Articles | Volume 23, issue 21
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13665-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13665-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
03 Nov 2023
Research article |
| 03 Nov 2023
| 03 Nov 2023
Injection strategy – a driver of atmospheric circulation and ozone response to stratospheric aerosol geoengineering
Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA
NOAA Chemical Sciences Laboratory (NOAA CSL), Boulder, CO, USA
Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Amy H. Butler
NOAA Chemical Sciences Laboratory (NOAA CSL), Boulder, CO, USA
Daniele Visioni
Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Atmospheric Chemistry Observations and Modeling (ACOM), Boulder, CO, USA
Yan Zhang
Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Ben Kravitz
Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
Atmospheric Sciences and Global Change Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA
Douglas G. MacMartin
Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA
Related authors
Ilaria Quaglia, Daniele Visioni, Ewa M. Bednarz, Yunqian Zhu, Georgiy Stenchikov, Valentina Aquila, Cheng-Cheng Liu, Graham W. Mann, Yifeng Peng, Takashi Sekiya, Simone Tilmes, Xinyue Wang, Shingo Watanabe, Pengfei Yu, Jun Zhang, and Wandi Yu
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3769, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3769, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
Short summary
On January 15, 2022, the Hunga volcano eruption released unprecedented amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere alongside a modest amount of SO2. In this work we analyse results from multiple Earth system models. The models agree that the eruption led to small negative radiative forcing from sulfate aerosols and that the contribution from water vapor was minimal. Therefore, the Hunga eruption cannot explain the exceptional surface warming observed in 2023.
Yunqian Zhu, Hideharu Akiyoshi, Valentina Aquila, Elizabeth Asher, Ewa M. Bednarz, Slimane Bekki, Christoph Brühl, Amy H. Butler, Parker Case, Simon Chabrillat, Gabriel Chiodo, Margot Clyne, Peter R. Colarco, Sandip Dhomse, Lola Falletti, Eric Fleming, Ben Johnson, Andrin Jörimann, Mahesh Kovilakam, Gerbrand Koren, Ales Kuchar, Nicolas Lebas, Qing Liang, Cheng-Cheng Liu, Graham Mann, Michael Manyin, Marion Marchand, Olaf Morgenstern, Paul Newman, Luke D. Oman, Freja F. Østerstrøm, Yifeng Peng, David Plummer, Ilaria Quaglia, William Randel, Samuel Rémy, Takashi Sekiya, Stephen Steenrod, Timofei Sukhodolov, Simone Tilmes, Kostas Tsigaridis, Rei Ueyama, Daniele Visioni, Xinyue Wang, Shingo Watanabe, Yousuke Yamashita, Pengfei Yu, Wandi Yu, Jun Zhang, and Zhihong Zhuo
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 5487–5512, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-5487-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-5487-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
To understand the climate impact of the 2022 Hunga volcanic eruption, we developed a climate model–observation comparison project. The paper describes the protocols and models that participate in the experiments. We designed several experiments to achieve our goals of this activity: (1) to evaluate the climate model performance and (2) to understand the Earth system responses to this eruption.
Ezra Brody, Yan Zhang, Douglas G. MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, Ben Kravitz, and Ewa M. Bednarz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 1325–1341, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1325-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1325-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) is being studied as a possible supplement to emission reduction to temporarily mitigate some of the risks associated with climate change. The latitudes at which SAI is done determine the effect on the climate. We try to find if there are combinations of latitudes that do a better job of counteracting climate change than existing strategies. We found that there are, but just how significant these improvements are depends on the amount of cooling.
Cindy Wang, Daniele Visioni, Glen Chua, and Ewa M. Bednarz
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3151, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3151, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric aerosol injection is a proposed method to slow global warming by adding tiny reflective particles high up in the atmosphere to cool the planet. We study how this proposed method might affect air quality and human health using climate models. We find that the health impacts would likely be small and are mainly caused by changes in climate, not by the particles themselves.
Clara Orbe, Alison Ming, Gabriel Chiodo, Michael Prather, Mohamadou Diallo, Qi Tang, Andreas Chrysanthou, Hiroaki Naoe, Xin Zhou, Irina Thaler, Dillon Elsbury, Ewa Bednarz, Jonathon S. Wright, Aaron Match, Shingo Watanabe, James Anstey, Tobias Kerzenmacher, Stefan Versick, Marion Marchand, Feng Li, and James Keeble
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2761, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2761, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) is the main source of wind fluctuations in the tropical stratosphere, which can couple to surface climate. However, models do a poor job of simulating the QBO in the lower stratosphere, for reasons that remain unclear. One possibility is that models do not completely represent how ozone influences the QBO-associated wind variations. Here we propose a multi-model framework for assessing how ozone influences the QBO in recent past and future climates.
Simone Tilmes, Ewa M. Bednarz, Andrin Jörimann, Daniele Visioni, Douglas E. Kinnison, Gabriel Chiodo, and David Plummer
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 6001–6023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-6001-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-6001-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper, we describe the details of a new multi-model intercomparison experiment to assess the effects of Stratospheric Aerosol Intervention (SAI) on stratospheric chemistry and dynamics and, therefore, ozone. Second, we discuss the advantages and differences of the more constrained experiment compared to fully interactive model experiments. This way, we advance the process-level understanding of the drivers of SAI-induced atmospheric responses.
Jared Farley, Douglas G. MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, Ben Kravitz, Ewa Bednarz, Alistair Duffey, and Matthew Henry
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1830, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1830, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
As the climate changes, many are studying sunlight reflection as a potential method of cooling. Such climate intervention could be deployed in many possible ways, including in scenarios where not every actor agrees on the strategy of cooling. These scenarios are so diverse that to explore all of them using earth system models proves to be too costly. In this paper, we develop a simplified climate model that allows users to easily explore climate intervention scenarios of their choice.
Ewa M. Bednarz, Amy H. Butler, Xinyue Wang, Zhihong Zhuo, Wandi Yu, Georgiy Stenchikov, Matthew Toohey, and Yunqian Zhu
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1970, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1970, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Injection of sulfur and water vapour by the Hunga volcanic eruption significantly altered chemical composition and radiative budget of the stratosphere. Yet, whether the eruption could also affect surface climate, especially via indirect pathways, remains poorly understood. Here we investigate these effects using large ensembles of simulations with the CESM2(WACCM6) Earth system model.
Zhihong Zhuo, Xinyue Wang, Yunqian Zhu, Ewa M. Bednarz, Eric Fleming, Peter R. Colarco, Shingo Watanabe, David Plummer, Georgiy Stenchikov, William Randel, Adam Bourassa, Valentina Aquila, Takashi Sekiya, Mark R. Schoeberl, Simone Tilmes, Wandi Yu, Jun Zhang, Paul J. Kushner, and Francesco S. R. Pausata
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1505, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1505, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The 2022 Hunga eruption caused unprecedented stratospheric water injection, triggering unique atmospheric impacts. This study combines observations and model simulations, projecting a stratospheric water vapor anomaly lasting 4–7 years, with significant temperature variations and ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere lasting 7–10 years. These findings offer critical insights into the role of stratospheric water vapor in shaping climate and atmospheric chemistry.
Matthew Henry, Ewa M. Bednarz, and Jim Haywood
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 13253–13268, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13253-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13253-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) refers to a climate intervention by which aerosols are intentionally added to the high atmosphere to increase the amount of reflected sunlight and reduce Earth's temperature. The climate outcomes of SAI depend on the latitude of injection. While injecting aerosols at the Equator has undesirable side effects, injecting away from the Equator has different effects on temperature, rainfall, ozone, and atmospheric circulation, which are analysed in this work.
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
Short summary
Injecting SO2 into the lower stratosphere can temporarily reduce global mean temperature and mitigate some risks associated with climate change, but injecting it at different latitudes and seasons would have different impacts. This study introduces new stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) strategies and explores the importance of the choice of SAI strategy, demonstrating that it notably affects the distribution of aerosol cloud, injection efficiency, and various surface climate impacts.
Ewa M. Bednarz, Ryan Hossaini, and Martyn P. Chipperfield
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 13701–13711, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13701-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13701-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We quantify, for the first time, the time-varying impact of uncontrolled emissions of chlorinated very short-lived substances (Cl-VSLSs) on stratospheric ozone using a state-of-the-art chemistry-climate model. We demonstrate that Cl-VSLSs already have a non-negligible impact on stratospheric ozone, including a local reduction of up to ~7 DU in Arctic ozone in the cold winter of 2019/20, and any so future growth in emissions will continue to offset some of the benefits of the Montreal Protocol.
Ewa M. Bednarz, Ryan Hossaini, N. Luke Abraham, and Martyn P. Chipperfield
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 6187–6209, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6187-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6187-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Development and performance of the new DEST chemistry scheme of UM–UKCA is described. The scheme extends the standard StratTrop scheme by including important updates to the halogen chemistry, thus allowing process-oriented studies of stratospheric ozone depletion and recovery, including impacts from both controlled long-lived ozone-depleting substances and emerging issues around uncontrolled, very short-lived substances. It will thus aid studies in support of future ozone assessment reports.
Matthew Henry, Jim Haywood, Andy Jones, Mohit Dalvi, Alice Wells, Daniele Visioni, Ewa M. Bednarz, Douglas G. MacMartin, Walker Lee, and Mari R. Tye
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 13369–13385, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13369-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13369-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Solar climate interventions, such as injecting sulfur in the stratosphere, may be used to offset some of the adverse impacts of global warming. We use two independently developed Earth system models to assess the uncertainties around stratospheric sulfur injections. The injection locations and amounts are optimized to maintain the same pattern of surface temperature. While both models show reduced warming, the change in rainfall patterns (even without sulfur injections) is uncertain.
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
Short summary
The paper constitutes Part 1 of a study performing a first systematic inter-model comparison of the atmospheric responses to stratospheric sulfate aerosol injections (SAIs) at various latitudes as simulated by three state-of-the-art Earth system models. We identify similarities and differences in the modeled aerosol burden, investigate the differences in the aerosol approaches between the models, and ultimately show the differences produced in surface climate, temperature and precipitation.
Ewa M. Bednarz, Daniele Visioni, Ben Kravitz, Andy Jones, James M. Haywood, Jadwiga Richter, Douglas G. MacMartin, and Peter Braesicke
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 687–709, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-687-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-687-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Building on Part 1 of this two-part study, we demonstrate the role of biases in climatological circulation and specific aspects of model microphysics in driving the differences in simulated sulfate distributions amongst three Earth system models. We then characterize the simulated changes in stratospheric and free-tropospheric temperatures, ozone, water vapor, and large-scale circulation, elucidating the role of the above aspects in the surface responses discussed in Part 1.
Ewa M. Bednarz, Ryan Hossaini, Martyn P. Chipperfield, N. Luke Abraham, and Peter Braesicke
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 10657–10676, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-10657-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-10657-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Atmospheric impacts of chlorinated very short-lived substances (Cl-VSLS) over the first two decades of the 21st century are assessed using the UM-UKCA chemistry–climate model. Stratospheric input of Cl from Cl-VSLS is estimated at ~130 ppt in 2019. The use of model set-up with constrained meteorology significantly increases the abundance of Cl-VSLS in the lower stratosphere relative to the free-running set-up. The growth in Cl-VSLS emissions significantly impacted recent HCl and COCl2 trends.
Simone Tilmes, Daniele Visioni, Andy Jones, James Haywood, Roland Séférian, Pierre Nabat, Olivier Boucher, Ewa Monica Bednarz, and Ulrike Niemeier
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 4557–4579, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-4557-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-4557-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This study assesses the impacts of climate interventions, using stratospheric sulfate aerosol and solar dimming on stratospheric ozone, based on three Earth system models with interactive stratospheric chemistry. The climate interventions have been applied to a high emission (baseline) scenario in order to reach global surface temperatures of a medium emission scenario. We find significant increases and decreases in total column ozone, depending on regions and seasons.
Simone Tilmes, Daniele Visioni, Ilaria Quaglia, Yunqian Zhu, Charles G. Bardeen, Francis Vitt, and Pengfei Yu
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4274, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4274, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
Short summary
This study compares two sets of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) experiments using the same modeling framework, differing only in their aerosol microphysical schemes. Results show that these two schemes can yield substantially different aerosol burdens, radiative changes, and impacts when simulating the same injection scenarios. These findings suggest that more sophisticated aerosol models may be necessary to accurately assess the efficacy, side effects, and climate impacts of SAI.
Ilaria Quaglia, Daniele Visioni, Ewa M. Bednarz, Yunqian Zhu, Georgiy Stenchikov, Valentina Aquila, Cheng-Cheng Liu, Graham W. Mann, Yifeng Peng, Takashi Sekiya, Simone Tilmes, Xinyue Wang, Shingo Watanabe, Pengfei Yu, Jun Zhang, and Wandi Yu
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3769, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3769, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
Short summary
On January 15, 2022, the Hunga volcano eruption released unprecedented amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere alongside a modest amount of SO2. In this work we analyse results from multiple Earth system models. The models agree that the eruption led to small negative radiative forcing from sulfate aerosols and that the contribution from water vapor was minimal. Therefore, the Hunga eruption cannot explain the exceptional surface warming observed in 2023.
Yunqian Zhu, Hideharu Akiyoshi, Valentina Aquila, Elizabeth Asher, Ewa M. Bednarz, Slimane Bekki, Christoph Brühl, Amy H. Butler, Parker Case, Simon Chabrillat, Gabriel Chiodo, Margot Clyne, Peter R. Colarco, Sandip Dhomse, Lola Falletti, Eric Fleming, Ben Johnson, Andrin Jörimann, Mahesh Kovilakam, Gerbrand Koren, Ales Kuchar, Nicolas Lebas, Qing Liang, Cheng-Cheng Liu, Graham Mann, Michael Manyin, Marion Marchand, Olaf Morgenstern, Paul Newman, Luke D. Oman, Freja F. Østerstrøm, Yifeng Peng, David Plummer, Ilaria Quaglia, William Randel, Samuel Rémy, Takashi Sekiya, Stephen Steenrod, Timofei Sukhodolov, Simone Tilmes, Kostas Tsigaridis, Rei Ueyama, Daniele Visioni, Xinyue Wang, Shingo Watanabe, Yousuke Yamashita, Pengfei Yu, Wandi Yu, Jun Zhang, and Zhihong Zhuo
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 5487–5512, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-5487-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-5487-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
To understand the climate impact of the 2022 Hunga volcanic eruption, we developed a climate model–observation comparison project. The paper describes the protocols and models that participate in the experiments. We designed several experiments to achieve our goals of this activity: (1) to evaluate the climate model performance and (2) to understand the Earth system responses to this eruption.
Ying Dai, Peter Hitchcock, Amy H. Butler, Chaim I. Garfinkel, and William J. M. Seviour
Weather Clim. Dynam., 6, 841–862, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-6-841-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-6-841-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Using a new database of subseasonal to seasonal (S2S) forecasts, we find that with a successful forecast of the sudden stratospheric warming (SSW), S2S models can capture the European precipitation signals after the 2018 SSW several weeks in advance. The findings indicate that the stratosphere represents an important source of S2S predictability for precipitation over Europe and call for consideration of stratospheric variability in hydrological prediction at S2S timescales.
Blanca Ayarzagüena, Amy H. Butler, Peter Hitchcock, Chaim I. Garfinkel, Zac D. Lawrence, Wuhan Ning, Philip Rupp, Zheng Wu, Hilla Afargan-Gerstman, Natalia Calvo, Álvaro de la Cámara, Martin Jucker, Gerbrand Koren, Daniel De Maeseneire, Gloria L. Manney, Marisol Osman, Masakazu Taguchi, Cory Barton, Dong-Chang Hong, Yu-Kyung Hyun, Hera Kim, Jeff Knight, Piero Malguzzi, Daniele Mastrangelo, Jiyoung Oh, Inna Polichtchouk, Jadwiga H. Richter, Isla R. Simpson, Seok-Woo Son, Damien Specq, and Tim Stockdale
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3611, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3611, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Weather and Climate Dynamics (WCD).
Short summary
Short summary
Sudden Stratospheric Warmings (SSWs) are known to follow a sustained wave dissipation in the stratosphere, which depends on both the tropospheric and stratospheric states. However, the relative role of each state is still unclear. Using a new set of subseasonal to seasonal forecasts, we show that the stratospheric state does not drastically affect the precursors of three recent SSWs, but modulates the stratospheric wave activity, with impacts depending on SSW features.
Ezra Brody, Yan Zhang, Douglas G. MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, Ben Kravitz, and Ewa M. Bednarz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 1325–1341, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1325-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1325-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) is being studied as a possible supplement to emission reduction to temporarily mitigate some of the risks associated with climate change. The latitudes at which SAI is done determine the effect on the climate. We try to find if there are combinations of latitudes that do a better job of counteracting climate change than existing strategies. We found that there are, but just how significant these improvements are depends on the amount of cooling.
Cindy Wang, Daniele Visioni, Glen Chua, and Ewa M. Bednarz
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3151, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3151, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric aerosol injection is a proposed method to slow global warming by adding tiny reflective particles high up in the atmosphere to cool the planet. We study how this proposed method might affect air quality and human health using climate models. We find that the health impacts would likely be small and are mainly caused by changes in climate, not by the particles themselves.
Lantao Sun, James W. Hurrell, Kristen L. Rasmussen, Bali Summers, Erin A. Sherman, and Ben Kravitz
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3490, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3490, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
We develop a novel framework using the convection-permitting Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model to assess how stratospheric aerosol injection, a solar climate intervention strategy, affects future convective weather over the contiguous U.S. Results demonstrate the feasibility and scientific potential of this approach for evaluating weather-scale impacts and suggest that such intervention may mitigate changes in temperature, precipitation, and convective activity due to warming.
Alexey Yu. Karpechko, Amy H. Butler, and Frederic Vitart
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2556, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2556, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We study how the knowledge of future tropical and stratospheric conditions could improve forecasts in winter remotely, via teleconnections, 3–6 weeks ahead. We find that the tropics improve forecasts of sea level pressure in subtropics, Europe, and North America. The stratosphere improves forecasts in high latitudes and Europe. Improvements are small for temperature and precipitation. Larger forecast ensembles than usually available for research are needed to predict teleconnection signals.
Clara Orbe, Alison Ming, Gabriel Chiodo, Michael Prather, Mohamadou Diallo, Qi Tang, Andreas Chrysanthou, Hiroaki Naoe, Xin Zhou, Irina Thaler, Dillon Elsbury, Ewa Bednarz, Jonathon S. Wright, Aaron Match, Shingo Watanabe, James Anstey, Tobias Kerzenmacher, Stefan Versick, Marion Marchand, Feng Li, and James Keeble
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2761, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2761, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO) is the main source of wind fluctuations in the tropical stratosphere, which can couple to surface climate. However, models do a poor job of simulating the QBO in the lower stratosphere, for reasons that remain unclear. One possibility is that models do not completely represent how ozone influences the QBO-associated wind variations. Here we propose a multi-model framework for assessing how ozone influences the QBO in recent past and future climates.
Simone Tilmes, Ewa M. Bednarz, Andrin Jörimann, Daniele Visioni, Douglas E. Kinnison, Gabriel Chiodo, and David Plummer
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 6001–6023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-6001-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-6001-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper, we describe the details of a new multi-model intercomparison experiment to assess the effects of Stratospheric Aerosol Intervention (SAI) on stratospheric chemistry and dynamics and, therefore, ozone. Second, we discuss the advantages and differences of the more constrained experiment compared to fully interactive model experiments. This way, we advance the process-level understanding of the drivers of SAI-induced atmospheric responses.
Jared Farley, Douglas G. MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, Ben Kravitz, Ewa Bednarz, Alistair Duffey, and Matthew Henry
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1830, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1830, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
As the climate changes, many are studying sunlight reflection as a potential method of cooling. Such climate intervention could be deployed in many possible ways, including in scenarios where not every actor agrees on the strategy of cooling. These scenarios are so diverse that to explore all of them using earth system models proves to be too costly. In this paper, we develop a simplified climate model that allows users to easily explore climate intervention scenarios of their choice.
Ewa M. Bednarz, Amy H. Butler, Xinyue Wang, Zhihong Zhuo, Wandi Yu, Georgiy Stenchikov, Matthew Toohey, and Yunqian Zhu
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1970, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1970, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Injection of sulfur and water vapour by the Hunga volcanic eruption significantly altered chemical composition and radiative budget of the stratosphere. Yet, whether the eruption could also affect surface climate, especially via indirect pathways, remains poorly understood. Here we investigate these effects using large ensembles of simulations with the CESM2(WACCM6) Earth system model.
Martin Juckes, Karl E. Taylor, Fabrizio Antonio, David Brayshaw, Carlo Buontempo, Jian Cao, Paul J. Durack, Michio Kawamiya, Hyungjun Kim, Tomas Lovato, Chloe Mackallah, Matthew Mizielinski, Alessandra Nuzzo, Martina Stockhause, Daniele Visioni, Jeremy Walton, Briony Turner, Eleanor O'Rourke, and Beth Dingley
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2639–2663, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2639-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2639-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Baseline Climate Variables for Earth System Modelling (ESM-BCVs) are defined as a list of 135 variables which have high utility for the evaluation and exploitation of climate simulations. The list reflects the most frequently used variables from Earth system models based on an assessment of data publication and download records from the largest archive of global climate projects.
Zhihong Zhuo, Xinyue Wang, Yunqian Zhu, Ewa M. Bednarz, Eric Fleming, Peter R. Colarco, Shingo Watanabe, David Plummer, Georgiy Stenchikov, William Randel, Adam Bourassa, Valentina Aquila, Takashi Sekiya, Mark R. Schoeberl, Simone Tilmes, Wandi Yu, Jun Zhang, Paul J. Kushner, and Francesco S. R. Pausata
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1505, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1505, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The 2022 Hunga eruption caused unprecedented stratospheric water injection, triggering unique atmospheric impacts. This study combines observations and model simulations, projecting a stratospheric water vapor anomaly lasting 4–7 years, with significant temperature variations and ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere lasting 7–10 years. These findings offer critical insights into the role of stratospheric water vapor in shaping climate and atmospheric chemistry.
Chaim I. Garfinkel, Zachary D. Lawrence, Amy H. Butler, Etienne Dunn-Sigouin, Irene Erner, Alexey Y. Karpechko, Gerbrand Koren, Marta Abalos, Blanca Ayarzagüena, David Barriopedro, Natalia Calvo, Alvaro de la Cámara, Andrew Charlton-Perez, Judah Cohen, Daniela I. V. Domeisen, Javier García-Serrano, Neil P. Hindley, Martin Jucker, Hera Kim, Robert W. Lee, Simon H. Lee, Marisol Osman, Froila M. Palmeiro, Inna Polichtchouk, Jian Rao, Jadwiga H. Richter, Chen Schwartz, Seok-Woo Son, Masakazu Taguchi, Nicholas L. Tyrrell, Corwin J. Wright, and Rachel W.-Y. Wu
Weather Clim. Dynam., 6, 171–195, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-6-171-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-6-171-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Variability in the extratropical stratosphere and troposphere is coupled, and because of the longer timescales characteristic of the stratosphere, this allows for a window of opportunity for surface prediction. This paper assesses whether models used for operational prediction capture these coupling processes accurately. We find that most processes are too weak; however downward coupling from the lower stratosphere to the near surface is too strong.
Thomas J. Ballinger, Kent Moore, Qinghua Ding, Amy H. Butler, James E. Overland, Richard L. Thoman, Ian Baxter, Zhe Li, and Edward Hanna
Weather Clim. Dynam., 5, 1473–1488, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-5-1473-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-5-1473-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study chronicles the meteorological conditions that led to the anomalous, tandem March 2023 ice melt event in the Labrador and Bering seas. A sudden stratospheric warming event initiated the development of an anticyclonic circulation pattern over the Greenland–Labrador region, while the La Niña background state supported ridging conditions over Alaska, both of which aided northward transport of warm, moist air and drove the concurrent sea ice melt extremes.
Matthew Henry, Ewa M. Bednarz, and Jim Haywood
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 13253–13268, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13253-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13253-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) refers to a climate intervention by which aerosols are intentionally added to the high atmosphere to increase the amount of reflected sunlight and reduce Earth's temperature. The climate outcomes of SAI depend on the latitude of injection. While injecting aerosols at the Equator has undesirable side effects, injecting away from the Equator has different effects on temperature, rainfall, ozone, and atmospheric circulation, which are analysed in this work.
Ilaria Quaglia and Daniele Visioni
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1527–1541, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1527-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1527-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
On 1 January 2020, international shipping vessels were required to substantially reduce the amount of particulate they emit to improve air quality. In this work we demonstrate how this regulatory change contributed to the anomalous warming observed in recent months using climate model simulations that include such a change. Future policies should also perhaps consider their impact on climate, and climate modelers should promptly include those changes in future modeling efforts.
Christina V. Brodowsky, Timofei Sukhodolov, Gabriel Chiodo, Valentina Aquila, Slimane Bekki, Sandip S. Dhomse, Michael Höpfner, Anton Laakso, Graham W. Mann, Ulrike Niemeier, Giovanni Pitari, Ilaria Quaglia, Eugene Rozanov, Anja Schmidt, Takashi Sekiya, Simone Tilmes, Claudia Timmreck, Sandro Vattioni, Daniele Visioni, Pengfei Yu, Yunqian Zhu, and Thomas Peter
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 5513–5548, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-5513-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-5513-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The aerosol layer is an essential part of the climate system. We characterize the sulfur budget in a volcanically quiescent (background) setting, with a special focus on the sulfate aerosol layer using, for the first time, a multi-model approach. The aim is to identify weak points in the representation of the atmospheric sulfur budget in an intercomparison of nine state-of-the-art coupled global circulation models.
Anton Laakso, Daniele Visioni, Ulrike Niemeier, Simone Tilmes, and Harri Kokkola
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 405–427, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-405-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-405-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study is the second in a two-part series in which we explore the dependency of the impacts of stratospheric sulfur injections on both the model employed and the strategy of injection utilized. The study uncovers uncertainties associated with these techniques to cool climate, highlighting how the simulated climate impacts are dependent on both the selected model and the magnitude of the injections. We also show that estimating precipitation impacts of aerosol injection is a complex task.
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
Short summary
This paper describes a new experimental protocol for the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). In it, we describe the details of a new simulation of sunlight reflection using the stratospheric aerosols that climate models are supposed to run, and we explain the reasons behind each choice we made when defining the protocol.
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
Short summary
Injecting SO2 into the lower stratosphere can temporarily reduce global mean temperature and mitigate some risks associated with climate change, but injecting it at different latitudes and seasons would have different impacts. This study introduces new stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) strategies and explores the importance of the choice of SAI strategy, demonstrating that it notably affects the distribution of aerosol cloud, injection efficiency, and various surface climate impacts.
Ewa M. Bednarz, Ryan Hossaini, and Martyn P. Chipperfield
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 13701–13711, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13701-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13701-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We quantify, for the first time, the time-varying impact of uncontrolled emissions of chlorinated very short-lived substances (Cl-VSLSs) on stratospheric ozone using a state-of-the-art chemistry-climate model. We demonstrate that Cl-VSLSs already have a non-negligible impact on stratospheric ozone, including a local reduction of up to ~7 DU in Arctic ozone in the cold winter of 2019/20, and any so future growth in emissions will continue to offset some of the benefits of the Montreal Protocol.
Ewa M. Bednarz, Ryan Hossaini, N. Luke Abraham, and Martyn P. Chipperfield
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 6187–6209, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6187-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6187-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Development and performance of the new DEST chemistry scheme of UM–UKCA is described. The scheme extends the standard StratTrop scheme by including important updates to the halogen chemistry, thus allowing process-oriented studies of stratospheric ozone depletion and recovery, including impacts from both controlled long-lived ozone-depleting substances and emerging issues around uncontrolled, very short-lived substances. It will thus aid studies in support of future ozone assessment reports.
Matthew Henry, Jim Haywood, Andy Jones, Mohit Dalvi, Alice Wells, Daniele Visioni, Ewa M. Bednarz, Douglas G. MacMartin, Walker Lee, and Mari R. Tye
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 13369–13385, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13369-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13369-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Solar climate interventions, such as injecting sulfur in the stratosphere, may be used to offset some of the adverse impacts of global warming. We use two independently developed Earth system models to assess the uncertainties around stratospheric sulfur injections. The injection locations and amounts are optimized to maintain the same pattern of surface temperature. While both models show reduced warming, the change in rainfall patterns (even without sulfur injections) is uncertain.
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
Short summary
Geoengineering indicates methods aiming to reduce the temperature of the planet by means of reflecting back a part of the incoming radiation before it reaches the surface or allowing more of the planetary radiation to escape into space. It aims to produce modelling experiments that are easy to reproduce and compare with different climate models, in order to understand the potential impacts of these techniques. Here we assess its past successes and failures and talk about its future.
Dillon Elsbury, Amy H. Butler, John R. Albers, Melissa L. Breeden, and Andrew O'Neil Langford
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 5101–5117, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5101-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5101-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
One of the global hotspots where stratosphere-to-troposphere transport (STT) of ozone takes place is over Pacific North America (PNA). However, we do not know how or if STT over PNA will change in response to climate change. Using climate model experiments forced with
worst-casescenario Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 climate change, we find that changes in net chemical production and transport of ozone in the lower stratosphere increase STT of ozone over PNA in the future.
Ilaria Quaglia, Claudia Timmreck, Ulrike Niemeier, Daniele Visioni, Giovanni Pitari, Christina Brodowsky, Christoph Brühl, Sandip S. Dhomse, Henning Franke, Anton Laakso, Graham W. Mann, Eugene Rozanov, and Timofei Sukhodolov
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 921–948, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-921-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-921-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The last very large explosive volcanic eruption we have measurements for is the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. It is therefore often used as a benchmark for climate models' ability to reproduce these kinds of events. Here, we compare available measurements with the results from multiple experiments conducted with climate models interactively simulating the aerosol cloud formation.
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
Short summary
The paper constitutes Part 1 of a study performing a first systematic inter-model comparison of the atmospheric responses to stratospheric sulfate aerosol injections (SAIs) at various latitudes as simulated by three state-of-the-art Earth system models. We identify similarities and differences in the modeled aerosol burden, investigate the differences in the aerosol approaches between the models, and ultimately show the differences produced in surface climate, temperature and precipitation.
Ewa M. Bednarz, Daniele Visioni, Ben Kravitz, Andy Jones, James M. Haywood, Jadwiga Richter, Douglas G. MacMartin, and Peter Braesicke
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 687–709, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-687-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-687-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Building on Part 1 of this two-part study, we demonstrate the role of biases in climatological circulation and specific aspects of model microphysics in driving the differences in simulated sulfate distributions amongst three Earth system models. We then characterize the simulated changes in stratospheric and free-tropospheric temperatures, ozone, water vapor, and large-scale circulation, elucidating the role of the above aspects in the surface responses discussed in Part 1.
Jadwiga H. Richter, Daniele Visioni, Douglas G. MacMartin, David A. Bailey, Nan Rosenbloom, Brian Dobbins, Walker R. Lee, Mari Tye, and Jean-Francois Lamarque
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 8221–8243, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8221-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8221-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Solar climate intervention using stratospheric aerosol injection is a proposed method of reducing global mean temperatures to reduce the worst consequences of climate change. We present a new modeling protocol aimed at simulating a plausible deployment of stratospheric aerosol injection and reproducibility of simulations using other Earth system models: Assessing Responses and Impacts of Solar climate intervention on the Earth system with stratospheric aerosol injection (ARISE-SAI).
John R. Albers, Amy H. Butler, Andrew O. Langford, Dillon Elsbury, and Melissa L. Breeden
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 13035–13048, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-13035-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-13035-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Ozone transported from the stratosphere contributes to background ozone concentrations in the free troposphere and to surface ozone exceedance events that affect human health. The physical processes whereby the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) modulates North American stratosphere-to-troposphere ozone transport during spring are documented, and the usefulness of ENSO for predicting ozone events that may cause exceedances in surface air quality standards are assessed.
Mari R. Tye, Katherine Dagon, Maria J. Molina, Jadwiga H. Richter, Daniele Visioni, Ben Kravitz, and Simone Tilmes
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1233–1257, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1233-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1233-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We examined the potential effect of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) on extreme temperature and precipitation. SAI may cause daytime temperatures to cool but nighttime to warm. Daytime cooling may occur in all seasons across the globe, with the largest decreases in summer. In contrast, nighttime warming may be greatest at high latitudes in winter. SAI may reduce the frequency and intensity of extreme rainfall. The combined changes may exacerbate drying over parts of the global south.
Ewa M. Bednarz, Ryan Hossaini, Martyn P. Chipperfield, N. Luke Abraham, and Peter Braesicke
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 10657–10676, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-10657-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-10657-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Atmospheric impacts of chlorinated very short-lived substances (Cl-VSLS) over the first two decades of the 21st century are assessed using the UM-UKCA chemistry–climate model. Stratospheric input of Cl from Cl-VSLS is estimated at ~130 ppt in 2019. The use of model set-up with constrained meteorology significantly increases the abundance of Cl-VSLS in the lower stratosphere relative to the free-running set-up. The growth in Cl-VSLS emissions significantly impacted recent HCl and COCl2 trends.
Zachary D. Lawrence, Marta Abalos, Blanca Ayarzagüena, David Barriopedro, Amy H. Butler, Natalia Calvo, Alvaro de la Cámara, Andrew Charlton-Perez, Daniela I. V. Domeisen, Etienne Dunn-Sigouin, Javier García-Serrano, Chaim I. Garfinkel, Neil P. Hindley, Liwei Jia, Martin Jucker, Alexey Y. Karpechko, Hera Kim, Andrea L. Lang, Simon H. Lee, Pu Lin, Marisol Osman, Froila M. Palmeiro, Judith Perlwitz, Inna Polichtchouk, Jadwiga H. Richter, Chen Schwartz, Seok-Woo Son, Irene Erner, Masakazu Taguchi, Nicholas L. Tyrrell, Corwin J. Wright, and Rachel W.-Y. Wu
Weather Clim. Dynam., 3, 977–1001, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-977-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-3-977-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Forecast models that are used to predict weather often struggle to represent the Earth’s stratosphere. This may impact their ability to predict surface weather weeks in advance, on subseasonal-to-seasonal (S2S) timescales. We use data from many S2S forecast systems to characterize and compare the stratospheric biases present in such forecast models. These models have many similar stratospheric biases, but they tend to be worse in systems with low model tops located within the stratosphere.
Peter Hitchcock, Amy Butler, Andrew Charlton-Perez, Chaim I. Garfinkel, Tim Stockdale, James Anstey, Dann Mitchell, Daniela I. V. Domeisen, Tongwen Wu, Yixiong Lu, Daniele Mastrangelo, Piero Malguzzi, Hai Lin, Ryan Muncaster, Bill Merryfield, Michael Sigmond, Baoqiang Xiang, Liwei Jia, Yu-Kyung Hyun, Jiyoung Oh, Damien Specq, Isla R. Simpson, Jadwiga H. Richter, Cory Barton, Jeff Knight, Eun-Pa Lim, and Harry Hendon
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5073–5092, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5073-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5073-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes an experimental protocol focused on sudden stratospheric warmings to be carried out by subseasonal forecast modeling centers. These will allow for inter-model comparisons of these major disruptions to the stratospheric polar vortex and their impacts on the near-surface flow. The protocol will lead to new insights into the contribution of the stratosphere to subseasonal forecast skill and new approaches to the dynamical attribution of extreme events.
Ilaria Quaglia, Daniele Visioni, Giovanni Pitari, and Ben Kravitz
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 5757–5773, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-5757-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-5757-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Carbonyl sulfide is a gas that mixes very well in the atmosphere and can reach the stratosphere, where it reacts with sunlight and produces aerosol. Here we propose that, by increasing surface fluxes by an order of magnitude, the number of stratospheric aerosols produced may be enough to partially offset the warming produced by greenhouse gases. We explore what effect this would have on the atmospheric composition.
Shima Bahramvash Shams, Von P. Walden, James W. Hannigan, William J. Randel, Irina V. Petropavlovskikh, Amy H. Butler, and Alvaro de la Cámara
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 5435–5458, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-5435-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-5435-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Large-scale atmospheric circulation has a strong influence on ozone in the Arctic, and certain anomalous dynamical events, such as sudden stratospheric warmings, cause dramatic alterations of the large-scale circulation. A reanalysis model is evaluated and then used to investigate the impact of sudden stratospheric warmings on mid-atmospheric ozone. Results show that the position of the cold jet stream over the Arctic before these events influences the variability of ozone.
Simone Tilmes, Daniele Visioni, Andy Jones, James Haywood, Roland Séférian, Pierre Nabat, Olivier Boucher, Ewa Monica Bednarz, and Ulrike Niemeier
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 4557–4579, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-4557-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-4557-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This study assesses the impacts of climate interventions, using stratospheric sulfate aerosol and solar dimming on stratospheric ozone, based on three Earth system models with interactive stratospheric chemistry. The climate interventions have been applied to a high emission (baseline) scenario in order to reach global surface temperatures of a medium emission scenario. We find significant increases and decreases in total column ozone, depending on regions and seasons.
Huiying Ren, Erol Cromwell, Ben Kravitz, and Xingyuan Chen
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 1727–1743, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1727-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1727-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We used a deep learning method called long short-term memory (LSTM) to fill gaps in data collected by hydrologic monitoring networks. LSTM accounted for correlations in space and time and nonlinear trends in data. Compared to a traditional regression-based time-series method, LSTM performed comparably when filling gaps in data with smooth patterns, while it better captured highly dynamic patterns in data. Capturing such dynamics is critical for understanding dynamic complex system behaviors.
Andy Jones, Jim M. Haywood, Adam A. Scaife, Olivier Boucher, Matthew Henry, Ben Kravitz, Thibaut Lurton, Pierre Nabat, Ulrike Niemeier, Roland Séférian, Simone Tilmes, and Daniele Visioni
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 2999–3016, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2999-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2999-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Simulations by six Earth-system models of geoengineering by introducing sulfuric acid aerosols into the tropical stratosphere are compared. A robust impact on the northern wintertime North Atlantic Oscillation is found, exacerbating precipitation reduction over parts of southern Europe. In contrast, the models show no consistency with regard to impacts on the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation, although results do indicate a risk that the oscillation could become locked into a permanent westerly phase.
Debra K. Weisenstein, Daniele Visioni, Henning Franke, Ulrike Niemeier, Sandro Vattioni, Gabriel Chiodo, Thomas Peter, and David W. Keith
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 2955–2973, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2955-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2955-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper explores a potential method of geoengineering that could be used to slow the rate of change of climate over decadal scales. We use three climate models to explore how injections of accumulation-mode sulfuric acid aerosol change the large-scale stratospheric particle size distribution and radiative forcing response for the chosen scenarios. Radiative forcing per unit sulfur injected and relative to the change in aerosol burden is larger with particulate than with SO2 injections.
Adam A. Scaife, Mark P. Baldwin, Amy H. Butler, Andrew J. Charlton-Perez, Daniela I. V. Domeisen, Chaim I. Garfinkel, Steven C. Hardiman, Peter Haynes, Alexey Yu Karpechko, Eun-Pa Lim, Shunsuke Noguchi, Judith Perlwitz, Lorenzo Polvani, Jadwiga H. Richter, John Scinocca, Michael Sigmond, Theodore G. Shepherd, Seok-Woo Son, and David W. J. Thompson
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 2601–2623, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2601-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2601-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Great progress has been made in computer modelling and simulation of the whole climate system, including the stratosphere. Since the late 20th century we also gained a much clearer understanding of how the stratosphere interacts with the lower atmosphere. The latest generation of numerical prediction systems now explicitly represents the stratosphere and its interaction with surface climate, and here we review its role in long-range predictions and projections from weeks to decades ahead.
Daniele Visioni, Simone Tilmes, Charles Bardeen, Michael Mills, Douglas G. MacMartin, Ben Kravitz, and Jadwiga H. Richter
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 1739–1756, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-1739-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-1739-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Aerosols are simulated in a simplified way in climate models: in the model analyzed here, they are represented in every grid as described by three simple logarithmic distributions, mixing all different species together. The size can evolve when new particles are formed, particles merge together to create a larger one or particles are deposited to the surface. This approximation normally works fairly well. Here we show however that when large amounts of sulfate are simulated, there are problems.
Yan Zhang, Douglas G. MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, and Ben Kravitz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 201–217, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-201-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-201-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Adding SO2 to the stratosphere could temporarily cool the planet by reflecting more sunlight back to space. However, adding SO2 at different latitude(s) and season(s) leads to significant differences in regional surface climate. This study shows that, to cool the planet by 1–1.5 °C, there are likely six to eight choices of injection latitude(s) and season(s) that lead to meaningfully different distributions of climate impacts.
Anton Laakso, Ulrike Niemeier, Daniele Visioni, Simone Tilmes, and Harri Kokkola
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 93–118, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-93-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-93-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The use of different spatio-temporal sulfur injection strategies with different magnitudes to create an artificial reflective aerosol layer to cool the climate is studied using sectional and modal aerosol schemes in a climate model. There are significant differences in the results depending on the aerosol microphysical module used. Different spatio-temporal injection strategies have a significant impact on the magnitude and zonal distribution of radiative forcing and atmospheric dynamics.
Dawn L. Woodard, Alexey N. Shiklomanov, Ben Kravitz, Corinne Hartin, and Ben Bond-Lamberty
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 4751–4767, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4751-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4751-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We have added a representation of the permafrost carbon feedback to the simple, open-source global carbon–climate model Hector and calibrated the results to be consistent with historical data and Earth system model projections. Our results closely match previous work, estimating around 0.2 °C of warming from permafrost this century. This capability will be useful to explore uncertainties in this feedback and for coupling with integrated assessment models for policy and economic analysis.
Daniele Visioni, Douglas G. MacMartin, Ben Kravitz, Olivier Boucher, Andy Jones, Thibaut Lurton, Michou Martine, Michael J. Mills, Pierre Nabat, Ulrike Niemeier, Roland Séférian, and Simone Tilmes
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 10039–10063, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-10039-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-10039-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
A new set of simulations is used to investigate commonalities, differences and sources of uncertainty when simulating the injection of SO2 in the stratosphere in order to mitigate the effects of climate change (solar geoengineering). The models differ in how they simulate the aerosols and how they spread around the stratosphere, resulting in differences in projected regional impacts. Overall, however, the models agree that aerosols have the potential to mitigate the warming produced by GHGs.
Nikolas O. Aksamit, Ben Kravitz, Douglas G. MacMartin, and George Haller
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 8845–8861, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-8845-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-8845-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
There exist robust and influential material features evolving within turbulent fluids that behave as the skeleton for fluid transport pathways. Recent developments in applied mathematics have made the identification of these time-varying structures more rigorous and insightful than ever. Using short-range wind forecasts, we detail how and why these material features can be exploited in an effort to optimize the spread of aerosols in the stratosphere for climate geoengineering.
Henning Franke, Ulrike Niemeier, and Daniele Visioni
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 8615–8635, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-8615-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-8615-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric aerosol modification (SAM) can alter the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO). Our simulations with two different models show that the characteristics of the QBO response are primarily determined by the meridional structure of the aerosol-induced heating. Therefore, the QBO response to SAM depends primarily on the location of injection, while injection type and rate act to scale the specific response. Our results have important implications for evaluating adverse side effects of SAM.
Amy H. Butler and Daniela I. V. Domeisen
Weather Clim. Dynam., 2, 453–474, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-453-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-453-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We classify by wave geometry the stratospheric polar vortex during the final warming that occurs every spring in both hemispheres due to a combination of radiative and dynamical processes. We show that the shape of the vortex, as well as the timing of the seasonal transition, is linked to total column ozone prior to and surface weather following the final warming. These results have implications for prediction and our understanding of stratosphere–troposphere coupling processes in springtime.
John R. Albers, Amy H. Butler, Melissa L. Breeden, Andrew O. Langford, and George N. Kiladis
Weather Clim. Dynam., 2, 433–452, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-433-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-433-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Weather variability controls the transport of ozone from the stratosphere to the Earth’s surface and water vapor from oceanic source regions to continental land masses. Forecasting these types of transport has high societal value because of the negative impacts of ozone on human health and the role of water vapor in governing precipitation variability. We use upper-level wind forecasts to assess the potential for predicting ozone and water vapor transport 3–6 weeks ahead of time.
Antara Banerjee, Amy H. Butler, Lorenzo M. Polvani, Alan Robock, Isla R. Simpson, and Lantao Sun
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 6985–6997, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6985-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6985-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We find that simulated stratospheric sulfate geoengineering could lead to warmer Eurasian winters alongside a drier Mediterranean and wetting to the north. These effects occur due to the strengthening of the Northern Hemisphere stratospheric polar vortex, which shifts the North Atlantic Oscillation to a more positive phase. We find the effects in our simulations to be much more significant than the wintertime effects of large tropical volcanic eruptions which inject much less sulfate aerosol.
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
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 4231–4247, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-4231-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-4231-2021, 2021
Short summary
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.
Melissa L. Breeden, Amy H. Butler, John R. Albers, Michael Sprenger, and Andrew O'Neil Langford
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 2781–2794, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-2781-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-2781-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Prior research has found a maximum in deep stratosphere-to-troposphere mass/ozone transport over the western United States in boreal spring, which can enhance surface ozone concentrations, reducing air quality. We find that the winter-to-summer evolution of the north Pacific jet increases the frequency of stratospheric intrusions that drive transport, helping explain the observed maximum. The El Niño–Southern Oscillation affects the timing of the spring jet transition and therefore transport.
Andy Jones, Jim M. Haywood, Anthony C. Jones, Simone Tilmes, Ben Kravitz, and Alan Robock
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 1287–1304, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1287-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1287-2021, 2021
Short summary
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.
Walker Lee, Douglas MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, and Ben Kravitz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 1051–1072, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-1051-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-1051-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The injection of aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight could reduce global warming, but this type of
geoengineeringwould also impact other variables like precipitation and sea ice. In this study, we model various climate impacts of geoengineering on a 3-D graph to show how trying to meet one climate goal will affect other variables. We also present two computer simulations which validate our model and show that geoengineering could regulate precipitation as well as temperature.
Cited articles
Abalos, M., Calvo, N., Benito-Barca, S., Garny, H., Hardiman, S. C., Lin, P., Andrews, M. B., Butchart, N., Garcia, R., Orbe, C., Saint-Martin, D., Watanabe, S., and Yoshida, K.: The Brewer–Dobson circulation in CMIP6, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 13571–13591, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-13571-2021, 2021.
Bala, G., Duffy, P. B., and Taylor, K. E.: Impact of geoengineering schemes on the global hydrological cycle, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 105, 7664–7669, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0711648105, 2008.
Baldwin, M. P. and Dunkerton, T. J.: Stratospheric Harbingers of Anomalous Weather Regimes, Science, 294, 581–584, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.106331, 2001.
Banerjee, A., Butler, A. H., Polvani, L. M., Robock, A., Simpson, I. R., and Sun, L.: Robust winter warming over Eurasia under stratospheric sulfate geoengineering – the role of stratospheric dynamics, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 6985–6997, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6985-2021, 2021.
Banerjee, T., Chiodo, G., Previdi, M., Ponater, M., Conley, A., and Polvani, L. M.: Stratospheric water vapor: an important climate feedback, Clim. Dynam., 53, 1697–1710, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-04721-4, 2019.
Bednarz, E. M., Visioni, D., Banerjee, A., Braesicke, P., Kravitz, B., and MacMartin, D. G.: The overlooked role of the stratosphere under a solar constant reduction, Geophys. Res. Lett., 49, e2022GL098773, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL098773, 2022a.
Bednarz, E. M., Visioni, D., Richter, J. H., Butler, A. H., and MacMartin, D. G.: Impact of the latitude of stratospheric aerosol injection on the Southern Annular Mode, Geophys. Res. Lett., 49, e2022GL100353, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL100353, 2022b.
Bednarz, E. M., Visioni, D., Kravitz, B., Jones, A., Haywood, J. M., Richter, J., MacMartin, D. G., and Braesicke, P.: Climate response to off-equatorial stratospheric sulfur injections in three Earth system models – Part 2: Stratospheric and free-tropospheric response, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 687–709, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-687-2023, 2023a.
Bednarz, E. M., Zhang, Y., Visioni, D., and MacMartin, D.: Data from: “Injection strategy – a driver of atmospheric circulation and ozone response to stratospheric aerosol geoengineering” by Bednarz et al. (2023), Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10042312, 2023b.
Burgess, M. G., Ritchie, J., Shapland, J., and Pielke, R.: IPCC baseline scenarios have over-projected CO2 emissions and economic growth, Environ. Res. Lett., 16, 014016, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abcdd2, 2020.
Butler, A. H., Thompson, D. W. J., and Heikes, R.: The steady-state atmospheric circulation response to climate change-like thermal forcings in a simple general circulation model, J. Climate, 23, 3474–3496, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010jcli3228.1, 2010.
Calvo, N., Iza, M., Hurwitz, M. M., Manzini, E., Peña-Ortiz, C., Butler, A. H., Cagnazzo, C., Ineson, S., and Garfinkel, C. I.: Northern Hemisphere Stratospheric Pathway of Different El Niño Flavors in Stratosphere-Resolving CMIP5 Models, J. Climate, 30, 4351–4371, 2017.
Cheng, W., MacMartin, D. G., Kravitz, B., Visioni, D., Bednarz, E. M., Xu, Y., Luo, Y., Huang, L., Hu, Y., Staten, P. W., Hitchcock, P., Moore, J. C., Guo, A., and Deng, X.: Changes in Hadley circulation and intertropical convergence zone under strategic stratospheric aerosol geoengineering, npj Clim. Atmos. Sci., 5, 32, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-022-00254-6, 2022.
Danabasoglu, G., Lamarque, J.-F., Bacmeister, J., Bailey, D. A., DuVivier, A. K., Edwards, J., Emmons, L. K., Fasullo, J., Garcia, R., Gettelman, A., Hannay, C., Holland, M. M., Large, W. G., Lauritzen, P. H., Lawrence, D. M., Lenaerts, J. T. M., Lindsay, K., Lipscomb, W. H., Mills, M. J., Neale, R., Oleson, K. W., Otto-Bliesner, B., Phillips, A. S., Sacks, W., Tilmes, S., van Kampenhout, L., Vertenstein, M., Bertini, A., Dennis, J., Deser, C., Fischer, C., Fox-Kemper, B., Kay, J. E., Kinnison, D., Kushner, P. J., Larson, V. E., Long, M. C., Mickelson, S., Moore, J. K., Nienhouse, E., Polvani, L., Rasch, P. J., and Strand, W. G.: The Community Earth System Model Version 2 (CESM2), J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS001916, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001916, 2020.
Davis, N. A., Visioni, D., Garcia, R. R., Kinnison, D. E., Marsh, D. R., Mills, M. J., Richter, J. H., Tilmes, S., Bardeen, C., Gettelman, A., Glanville, A. A., MacMartin, D. G., Smith, A. K., and Vitt, F.: Climate, variability, and climate sensitivity of “Middle Atmosphere” chemistry configurations of the Community Earth System Model Version 2, Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model Version 6 (CESM2(WACCM6)), J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 15, e2022MS003579, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022MS003579, 2023.
England, M., Polvani, L., and Sun, L.: Contrasting the Antarctic and Arctic Atmospheric Responses to Projected Sea Ice Loss in the Late Twenty-First Century, J. Climate, 31, 6353–6370, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0666.1, 2018.
Forster, P. M. de S. and Shine, K. P.: Stratospheric water vapour changes as a possible contributor to observed stratospheric cooling, Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 3309, https://doi.org/10.1029/1999GL010487, 1999.
Franke, H., Niemeier, U., and Visioni, D.: Differences in the quasi-biennial oscillation response to stratospheric aerosol modification depending on injection strategy and species, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 8615–8635, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-8615-2021, 2021.
Fricko, O., Havlik, P., Rogelj, J., Klimont, Z., Gusti, M., Johnson, N., Kolp, P., Strubegger, M., Valin, H., Amann, M., Ermolieva, T., Forsell, N., Herrero, M., Heyes, C., Kindermann, G., Krey, V., McCollum, D. L., Obersteiner, M., Pachauri, S., Rao, S., Schmid, E., Schoepp, W., and Riahi, K.: The marker quantification of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2: A middle-of-the-road scenario for the 21st century, Global Environ. Change, 42, 251–267, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.004, 2017.
Gettelman, A., Mills, M. J., Kinnison, D. E., Garcia, R. R., Smith, A. K., Marsh, D. R., Tilmes, S., Vitt, F., Bardeen, C. G., McInerny, J., Liu, H.-L., Solomon, S. C., Polvani, L. M., Emmons, L. K., Lamarque, J.-F., Richter, J. H., Glanville, A. S., Bacmeister, J. T., Phillips, A. S., Neale, R. B., Simpson, I. R., DuVivier, A. K., Hodzic, A., and Randel, W. J.: TheWhole Atmosphere Community ClimateModel Version 6 (WACCM6), J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 12380–12403, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD030943, 2019.
Guo, A., Moore, J. C., and Ji, D.: Tropical atmospheric circulation response to the G1 sunshade geoengineering radiative forcing experiment, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 8689–8706, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-8689-2018, 2018.
Hart, D.: Cheyenne supercomputer, NCAR CISL, https://doi.org/10.5065/D6RX99HX, 2017.
Haywood, J. M., Jones, A., Bellouin, N., and Stephenson, D.: Asymmetric forcing from stratospheric aerosols impacts Sahelian rainfall, Nat. Clim. Change, 3, 660–665, 2013.
Jones, A., Haywood, J. M., Scaife, A. A., Boucher, O., Henry, M., Kravitz, B., Lurton, T., Nabat, P., Niemeier, U., Séférian, R., Tilmes, S., and Visioni, D.: The impact of stratospheric aerosol intervention on the North Atlantic and Quasi-Biennial Oscillations in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) G6sulfur experiment, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 2999–3016, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2999-2022, 2022.
Kang, S. M., Xie, S. P., Shin, Y., Kim, H., Hwang, Y. T., Stuecker, M. F., Xiang, B., and Hawcroft, M.: Walker circulation response to extratropical radiative forcing, Sci. Adv., 6, eabd3021, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd3021, 2020.
Kravitz, B. and MacMartin, D. G.: Uncertainty and the basis for confidence in solar geoengineering research, Nat. Rev. Earth Environ., 1, 64–75, 2020.
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, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3379-2015, 2015.
Krishnamohan, K.-P. S.-P., Bala, G., Cao, L., Duan, L., and Caldeira, K.: Climate system response to stratospheric sulfate aerosols: sensitivity to altitude of aerosol layer, Earth Syst. Dynam., 10, 885–900, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-885-2019, 2019.
Laakso, A., Niemeier, U., Visioni, D., Tilmes, S., and Kokkola, H.: Dependency of the impacts of geoengineering on the stratospheric sulfur injection strategy – Part 1: Intercomparison of modal and sectional aerosol modules, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 93–118, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-93-2022, 2022.
Lee, W. R., MacMartin, D. G., Visioni, D., and Kravitz, B.: High-latitude stratospheric aerosol geoengineering can be more effective if injection is limited to spring, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2021GL092696, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL092696, 2021.
Lee, W. R., MacMartin, D. G., Visioni, D., Kravitz, B., Chen, Y., Moore, J. C., Leguy, G., Lawrence, D. M., and Bailey, D. A.: High-latitude stratospheric aerosol injection to preserve the Arctic, Earth's Future, 11, e2022EF003052, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EF003052, 2023.
Liu, X., Ma, P.-L., Wang, H., Tilmes, S., Singh, B., Easter, R. C., Ghan, S. J., and Rasch, P. J.: Description and evaluation of a new four-mode version of the Modal Aerosol Module (MAM4) within version 5.3 of the Community Atmosphere Model, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 505–522, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-505-2016, 2016.
MacMartin, D. G., Visioni, D., Kravitz, B., Richter, J., Felgenhauer, T., Lee, W. R., Morrow, D. R., Parson, E. A., and Sugiyama, M.: Scenarios for modeling solar radiation modification, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 119, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2202230119, 2022.
NCAR: Community Earth System Model 2 (CESM2), NCAR [code], https://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm2 (last access: 26 October 2023), 2023.
Niemeier, U., Schmidt, H., Alterskjær, K., and Kristjánsson, J. E.: Solar irradiance reduction via climate engineering: Impact of different techniques on the energy balance and the hydrological cycle, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 11905–11917, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020445, 2013.
Nowack, P., Ceppi, P., Davis, S. M., Chiodo, G., Ball, W., Diallo, M. A., Hassler, B., Jia, Y., Keeble, J., and Joshi, M.: Response of stratospheric water vapour to warming constrained by satellite observations, Nat. Geosci., 16, 577–583, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-023-01183-6, 2023.
Pitari, G., Aquila, V., Kravitz, B., Robock, A., Watanabe, S., Cionni, I., Luca, N. D., Genova, G. D., Mancini, E., and Tilmes, S.: Stratospheric ozone response to sulfate geoengineering: Results from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP), J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 2629–2653, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020566, 2014.
Richter, J. H., Tilmes, S., Mills, M. J., Tribbia, J. J., Kravitz, B., Macmartin, D. G., Vitt, F., and Lamarque, J. F.: Stratospheric dynamical response and ozone feedbacks in the presence of SO2 injections, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 12557–12573, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026912, 2017.
Richter, J. H., Visioni, D., MacMartin, D. G., Bailey, D. A., Rosenbloom, N., Dobbins, B., Lee, W. R., Tye, M., and Lamarque, J.-F.: Assessing Responses and Impacts of Solar climate intervention on the Earth system with stratospheric aerosol injection (ARISE-SAI): protocol and initial results from the first simulations, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 8221–8243, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8221-2022, 2022.
Riese, M., Ploeger, F., Rap, A., Vogel, B., Konopka, P., Dameris, M., and Forster, P.: Impact of uncertainties in atmospheric mixing on simulated UTLS composition and related radiative effects, J. Geophys. Res., 117, D16305, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD017751, 2012.
Ring, M. J. and Plumb, R. A.: Forced Annular Mode Patterns in a Simple Atmospheric General Circulation Model, J. Atmos. Sci., 64, 3611–3626, 2007.
Scinocca, J. F., Reader, M. C., Plummer, D. A., Sigmond, M., Kushner, P. J., Shepherd, T. G., and Ravishankara, A. R.: Impact of sudden Arctic sea-ice loss on stratospheric polar ozone recovery, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L24701, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL041239, 2009.
Simpson, I., Tilmes, S., Richter, J., Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D., Mills, M., Fasullo, J. T., and Pendergrass, A. G.: The regional hydroclimate response to stratospheric sulfate geoengineering and the role of stratospheric heating, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 12587–12616, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD031093, 2019.
Solomon, S., Rosenlof, K. H., Portmann, R. W., Daniel, J. S., Davis, S. M., Sanford, T. J., and Plattner, G.-K.: Contributions of stratospheric water vapor to decadal changes in the rate of global warming, Science, 327, 1219–1223, 2010.
Sun, L., Deser, C., Polvani, L., and Tomas, R.: Influence of projected Arctic sea ice loss on polar stratospheric ozone and circulation in spring, Environ. Res. Lett., 9, 084016, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/8/084016, 2014.
Thompson, D. W. J. and Wallace, J. M.: The Arctic oscillation signature in the wintertime geopotential height and temperature fields, Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 1297–1300, https://doi.org/10.1029/98GL00950, 1998.
Thompson, D. W. J. and Wallace, J. M.: Annular modes in the extratropical circulation. Part I: Month-to-Month variability, J. Climate, 13, 1000–1016, 2000.
Thompson, D. W. J., Wallace, J. M., and Hegerl, G. C.: Annular Modes in the Extratropical Circulation. Part II: Trends, J. Climate, 13, 1018–1036, 2000.
Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Mills, M. J., Simpson, I. R., Glanville, A. S., Fasullo, J. T., Phillips, A. S., Lamarque, J.-F., Tribbia, J., Edwards, J., Mickelson, S., and Ghosh, S.: CESM1(WACCM) Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering Large Ensemble Project, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 99, 2361–2371, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0267.1, 2018a.
Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., Mills, M. J., Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Garcia, R. R., Kinnison, D. E., Lamarque, 60 J. F., Tribbia, J., and Vitt, F.: Effects of different stratospheric SO2 injection altitudes on stratospheric chemistry and dynamics, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 123, 4654–4673, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD028146, 2018b.
Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Glanville, A. S., Visioni, D., Kinnison, D. E., and Müller, R.: Sensitivity of total column ozone to stratospheric sulfur injection strategies, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2021GL094058, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL094058, 2021.
Tilmes, S., Visioni, D., Jones, A., Haywood, J., Séférian, R., Nabat, P., Boucher, O., Bednarz, E. M., and Niemeier, U.: Stratospheric ozone response to sulfate aerosol and solar dimming climate interventions based on the G6 Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 4557–4579, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-4557-2022, 2022.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP): Emissions gap report 2021: The heat is on – A world of climate promises not yet delivered, Report, United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya, 2021.
Visioni, D., Pitari, G., Tuccella, P., and Curci, G.: Sulfur deposition changes under sulfate geoengineering conditions: quasi-biennial oscillation effects on the transport and lifetime of stratospheric aerosols, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 2787–2808, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-2787-2018, 2018.
Visioni, D., MacMartin, D. G., Kravitz, B., Lee, W., Simpson, I. R., and Richter, J. H.: Reduced poleward transport due to stratospheric heating under stratospheric aerosols geoengineering, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL089470, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL089470, 2020.
Visioni, D., MacMartin, D. G., and Kravitz, B.: Is turning down the sun a good proxy for stratospheric sulfate geoengineering?, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126, e2020JD033952, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033952, 2021a.
Visioni, D., MacMartin, D. G., Kravitz, B., Boucher, O., Jones, A., Lurton, T., Martine, M., Mills, M. J., Nabat, P., Niemeier, U., Séférian, R., and Tilmes, S.: Identifying the sources of uncertainty in climate model simulations of solar radiation modification with the G6sulfur and G6solar Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 10039–10063, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-10039-2021, 2021b.
Visioni, D., Tilmes, S., Bardeen, C., Mills, M., MacMartin, D. G., Kravitz, B., and Richter, J. H.: Limitations of assuming internal mixing between different aerosol species: a case study with sulfate geoengineering simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 1739–1756, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-1739-2022, 2022.
Visioni, D., Bednarz, E. M., Lee, W. R., Kravitz, B., Jones, A., Haywood, J. M., and MacMartin, D. G.: Climate response to off-equatorial stratospheric sulfur injections in three Earth system models – Part 1: Experimental protocols and surface changes, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 663–685, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-663-2023, 2023.
Weisenstein, D. K., Visioni, D., Franke, H., Niemeier, U., Vattioni, S., Chiodo, G., Peter, T., and Keith, D. W.: An interactive stratospheric aerosol model intercomparison of solar geoengineering by stratospheric injection of SO2 or accumulation-mode sulfuric acid aerosols, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 2955–2973, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2955-2022, 2022.
World Meteorological Organization (WMO): Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2022, GAW Report No. 278, 509 pp., WMO, Geneva, 2022.
Yeh, S.-W., Kug, J.-S., Dewitte, B., Kwon, M.-H., Kirtman, B. P., and Jin, F.-F.: El Niño in a changing climate, Nature, 461, 511–514, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08316, 2009.
Zhang, Y., MacMartin, D. G., Visioni, D., and Kravitz, B.: How large is the design space for stratospheric aerosol geoengineering?, Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 201–217, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-201-2022, 2022.
Zhang, Y., MacMartin, D. G., Visioni, D., Bednarz, E., and Kravitz, B.: Introducing a Comprehensive Set of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection Strategies, EGUsphere [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-117, 2023.
Short summary
We use a state-of-the-art Earth system model and a set of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) strategies to achieve the same level of global mean surface cooling through different combinations of location and/or timing of the injection. We demonstrate that the choice of SAI strategy can lead to contrasting impacts on stratospheric and tropospheric temperatures, circulation, and chemistry (including stratospheric ozone), thereby leading to different impacts on regional surface climate.
We use a state-of-the-art Earth system model and a set of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI)...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint