Articles | Volume 21, issue 6
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-4231-2021
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-4231-2021
Research article
 | 
19 Mar 2021
Research article |  | 19 Mar 2021

Comparing different generations of idealized solar geoengineering simulations in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP)

Ben Kravitz, Douglas G. MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, Olivier Boucher, Jason N. S. Cole, Jim Haywood, Andy Jones, Thibaut Lurton, Pierre Nabat, Ulrike Niemeier, Alan Robock, Roland Séférian, and Simone Tilmes

Related authors

G6-1.5K-SAI: a new Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) experiment integrating recent advances in solar radiation modification studies
Daniele Visioni, Alan Robock, Jim Haywood, Matthew Henry, Simone Tilmes, Douglas G. MacMartin, Ben Kravitz, Sarah J. Doherty, John Moore, Chris Lennard, Shingo Watanabe, Helene Muri, Ulrike Niemeier, Olivier Boucher, Abu Syed, Temitope S. Egbebiyi, Roland Séférian, and Ilaria Quaglia
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2583–2596, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2583-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2583-2024, 2024
Short summary
Hemispherically symmetric strategies for stratospheric aerosol injection
Yan Zhang, Douglas G. MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, Ewa M. Bednarz, and Ben Kravitz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 191–213, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-191-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-191-2024, 2024
Short summary
Injection strategy – a driver of atmospheric circulation and ozone response to stratospheric aerosol geoengineering
Ewa M. Bednarz, Amy H. Butler, Daniele Visioni, Yan Zhang, Ben Kravitz, and Douglas G. MacMartin
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 13665–13684, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13665-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13665-2023, 2023
Short summary
Opinion: The scientific and community-building roles of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) – past, present, and future
Daniele Visioni, Ben Kravitz, Alan Robock, Simone Tilmes, Jim Haywood, Olivier Boucher, Mark Lawrence, Peter Irvine, Ulrike Niemeier, Lili Xia, Gabriel Chiodo, Chris Lennard, Shingo Watanabe, John C. Moore, and Helene Muri
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 5149–5176, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5149-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5149-2023, 2023
Short summary
Climate response to off-equatorial stratospheric sulfur injections in three Earth system models – Part 1: Experimental protocols and surface changes
Daniele Visioni, Ewa M. Bednarz, Walker R. Lee, Ben Kravitz, Andy Jones, Jim M. Haywood, and Douglas G. MacMartin
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 663–685, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-663-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-663-2023, 2023
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Aerosols | Research Activity: Atmospheric Modelling and Data Analysis | Altitude Range: Stratosphere | Science Focus: Physics (physical properties and processes)
Explaining the green volcanic sunsets after the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa
Christian von Savigny, Anna Lange, Christoph G. Hoffmann, and Alexei Rozanov
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 2415–2422, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-2415-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-2415-2024, 2024
Short summary
A multi-scenario Lagrangian trajectory analysis to identify source regions of the Asian tropopause aerosol layer on the Indian subcontinent in August 2016
Jan Clemens, Bärbel Vogel, Lars Hoffmann, Sabine Griessbach, Nicole Thomas, Suvarna Fadnavis, Rolf Müller, Thomas Peter, and Felix Ploeger
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 763–787, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-763-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-763-2024, 2024
Short summary
Future dust concentration over the Middle East and North Africa region under global warming and stratospheric aerosol intervention scenarios
Seyed Vahid Mousavi, Khalil Karami, Simone Tilmes, Helene Muri, Lili Xia, and Abolfazl Rezaei
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 10677–10695, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-10677-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-10677-2023, 2023
Short summary
How the extreme 2019–2020 Australian wildfires affected global circulation and adjustments
Fabian Senf, Bernd Heinold, Anne Kubin, Jason Müller, Roland Schrödner, and Ina Tegen
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 8939–8958, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-8939-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-8939-2023, 2023
Short summary
Opinion: How fear of nuclear winter has helped save the world, so far
Alan Robock, Lili Xia, Cheryl S. Harrison, Joshua Coupe, Owen B. Toon, and Charles G. Bardeen
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 6691–6701, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-6691-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-6691-2023, 2023
Short summary

Cited articles

Alterskjær, K., Kristjánsson, J. E., and Seland, Ø.: Sensitivity to deliberate sea salt seeding of marine clouds – observations and model simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 2795–2807, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-2795-2012, 2012. a
Andrews, T., Forster, P. M., and Gregory, J. M.: A surface energy perspective on climate change, J. Climate, 22, 2557–2570, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2759.1, 2009. a
Arora, V. K., Scinocca, J. F., Boer, G. J., Christian, J. R., Denman, K. L., Flato, G. M., Kharin, V. V., Lee, W. G., and Merryfield, W. J.: Carbon emission limits required to satisfy future representative concentration pathways of greenhouse gases, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L05805, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL046270, 2011. a
Arora, V. K., Katavouta, A., Williams, R. G., Jones, C. D., Brovkin, V., Friedlingstein, P., Schwinger, J., Bopp, L., Boucher, O., Cadule, P., Chamberlain, M. A., Christian, J. R., Delire, C., Fisher, R. A., Hajima, T., Ilyina, T., Joetzjer, E., Kawamiya, M., Koven, C. D., Krasting, J. P., Law, R. M., Lawrence, D. M., Lenton, A., Lindsay, K., Pongratz, J., Raddatz, T., Séférian, R., Tachiiri, K., Tjiputra, J. F., Wiltshire, A., Wu, T., and Ziehn, T.: Carbon–concentration and carbon–climate feedbacks in CMIP6 models and their comparison to CMIP5 models, Biogeosciences, 17, 4173–4222, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-4173-2020, 2020. a
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, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-9593-2015, 2015. a
Download
Short summary
This study investigates multi-model response to idealized geoengineering (high CO2 with solar reduction) across two different generations of climate models. We find that, with the exception of a few cases, the results are unchanged between the different generations. This gives us confidence that broad conclusions about the response to idealized geoengineering are robust.
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint