be deployed exclusively
in the 20 % of the world's oceans that are not biologically active (Aziz
et al., 2014) and therefore have little impact on the biosphere, and that
there would be no risk to ozone in the stratosphere.
<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?></p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Results</title>
      <p>The following results compare the G4Foam climate with the climates in G4SSA
and RCP6.0 averaged over the period 2030–2069. While G4Foam and G4SSA
forcing commences in 2020, the first ten years of both experiments are a
period of transition. For that reason 2020–2029 is discarded from our
comparisons. We analyze mainly annual average and JJA results, since JJA is
meteorological summer in the NH and using JJA facilitates comparison with
G4SSA, which reports results in terms of JJA (Xia et al., 2016).</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <title>Temperature and cloud response</title>
      <p>The primary purpose of G4Foam is to assess the possibility of reducing
global mean surface temperature without reducing monsoon precipitation. The
G4Foam simulations reduce global mean surface temperature relative to RCP6.0
by 0.60 K and global mean land surface temperature by 0.51 K relative to
RCP6.0. In JJA, G4Foam is 0.70 K cooler than RCP6.0 over land in the
tropics, 20<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S–20<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, during JJA (Table 1).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><caption><p>2030–2069 surface temperature differences (K) between
G4Foam and <bold>(a)</bold> G4SSA, <bold>(b)</bold> RCP6.0, <bold>(c)</bold> G4SSA during JJA, and <bold>(d)</bold> RCP6.0
during JJA. Hatched regions are areas with <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &gt; 0.05 (where changes
are not statistically significant based on a paired <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> test). Black boxes
enclose foamed regions.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/595/2017/acp-17-595-2017-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><caption><p>2030–2069 low-cloud fraction difference (unitless)
between G4Foam and <bold>(a)</bold> G4SSA, <bold>(b)</bold> RCP6.0, <bold>(c)</bold> G4SSA during JJA, and
<bold>(d)</bold> RCP6.0 during JJA. Hatched regions are areas with <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &gt; 0.05 (where
changes are not statistically significant based on a paired <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> test). Black
boxes enclose foamed regions.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/595/2017/acp-17-595-2017-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>These temperature changes in G4Foam, relative to RCP6.0, result from an
all-sky top-of-atmosphere forcing of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.5 W m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (global, year-round),
and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.9 W m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in the tropics during JJA only (Fig. 2). This JJA
cooling in the tropics is of particular importance due to the dense
population and heavy agricultural demand in the tropics, particularly north
of the equator.</p>
      <p>G4Foam does not achieve the same amount of cooling as G4SSA, which would
reduce global mean surface temperature by 0.92 K. All-sky top-of-atmosphere
shortwave flux in G4SSA is reduced by 2.7 W m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> as compared to RCP6.0.
In terms of global mean clear-sky top-of-atmosphere shortwave flux, relative
to RCP6.0, G4Foam applies only 38 % of the forcing that is applied in
G4SSA (Fig. 3). The G4Foam forcing is more efficient in reducing
temperature than G4SSA, largely because there is an additional 1.1 W m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
of net cloud forcing in G4Foam relative to G4SSA (Fig. 2b).</p>
      <p>Figure 4 shows a comparison of the spatial distribution of surface
temperature changes between G4Foam and G4SSA and between G4Foam and RCP6.0
between 2030 and 2069. Over the SH ocean gyres that were brightened (Fig. 1), we
see a very robust cooling, reaching 2 K at the center of the South Pacific
foamed region. However, the cooling mixes rather well throughout the SH.
Cross-equatorial flow and changes in the Hadley cell transmit this cooling
into the NH tropics through the mechanisms described in Sect. 1.4, above.
Some of this cooling in the NH tropics is then transmitted to the NH
extratropics.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><caption><p>2030–2069 total cloud fraction difference (unitless)
between G4Foam and <bold>(a)</bold> G4SSA, <bold>(b)</bold> RCP6.0, <bold>(c)</bold> G4SSA during JJA, and
<bold>(d)</bold> RCP6.0 during JJA. Hatched regions are areas with <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &gt; 0.05 (where
changes are not statistically significant based on a paired <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> test). Black
boxes enclose foamed regions.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/595/2017/acp-17-595-2017-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>G4Foam is significantly cooler (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.05) than RCP6.0 in almost all
locations south of 30<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, in mid-latitude NH continental regions
windward of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and at very high latitudes. Figure 4d
shows that G4Foam is less effective in cooling extratropical NH land regions
during JJA. This is reasonable, since continental heating in the NH JJA
season is more dominated by local heating than the other seasons, in which
meridional energy transport plays a larger role. Figure 4a and c show that
G4SSA is more effective over NH continents than G4Foam. A key weakness of
G4Foam, if implemented alone, would be its failure to adequately reduce
human suffering induced by heat stress in NH mid-latitudes during the summer
as a result of ongoing global warming.</p>
      <p>Since the G4Foam forcing alone, with the amplitude of the current
experiments, would be insufficient to achieve any of the objectives of the
G4Foam experiment, positive feedbacks that enhance cooling and circulation
responses must be triggered by the G4Foam forcing to enhance a resulting
cooler, wetter climate. Figure 5 shows change in low-cloud fraction both
year-round and in the JJA season. The largest change is in the northern half
of the regions where foam is applied, and the area to the north of those
foamed regions. The changes in low clouds in these regions are both large
and statistically significant.</p>
      <p>The low-cloud fraction increase in the three areas to the north and
northeast of the G4Foam-forced subtropical surface regions is likely due to
a stronger than normal trade wind inversion (TWI). The inversion develops
when warm air is trapped above the atmospheric mixed layer due to
large-scale subsidence and surface mixing of cooler air above these
relatively low SST regions. The increase in low-cloud fraction does not
occur over the entire downwind area because SSTs increase from east to west,
causing a change in the lower troposphere from east to west. Moving west,
the stratocumulus layer, which is trapped under the inversion base,
decouples from the mixed layer in the lower troposphere. The surface warming
triggers more turbulence within the planetary boundary layer, which allows
for enhanced cumulus mixing in the cloud layer, which entrains dry air and evaporates
the marine stratocumulus layer.</p>
      <p>The subtropical high-pressure systems are stronger in G4Foam, due to the
stronger than normal Hadley cell, which enhances subsidence throughout the
subtropics. Typically, a subsidence inversion is strongest over the center
of the subtropical anticyclones, over cold currents (particularly the Peru
Current), and over cooler than normal waters, which are subjected to
enhanced upwelling in large part by trade winds on the periphery of the
subtropical highs (DeSzoeke et al., 2016). The TWI becomes weaker and its
base increases in height as it moves towards the west and towards the
equator, as SSTs increase. This pattern is particularly evident in the
Pacific, due to the larger geographical extent of the forced area.</p>
      <p>Specifically, under G4Foam conditions, the increased low-cloud fraction
areas are the result of the combination of enhanced large-scale subsidence
(stronger Hadley cell) and a cooler than normal ocean surface. The cooler
than normal surface waters are due to general cooling throughout the SH, as
well as an increase in wind-driven upwelling over these areas of increased
low-cloud fraction, which are already prone to upwelling, a large fraction of
low clouds, and high relative humidity.</p>
      <p>In these areas north of the foamed areas, the subsidence inversion is not
quite as strong as it is right under the subtropical high. However, SSTs are
artificially low, due to general cooling of the hemisphere and enhanced
upwelling, driven by anomalously strong winds, and mixing of this
anomalously cool surface air within the planetary boundary layer keeps the
lowest levels of the atmosphere cool, keeping the marine air inversion base
above the lifting condensation level and allowing stratocumulus clouds to form
at low altitude, below the base of the inversion. Additionally, since SST is
lower than air temperature in the areas of enhanced low clouds, the surface
inversion is further maintained as a result of sensible heat flux from the
atmosphere to the ocean. Ultimately, the strong inversion often results in
more marine-layer cloud formation and longer times for the clouds to
dissipate. This response is consistent through the 2030–2069 period. This
enhanced low-cloud fraction response is similar to the seasonal cycle of
marine low clouds around the periphery of the subtropical highs (Wood and
Bretherton, 2004; Chiang and Bitz, 2005; Wood and Bretherton, 2006; George
and Wood, 2010; Mechoso et al., 2014).</p>
      <p>The relationship between the strength of the subtropical high, inversion
strength, and marine cloud prevalence can be elucidated by analogy to the
behavior of the very well-observed marine low clouds off of the California
coast. The strength of the inversion and the prevalence of marine low
clouds are modulated by the annual cycle with annual maximum low-cloud
extent in the summer, when the subtropical high is at its strongest. The
increased low-cloud fraction response is not seen above the actual G4Foam-forced regions despite the cooler SST. The subsidence is so strong in these
areas that the base of the inversion falls below the lifting condensation
level, and few clouds form (Fig. 5).</p>
      <p>Another striking G4Foam feature is the large and statistically significant
increase in low clouds over land across central Africa, the Middle East, and
Southeast Asia. These low clouds are coincident with the large cooling in
Africa and the Middle East, particularly during the JJA season relative to
both G4SSA and RCP6.0 (Fig. 5c, d). These are very hot areas and heat-related mortality and morbidity are of great concern. A similar increase in
low clouds is evident in the tropical eastern Pacific. This is coincident
with the mean northward displacement of the ITCZ in G4Foam with respect to
G4SSA and RCP6.0, not with any changes in the El Niño–Southern
Oscillation (ENSO).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><caption><p>2030–2069 precipitation difference (%) between G4Foam
and <bold>(a)</bold> G4SSA, <bold>(b)</bold> RCP6.0, <bold>(c)</bold> G4SSA during JJA, and <bold>(d)</bold> RCP6.0 during JJA.
Hatched regions are areas with <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &gt; 0.05 (where changes are not
statistically significant based on a paired <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> test). Black boxes enclose
foamed regions.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/595/2017/acp-17-595-2017-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>In G4Foam, clouds are the key to changing the radiation budget in the
tropics. In G4Foam there is a change in shortwave cloud forcing of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.32 annually and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.59 W m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> during JJA, relative to G4SSA. Only
very small increases in long-wave cloud forcing of 0.42
annually and 0.07 W m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in JJA counter this negative forcing. The
overall change in cloud radiative forcing in the tropics is <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.90 annually and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.52 W m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> during JJA. Relative to RCP6.0, in
G4Foam there is a change in shortwave cloud forcing of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.68
annually and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.89 W m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> during JJA, relative to RCP6.0. Small
increases in long-wave cloud forcing of 0.40 annually, and 0.28 W m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in JJA counter part of this negative forcing. The overall change
in cloud radiative forcing in G4Foam in the tropics is <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.49
annually and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.61 W m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> during JJA when compared to RCP6.0</p>
      <p>Total cloud fraction is shown in Fig. 6. Figure 6c and d are particularly
striking in showing the increase in clouds over Africa and Southeast Asia
during the JJA wet monsoon season in those regions. Under G4Foam, these
regions generally experience cloudier and cooler summers relative to RCP6.0
and are cloudier and only very slightly warmer on average compared to G4SSA.
Some parts of the Sahel and the Middle East are actually slightly cooler in
G4Foam than RCP6.0. These changes in temperature and cloudiness play a key
role in the changes in the hydrological cycle under G4Foam, which we discuss
next.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <title>Hydrological cycle response</title>
      <p>Relative to G4SSA, precipitation in G4Foam over land in the tropics
increases by 3.2 % on an annual mean basis and by 3.9 % during JJA
(Table 1). Tropical precipitation in G4Foam over land in the tropics
increases by 1.4 % on an annual mean basis and by 2.02 % during JJA,
when compared to RCP6.0. Each of these changes is statistically significant
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.05). Regarding the temperature change relative to G4SSA,
G4Foam is only about 0.3 K warmer in the tropics. Precipitation is expected
to increase by between 1.5 and 3.0 % K<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> as global mean
temperature increases (Emori and Brown, 2005). The temperature difference
between G4Foam and G4SSA can explain only a fraction of the precipitation
increase. The statistically significant increase in land-only precipitation
in the tropics in G4Foam relative to RCP6.0 occurs in a climate in which
RCP6.0 is between 0.6  and 0.7 K warmer than G4Foam, depending on the
season. Over the tropical oceans, in G4Foam, precipitation is reduced by
0.4 % on an annual mean basis and reduced by 0.3 % during JJA relative
to G4SSA. There is a decrease of 2.6 % on an annual mean basis and a
decrease of 2.5 % during JJA relative to RCP6.0.</p>
      <p>Globally, over land, the precipitation response is similar to that in the
tropics during JJA, but the magnitude of precipitation change is a bit less.
Precipitation is statistically significantly increased over land in G4Foam
relative to RCP6.0 by about 0.5 %, despite G4Foam being cooler than
RCP6.0. Precipitation is statistically significantly increased in G4Foam
relative to G4SSA over land by 3.5 %, despite G4Foam only being 0.3 K
warmer than G4SSA.</p>
      <p>The overall global precipitation difference between G4Foam and G4SSA or
RCP6.0, when land and ocean are combined and all seasons and all latitudes
are included, is relatively small, and close to the 1.5 to 3 % K<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> range of precipitation increase with temperature identified by
Emori and Brown (2005). Globally, G4Foam is warmer than G4SSA by 0.3 K and
there is 0.61 % (2.1 % K<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> more precipitation. G4Foam is cooler
than RCP6.0 by 0.6 K and drier by 1.9 % (3.1 % K<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p>The spatial pattern of precipitation changes is shown in Fig. 7.
Precipitation is greatly reduced over the ocean, particularly in the SH,
relative to both G4SSA and RCP6.0. Changes in precipitation poleward of
40<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> latitude in either hemisphere are largely due to the
temperature dependence of precipitation. The changes in the SH subtropics
are dominated by the shortwave forcing applied over the ocean gyres, which
reduces both evaporation and precipitation in those areas.</p>
      <p>The changes in precipitation in the tropics are driven by a northward shift
in the ITCZ. Large precipitation anomalies occur in a narrow band north of
the equator and smaller positive anomalies occur in broader regions,
primarily over NH monsoon regions. Importantly, we see a statistically
significant increase in monsoon precipitation over the Sahel, the Middle
East, and the Indian subcontinent as well as southwest Asia and the Maritime Continent on an annual mean basis in G4Foam relative to G4SSA (Fig. 7a).
Relative to RCP6.0, these changes are not statistically significant over the
Indian subcontinent or southwest Asia, but there are only very isolated and
small areas in these regions in which there is any precipitation reduction,
either on the annual mean or during JJA. Therefore, over much of heavily
populated southern Asia, east of the Arabian Sea, G4Foam will be cooler than
RCP6.0 without any notable mean precipitation differences. Most of these
areas are expected to receive more rainfall as the planet warms. If this
excess rainfall is not desirable in areas that are already wet, these
results suggest that weakening the hydrological cycle would require that
G4Foam would have to be combined with an additional geoengineering
technique, such as stratospheric SRM.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><caption><p>2030–2069 precipitation minus evaporation difference
(mm day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) between G4Foam and <bold>(a)</bold> G4SSA, <bold>(b)</bold> RCP6.0, <bold>(c)</bold> G4SSA during JJA, and
<bold>(d)</bold> RCP6.0 during JJA. Hatched regions are areas with <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &gt; 0.05
(where changes are not statistically significant based on a paired
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> test). Black boxes enclose foamed regions.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/595/2017/acp-17-595-2017-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>Relative to both G4SSA and RCP6.0, there is a great deal more precipitation
all year and particularly during JJA over Central America, the northern
Amazon, much of Africa, parts of the Arabian peninsula, and the Maritime Continent. This response is more robust than the response over Southeast
Asia due to the more direct dependence of rainfall in these regions on ITCZ
position than in Southeast Asia, where the monsoon is also driven by
numerous local and remote factors, including ENSO and the Indian Ocean
dipole (IOD).</p>
      <p>Although these G4Foam simulations enhance rainfall over many heavily
populated and highly cultivated regions, particularly in the tropics, there
are regions that would receive less precipitation and experience a decrease
in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (precipitation <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> evaporation) under this regime. Precipitation patterns for islands in the South
Pacific are largely governed by the position and strength of the South
Pacific Convergence Zone (SPCZ), which changes substantially under G4Foam
due in part to the cooling and to the movement of gradients of temperature
and pressure. Precipitation deficits over Madagascar and some regions in
Africa and South America exceed 10 %.</p>
      <p>While the changes in precipitation are important and useful in describing
the climate response in G4Foam, the change in precipitation minus
evaporation between G4Foam and G4SSA or RCP6.0 is more relevant to total
available moisture. Figure 8 shows precipitation minus evaporation.
Specifically, Fig. 8a shows that precipitation minus evaporation in G4Foam is
increased, and this increase is significant relative to G4SSA across the
Sahel, all of southern Asia, the Maritime Continent, Central America, and the
northern Amazon. These are all heavily populated regions that are heavily
cultivated. Figure 8b shows a similar pattern, albeit with the regions with
significantly higher <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is slightly suppressed in coverage, when G4Foam is
compared to the warmer RCP6.0 rather than G4SSA. Figure 8c and d show
changes in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> during JJA, the NH wet monsoon season, when water is likely
needed the most. Due to variability in the monsoon, there is more
heterogeneity in the JJA response than the annual response, particularly
across Southeast Asia. The <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> gain, driven by a combination of increased
precipitation, lower temperature, and increased cloudiness in these heavily
cultivated regions, could be an important benefit of G4Foam. However, G4Foam
increased precipitation to levels that exceed that simulated in RCP6.0.</p>
      <p>Figure 9 shows the differences of annual cycles from 2030 to 2069 for zonal
mean precipitation, zonal mean precipitation minus evaporation, and zonal
mean precipitable water between G4Foam and G4SSA and between G4Foam and
RCP6.0. They illustrate the northward displacement of the ITCZ, with
positive precipitation anomalies progressing poleward as the boreal summer
monsoon progresses. Figure 9f shows the difference in the zonal mean annual
cycle for column-integrated precipitable water between G4Foam and RCP6.0.
The striking feature here is that zonal mean precipitation is higher at key
latitudes in the tropics, despite zonal mean column-integrated precipitable
water being much lower at the same latitude.</p>
      <p>In Fig. 10, we quantify the impacts on agriculture by looking at the
photosynthesis rate anomalies between G4Foam and RCP6.0. There are small
but statistically significant increases in the photosynthesis rate in G4Foam
relative to RCP6.0 in much of Southeast Asia. The most dramatic changes
occur in Central America and parts of the northern Amazon, where the high
CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>, relatively cool, and very wet conditions promote agriculture.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Discussion</title>
      <p>This paper is an analysis of a geoengineering climate model experiment.
Although for this experiment, global warming is reduced without seriously
affecting precipitation, as was found in previous stratospheric aerosol
implementations, this does not argue for the implementation of climate
engineering. Any such decisions will need to balance all the risks and
benefits of such implementation, and compare them to those from other
possible responses to global warming.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9"><caption><p>2030–2069 monthly mean annual cycle of zonal mean
precipitation (mm day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) for <bold>(a)</bold> G4Foam minus G4SSA and <bold>(b)</bold> G4Foam minus
RCP6.0, precipitation minus evaporation (mm day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) for <bold>(c)</bold> G4Foam minus G4SSA
and <bold>(d)</bold> G4Foam minus RCP6.0, and total precipitable water (mm) for
<bold>(e)</bold> G4Foam minus G4SSA and <bold>(f)</bold> G4Foam minus RCP6.0.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/595/2017/acp-17-595-2017-f09.png"/>

      </fig>

<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <title>Summary</title>
      <p>G4Foam would reduce global mean surface temperature relative to RCP6.0 by
0.6 K for the 40-year period starting 10 years after the implementation of
geoengineering. Clear-sky top-of-atmosphere net shortwave flux is reduced by
1.5 W m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in G4Foam relative to RCP6.0. This is achieved primarily by
the shortwave forcing over the subtropical SH ocean gyres. Before accounting
for feedbacks, temperature is more sensitive to the forcing applied in
G4Foam than G4SSA. However, global mean surface temperature in G4SSA is 0.3 K
lower than G4Foam because of a larger change in all-sky top-of-atmosphere
net shortwave flux (Fig. 3). Additionally, the latitudinal distribution of
temperature reduction is different in G4Foam than in G4SSA. G4SSA is most
effective in cooling the NH continents, while G4Foam most effectively cools
the surface south of around 30<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N (Fig. 4).</p>
      <p>Precipitation over land globally, in the tropics, during JJA globally, and
during JJA in the tropics is statistically significantly increased in G4Foam
relative to both G4SSA and RCP6.0 (Fig. 7). The increase in precipitation in
G4Foam relative to RCP6.0 is very likely undesirable in areas that already
receive a lot of rainfall. The combination of cooling and increased
precipitation over land in the tropics results in a statistically
significant increase in precipitation minus evaporation on an annual mean
basis over Central America, the Northern Amazon, the Sahel, the Indian
subcontinent, the Maritime Continent and Southeast Asia in G4Foam relative
to G4SSA (Fig. 8). All of these areas are very densely populated and heavily
cultivated. Water scarcity is a major issue in many of these areas and
G4Foam describes a climate model response in which there is global cooling,
but higher <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is modeled for many regions, some of which are in need of
greater water supply. However, in order to assess actual changes in water
supply, it would be necessary to analyze extreme events, as well as the
economic and policy issues that ultimately determine the allocation of water
resources in a given region.</p>
      <p>Finally, both the changes in the spatial pattern and magnitude of changes in
temperature and precipitation are far too large to be explained by the
forcing alone. Instead, much of the temperature and hydrological response is
the result of powerful cloud feedbacks and changes in the tropical
meridional overturning circulation induced by the placement of the ocean
albedo forcing.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10"><caption><p><bold>(a)</bold> Photosynthesis rate differences between G4SSA and
RCP6.0 during years 2030–2069 (sulfate injection period, excluding the
first 10 years; Fig. 4a from Xia et al., 2016). <bold>(b)</bold> Photosynthesis rate
anomaly between G4Foam and RCP6.0 during years 2030–2069 of solar
reduction. Hatched regions are areas with <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &gt; 0.05 (where changes
are not statistically significant based on a paired <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> test).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/595/2017/acp-17-595-2017-f10.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <title>The hydrological response</title>
      <p>The dominant cause of the G4Foam hydrological response is the
intensification of the southern Hadley cell and the northward migration of
the ITCZ in response to the asymmetric forcing. However, the precipitation
response is not zonally homogeneous, as the regional and local mechanisms
are also important to the distribution of precipitation.</p>
      <p>First, we address the increase in precipitation over Central America. For
this, we turn to literature concerning the decline of Mayan civilization in
Central America. Summer insolation in the NH began to decrease about 5000 years ago. The ITCZ migrated southward. This southward shift caused rainfall
to decrease in the crucial summer growing season. Long droughts and
eventually water shortages contributed to the civilization's decline (Poore
et al., 2004). In G4Foam, the ITCZ moves northward and the areas in which
Mayan civilization flourished, including Belize, Guatemala and parts of
Mexico, once again receive a great deal more precipitation. This response is
strong and consistent in each ensemble member (Figs. 6–8).</p>
      <p>The long mid-to-late 20th century Sahel drought was primarily caused by
the ITCZ being pushed southward by preferential cooling of the NH (Folland,
1986). In G4Foam, the reverse is true. SH cooling pushes the ITCZ north,
which generally explains the G4Foam precipitation increase in the Sahel.</p>
      <p>A surprising finding is that portions of the Arabian Peninsula equatorward
of 20<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S experience precipitation increases of up to 1 mm day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> during the JJA season. However, this northward migration of
boreal summer precipitation is evident in the paleoclimate record. Evidence
of such precipitation is found in Fleitmann et al. (2003), who showed
changes in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">δ</mml:mi><mml:mn>18</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>O in cave stalagmites in Oman, which indicate
increased rainfall in Oman under the influence of northward movement of the
ITCZ over the Indian Ocean in periods of relative warmth in the NH relative
to the SH.</p>
      <p>Changes in precipitation over the Maritime Continent are partially
attributable to large-scale convergence and rising air in those regions, as
they lie longitudinally between G4Foam forcing zones where subsidence is
enhanced. However, the Indian Ocean dipole (Cai et al., 2012; Chowadry
et al., 2012) and subtropical Indian Ocean dipole (SIOD) phenomena discussed
below are more likely to be the key drivers of the precipitation response over the
Maritime Continent.</p>
      <p>In its positive phase, the SIOD features anomalously warm SSTs in the
southwestern Indian Ocean, east and southeast of Madagascar, and cold
anomalies of SST west of Australia. Stronger winds prevail along the eastern
edge of the SH subtropical high over the Indian Ocean, which becomes
intensified and shifted slightly to the south during positive SIOD events.
This results in more evaporation over the eastern Indian Ocean, which cools
SSTs in the Indian Ocean east of Australia (Suzuki et al., 2004). In the
SIOD negative phase, the opposite is true. There is cooler water in the
southwest Indian Ocean, near Madagascar, and warmer waters to the east, near
Australia (Behera et al., 2001; Reason, 2001).</p>
      <p>The negative phase of the SIOD features more precipitation in western
Australia and the Maritime Continent. This negative SIOD phase is consistent
with the SST pattern in the Indian Ocean forced by G4Foam. Therefore, the
negative SIOD-like mean state in G4Foam appears to play a role in the
enhanced rainfall in northwestern Australia and the Maritime Continent.</p>
      <p>Based on both local and global changes in circulation, we expected a very
large increase in the strength of the Indian monsoon. In addition to the
planetary-scale changes associated with the ITCZ and the Hadley cell, the
position of the semi-permanent high in the subtropical southern Indian Ocean
also plays a large role in modulating the Indian summer monsoon. Negative
SIOD events during boreal winter are often followed by strong Indian summer
monsoons. During a negative SIOD event, the subtropical high in the Indian
Ocean shifts northeastward as the season shifts from December, January, and
February to JJA. This causes a strengthening of the monsoon circulation,
intensifying the Hadley cell locally during the JJA monsoon.</p>
      <p>A negative IOD is associated with a weakened Asian monsoon and an increase
in precipitation over Australia and the Maritime Continent. In G4Foam,
advection of cold water in the Somali current into the equatorial western
Indian Ocean creates a negative IOD-like response that partially counters
the combination of the global-scale Hadley cell response and the forced
SIOD, dampening the overall increase in the Indian monsoon. This warm west–cold east mean state in the equatorial Indian Ocean resembles a negative IOD
mean state and it helps to explain the enhanced precipitation response in
the Maritime Continent and the lower than expected increase in precipitation
over the Indian subcontinent. The Asian monsoon and precipitation over the
Maritime Continent are also governed in part by ENSO. However, no changes in
ENSO were evident in G4Foam relative to G4SSA or RCP6.0. There is also no
evident response of ENSO amplitude or frequency to any of several different
regimes of stratospheric geoengineering (Gabriel and Robock, 2015).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <title>Caveats</title>
      <p>The technology does not presently exist to actually deploy a stable, highly
reflective layer of microbubbles on the ocean surface. While a
stable, highly reflective, nondispersive foam has been developed in a
saltwater solution, appropriate for climate engineering, this foam has not
been tested outside the laboratory, much less on the surface of a large area
of rarely quiescent ocean. The foam has not been immersed in a medium in
which bacteria are present, and the interaction between the bacteria and the
protein surfactant could damage the layer of microbubbles. Also, even though
the diameter of these microbubbles is on the order of 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> m, the
demand for surfactant would likely overwhelm our current production capacity
of whatever surfactant is chosen. The research on the engineering required
to perform stratospheric geoengineering by sulfate injection is much further
along than research of microbubble deployment, which is still in its
earliest stages.</p>
      <p>However, since development of microbubble technology is underway, it is
worthwhile to determine how such a technology could be applied in a manner
that would address serious climate issues. The progress being made in
research associated with stratospheric geoengineering actually enhances the
relevance of researching the climate impact of this particular ocean surface
geoengineering approach, as G4Foam was designed with an eye toward concurrent
deployment with stratospheric geoengineering in the event that the stratospheric
geoengineering were to cause the precipitation deficits that many model
studies have shown that it might.</p>
      <p>More fundamentally, the propriety of any attempt to impose a the G4Foam
forcing in an attempt to achieve the modeled G4Foam climate is premised on a
value judgment that it is desirable to develop a technology that could
redistribute essential resources between nations, in an attempt to achieve a
net benefit to humanity as a collective when it knowingly creates a local
scarcity of these essential resources. To some extent, making this value
judgment is germane and is a prerequisite to the discussion of any form of
geoengineering. Even though G4Foam would be successful in increasing <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in
more heavily populated areas, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> will almost certainly be reduced in remote
regions, such as South Pacific islands. Is it ethical to pick winners and
losers when the selection process is aimed at increasing the number of
winners and decreasing the number of losers? Hypothetically, if G4Foam
worked as described in this paper, from a purely consequentialist
perspective, and with the sole objective being increased utility for the
human collective, G4Foam could be considered beneficial.</p>
      <p>Finally, this paper is concerned with the climate response to surface albedo
changes. We do not examine how placing an actual layer of microbubbles in
the ocean would change ocean circulation or impact chemistry and biology in
the ocean. Evaluating the changes in the ocean, especially changes in its
circulation that are caused by the surface albedo modification, is one of
the next issues to explore. The ocean regions we propose to brighten have
low biological productivity and weak currents, but the possibility of remote
impacts, due to changes in circulation having negative impacts on important
ocean regions, is worth considering.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS4">
  <title>Future research</title>
      <p>Whether or not a concurrent deployment of stratospheric geoengineering and
ocean albedo modification could cool the entire planet while maintaining or
enhancing the hydrological cycle, particularly in the tropics, is the next
natural step in this research. Such research is motivated by the need to
determine whether some combination of geoengineering techniques can be used
to offset regional climate disparities that using one method of
geoengineering alone could induce.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <title>Data availability</title>
      <p>Descriptions of data and links to output of this and other GeoMIP experiments, can be found at the GeoMIP homepage  <uri>http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/GeoMIP/data.html</uri>.
Additional data from this experiment can be found at <uri>http://climateresearch.envsci.rutgers.edu/corey</uri>.
The underlying research data can be accessed by contacting the corresponding author at cjgabriel7@gmail.com.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>We thank two anonymous referees for their valuable
comments, which improved this paper. This work is supported by US
National Science Foundation (NSF) grants AGS-1157525, GEO-1240507, and
AGS-1617844. Computer simulations were conducted on the National Center for
Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Yellowstone supercomputer. NCAR is funded by
NSF. The CESM project is supported by NSF and the Office of Science (BER) of
the US Department of Energy. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is
operated for the US Department of Energy by Battelle Memorial Institute
under contract DE-AC05-76RL01830.
<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Edited by: L. M. Russell<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Reviewed by: two anonymous referees</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Aswathy, V. N., Boucher, O., Quaas, M., Niemeier, U., Muri, H., Mülmenstädt, J., and Quaas, J.:
Climate extremes in multi-model simulations of stratospheric aerosol and marine cloud brightening climate
engineering, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 9593–9610, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-9593-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-9593-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Aziz, A., Hailes, H. C., Ward, J. M., and Evans, J. R. G.: Long-term
stabilization reflective foams in seawater, Roy. Soc. Ch., 95,
53028–53036, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Behera, S. K. and Yamagata, T.: Subtropical SST dipole events in the
southern Indian Ocean, Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 327–330, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Bonan, G. B., Lawrence, P. J., Oleson, K. W., Levis, S., Jung, M.,
Reichstein, M., Lawrence, D. M., and Swenson, S. C.: Improving canopy
processes in the Community Land Model version 4 (CLM4) using global flux
fields empirically inferred from FLUXNET data, J. Geophys. Res., 116,
G02014, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010JG001593" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2010JG001593</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Broccoli, A. J., Dahl, K. A., and Stouffer, R. J.: The response of the ITCZ to
Northern Hemisphere cooling, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L01702,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005GL024546" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2005GL024546</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Cai W., Van Rensch P., Cowan T., and Hendon H. H.: Teleconnection pathways for
ENSO and the IOD and the mechanism for impacts on Australian rainfall, J.
Climate, 24, 3910–3923, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2011JCLI4129.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2011JCLI4129.1</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Chao, W. C. and Chen, B.: The origin of the monsoons, J. Atmos. Sci., 58,
3497–3507. 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Chiang, J. C. H. and Bitz, C. M.: Influence of high latitude ice cover on the
marine Intertropical Convergence Zone, Clim. Dynam., 25, 477–496, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Chowdary, J. S., Xie, S.-P., Tokinaga, H., Okumura, Y. M., Kubota, H., Johnson,
N.,
and Zheng, X.-T.: Interdecadal variations in ENSO teleconnection to the
Indo–western Pacific for 1870–2007, J. Climate, 25, 1722–1744,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00070.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00070.1</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Crutzen, P.: Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: A
contribution to solve a policy dilemma?, Climatic Change, 77, 211–219,
2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Cvijanovic, I., Caldeira, K., and MacMartin, D.G.: Impacts of ocean albedo
alteration on Arctic sea ice restoration and Northern Hemisphere
climate, Environ. Res. Lett., 10, 044020,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/4/044020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/1748-9326/10/4/044020</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>DeSzoeke, S. P., Verlinden, K. L., Yuter, S. E., and Mechem, D. B.: The Time
Scales of Variability of Marine Low Clouds, J. Climate, 29,  6463–6481, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0460.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0460.1</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Dykema J. A., Keith D. W., Anderson J. G., and Weisenstein, D.: Stratospheric
controlled perturbation experiment: a small-scale experiment to improve
understanding of the risks of solar geoengineering, Philos. T. R. Soc.
A, 372, 20140059, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0059" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1098/rsta.2014.0059</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Emori, S. and Brown, S. J.: Dynamic and thermodynamic changes in mean and
extreme precipitation under changed climate, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
32, L17706, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023272" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2005GL023272</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Fleitmann, D., Burns, S. J., Mudelsee, M., Neff, U., Kramers, J., Mangini,
A., and Matter, A.: Holocene forcing of the Indian monsoon recorded in a
stalagmite from Southern Oman, Science, 300, 1737–1739, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Folland, C. K., Parker, D. E., and Palmer, T. N.: Sahel rainfall and worldwide
sea temperatures 1901–85, Nature, 320, 602–607, 1986.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Frierson, D. M. W. and Hwang, Y.-T.: Extratropical influence on ITCZ shifts in
slab ocean simulation of global warming, J. Climate, 25, 720–733, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Gabriel, C. J. and Robock, A.: Stratospheric geoengineering impacts on El Niño/Southern Oscillation,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 11949–11966, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-11949-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-15-11949-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>George, R. C. and Wood, R.: Subseasonal variability of low cloud radiative properties over the southeast
Pacific Ocean, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 4047–4063, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-4047-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-10-4047-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Haywood, J. M., Jones, A., Bellouin, N., and Stephenson, D.: Asymmetric
forcing from stratospheric aerosols impacts Sahelian rainfall, Nature Climate
Change, 3, 660–665, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1857" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nclimate1857</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Held, I. M. and Soden, B. J.: Robust responses of the hydrological cycle to
global warming, J. Climate, 19, 5686–5699, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Hurley, J. V. and Boos, W. R.: Interannual variability of monsoon
precipitation and local subcloud equivalent potential temperature, J.
Climate, 26, 9507–9527, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Hwang, Y.-T., Frierson, D. M. W., and Kang, S. M.: Anthropogenic sulfate
aerosol and the southward shift of tropical precipitation in the late 20th
century, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 2845–2850,  <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/grl.50502" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/grl.50502</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
IPCC: Summary for Policymakers, in: Climate Change 2013: The Physical
Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Stocker,
T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S. K., Boschung, J.,
Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and Midgley, P. M., Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Irvine, P. J., Ridgwell, A., and Lunt, D. J.: Climatic effects of surface
albedo geoengineering, J. Geophys. Res., 116, D24112,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016281" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011JD016281</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Jones, A., Haywood, J., and Boucher, O.: Climate impacts of geoengineering
marine stratocumulus clouds, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D10106,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011450" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008JD011450</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Kang, S. M., Held, I. M., Frierson, D. M. W., and Zhao, M.: The response of
the ITCZ to extratropical thermal forcing: Idealized slab-ocean experiments
with a GCM, J. Climate, 21, 3521–3532, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Kay J. E., Wall C., Yettella V., Medeiros B., Hannay C., Caldwell P., and
Bitz C.: Global climate impacts of fixing the Southern Ocean shortwave
radiation bias in the community earth system model (CESM), J. Climate,
96,  1333–13349, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0358" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0358</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Keith, D. W., Duren, R., and MacMartin, D. G.: Field experiments on solar
geoengineering: report of a workshop exploring a representative research
portfolio, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 372, 20140175,
2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Kharin, V. V., Zwiers, F. W., Zhang, X., and Hegerl, G. C.: Changes in
temperature and precipitation extremes in the IPCC ensemble of Global
Coupled Model Simulations, J. Climate, 20, 1419–1444,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI4066.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI4066.1</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Kravitz, B., Robock, A., Boucher, O., Schmidt, H., Taylor, K., Stenchikov,
G., and Schulz, M.: The geoengineering model intercomparison project
(GeoMIP), Atmos. Sci. Lett., 12, 162–167, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asl.316." ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/asl.316.</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Kravitz, B., Robock, A., Tilmes, S., Boucher, O., English, J. M., Irvine, P. J., Jones, A., Lawrence, M. G., MacCracken, M.,
Muri, H., Moore, J. C., Niemeier, U., Phipps, S. J., Sillmann, J., Storelvmo, T., Wang, H., and Watanabe, S.:
The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (GeoMIP6): simulation design and preliminary results,
Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 3379–3392, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3379-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-8-3379-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Lamarque, J.-F., Emmons, L. K., Hess, P. G., Kinnison, D. E., Tilmes, S., Vitt, F., Heald, C. L., Holland, E. A.,
Lauritzen, P. H., Neu, J., Orlando, J. J., Rasch, P. J., and Tyndall, G. K.: CAM-chem: description and evaluation of
interactive atmospheric chemistry in the Community Earth System Model, Geosci. Model Dev., 5, 369–411, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-369-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-5-369-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Latham, J., Bower, K., Choularton, T., Coe, H., Connoly, P., Cooper, G.,
Craft, T., Foster, J., Gadian, A., Galbraith, L., Iacovides, H., Johnston,
D., Launder, B., Leslie, B., Meyer, J., Neukermans, A., Ormond, B., Parkes,
B., Rasch, P., Rush, J., Salter, S., Stevenson, T., Wang, H., Wang, Q., and
Wood, R.: Marine cloud brightening, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 370, 4217–4262,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0086" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1098/rsta.2012.0086</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Lindzen, R. S. and Hou, A. Y.: Hadley circulations for zonally averaged heating centered off the equator, J. Atmos. Sci., 45, 2416–2427, 1988.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Manabe, S. and Stouffer, R. J.: Sensitivity of a global climate model to an
increase of CO<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> concentration in the atmosphere, J. Geophys. Res., 85,
5529–5554, 1980.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Marcott, S. A., Shakun, J. D., Clark, P. U., and Mix, A. C.: A reconstruction of regional and global
temperature for the past 11 300 years, Science, 339, 1198–1201, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Mechoso, C., Wood, R., Weller, R., Bretherton, C. S., Clarke, A., Coe, H.,
Fairall, C., Farrar, J. T., Feingold, G., and Garreaud, R.:
Ocean-cloud-atmosphere-land interactions in the southeastern Pacific: The
VOCALS Program, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 95, 357–375, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Meehl, G. A., Arblaster, J. M., Caron, J. M., Annamalai, H., Jochum, M.,
Chakraborty, A., and Murtugudde, R.: Monsoon regimes and processes in CCSM4.
Part I: The Asian-Australian Monsoon, J. Climate, 25, 2583–2608, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>Meinshausen, M., Smith, S. J., Calvin, K., Daniel, J. S., Kainuma, M. L. T.,
Lamarque, J.-F., Matsumoto, K., Montzka, S. A., Raper, S. C. B., Riahi, K.,
Thomason, A., Velders, G. J. M., and van Vuuren, D. P. P.: The RCP
greenhouse gas concentrations and their extension from 1765 to 2300,
Climatic Change, 109, 213– 241, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0156-z" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10584-011-0156-z</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>Mengis, N., Martin, T., Keller, D. P., and Oschlies, A.: Assessing climate impacts and risks of ocean albedo modification in
the Arctic, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 121, 3044–3057, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2015JC011433" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015JC011433</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Neale, R., Richter, J., Park, S., Lauritzen, P., Vavrus, S., Rasch, P., and
Zhang, M.: The mean climate of the Community Atmosphere Model (CAM4) in
forced SST and fully coupled experiments, J. Climate,
26, 5150–5168, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Neely III, R. R., Conley, A. J., Vitt, F., and Lamarque, J.-F.: A consistent prescription of stratospheric
aerosol for both radiation and chemistry in the Community Earth System Model (CESM1), Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 2459–2470, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2459-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-9-2459-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Poore, R. Z., Quinn, T. M., and Verardo, S.: Century-scale movement of the
Atlantic Intertropical Convergence Zone linked to solar variability,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L12214, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2004GL019940" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004GL019940</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Rasch, P. J., Latham, J., and Chen, C. C.: Geoengineering by cloud seeding:
influence on sea ice and climate system, Environ. Res. Lett., 4,
45–112, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045112" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045112</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>Reason, C. J. C.: Subtropical Indian Ocean SST dipole events and southern
African rainfall, Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 2225–2228, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2000GL012735" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2000GL012735</ext-link>,
2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>Robock, A.: 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea, B. Atom.
Sci., 64, 14–18, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2968/064002006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.2968/064002006</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>Robock, A.: Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble. An editorial comment, Climatic
Change, 105, 383–385, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-0017-1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10584-010-0017-1</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Robock, A.: Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering, Environ. Sci. Technol., 38, 162-185, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>Robock, A.: Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injection: More
research needed, Earth's Future, 4, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000407" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016EF000407</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Seitz, R.: Bright water: hydrosols, water conservation and climate change,
Climatic Change, 105, 365–381, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Siegenthaler, U., Stocker, T. F., Monnin, E., Luthi, D., Schwander J.,
Stauffer, B., Raynaud, D., Barnola, J. M., Fischer, H., Masson, Delmotte,
V., and Jouzel, J.: Stable carbon cycle-climate relationship during the late
Pleistocene, Science, 310, 1313–1317, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>Suzuki, R., Behera, S. K., Iizuka, S., and Yamagata, T.: The Indian Ocean
subtropical dipole simulated using a CGCM, J. Geophys. Res., 109,
C09001, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003JC001974" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2003JC001974</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., and Meehl, G. A.: An overview of CMIP5 and
the experiment design, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93, 485–498,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1</ext-link>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>Tilmes, S., Fasullo, J., Lamarque, J.-F., Marsh, D. R., Mills, M.,
Alterskjaer, K., Muri, H., Kristjánsson, J. E., Boucher, O., Schulz, M.,
Cole, J. N. S., Curry, C. L., Jones, A., Haywood, J., Irvine, P. J., Ji, D.,
Moore, J. C., Karam, D. B., Kravitz, B., Rasch, P. J., Singh, B., Yoon,
J.-H., Niemeier, U., Schmidt, H., Robock, A., Yang, S., and Watanabe, S.:
The hydrological impact of geoengineering in the Geoengineering Model
Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP), J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos, 118, 11036–11058,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50868" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/jgrd.50868</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>Tilmes, S., Mills, M. J., Niemeier, U., Schmidt, H., Robock, A., Kravitz, B., Lamarque, J.-F., Pitari, G., and
English, J. M.: A new Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) experiment designed for climate and
chemistry models, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 43–49, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-43-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-8-43-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>Tilmes, S., Lamarque, J.-F., Emmons, L. K., Kinnison, D. E., Marsh, D., Garcia, R. R., Smith, A. K., Neely, R. R., Conley, A.,
Vitt, F., Val Martin, M., Tanimoto, H., Simpson, I., Blake, D. R., and Blake, N.: Representation of the Community Earth System
Model (CESM1) CAM4-chem within the Chemistry-Climate Model Initiative (CCMI), Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1853–1890, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1853-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-9-1853-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>Trenberth, K. E., and Dai, A.: Effects of Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption
on the hydrological cycle as an analog of geoengineering, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 34, L15702, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007GL030524" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007GL030524</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
Wood, R. and Bretherton, C. S.: Boundary layer depth, entrainment, and
decoupling in the cloud-capped subtropical and tropical marine boundary
layer, J. Climate, 17, 3576–3588, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
Wood, R. and Bretherton, C. S.: On the relationship between stratiform low
cloud cover and lower-tropospheric stability, J. Climate, 19, 6425–6432,
2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>Xia, L., Robock, A., Tilmes, S., and Neely III, R. R.: Stratospheric sulfate geoengineering could enhance the terrestrial
photosynthesis rate, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 1479–1489, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-1479-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/acp-16-1479-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Xie, S.-P. and Philander, S. G. H.: A coupled ocean-atmosphere model of
relevance to the ITCZ in the eastern Pacific, Tellus, 46A, 340–350, 1994.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list><app-group content-type="float"><app><title/>

    </app></app-group></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>The G4Foam Experiment: global climate impacts of regional ocean albedo modification</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p class="p">Reducing insolation has been proposed as a geoengineering
response to global warming. Here we present the results of climate model
simulations of a unique Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project Testbed
experiment to investigate the benefits and risks of a scheme that would
brighten certain oceanic regions. The National Center for Atmospheric
Research CESM CAM4-Chem global climate model was modified to simulate a
scheme in which the albedo of the ocean surface is increased over the
subtropical ocean gyres in the Southern Hemisphere. In theory, this could be
accomplished using a stable, nondispersive foam, comprised of tiny, highly
reflective microbubbles. Such a foam has been developed under idealized
conditions, although deployment at a large scale is presently infeasible. We
conducted three ensemble members of a simulation (G4Foam) from 2020 through
to 2069 in which the albedo of the ocean surface is set to 0.15 (an increase of
150 %) over the three subtropical ocean gyres in the Southern Hemisphere,
against a background of the RCP6.0 (representative concentration pathway
resulting in +6 W m<sup>−2</sup> radiative forcing by 2100) scenario. After
2069, geoengineering is ceased, and the simulation is run for an additional
20 years. Global mean surface temperature in G4Foam is 0.6 K lower than
RCP6.0, with statistically significant cooling relative to RCP6.0 south of
30° N. There is an increase in rainfall over land, most
pronouncedly in the tropics during the June–July–August season, relative to
both G4SSA (specified stratospheric aerosols) and RCP6.0. Heavily populated
and highly cultivated regions throughout the tropics, including the Sahel,
southern Asia, the Maritime Continent, Central America, and much of the
Amazon experience a statistically significant increase in precipitation
minus evaporation. The temperature response to the relatively modest global
average forcing of −1.5 W m<sup>−2</sup> is amplified through a series of
positive cloud feedbacks, in which more shortwave radiation is reflected.
The precipitation response is primarily the result of the intensification of
the southern Hadley cell, as its mean position migrates northward and away
from the Equator in response to the asymmetric cooling.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Aswathy, V. N., Boucher, O., Quaas, M., Niemeier, U., Muri, H., Mülmenstädt, J., and Quaas, J.:
Climate extremes in multi-model simulations of stratospheric aerosol and marine cloud brightening climate
engineering, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 9593–9610, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-9593-2015" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-15-9593-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Aziz, A., Hailes, H. C., Ward, J. M., and Evans, J. R. G.: Long-term
stabilization reflective foams in seawater, Roy. Soc. Ch., 95,
53028–53036, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Behera, S. K. and Yamagata, T.: Subtropical SST dipole events in the
southern Indian Ocean, Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 327–330, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Bonan, G. B., Lawrence, P. J., Oleson, K. W., Levis, S., Jung, M.,
Reichstein, M., Lawrence, D. M., and Swenson, S. C.: Improving canopy
processes in the Community Land Model version 4 (CLM4) using global flux
fields empirically inferred from FLUXNET data, J. Geophys. Res., 116,
G02014, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010JG001593" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2010JG001593</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Broccoli, A. J., Dahl, K. A., and Stouffer, R. J.: The response of the ITCZ to
Northern Hemisphere cooling, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L01702,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005GL024546" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2005GL024546</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Cai W., Van Rensch P., Cowan T., and Hendon H. H.: Teleconnection pathways for
ENSO and the IOD and the mechanism for impacts on Australian rainfall, J.
Climate, 24, 3910–3923, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2011JCLI4129.1" target="_blank">doi:10.1175/2011JCLI4129.1</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Chao, W. C. and Chen, B.: The origin of the monsoons, J. Atmos. Sci., 58,
3497–3507. 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Chiang, J. C. H. and Bitz, C. M.: Influence of high latitude ice cover on the
marine Intertropical Convergence Zone, Clim. Dynam., 25, 477–496, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Chowdary, J. S., Xie, S.-P., Tokinaga, H., Okumura, Y. M., Kubota, H., Johnson,
N.,
and Zheng, X.-T.: Interdecadal variations in ENSO teleconnection to the
Indo–western Pacific for 1870–2007, J. Climate, 25, 1722–1744,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00070.1" target="_blank">doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00070.1</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Crutzen, P.: Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: A
contribution to solve a policy dilemma?, Climatic Change, 77, 211–219,
2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Cvijanovic, I., Caldeira, K., and MacMartin, D.G.: Impacts of ocean albedo
alteration on Arctic sea ice restoration and Northern Hemisphere
climate, Environ. Res. Lett., 10, 044020,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/4/044020" target="_blank">doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/4/044020</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
DeSzoeke, S. P., Verlinden, K. L., Yuter, S. E., and Mechem, D. B.: The Time
Scales of Variability of Marine Low Clouds, J. Climate, 29,  6463–6481, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0460.1" target="_blank">doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0460.1</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Dykema J. A., Keith D. W., Anderson J. G., and Weisenstein, D.: Stratospheric
controlled perturbation experiment: a small-scale experiment to improve
understanding of the risks of solar geoengineering, Philos. T. R. Soc.
A, 372, 20140059, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0059" target="_blank">doi:10.1098/rsta.2014.0059</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Emori, S. and Brown, S. J.: Dynamic and thermodynamic changes in mean and
extreme precipitation under changed climate, Geophys. Res. Lett.,
32, L17706, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2005GL023272" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2005GL023272</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Fleitmann, D., Burns, S. J., Mudelsee, M., Neff, U., Kramers, J., Mangini,
A., and Matter, A.: Holocene forcing of the Indian monsoon recorded in a
stalagmite from Southern Oman, Science, 300, 1737–1739, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Folland, C. K., Parker, D. E., and Palmer, T. N.: Sahel rainfall and worldwide
sea temperatures 1901–85, Nature, 320, 602–607, 1986.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Frierson, D. M. W. and Hwang, Y.-T.: Extratropical influence on ITCZ shifts in
slab ocean simulation of global warming, J. Climate, 25, 720–733, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Gabriel, C. J. and Robock, A.: Stratospheric geoengineering impacts on El Niño/Southern Oscillation,
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 11949–11966, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-11949-2015" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-15-11949-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
George, R. C. and Wood, R.: Subseasonal variability of low cloud radiative properties over the southeast
Pacific Ocean, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 4047–4063, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-4047-2010" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-10-4047-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Haywood, J. M., Jones, A., Bellouin, N., and Stephenson, D.: Asymmetric
forcing from stratospheric aerosols impacts Sahelian rainfall, Nature Climate
Change, 3, 660–665, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1857" target="_blank">doi:10.1038/nclimate1857</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Held, I. M. and Soden, B. J.: Robust responses of the hydrological cycle to
global warming, J. Climate, 19, 5686–5699, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Hurley, J. V. and Boos, W. R.: Interannual variability of monsoon
precipitation and local subcloud equivalent potential temperature, J.
Climate, 26, 9507–9527, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Hwang, Y.-T., Frierson, D. M. W., and Kang, S. M.: Anthropogenic sulfate
aerosol and the southward shift of tropical precipitation in the late 20th
century, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 2845–2850,  <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/grl.50502" target="_blank">doi:10.1002/grl.50502</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
IPCC: Summary for Policymakers, in: Climate Change 2013: The Physical
Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Stocker,
T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S. K., Boschung, J.,
Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and Midgley, P. M., Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Irvine, P. J., Ridgwell, A., and Lunt, D. J.: Climatic effects of surface
albedo geoengineering, J. Geophys. Res., 116, D24112,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016281" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2011JD016281</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Jones, A., Haywood, J., and Boucher, O.: Climate impacts of geoengineering
marine stratocumulus clouds, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D10106,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011450" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2008JD011450</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Kang, S. M., Held, I. M., Frierson, D. M. W., and Zhao, M.: The response of
the ITCZ to extratropical thermal forcing: Idealized slab-ocean experiments
with a GCM, J. Climate, 21, 3521–3532, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Kay J. E., Wall C., Yettella V., Medeiros B., Hannay C., Caldwell P., and
Bitz C.: Global climate impacts of fixing the Southern Ocean shortwave
radiation bias in the community earth system model (CESM), J. Climate,
96,  1333–13349, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0358" target="_blank">doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0358</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Keith, D. W., Duren, R., and MacMartin, D. G.: Field experiments on solar
geoengineering: report of a workshop exploring a representative research
portfolio, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 372, 20140175,
2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Kharin, V. V., Zwiers, F. W., Zhang, X., and Hegerl, G. C.: Changes in
temperature and precipitation extremes in the IPCC ensemble of Global
Coupled Model Simulations, J. Climate, 20, 1419–1444,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI4066.1" target="_blank">doi:10.1175/JCLI4066.1</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Kravitz, B., Robock, A., Boucher, O., Schmidt, H., Taylor, K., Stenchikov,
G., and Schulz, M.: The geoengineering model intercomparison project
(GeoMIP), Atmos. Sci. Lett., 12, 162–167, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/asl.316." target="_blank">doi:10.1002/asl.316.</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Kravitz, B., Robock, A., Tilmes, S., Boucher, O., English, J. M., Irvine, P. J., Jones, A., Lawrence, M. G., MacCracken, M.,
Muri, H., Moore, J. C., Niemeier, U., Phipps, S. J., Sillmann, J., Storelvmo, T., Wang, H., and Watanabe, S.:
The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (GeoMIP6): simulation design and preliminary results,
Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 3379–3392, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3379-2015" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/gmd-8-3379-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Lamarque, J.-F., Emmons, L. K., Hess, P. G., Kinnison, D. E., Tilmes, S., Vitt, F., Heald, C. L., Holland, E. A.,
Lauritzen, P. H., Neu, J., Orlando, J. J., Rasch, P. J., and Tyndall, G. K.: CAM-chem: description and evaluation of
interactive atmospheric chemistry in the Community Earth System Model, Geosci. Model Dev., 5, 369–411, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-369-2012" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/gmd-5-369-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Latham, J., Bower, K., Choularton, T., Coe, H., Connoly, P., Cooper, G.,
Craft, T., Foster, J., Gadian, A., Galbraith, L., Iacovides, H., Johnston,
D., Launder, B., Leslie, B., Meyer, J., Neukermans, A., Ormond, B., Parkes,
B., Rasch, P., Rush, J., Salter, S., Stevenson, T., Wang, H., Wang, Q., and
Wood, R.: Marine cloud brightening, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 370, 4217–4262,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0086" target="_blank">doi:10.1098/rsta.2012.0086</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Lindzen, R. S. and Hou, A. Y.: Hadley circulations for zonally averaged heating centered off the equator, J. Atmos. Sci., 45, 2416–2427, 1988.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Manabe, S. and Stouffer, R. J.: Sensitivity of a global climate model to an
increase of CO<sub>2</sub> concentration in the atmosphere, J. Geophys. Res., 85,
5529–5554, 1980.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Marcott, S. A., Shakun, J. D., Clark, P. U., and Mix, A. C.: A reconstruction of regional and global
temperature for the past 11 300 years, Science, 339, 1198–1201, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Mechoso, C., Wood, R., Weller, R., Bretherton, C. S., Clarke, A., Coe, H.,
Fairall, C., Farrar, J. T., Feingold, G., and Garreaud, R.:
Ocean-cloud-atmosphere-land interactions in the southeastern Pacific: The
VOCALS Program, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 95, 357–375, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Meehl, G. A., Arblaster, J. M., Caron, J. M., Annamalai, H., Jochum, M.,
Chakraborty, A., and Murtugudde, R.: Monsoon regimes and processes in CCSM4.
Part I: The Asian-Australian Monsoon, J. Climate, 25, 2583–2608, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Meinshausen, M., Smith, S. J., Calvin, K., Daniel, J. S., Kainuma, M. L. T.,
Lamarque, J.-F., Matsumoto, K., Montzka, S. A., Raper, S. C. B., Riahi, K.,
Thomason, A., Velders, G. J. M., and van Vuuren, D. P. P.: The RCP
greenhouse gas concentrations and their extension from 1765 to 2300,
Climatic Change, 109, 213– 241, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0156-z" target="_blank">doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0156-z</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Mengis, N., Martin, T., Keller, D. P., and Oschlies, A.: Assessing climate impacts and risks of ocean albedo modification in
the Arctic, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 121, 3044–3057, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2015JC011433" target="_blank">doi:10.1002/2015JC011433</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Neale, R., Richter, J., Park, S., Lauritzen, P., Vavrus, S., Rasch, P., and
Zhang, M.: The mean climate of the Community Atmosphere Model (CAM4) in
forced SST and fully coupled experiments, J. Climate,
26, 5150–5168, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Neely III, R. R., Conley, A. J., Vitt, F., and Lamarque, J.-F.: A consistent prescription of stratospheric
aerosol for both radiation and chemistry in the Community Earth System Model (CESM1), Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 2459–2470, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2459-2016" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/gmd-9-2459-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Poore, R. Z., Quinn, T. M., and Verardo, S.: Century-scale movement of the
Atlantic Intertropical Convergence Zone linked to solar variability,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L12214, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2004GL019940" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2004GL019940</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Rasch, P. J., Latham, J., and Chen, C. C.: Geoengineering by cloud seeding:
influence on sea ice and climate system, Environ. Res. Lett., 4,
45–112, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045112" target="_blank">doi:10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045112</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Reason, C. J. C.: Subtropical Indian Ocean SST dipole events and southern
African rainfall, Geophys. Res. Lett., 28, 2225–2228, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2000GL012735" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2000GL012735</a>,
2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Robock, A.: 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea, B. Atom.
Sci., 64, 14–18, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2968/064002006" target="_blank">doi:10.2968/064002006</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Robock, A.: Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble. An editorial comment, Climatic
Change, 105, 383–385, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-0017-1" target="_blank">doi:10.1007/s10584-010-0017-1</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Robock, A.: Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering, Environ. Sci. Technol., 38, 162-185, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Robock, A.: Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injection: More
research needed, Earth's Future, 4, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000407" target="_blank">doi:10.1002/2016EF000407</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Seitz, R.: Bright water: hydrosols, water conservation and climate change,
Climatic Change, 105, 365–381, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Siegenthaler, U., Stocker, T. F., Monnin, E., Luthi, D., Schwander J.,
Stauffer, B., Raynaud, D., Barnola, J. M., Fischer, H., Masson, Delmotte,
V., and Jouzel, J.: Stable carbon cycle-climate relationship during the late
Pleistocene, Science, 310, 1313–1317, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Suzuki, R., Behera, S. K., Iizuka, S., and Yamagata, T.: The Indian Ocean
subtropical dipole simulated using a CGCM, J. Geophys. Res., 109,
C09001, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003JC001974" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2003JC001974</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., and Meehl, G. A.: An overview of CMIP5 and
the experiment design, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93, 485–498,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1" target="_blank">doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1</a>, 2012.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Tilmes, S., Fasullo, J., Lamarque, J.-F., Marsh, D. R., Mills, M.,
Alterskjaer, K., Muri, H., Kristjánsson, J. E., Boucher, O., Schulz, M.,
Cole, J. N. S., Curry, C. L., Jones, A., Haywood, J., Irvine, P. J., Ji, D.,
Moore, J. C., Karam, D. B., Kravitz, B., Rasch, P. J., Singh, B., Yoon,
J.-H., Niemeier, U., Schmidt, H., Robock, A., Yang, S., and Watanabe, S.:
The hydrological impact of geoengineering in the Geoengineering Model
Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP), J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos, 118, 11036–11058,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50868" target="_blank">doi:10.1002/jgrd.50868</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Tilmes, S., Mills, M. J., Niemeier, U., Schmidt, H., Robock, A., Kravitz, B., Lamarque, J.-F., Pitari, G., and
English, J. M.: A new Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) experiment designed for climate and
chemistry models, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 43–49, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-43-2015" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/gmd-8-43-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Tilmes, S., Lamarque, J.-F., Emmons, L. K., Kinnison, D. E., Marsh, D., Garcia, R. R., Smith, A. K., Neely, R. R., Conley, A.,
Vitt, F., Val Martin, M., Tanimoto, H., Simpson, I., Blake, D. R., and Blake, N.: Representation of the Community Earth System
Model (CESM1) CAM4-chem within the Chemistry-Climate Model Initiative (CCMI), Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1853–1890, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1853-2016" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/gmd-9-1853-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
Trenberth, K. E., and Dai, A.: Effects of Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption
on the hydrological cycle as an analog of geoengineering, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 34, L15702, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007GL030524" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2007GL030524</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
Wood, R. and Bretherton, C. S.: Boundary layer depth, entrainment, and
decoupling in the cloud-capped subtropical and tropical marine boundary
layer, J. Climate, 17, 3576–3588, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
Wood, R. and Bretherton, C. S.: On the relationship between stratiform low
cloud cover and lower-tropospheric stability, J. Climate, 19, 6425–6432,
2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
Xia, L., Robock, A., Tilmes, S., and Neely III, R. R.: Stratospheric sulfate geoengineering could enhance the terrestrial
photosynthesis rate, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 1479–1489, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-1479-2016" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/acp-16-1479-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Xie, S.-P. and Philander, S. G. H.: A coupled ocean-atmosphere model of
relevance to the ITCZ in the eastern Pacific, Tellus, 46A, 340–350, 1994.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
