North Atlantic Oscillation response in GeoMIP experiments G6solar and G6sulfur: why detailed modelling is needed for understanding regional implications of solar radiation management

Jones, Andy; Haywood, Jim M.; Jones, Anthony C.; Tilmes, Simone; Kravitz, Ben; Robock, Alan

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1287-2021

Articles | Volume 21, issue 2

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1287-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Special issue:

Resolving uncertainties in solar geoengineering through multi-model...

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1287-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 21, issue 2

Research article

|

29 Jan 2021

Research article |

| 29 Jan 2021

North Atlantic Oscillation response in GeoMIP experiments G6solar and G6sulfur: why detailed modelling is needed for understanding regional implications of solar radiation management

Andy Jones, Jim M. Haywood, Anthony C. Jones, Simone Tilmes, Ben Kravitz, and Alan Robock

Download

Final revised paper (published on 29 Jan 2021)
Preprint (discussion started on 17 Aug 2020)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

SC1: 'Do natural response of NAO first', Paul Pukite, 17 Aug 2020
- AC1: 'Reply', Andy Jones, 25 Aug 2020
RC1: 'Review of the manuscript by Andy Jones et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Sep 2020
RC2: 'Review comment for paper "North Atlantic Oscillation response in GeoMIP experiments G6solar and G6sulfur: why detailed modelling is needed for understanding regional implications of solar radiation management"', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Sep 2020

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Andy Jones on behalf of the Authors (26 Oct 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (04 Nov 2020) by Peter Haynes

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (20 Nov 2020)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (23 Nov 2020)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (28 Nov 2020) by Peter Haynes

Both authors recommend that your paper is now suitable for publication. Referee 1 asks that you consider a small number of further points before publication.

I have looked at Referee 1's comments and how they relate to the current version of the paper. I've made some suggestions on how to interpret them below -- but they are only suggestions and I may have misinterpreted what concerned the Referee.

Please consider Referee 1's comments and provide brief responses. I expect then to accept the paper for publication.

L174-176 is about the fact that the geoengineering perturbation is much stronger than a Pinatubo-like perturbation. You have simply responded that it has to be -- perhaps a more useful comment to add to the paper would be to add this explicitly -- making the point that whilst drawing some analogy with e.g. Pinatubo-like impacts is useful, but has limitations (with the amplitude of the perturbation being one of them).

L202-205 Perhaps the referee is looking for some comment that this large temperature change is not unexpected given the large aerosol perturbation -- e.g. perhaps it is consistent with a simple scaling up of a Pinatubo like perturbation. You have made the point that the models being used have been validated in Pinatubo-like scenarios -- so perhaps no further comment is needed.

L307: The referee's comment was 'Strange to use this argument here, when UKESM1 and WACCAM6 produce absolutely different climates with 205 strongly different AMOC intensity.' about your sentence 'Reasons for these differences are beyond the scope of this work but
demonstrate that important inter-model differences still exist in state-of-the-art climate models.'. Perhaps that sentence at this particular point in the paper doesn't achieve very much. From my point of view the key overall point is that where your two model results disagree there is fundamental uncertainty -- you have said that at the end of your abstract and perhaps it should be re-iterated in the final section.

Hide

AR by Andy Jones on behalf of the Authors (03 Dec 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (13 Dec 2020) by Peter Haynes

Short summary

Two different methods of simulating a geoengineering scenario are compared using data from two different Earth system models. One method is very idealised while the other includes details of a plausible mechanism. The results from both models agree that the idealised approach does not capture an impact found when detailed modelling is included, namely that geoengineering induces a positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation which leads to warmer, wetter winters in northern Europe.