Articles | Volume 24, issue 21
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-12355-2024
© Author(s) 2024. 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-24-12355-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
08 Nov 2024
Research article |
| 08 Nov 2024
| 08 Nov 2024
Projected future changes in extreme precipitation over China under stratospheric aerosol intervention in the UKESM1 climate model
Ou Wang
State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resources Reuse, School of Environment, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210023, China
Department of Agricultural Meteorology, College of Resources and Environmental Sciences, China Agriculture University, Beijing 100193, China
Yuchen Gu
Department of Earth Science, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
Jim M. Haywood
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Environment, Science and the Economy, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QE, UK
Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter EX1 3PB, UK
Ying Chen
School of Geography Earth and Environment Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
Chenwei Fang
Key Laboratory of Meteorological Disaster, Ministry of Education (KLME), Joint International Research Laboratory of Climate and Environment Change (ILCEC), Collaborative Innovation Centre on Forecast and Evaluation of Meteorological Disasters, Key Laboratory for Aerosol-Cloud-Precipitation of China Meteorological Administration, Nanjing University of Information Science & Technology, Nanjing, 210044, China
State Key Laboratory of Pollution Control and Resources Reuse, School of Environment, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210023, China
Related authors
No articles found.
Rui Yuan, Guichen Zhang, Lei Zhang, Huang Zhou, Peisheng Zhou, Weikang Zhang, Hangtian Zhou, Zheng Wang, Qin’geng Wang, and Yu Zhao
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5395, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5395, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
Short summary
Hg in the air eventually deposit to land and water, but measuring how much reaches the ground is difficult, especially in polluted areas. We measured Hg deposition fluxes at an urban site in eastern China, and used the results to improve process models. We found that Hg settling directly from the air contributes about four times more than rain. These improvements help scientists estimate how much Hg enters ecosystems and evaluate whether control policies are working.
Haruki Hirasawa, Knut von Salzen, Matthew Henry, Josh Smith, Frida A.-M. Bender, Cindy Wang, Sarah Doherty, Robert Wood, Philip J. Rasch, and James Haywood
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5460, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-5460, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
Short summary
Marine cloud brightening (MCB) is a solar climate intervention proposal to spray sea salt aerosol (SSA) to increase sunlight reflection by low marine clouds. Earth System Models (ESMs) are our main tool for studying potential MCB climate impacts, but there is a large range across ESMs in the MCB sunlight reflection. Comparing MCB in ten ESMs, we find that much of this range is from the size of the SSA and cloud droplet formation from the SSA, both relatively well understood processes.
Daniele Visioni, Alan Robock, Alistair Duffey, Matthew Henry, Haruki Hirasawa, Walker Raymond Lee, Cindy Wang, Kelsey Roberts, Shingo Watanabe, Michelle Simões Reboita, Masahiro Sugiyama, Ben Kravitz, Jim Haywood, Simone Tilmes, Frédéric K. Bonou, Jack Chen, Timofei Sukhodolov, Sandro Vattioni, Andrin Jörimann, Diego Villanueva, Ryan Vella, Paul Farron, Ewa Bednarz, Ulrike Niemeier, Colleen Golja, and Juan A. Añel
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 8469–8499, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-8469-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-8469-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project is a coordinated international model intercomparison effort aiming to provide robust experimental protocols for simulations of various Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) methods. In this manuscript, we describe a list of novel experiments decided by the community, to be run by climate models to better understand sources of uncertainty in SRM. We also show and discuss some preliminary results from a few climate models.
Ewa M. Bednarz, Amy H. Butler, James M. Haywood, Matthew Henry, Andy Jones, Ben Kravitz, Walker R. Lee, Douglas G. MacMartin, Amanda C. Maycock, Takashi Sekiya, Shingo Watanabe, and Daniele Visioni
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 26, 12751–12770, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-12751-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-12751-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
An assessment of the potential impacts of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, a proposed method to offset global warming, on stratospheric ozone projections over the 21st century using the new multi-model GeoMIP (Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project) G6-1.5K-SAI (Stratospheric Aerosol Injection) experiment. We discuss drivers of the responses, identify areas of model agreement and disagreement and sources of uncertainty. Our results highlight the need to assess any projected SAI impacts in wider strategy and scenario dimension using a multi-model framework.
Alex M. Mason, Matthew Henry, Haruki Hirasawa, Fiona M. O'Connor, and James Haywood
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 26, 10861–10879, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-10861-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-10861-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) proposes the spraying of sea salt particles into marine clouds to cool the planet. MCB in midlatitude regions in models gave a relatively even climate response. We use 42 simulations of MCB to target several climate responses. Two optimised combinations are compared to a midlatitude MCB simulation, which improved sea ice restoration and the temperature response pattern, highlighting the importance of high latitude MCB for MCB optimisation in this model.
Boxin Yu, Jaswant Moher, Nadine Unger, James A. King, and Ying Chen
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3634, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3634, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
We use satellite observations and machine learning to estimate how the 2019–2020 Australian wildfires changed smoke particles and cloud condensation nuclei over the South Pacific. The results show that cloud condensation nuclei increased during the fires, but their response was more localized than the broader smoke signal.
Walker Raymond Lee, Daniele Visioni, Benjamin Moore Wagman, Christopher Robert Wentland, Ben Kravitz, Shingo Watanabe, Takashi Sekiya, Andy Jones, Jim Haywood, Matthew Henry, and Ewa Monika Bednarz
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 26, 7463–7483, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-7463-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-7463-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) is a proposed method of cooling the planet by introducing reflective particles called aerosols into the middle atmosphere to reflect sunlight back into space. We consider recent simulations of SAI from four different climate models. SAI cools the planet effectively in all four models; we examine the impacts on temperature and precipitation in each model and compare to previous experiments. Our simulations will help inform future research and policy.
Anthony C. Jones, James M. Haywood, Matthew Henry, and Alistair Duffey
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 26, 7589–7605, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-7589-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-7589-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Injecting aerosol into the stratosphere has been suggested to rapidly cool the planet and counter climate change. Rival actors who oppose deployment may seek to counter stratospheric aerosol injection. Using a climate model, we investigate whether stratospheric aerosol removal could be hastened by injecting coarse aerosol which promote aerosol growth and gravitational settling. We find that this could be effective, reducing aerosol impacts by 30 % in simulations, and warrants further research.
Daniel A. Williams, Cyril J. Morcrette, and James M. Haywood
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2490, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2490, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Contrails (condensation trails) are ice clouds that form behind aircraft in a region of cold and moist atmosphere. If contrails persist for many hours or into the night, they warm the climate. A minority of flights produce persistent contrails, so the climate impact of aviation could be decreased if we can predict and avoid where contrails form in advance. Using statistics on climate model and satellite data, we developed a model to predict contrails and tested it against historical data.
Josh Smith, Matthew Henry, Masaru Yoshioka, Ben Johnson, and Jim Haywood
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2654, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2654, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
In 2020, new international rules cut sulphur in shipping fuels by roughly eighty percent, removing particles that had been brightening clouds over the oceans and reflecting sunlight. Using a climate model, we tested how this loss of cooling has been calculated and found that recent studies have
likely underestimated the resulting warming by a factor of two to four. This means cleaner shipping fuels may be contributing more to recent global warming than previously recognised.
likely underestimated the resulting warming by a factor of two to four. This means cleaner shipping fuels may be contributing more to recent global warming than previously recognised.
Elizabeth Quaye, Ben T. Johnson, James M. Haywood, Guido R. van der Werf, Roland Vernooij, Stephen A. Sitch, and Tom Eames
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 26, 6629–6654, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-6629-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-6629-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
We find aerosol optical depths in a global climate model are overestimated during extreme wildfire events if emissions are scaled up by a factor of two, typically applied to improve simulated aerosol on seasonal–annual timescales. We propose a technique where a variable scaling factor is determined by fuel consumption, improving correlation in five fire-affected areas. We explore the impact of this change on aerosol radiative effects, during extreme events and on broader space and time scales.
Eliza K. Duncan, George Jordan, Paul Kim, James M. Haywood, Duncan Watson-Parris, Ben Johnson, Alistair Sellar, Zak Kipling, João Teixeira, Florent Malavelle, and Daniel G. Partridge
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1043, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1043, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
The 2014–15 Holuhraun eruption offers a natural experiment to assess how well climate models can capture the changes in aerosol associated with the plume. We investigate the aerosol lifecycle during transport to identify key differences in climate models' representation of aerosol processes, which could affect the models’ ability to capture changes in cloud properties. Our study highlights the importance of the representation of boundary layer nucleation processes in climate models.
Haruki Hirasawa, Matthew Henry, Philip J. Rasch, Robert Wood, Sarah J. Doherty, James Haywood, Alex Wong, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Ezra Brody, and Hailong Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 3257–3283, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-3257-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-3257-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Marine cloud brightening (MCB) is a proposal to emit sea salt aerosols to make clouds more reflective and cool the climate. Here, we use three climate models to study a hypothetical future where MCB is used to maintain temperatures near 2020–2039 conditions. The simulation results indicate that using MCB in midlatitude ocean regions can keep the climate close to present day conditions. This reduces many of the negative impacts shown in previous studies, informing future modeling efforts.
Isobel M. Parry, Paul D. L. Ritchie, Olivier Boucher, Peter M. Cox, James M. Haywood, Ulrike Niemeier, Roland Séférian, Simone Tilmes, and Daniele Visioni
Earth Syst. Dynam., 17, 387–414, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-17-387-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-17-387-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Contrary to some expectations, results from the latest Earth System Models suggest that Solar Radiation Geoengineering could protect the Amazon rainforest from climate-driven dieback. Under Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, carbon storage in Amazonia was projected to increase by a mean of 10.8 % relative to a high CO2 emissions scenario, and even by 8.6% compared to a more conventional medium CO2 emissions scenario.
Masaru Yoshioka, Daniel P. Grosvenor, Amy H. Peace, Jim M. Haywood, Ying Chen, and Paul R. Field
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 26, 4341–4358, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-4341-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-4341-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
We used advanced computer simulations to study how aerosol particles from a volcanic eruption in Iceland affected clouds. The eruption plume increased small droplets, but changes in cloud water and horizontal extent were not clear. Satellite comparisons between plume and non-plume regions can miss volcanic effects due to spatial variability in weather and aerosol, but simulations can isolate the impact by comparing cases with and without the eruption.
Huihui Wu, Fanny Peers, Jonathan W. Taylor, Chenjie Yu, Steven J. Abel, Paul A. Barrett, Jamie Trembath, Keith Bower, Jim M. Haywood, and Hugh Coe
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 16589–16609, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-16589-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-16589-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates the transport history of African Biomass-Burning aerosols (BBAs) over the Southeast Atlantic (SEA) and their impacts on cloud properties. Using in situ airborne measurements around Ascension Island, this work provides critical parameterizations of aerosol–cloud interactions to improve the assessment of radiative forcing in the SEA region. It also identifies key entrainment regions for understanding the vertical transport process of African BBAs.
Eliza K. Duncan, Jonathan E. Fieldsend, Alistair Sellar, Emanuele Tovazzi, Paul Kim, James M. Haywood, and Daniel G. Partridge
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4298, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4298, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Atmospheric aerosol particles are a major confounding factor in accurately representing climate change. We build a novel generic framework to untangle the role of complex processes focusing on a remote site in Antarctica as a case study in near-pristine conditions. Our machine-learning model predicts aerosol concentrations from an airmass history, considering the meteorology and potential sources and removal processes, enabling improved representation in climate models.
George Jordan, Florent Malavelle, Jim Haywood, Ying Chen, Ben Johnson, Daniel Partridge, Amy Peace, Eliza Duncan, Duncan Watson-Parris, David Neubauer, Anton Laakso, Martine Michou, and Pierre Nabat
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 13393–13428, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-13393-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-13393-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The 2014–15 Holuhraun eruption created a vast aerosol plume that acted as a natural experiment to assess how well climate models capture changes in cloud properties due to increased aerosol. We find that climate models represent the observed shift to smaller, more numerous cloud droplets well. However, climate models diverge in their aerosol-induced changes to large-scale cloud properties, particularly cloud liquid water content. Our study shows that Holuhraun had a cooling effect on the Earth.
Cheng Fan, Gerrit de Leeuw, Xiaoxi Yan, Jiantao Dong, Hanqing Kang, Chengwei Fang, Zhengqiang Li, and Ying Zhang
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 11951–11973, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-11951-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-11951-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study describes the analysis of time series of the MODIS-derived aerosol optical depth (AOD) over China between 2010 and 2024. Emission reduction policies were effective with respect to reducing the AOD until 2018. Thereafter, the overall reduction until the end of the study was very small due to unfavorable meteorological factors cancelling favorable anthropogenic effects and resulting in an AOD increase during extended periods. The variations over different areas in China are discussed.
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.
Philip J. Rasch, Haruki Hirasawa, Mingxuan Wu, Sarah J. Doherty, Robert Wood, Hailong Wang, Andy Jones, James Haywood, and Hansi Singh
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7963–7994, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7963-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7963-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce a protocol to compare computer climate simulations to better understand a proposed strategy intended to counter warming and climate impacts from greenhouse gas increases. This slightly changes clouds in six ocean regions to reflect more sunlight and cool the Earth. Example changes in clouds and climate are shown for three climate models. Cloud changes differ between the models, but precipitation and surface temperature changes are similar when their cooling effects are made similar.
Amy H. Peace, Ying Chen, George Jordan, Daniel G. Partridge, Florent Malavelle, Eliza Duncan, and Jim M. Haywood
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 9533–9553, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-9533-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-9533-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Natural aerosols from volcanic eruptions can help us understand how anthropogenic aerosols modify climate. We use observations and model simulations of the 2014–2015 Holuhraun eruption plume to examine aerosol–cloud interactions in September 2014. We find a shift to clouds with smaller, more numerous cloud droplets in the first 2 weeks of the eruption. In the third week, the background meteorology and previous conditions experienced by air masses modulate the aerosol perturbation to clouds.
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.
George Jordan, Florent Malavelle, Ying Chen, Amy Peace, Eliza Duncan, Daniel G. Partridge, Paul Kim, Duncan Watson-Parris, Toshihiko Takemura, David Neubauer, Gunnar Myhre, Ragnhild Skeie, Anton Laakso, and James Haywood
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 1939–1960, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-1939-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-1939-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The 2014–15 Holuhraun eruption caused a huge aerosol plume in an otherwise unpolluted region, providing a chance to study how aerosol alters cloud properties. This two-part study uses observations and models to quantify this relationship’s impact on the Earth’s energy budget. Part 1 suggests the models capture the observed spatial and chemical evolution of the plume, yet no model plume is exact. Understanding these differences is key for Part 2, where changes to cloud properties are explored.
Ailish M. Graham, Richard J. Pope, Martyn P. Chipperfield, Sandip S. Dhomse, Matilda Pimlott, Wuhu Feng, Vikas Singh, Ying Chen, Oliver Wild, Ranjeet Sokhi, and Gufran Beig
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 789–806, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-789-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-789-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Our paper uses novel satellite datasets and high-resolution emissions datasets alongside a back-trajectory model to investigate the balance of local and external sources influencing NOx air pollution changes in Delhi. We find in the post-monsoon season that NOx from local and non-local transport emissions contributes most to poor air quality in Delhi. Therefore, air quality mitigation strategies in Delhi and surrounding regions are used to control this issue.
Jim M. Haywood, Andy Jones, Anthony C. Jones, Paul Halloran, and Philip J. Rasch
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 15305–15324, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-15305-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-15305-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The difficulties in ameliorating global warming and the associated climate change via conventional mitigation are well documented, with all climate model scenarios exceeding 1.5 °C above the preindustrial level in the near future. There is therefore a growing interest in geoengineering to reflect a greater proportion of sunlight back to space and offset some of the global warming. We use a state-of-the-art Earth-system model to investigate two of the most prominent geoengineering strategies.
Calvin Howes, Pablo E. Saide, Hugh Coe, Amie Dobracki, Steffen Freitag, Jim M. Haywood, Steven G. Howell, Siddhant Gupta, Janek Uin, Mary Kacarab, Chongai Kuang, L. Ruby Leung, Athanasios Nenes, Greg M. McFarquhar, James Podolske, Jens Redemann, Arthur J. Sedlacek, Kenneth L. Thornhill, Jenny P. S. Wong, Robert Wood, Huihui Wu, Yang Zhang, Jianhao Zhang, and Paquita Zuidema
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 13911–13940, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13911-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13911-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
To better understand smoke properties and its interactions with clouds, we compare the WRF-CAM5 model with observations from ORACLES, CLARIFY, and LASIC field campaigns in the southeastern Atlantic in August 2017. The model transports and mixes smoke well but does not fully capture some important processes. These include smoke chemical and physical aging over 4–12 days, smoke removal by rain, sulfate particle formation, aerosol activation into cloud droplets, and boundary layer turbulence.
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.
Chenwei Fang, Jim M. Haywood, Ju Liang, Ben T. Johnson, Ying Chen, and Bin Zhu
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 8341–8368, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-8341-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-8341-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The responses of Asian summer monsoon duration and intensity to air pollution mitigation are identified given the net-zero future. We show that reducing scattering aerosols makes the rainy season longer and stronger across South Asia and East Asia but that absorbing aerosol reduction has the opposite effect. Our results hint at distinct monsoon responses to emission controls that target different aerosols.
Ernesto Reyes-Villegas, Douglas Lowe, Jill S. Johnson, Kenneth S. Carslaw, Eoghan Darbyshire, Michael Flynn, James D. Allan, Hugh Coe, Ying Chen, Oliver Wild, Scott Archer-Nicholls, Alex Archibald, Siddhartha Singh, Manish Shrivastava, Rahul A. Zaveri, Vikas Singh, Gufran Beig, Ranjeet Sokhi, and Gordon McFiggans
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 5763–5782, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5763-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5763-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Organic aerosols (OAs), their sources and their processes remain poorly understood. The volatility basis set (VBS) approach, implemented in air quality models such as WRF-Chem, can be a useful tool to describe primary OA (POA) production and aging. However, the main disadvantage is its complexity. We used a Gaussian process simulator to reproduce model results and to estimate the sources of model uncertainty. We do this by comparing the outputs with OA observations made at Delhi, India, in 2018.
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.
Alice F. Wells, Andy Jones, Martin Osborne, Lilly Damany-Pearce, Daniel G. Partridge, and James M. Haywood
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 3985–4007, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-3985-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-3985-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
In 2019 the Raikoke volcano erupted explosively, emitting the largest injection of SO2 into the stratosphere since 2011. Observations indicated that a large amount of volcanic ash was also injected. Previous studies have identified that volcanic ash can prolong the lifetime of stratospheric aerosol optical depth, which we explore in UKESM1. Comparisons to observations suggest that including ash in model emission schemes can improve the representation of volcanic plumes in global climate models.
Ju Liang and Jim Haywood
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 1687–1703, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-1687-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-1687-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The recent record-breaking flood events in China during the summer of 2021 highlight the importance of mitigating the risks from future changes in high-impact weather systems under global warming. Based on a state-of-the-art Earth system model, we demonstrate a pilot study on the responses of atmospheric rivers and extreme precipitation over East Asia to anthropogenically induced climate warming and an unconventional mitigation strategy – stratospheric aerosol injection.
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.
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.
Paul A. Barrett, Steven J. Abel, Hugh Coe, Ian Crawford, Amie Dobracki, James Haywood, Steve Howell, Anthony Jones, Justin Langridge, Greg M. McFarquhar, Graeme J. Nott, Hannah Price, Jens Redemann, Yohei Shinozuka, Kate Szpek, Jonathan W. Taylor, Robert Wood, Huihui Wu, Paquita Zuidema, Stéphane Bauguitte, Ryan Bennett, Keith Bower, Hong Chen, Sabrina Cochrane, Michael Cotterell, Nicholas Davies, David Delene, Connor Flynn, Andrew Freedman, Steffen Freitag, Siddhant Gupta, David Noone, Timothy B. Onasch, James Podolske, Michael R. Poellot, Sebastian Schmidt, Stephen Springston, Arthur J. Sedlacek III, Jamie Trembath, Alan Vance, Maria A. Zawadowicz, and Jianhao Zhang
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 6329–6371, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-6329-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-6329-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
To better understand weather and climate, it is vital to go into the field and collect observations. Often measurements take place in isolation, but here we compared data from two aircraft and one ground-based site. This was done in order to understand how well measurements made on one platform compared to those made on another. Whilst this is easy to do in a controlled laboratory setting, it is more challenging in the real world, and so these comparisons are as valuable as they are rare.
Flossie Brown, Gerd A. Folberth, Stephen Sitch, Susanne Bauer, Marijn Bauters, Pascal Boeckx, Alexander W. Cheesman, Makoto Deushi, Inês Dos Santos Vieira, Corinne Galy-Lacaux, James Haywood, James Keeble, Lina M. Mercado, Fiona M. O'Connor, Naga Oshima, Kostas Tsigaridis, and Hans Verbeeck
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 12331–12352, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-12331-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-12331-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Surface ozone can decrease plant productivity and impair human health. In this study, we evaluate the change in surface ozone due to climate change over South America and Africa using Earth system models. We find that if the climate were to change according to the worst-case scenario used here, models predict that forested areas in biomass burning locations and urban populations will be at increasing risk of ozone exposure, but other areas will experience a climate benefit.
Jim M. Haywood, Andy Jones, Ben T. Johnson, and William McFarlane Smith
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 6135–6150, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-6135-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-6135-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Simulations are presented investigating the influence of moderately absorbing aerosol in the stratosphere to combat the impacts of climate change. A number of detrimental impacts are noted compared to sulfate aerosol, including (i) reduced cooling efficiency, (ii) increased deficits in global precipitation, (iii) delays in the recovery of the stratospheric ozone hole, and (iv) disruption of the stratospheric circulation and the wintertime storm tracks that impact European precipitation.
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.
Yu Wang, Aristeidis Voliotis, Dawei Hu, Yunqi Shao, Mao Du, Ying Chen, Judith Kleinheins, Claudia Marcolli, M. Rami Alfarra, and Gordon McFiggans
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 4149–4166, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-4149-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-4149-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Aerosol water uptake plays a key role in atmospheric physicochemical processes. We designed chamber experiments on aerosol water uptake of secondary organic aerosol (SOA) from mixed biogenic and anthropogenic precursors with inorganic seed. Our results highlight this chemical composition influences the reconciliation of the sub- and super-saturated water uptake, providing laboratory evidence for understanding the chemical controls of water uptake of the multi-component aerosol.
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.
Cited articles
Apurv, T., Mehrotra, R., Sharma, A., Goyal, M. K., and Dutta, S.: Impact of climate change on floods in the Brahmaputra basin using CMIP5 decadal predictions, J. Hydrol., 527, 281–291, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jHydrol.2015.04.056, 2015.
Archibald, A. T., O'Connor, F. M., Abraham, N. L., Archer-Nicholls, S., Chipperfield, M. P., Dalvi, M., Folberth, G. A., Dennison, F., Dhomse, S. S., Griffiths, P. T., Hardacre, C., Hewitt, A. J., Hill, R. S., Johnson, C. E., Keeble, J., Köhler, M. O., Morgenstern, O., Mulcahy, J. P., Ordóñez, C., Pope, R. J., Rumbold, S. T., Russo, M. R., Savage, N. H., Sellar, A., Stringer, M., Turnock, S. T., Wild, O., and Zeng, G.: Description and evaluation of the UKCA stratosphere–troposphere chemistry scheme (StratTrop vn 1.0) implemented in UKESM1, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 1223–1266, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1223-2020, 2020.
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, 2022.
Cheng, W., MacMartin, D. G., Dagon, K., Kravitz, B., Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., Mills, M. J., and Simpson, I. R.: Soil moisture and other hydrological changes in a stratospheric aerosol geoengineering large ensemble, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 12773–12793, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD030237, 2019.
Data Integration and Analysis System (DIAS): APHRODITE monsoon Asia Precipitation data, DIAS Dataset Search and Discovery [data set], https://search.diasjp.net/en/dataset/APHRO_MA (last access: 12 September 2022), 2022.
Donat, M. G., Lowry, A. L., Alexander, L. V., O'Gorman, P. A., and Maher, N.: More extreme precipitation in the world’s dry and wet regions, Nat. Clim. Change, 6, 508–513, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2941, 2016.
Dong, B., Xia, J., Li, Q., and Zhou, M.: Risk assessment for people and vehicles in an extreme urban flood: Case study of the “7.20” flood event in Zhengzhou, China, Int. J. Disast. Risk Re., 80, 103205, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103205, 2022.
Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1937–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, 2016.
Feng, L., Zhou, T., Wu, B., Li, T., and Luo, J.-J.: Projection of future precipitation change over China with a high-resolution global atmospheric model, Adv. Atmos. Sci., 28, 464–476, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-010-0016-1, 2011.
Frich, P., Alexander, L. V., Della-Marta, P., Gleason, B., Haylock, M., Tank, A. K., and Peterson, T.: Observed coherent changes in climatic extremes during the second half of the twentieth century, Clim. Res., 19, 193–212, https://doi.org/10.3354/cr019193, 2002.
Haywood, J. M., Jones, A., Bellouin, N., and Stephenson, D.: Asymmetric forcing from stratospheric aerosols impacts Sahelian rainfall, Nat. Clim. Change, 3, 660–665, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1857, 2013.
Haywood, J. M., Jones, A., Johnson, B. T., and McFarlane Smith, W.: Assessing the consequences of including aerosol absorption in potential stratospheric aerosol injection climate intervention strategies, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 6135–6150, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-6135-2022, 2022.
Haywood, J. M., Jones, A., Jones, A. C., Halloran, P., and Rasch, P. J.: Climate intervention using marine cloud brightening (MCB) compared with stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) in the UKESM1 climate model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 15305–15324, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-15305-2023, 2023.
Huang, R., Chen, J., and Huang, G.: Characteristics and variations of the East Asian monsoon system and its impacts on climate disasters in China, Adv. Atmos. Sci., 24, 993–1023, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-007-0993-x, 2007.
Imai, Y., Meyer, K. J., Iinishi, A., Favre-Godal, Q., Green, R., Manuse, S., Caboni, M., Mori, M., Niles, S., and Ghiglieri, M.: A pause in Southern Hemisphere circulation trends due to the Montreal Protocol, Nature, 579, 544–548, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2120-4, 2020.
IPCC: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M. I., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J. B. R., Maycock, T. K., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and Zhou, B., Cambridge University Press, p. 959, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896, 2021.
Ji, D., Fang, S., Curry, C. L., Kashimura, H., Watanabe, S., Cole, J. N. S., Lenton, A., Muri, H., Kravitz, B., and Moore, J. C.: Extreme temperature and precipitation response to solar dimming and stratospheric aerosol geoengineering, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 10133–10156, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-10133-2018, 2018.
Ji, Z. and Kang, S.: Evaluation of extreme climate events using a regional climate model for China, Int. J. Climatol., 35, 888–902, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.4024, 2015.
Jia, H., Chen, F., Pan, D., Du, E., Wang, L., Wang, N., and Yang, A.: Flood risk management in the Yangtze River basin – Comparison of 1998 and 2020 events, Int. J. Disast. Risk Re., 68, 102724, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102724, 2022.
Jones, A., Haywood, J. M., Jones, A. C., Tilmes, S., Kravitz, B., and Robock, A.: North Atlantic Oscillation response in GeoMIP experiments G6solar and G6sulfur: why detailed modelling is needed for understanding regional implications of solar radiation management, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 1287–1304, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1287-2021, 2021.
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.
Jones, A. C., Haywood, J. M., Dunstone, N., Emanuel, K., Hawcroft, M. K., Hodges, K. I., and Jones, A.: Impacts of hemispheric solar geoengineering on tropical cyclone frequency, Nat. Commun., 8, 1382, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01606-0, 2017.
Jones, A. C., Hawcroft, M. K., Haywood, J. M., Jones, A., Guo, X., and Moore, J. C.: Regional climate impacts of stabilizing global warming at 1.5 K using solar geoengineering, Earths Future, 6, 230–251, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000720, 2018.
Klein, D., Carazo, M. P., Doelle, M., Bulmer, J., and Higham, A.: The Paris Agreement on climate change: Analysis and commentary, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-878933-8(hbk), ISBN 978-0-19-880376-8(pbk), 2017.
Klein Tank, A. M. G., Zwiers, F. W., and Zhang, X.: Guidelines on analysis of extremes in a changing climate in support of informed decisions for adaptationm WMO-TD No. 1500, World Meteorological Organization, https://www.ecad.eu/documents/WCDMP_72_TD_1500_en_1.pdf (last access: 1 November 2024), 2009.
Kravitz, B., Robock, A., Boucher, O., Schmidt, H., Taylor, K. E., Stenchikov, G., and Schulz, M.: The geoengineering model intercomparison project (GeoMIP), Atmos. Sci. Lett., 12, 162–167, 2011.
Kravitz, B., Caldeira, K., Boucher, O., Robock, A., Rasch, P. J., Alterskjaer, K., Karam, D. B., Cole, J. N., Curry, C. L., and Haywood, J. M.: Climate model response from the geoengineering model intercomparison project (GeoMIP), J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 8320–8332, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50646, 2013.
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.
Lai, S., Xie, Z., Bueh, C., and Gong, Y.: Fidelity of the APHRODITE dataset in representing extreme precipitation over Central Asia, Adv. Atmos. Sci., 37, 1405–1416, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-020-0098-3, 2020.
Lee, H., Muri, H., Ekici, A., Tjiputra, J., and Schwinger, J.: The response of terrestrial ecosystem carbon cycling under different aerosol-based radiation management geoengineering, Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 313–326, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-313-2021, 2021.
Li, S., Jiang, D., Lian, Y., and Yao, Y.: Interdecadal variations of cold air activities in Northeast China during springtime, J. Meteorol. Res., 30, 645–661, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13351-016-5912-6, 2016.
Liang, J. and Haywood, J.: Future changes in atmospheric rivers over East Asia under stratospheric aerosol intervention, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 1687–1703, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-1687-2023, 2023.
Liang, J., Meng, C., Wang, J., Pan, X., and Pan, Z.: Projections of mean and extreme precipitation over China and their resolution dependence in the HighResMIP experiments, Atmos. Res., 293, 106932, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2023.106932, 2023.
Liu, Z., Lang, X., and Jiang, D.: Impact of stratospheric aerosol injection geoengineering on the summer climate over East Asia, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126, e2021JD035049, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JD035049, 2021.
Liu, Z., Lang, X., Miao, J., and Jiang, D.: Impact of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection on the East Asian Winter Monsoon, Geophys. Res. Lett., 50, e2022GL102109, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL102109, 2023.
McLandress, C., Shepherd, T. G., Scinocca, J. F., Plummer, D. A., Sigmond, M., Jonsson, A. I., and Reader, M. C.: Separating the dynamical effects of climate change and ozone depletion. Part II: Southern Hemisphere troposphere, J. Climate., 24, 1850–1868, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3958.1, 2011.
Meinshausen, M., Nicholls, Z. R. J., Lewis, J., Gidden, M. J., Vogel, E., Freund, M., Beyerle, U., Gessner, C., Nauels, A., Bauer, N., Canadell, J. G., Daniel, J. S., John, A., Krummel, P. B., Luderer, G., Meinshausen, N., Montzka, S. A., Rayner, P. J., Reimann, S., Smith, S. J., van den Berg, M., Velders, G. J. M., Vollmer, M. K., and Wang, R. H. J.: The shared socio-economic pathway (SSP) greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions to 2500, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3571–3605, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3571-2020, 2020.
Meng, C., Zhang, L., Gou, P., Huang, Q., Ma, Y., Miao, S., Ma, W., and Xu, Y.: Assessments of future climate extremes in China by using high-resolution PRECIS 2.0 simulations, Theor. Appl. Climatol., 145, 295–311, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-021-03618-9, 2021.
Mulcahy, J. P., Jones, C., Sellar, A., Johnson, B., Boutle, I. A., Jones, A., Andrews, T., Rumbold, S. T., Mollard, J., Bellouin, N., Johnson, C. E., Williams, K. D., Grosvenor, D. P., and McCoy, D. T.: Improved Aerosol Processes and Effective Radiative Forcing in HadGEM3 and UKESM1, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 10, 2786–2805, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001464, 2018.
Niemeier, U., Schmidt, H., Alterskjær, K., and Kristjánsson, J.: 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.
Niu, S., Sun, M., Wang, G., Wang, W., Yao, X., and Zhang, C.: Glacier Change and Its Influencing Factors in the Northern Part of the Kunlun Mountains, Remote Sens., 15, 3986, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs15163986, 2023.
O'Neill, B. C., Tebaldi, C., van Vuuren, D. P., Eyring, V., Friedlingstein, P., Hurtt, G., Knutti, R., Kriegler, E., Lamarque, J.-F., Lowe, J., Meehl, G. A., Moss, R., Riahi, K., and Sanderson, B. M.: The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3461–3482, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3461-2016, 2016.
Pendergrass, A. G. and Knutti, R.: The uneven nature of daily precipitation and its change, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 11980–11988, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL080298, 2018.
Peng, Y., Zhao, X., Wu, D., Tang, B., Xu, P., Du, X., and Wang, H.: Spatiotemporal variability in extreme precipitation in China from observations and projections, Water, 10, 1089, https://doi.org/10.3390/w10081089, 2018.
Pinto, I., Jack, C., Lennard, C., Tilmes, S., and Odoulami, R. C.: Africa's climate response to solar radiation management with stratospheric aerosol, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2019GL086047, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL086047, 2020.
Plazzotta, M., Séférian, R., and Douville, H.: Impact of Solar Radiation Modification on Allowable CO2 Emissions: What Can We Learn From Multimodel Simulations?, Earths Future, 7, 664–676, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EF001165, 2019.
Qi, Y., Yu, H., Fu, Q., Chen, Q., Ran, J., and Yang, Z.: Future changes in drought frequency due to changes in the mean and shape of the PDSI probability density function under RCP4.5 scenario, Front. Earth Sci., 10, 386, https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2022.857885, 2022.
Qin, P. and Xie, Z.: Detecting changes in future precipitation extremes over eight river basins in China using RegCM4 downscaling, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121, 6802–6821, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD024776, 2016.
Rana, A., Madan, S., and Bengtsson, L.: Performance evaluation of regional climate models (RCMs) in determining precipitation characteristics for Gothenburg, Sweden, Hydrol. Res., 45, 703–714, https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2013.160, 2014.
Rhodes, C. J.: The 2015 Paris climate change conference: COP21, Sci. Prog., 99, 97–104, 2016.
Robock, A., Jerch, K., and Bunzl, M.: 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea, Bull. Atom. Sci., 64, 14–18, https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2008.11461140, 2008.
Sellar, A., Jones, C. G., Mulcahy, J. P., Tang, Y., Yool, A., Wiltshire, A., O'Connor, F. M., Stringer, M., Hill, R., Palmieri, J., Woodward, S., de Mora, L., Kuhlbrodt, T., Rumbold, S., Kelley, D. I., Ellis, R., Johnson, C. E., Walton, J., Abraham, N. L., Andrews, M. B., Andrews, T., Archibald, A. T., Berthou, S., Burke, E., Blockley, E., Carslaw, K., Dalvi, M., Edwards, J., Folberth, G. A., Gedney, N., Griffiths, P. T., Harper, A. B., Hendry, M. A., Hewitt, A. J., Johnson, B., Jones, A., Jones, C. D., Keeble, J., Liddicoat, S., Morgenstern, O., Parker, R. J., Predoi, V., Robertson, E., Siahaan, A., Smith, R. S., Swaminathan, R., Woodhouse, M., Zeng, G., and Zerroukat, M.: UKESM1: Description and evaluation of the UK Earth System Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 4513–4558, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001739, 2019.
Simpson, I. S., Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Mills, M. J., 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, 2019.
Storkey, D., Blaker, A. T., Mathiot, P., Megann, A., Aksenov, Y., Blockley, E. W., Calvert, D., Graham, T., Hewitt, H. T., Hyder, P., Kuhlbrodt, T., Rae, J. G. L., and Sinha, B.: UK Global Ocean GO6 and GO7: a traceable hierarchy of model resolutions, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 3187–3213, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3187-2018, 2018.
Sui, Y., Lang, X., and Jiang, D.: Projected signals in climate extremes over China associated with a 2 C global warming under two RCP scenarios, Int. J. Climatol., 38, e678–e697, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5399, 2018.
Sunilkumar, K., Yatagai, A., and Masuda, M.: Preliminary evaluation of GPM-IMERG rainfall estimates over three distinct climate zones with APHRODITE, Earth. Sp. Sci., 6, 1321–1335, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EA000503, 2019.
Tabari, H.: Climate change impact on flood and extreme precipitation increases with water availability, Sci. Rep., 10, 13768, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-70816-2, 2020.
Tang, B., Hu, W., and Duan, A.: Future projection of extreme precipitation indices over the Indochina Peninsula and South China in CMIP6 models, J. Climate., 34, 8793–8811, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0946.1, 2021.
Tew, Y. L., Tan, M. L., Liew, J., Chang, C. K., and Muhamad, N.: A review of the effects of solar radiation management on hydrological extremes, Earth Environ., 1238, 012030, https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1238/1/012030, 2023.
Tilmes, S., Fasullo, J., Lamarque, J. F., Marsh, D. R., Mills, M., Alterskjaer, K., Muri, H., Kristjánsson, J. E., Boucher, O., and Schulz, M.: The hydrological impact of geoengineering in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP), J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 11036–11058, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50868, 2013.
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.
Trisos, C. H., Amatulli, G., Gurevitch, J., Robock, A., Xia, L., and Zambri, B.: Potentially dangerous consequences for biodiversity of solar geoengineering implementation and termination, Nat. Ecol. Evol., 2, 475–482, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0431-0, 2018.
Tung, Y.-S., Wang, C.-Y., Weng, S.-P., and Yang, C.-D.: Extreme index trends of daily gridded rainfall dataset (1960–2017) in Taiwan, Terr. Atmos. Ocean. Sci., 33, 8, https://doi.org/10.1007/s44195-022-00009-z, 2022.
Tye, M. R., Dagon, K., Molina, M. J., Richter, J. H., Visioni, D., Kravitz, B., and Tilmes, S.: Indices of extremes: geographic patterns of change in extremes and associated vegetation impacts under climate intervention, Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1233–1257, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1233-2022, 2022.
Uccellini, L. W. and Johnson, D. R.: The coupling of upper and lower tropospheric jet streaks and implications for the development of severe convective storms, Mon. Weather Rev., 107, 682–703, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1979)107<0682:TCOUAL>2.0.CO;2, 1979.
Visioni, D., MacMartin, D. G., Kravitz, B., Richter, J. H., Tilmes, S., and Mills, M. J.: Seasonally modulated stratospheric aerosol geoengineering alters the climate outcomes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL088337, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL088337, 2020.
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, 2021.
Walters, D., Baran, A. J., Boutle, I., Brooks, M., Earnshaw, P., Edwards, J., Furtado, K., Hill, P., Lock, A., Manners, J., Morcrette, C., Mulcahy, J., Sanchez, C., Smith, C., Stratton, R., Tennant, W., Tomassini, L., Van Weverberg, K., Vosper, S., Willett, M., Browse, J., Bushell, A., Carslaw, K., Dalvi, M., Essery, R., Gedney, N., Hardiman, S., Johnson, B., Johnson, C., Jones, A., Jones, C., Mann, G., Milton, S., Rumbold, H., Sellar, A., Ujiie, M., Whitall, M., Williams, K., and Zerroukat, M.: The Met Office Unified Model Global Atmosphere 7.0/7.1 and JULES Global Land 7.0 configurations, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 1909–1963, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1909-2019, 2019.
Wang, X., Pang, G., and Yang, M.: Precipitation over the Tibetan Plateau during recent decades: a review based on observations and simulations, Int. J. Climatol., 38, 1116–1131, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5246, 2018.
Wang, Y., Zhou, B., Qin, D., Wu, J., Gao, R., and Song, L.: Changes in mean and extreme temperature and precipitation over the arid region of northwestern China: Observation and projection, Adv. Atmos. Sci., 34, 289–305, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-016-6160-5, 2017.
Wang, Z., Lin, L., Yang, M., and Xu, Y.: The effect of future reduction in aerosol emissions on climate extremes in China, Clim. Dynam., 47, 2885–2899, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-016-3003-0, 2016.
Wells, A. F., Henry, M., Bednarz, E. M., MacMartin, D. G., Jones, A., Dalvi, M., and Haywood, J. M.: Identifying climate impacts from different Stratospheric Aerosol Injection strategies in UKESM1, Earths Future, 12, e2023EF004358, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023EF004358, 2024.
Wilks, D. S.: Statistical methods in the atmospheric sciences, Academic Press, vol. 100, ISBN 9780123850225, 2011.
WMO: Significant Weather & Climate Events 2023, World Meteorological Organization, https://wmo.int/sites/default/files/2024-03/Supplement_2023%20-%20Layout_v1.pdf (last access: 1 November 2024), 2024.
World Climate Research Programme (WCRP): CMIP6 project data, Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) [data set], https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/projects/cmip6/, last access: 9 June 2022.
Xiong, L., Yan, L., Du, T., Yan, P., Li, L., and Xu, W.: Impacts of climate change on urban extreme rainfall and drainage infrastructure performance: a case study in Wuhan City, China, Irrig. Drain., 68, 152–164, https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.2316, 2019.
Xu, H., Chen, H., and Wang, H.: Future changes in precipitation extremes across China based on CMIP6 models, Int. J. Climatol., 42, 635–651, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.7264, 2022a.
Xu, K., Xu, B., Ju, J., Wu, C., Dai, H., and Hu, B. X.: Projection and uncertainty of precipitation extremes in the CMIP5 multimodel ensembles over nine major basins in China, Atmos. Res., 226, 122–137, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2019.04.018, 2019.
Yang, X., Zhou, B., Xu, Y., and Han, Z.: CMIP6 evaluation and projection of temperature and precipitation over China, Adv. Atmos. Sci., 38, 817–830, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-021-0351-4, 2021.
Yatagai, A., Kamiguchi, K., Arakawa, O., Hamada, A., Yasutomi, N., and Kitoh, A.: APHRODITE: Constructing a long-term daily gridded precipitation dataset for Asia based on a dense network of rain gauges, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93, 1401–1415, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00122.1, 2012.
Ying, X., Bing, Z., Bo-Tao, Z., Si-Yan, D., Li, Y., and Rou-Ke, L.: Projected flood risks in China based on CMIP5, Adv. Clim. Change Res., 5, 57–65, https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1248.2014.057, 2014.
Zarnetske, P. L., Gurevitch, J., Franklin, J., Groffman, P. M., Harrison, C. S., Hellmann, J. J., Hoffman, F. M., Kothari, S., Robock, A., and Tilmes, S.: Potential ecological impacts of climate intervention by reflecting sunlight to cool Earth, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 118, e1921854118, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1921854118, 2021.
Zhang, W. and Zhou, T.: Increasing impacts from extreme precipitation on population over China with global warming, Sci. Bull., 65, 243–252, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2019.12.002, 2020.
Zhao, X., Li, H., and Qi, Y.: Are Chinese cities prepared to manage the risks of extreme weather events? Evidence from the 2021.07.20 Zhengzhou Flood in Henan Province, SSRN Elect. J., 4, 3303, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4043303, 2021.
Zhu, J., Huang, G., Wang, X., Cheng, G., and Wu, Y.: High-resolution projections of mean and extreme precipitations over China through PRECIS under RCPs, Clim. Dynam., 50, 4037–4060, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-017-3860-1, 2018.
Short summary
As extreme precipitation events increase in China, this study explores the potential of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) to mitigate these effects by the end of the 21st century using the UKESM1 model. Results show that SAI reduces extreme precipitation in eastern China. However, caution is advised due to potential side effects in high-latitude regions, and further optimization is required for future SAI deployment.
As extreme precipitation events increase in China, this study explores the potential of...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint