Climate response to aerosol geoengineering: a multi-method comparison
Considering the ambitious climate targets of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 2°C, with aspirations of even 1.5°C, questions arise on how to achieve this. Climate geoengineering has been proposed as a potential tool to minimize global harm from anthropogenic climate change. Here, an Ea...
Published in: | Journal of Climate |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
Language: | English |
Published: |
American Meteorological Society
2018
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2592111 https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0620.1 |
id |
ftntnutrondheimi:oai:ntnuopen.ntnu.no:11250/2592111 |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
spelling |
ftntnutrondheimi:oai:ntnuopen.ntnu.no:11250/2592111 2023-05-15T18:18:46+02:00 Climate response to aerosol geoengineering: a multi-method comparison Muri, Helene Tjiputra, Jerry Otterå, Odd Helge Adakudlu, Muralidhar Lauvset, Siv Kari Grini, Alf Schulz, Michael Niemeier, Ulrike Kristjansson, Jon Egill 2018 http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2592111 https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0620.1 eng eng American Meteorological Society Notur/NorStore: NS9033K Notur/NorStore: nn9448k Norges forskningsråd: 229760 Notur/NorStore: nn9182k Journal of Climate. 2018, 31 (16), 6319-6340. urn:issn:0894-8755 http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2592111 https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0620.1 cristin:1582476 6319-6340 31 Journal of Climate 16 Climate change Klimaendringer Oseanografi Oceanography Geoengineering Jordsystem modell Earth system model VDP::Meteorologi: 453 VDP::Meteorology: 453 Journal article Peer reviewed 2018 ftntnutrondheimi https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0620.1 2019-09-17T06:54:40Z Considering the ambitious climate targets of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 2°C, with aspirations of even 1.5°C, questions arise on how to achieve this. Climate geoengineering has been proposed as a potential tool to minimize global harm from anthropogenic climate change. Here, an Earth system model is used to evaluate the climate response when transferring from a high CO2 forcing scenario, RCP8.5, to a middle-of-the-road forcing scenario, like RCP4.5, using aerosol geoengineering. Three different techniques are considered: stratospheric aerosol injections (SAI), marine sky brightening (MSB), and cirrus cloud thinning (CCT). The climate states appearing in the climate geoengineering cases are found to be closer to RCP4.5 than RCP8.5 and many anthropogenic global warming symptoms are alleviated. All three techniques result in comparable global mean temperature evolutions. However, there are some notable differences in other climate variables due to the nature of the forcings applied. CCT acts mainly on the longwave part of the radiation budget, as opposed to MSB and SAI acting in the shortwave. This yields a difference in the response, particularly in the hydrological cycle. The responses in sea ice, sea level, ocean heat, and circulation, as well as the carbon cycle, are furthermore compared. Sudden termination of the aerosol injection geoengineering shows that the climate very rapidly (within two decades) reverts to the path of RCP8.5, questioning the sustainable nature of such climate geoengineering, and simultaneous mitigation during any such form of climate geoengineering would be needed to limit termination risks. publishedVersion © 2018 American Meteorological Society. Locked until 11.1.2019 due to copyright restrictions. Article in Journal/Newspaper Sea ice NTNU Open Archive (Norwegian University of Science and Technology) Journal of Climate 31 16 6319 6340 |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
NTNU Open Archive (Norwegian University of Science and Technology) |
op_collection_id |
ftntnutrondheimi |
language |
English |
topic |
Climate change Klimaendringer Oseanografi Oceanography Geoengineering Jordsystem modell Earth system model VDP::Meteorologi: 453 VDP::Meteorology: 453 |
spellingShingle |
Climate change Klimaendringer Oseanografi Oceanography Geoengineering Jordsystem modell Earth system model VDP::Meteorologi: 453 VDP::Meteorology: 453 Muri, Helene Tjiputra, Jerry Otterå, Odd Helge Adakudlu, Muralidhar Lauvset, Siv Kari Grini, Alf Schulz, Michael Niemeier, Ulrike Kristjansson, Jon Egill Climate response to aerosol geoengineering: a multi-method comparison |
topic_facet |
Climate change Klimaendringer Oseanografi Oceanography Geoengineering Jordsystem modell Earth system model VDP::Meteorologi: 453 VDP::Meteorology: 453 |
description |
Considering the ambitious climate targets of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 2°C, with aspirations of even 1.5°C, questions arise on how to achieve this. Climate geoengineering has been proposed as a potential tool to minimize global harm from anthropogenic climate change. Here, an Earth system model is used to evaluate the climate response when transferring from a high CO2 forcing scenario, RCP8.5, to a middle-of-the-road forcing scenario, like RCP4.5, using aerosol geoengineering. Three different techniques are considered: stratospheric aerosol injections (SAI), marine sky brightening (MSB), and cirrus cloud thinning (CCT). The climate states appearing in the climate geoengineering cases are found to be closer to RCP4.5 than RCP8.5 and many anthropogenic global warming symptoms are alleviated. All three techniques result in comparable global mean temperature evolutions. However, there are some notable differences in other climate variables due to the nature of the forcings applied. CCT acts mainly on the longwave part of the radiation budget, as opposed to MSB and SAI acting in the shortwave. This yields a difference in the response, particularly in the hydrological cycle. The responses in sea ice, sea level, ocean heat, and circulation, as well as the carbon cycle, are furthermore compared. Sudden termination of the aerosol injection geoengineering shows that the climate very rapidly (within two decades) reverts to the path of RCP8.5, questioning the sustainable nature of such climate geoengineering, and simultaneous mitigation during any such form of climate geoengineering would be needed to limit termination risks. publishedVersion © 2018 American Meteorological Society. Locked until 11.1.2019 due to copyright restrictions. |
format |
Article in Journal/Newspaper |
author |
Muri, Helene Tjiputra, Jerry Otterå, Odd Helge Adakudlu, Muralidhar Lauvset, Siv Kari Grini, Alf Schulz, Michael Niemeier, Ulrike Kristjansson, Jon Egill |
author_facet |
Muri, Helene Tjiputra, Jerry Otterå, Odd Helge Adakudlu, Muralidhar Lauvset, Siv Kari Grini, Alf Schulz, Michael Niemeier, Ulrike Kristjansson, Jon Egill |
author_sort |
Muri, Helene |
title |
Climate response to aerosol geoengineering: a multi-method comparison |
title_short |
Climate response to aerosol geoengineering: a multi-method comparison |
title_full |
Climate response to aerosol geoengineering: a multi-method comparison |
title_fullStr |
Climate response to aerosol geoengineering: a multi-method comparison |
title_full_unstemmed |
Climate response to aerosol geoengineering: a multi-method comparison |
title_sort |
climate response to aerosol geoengineering: a multi-method comparison |
publisher |
American Meteorological Society |
publishDate |
2018 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2592111 https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0620.1 |
genre |
Sea ice |
genre_facet |
Sea ice |
op_source |
6319-6340 31 Journal of Climate 16 |
op_relation |
Notur/NorStore: NS9033K Notur/NorStore: nn9448k Norges forskningsråd: 229760 Notur/NorStore: nn9182k Journal of Climate. 2018, 31 (16), 6319-6340. urn:issn:0894-8755 http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2592111 https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0620.1 cristin:1582476 |
op_doi |
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0620.1 |
container_title |
Journal of Climate |
container_volume |
31 |
container_issue |
16 |
container_start_page |
6319 |
op_container_end_page |
6340 |
_version_ |
1766195472529096704 |