SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “GeoMIP”
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
A new Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) experiment designed for climate and chemistry models
A new Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) experiment "G4 specified stratospheric aerosols" (short name: G4SSA) is proposed to investigate the impact of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering on atmosphere, chemistry, dynamics, climate, and the environment. In contrast to the earlier G4 GeoMIP experiment, which requires an emission of sulfur dioxide (SO₂) into the model, a prescribed aerosol forcing file is provided to the community, to be consistently applied to future model experiments between 2020 and 2100. This stratospheric aerosol distribution, with a total burden of about 2 Tg S has been derived using the ECHAM5-HAM microphysical model, based on a continuous annual tropical emission of 8 Tg SO₂ yr⁻¹. A ramp-up of geoengineering in 2020 and a ramp-down in 2070 over a period of 2 years are included in the distribution, while a background aerosol burden should be used for the last 3 decades of the experiment. The performance of this experiment using climate and chemistry models in a multi-model comparison framework will allow us to better understand the impact of geoengineering and its abrupt termination after 50 years in a changing environment. The zonal and monthly mean stratospheric aerosol input data set is available at https://www2.acd.ucar.edu/gcm/geomip-g4-specified-stratospheric-aerosol-data-set .
The Hydrological Impact of Geoengineering in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP)
Abstract: The hydrologic impact of enhancing Earth’s albedo due to solar radiation management (SRM) is investigated using simulations from 12 models contributing to the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). An artificial experiment is investigated, where global mean temperature is preserved at pre-industrial conditions, while atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are quadrupled. The associated reduction of downwelling surface solar radiation in a high CO2 environment leads to a reduction of global evaporation of 10% and 4% and precipitation of 6.1% and 6.3% over land and ocean, respectively. An initial reduction of latent heat flux at the surface is largely driven by reduced evapotranspiration over land with instantly increasing CO2 concentrations in both experiments. A warming surface associated with the transient adjustment in the 4xCO2 experiment further generates an increase of global precipitation, with considerable regional changes, such as a significant precipitation reduction of 7% for the North American summer monsoon. Reduced global precipitation persists in the geoengineered experiment where temperatures are stabilized, with considerable regional rainfall deficits. Precipitation reductions that are consistent in sign across models are identified in the geoengineered experiment over monsoonal land regions of East Asia (6%), North America (7%), South America (6%) and South Africa (5%). In contrast to the 4xCO2 experiment, where the frequency of months with heavy precipitation intensity is increased by over 50%, it is reduced by up to 20% in the geoengineering scenario . The reduction in heavy precipitation is more pronounced over land than over the ocean, and accompanies a stronger reduction in evaporation over land. For northern mid-latitudes, maximum precipitation reduction over land ranges from 1 to 16% for individual models. For 45-65°N, the frequency of median to high intensity precipitation in summer is strongly reduced. These changes in precipitation in both total amount and frequency of extremes, point to a considerable weakening of the hydrological cycle in a geoengineered world.
Identifying the sources of uncertainty in climate model simulations of solar radiation modification with the G6sulfur and G6solar Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) simulations
We present here results from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) simulations for the experiments G6sulfur and G6solar for six Earth system models participating in the Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) Phase 6. The aim of the experiments is to reduce the warming that results from a high-tier emission scenario (Shared Socioeconomic Pathways SSP5-8.5) to that resulting from a medium-tier emission scenario (SSP2-4.5). These simulations aim to analyze the response of climate models to a reduction in incoming surface radiation as a means to reduce global surface temperatures, and they do so either by simulating a stratospheric sulfate aerosol layer or, in a more idealized way, through a uniform reduction in the solar constant in the model. We find that over the final two decades of this century there are considerable inter-model spreads in the needed injection amounts of sulfate (29 ± 9 Tg-SO 2 /yr between 2081 and 2100), in the latitudinal distribution of the aerosol cloud and in the stratospheric temperature changes resulting from the added aerosol layer. Even in the simpler G6solar experiment, there is a spread in the needed solar dimming to achieve the same global temperature target (1.91 ± 0.44 %). The analyzed models already show significant differences in the response to the increasing CO 2 concentrations for global mean temperatures and global mean precipitation (2.05 K ± 0.42 K and 2.28 ± 0.80 %, respectively, for SSP5-8.5 minus SSP2-4.5 averaged over 2081–2100). With aerosol injection, the differences in how the aerosols spread further change some of the underlying uncertainties, such as the global mean precipitation response (–3.79 ± 0.76 % for G6sulfur compared to –2.07 ± 0.40 % for G6solar against SSP2-4.5 between 2081 and 2100). These differences in the behavior of the aerosols also result in a larger uncertainty in the regional surface temperature response among models in the case of the G6sulfur simulations, suggesting the need to devise various, more specific experiments to single out and resolve particular sources of uncertainty. The spread in the modeled response suggests that a degree of caution is necessary when using these results for assessing specific impacts of geoengineering in various aspects of the Earth system. However, all models agree that compared to a scenario with unmitigated warming, stratospheric aerosol geoengineering has the potential to both globally and locally reduce the increase in surface temperatures.
Comparing different generations of idealized solar geoengineering simulations in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP)
Abstract. Solar geoengineering has been receiving increased attention in recent years as a potential temporary solution to offset global warming. One method of approximating global-scale solar geoengineering in climate models is via solar reduction experiments. Two generations of models in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) have now simulated offsetting a quadrupling of the CO2 concentration with solar reduction. This simulation is idealized and designed to elicit large responses in the models. Here, we show that energetics, temperature, and hydrological cycle changes in this experiment are statistically indistinguishable between the two ensembles. Of the variables analyzed here, the only major differences involve highly parameterized and uncertain processes, such as cloud forcing or terrestrial net primary productivity. We conclude that despite numerous structural differences and uncertainties in models over the past two generations of models, including an increase in climate sensitivity in the latest generation of models, the models are consistent in their aggregate climate response to global solar dimming.
Stratospheric Ozone Response in Experiments G3 and G4 of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP)
Geoengineering with stratospheric sulfate aerosols has been proposed as a means of temporarily cooling the planet, alleviating some of the side effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. However, one of the known side effects of stratospheric injections of sulfate aerosols is a decrease in stratospheric ozone. Here we show results from two general circulation models and two coupled chemistry climate models that have simulated stratospheric sulfate aerosol geoengineering as part of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). Changes in photolysis rates and upwelling of ozone-poor air in the tropics reduce stratospheric ozone, suppression of the NOx cycle increases stratospheric ozone, and an increase in available surfaces for heterogeneous chemistry modulates reductions in ozone. On average, the models show a factor 20-40 increase of the sulfate aerosol surface area density (SAD) at 50 hPa in the tropics with respect to unperturbed background conditions and a factor 3-10 increase at mid-high latitudes. The net effect for a tropical injection rate of 5 Tg SO2 per year is a decrease in globally averaged ozone by 1.1-2.1 DU in the years 2040-2050 for three models which include heterogeneous chemistry on the sulfate aerosol surfaces. GISS-E2-R, a fully coupled general circulation model, performed simulations with no heterogeneous chemistry and a smaller aerosol size; it showed a decrease in ozone by 9.7 DU. After the year 2050, suppression of the NOx cycle becomes more important than destruction of ozone by ClOx, causing an increase in total stratospheric ozone. Contribution of ozone changes in this experiment to radiative forcing is 0.23 W m-2 in GISS-E2-R and less than 0.1 W m-2 in the other three models. Polar ozone depletion, due to enhanced formation of both sulfate aerosol SAD and polar stratospheric clouds, results in an average 5 percent increase in calculated surface UV-B.
The Impact of Abrupt Suspension of Solar Radiation Management (Termination Effect) in Experiment G2 of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP)
We have examined changes in climate which result from the sudden termination of geoengineering after 50 years of offsetting a 1% per annum increase in CO2 concentra- tions as simulated by 11 different climate models in experiment G2 of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project. The models agree on a rapid rate of global-mean warming following termination, accompanied by increases in global-mean precipitation rate and in plant net primary productivity, and decreases in sea-ice cover. While there is a considerable degree of consensus for the geographical distribution of warming, there is much less of an agreement regarding the patterns of change in the other quantities.
Climate Model Response from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP)
Solar geoengineering—deliberate reduction in the amount of solar radiation retained by the Earth—has been proposed as a means of counteracting some of the climatic effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. We present results from Experiment G1 of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project, in which 12 climate models have simulated the climate response to an abrupt quadrupling of CO2 from preindustrial concentrations brought into radiative balance via a globally uniform reduction in insolation. Models show this reduction largely offsets global mean surface temperature increases due to quadrupled CO2 concentrations and prevents 97% of the Arctic sea ice loss that would otherwise occur under high CO2 levels but, compared to the preindustrial climate, leaves the tropics cooler (-0.3 K) and the poles warmer (+0.8 K). Annual mean precipitation minus evaporation anomalies for G1 are less than 0.2mmday-1 in magnitude over 92% of the globe, but some tropical regions receive less precipitation, in part due to increased moist static stability and suppression of convection. Global average net primary productivity increases by 120% in G1 over simulated preindustrial levels, primarily from CO2 fertilization, but also in part due to reduced plant heat stress compared to a high CO2 world with no geoengineering. All models show that uniform solar geoengineering in G1 cannot simultaneously return regional and global temperature and hydrologic cycle intensity to preindustrial levels.
Modeling the effects of geoengineering; Report on the Eighth Annual GeoMIP Meeting, Zürich, Switzerland, 16–17 April 2018
The study of geoengineering (deliberate, temporary modification of the climate system; also called “climate intervention” or “climate engineering”) is increasingly receiving attention as a potential method of reducing the most severe negative effects of climate change. If decision makers are going to seriously consider geoengineering as an option, they need to understand the risks of deploying geoengineering, as well as the risks of not doing so. Because large-scale outdoor climate-perturbing field experiments of geoengineering methods, such as injecting several megatons of sulfur compounds into the stratosphere, are not viable, the best tools available to understand this topic are global climate models. By comparing the results from multiple global climate models, scientists can understand and potentially reduce key uncertainties in the expected impacts of geoengineering on climate and society.
North Atlantic Oscillation response in GeoMIP experiments G6solar and G6sulfur: why detailed modelling is needed for understanding regional implications of solar radiation management
The realization of the difficulty of limiting global-mean temperatures to within 1.5 or 2.0°C above pre-industrial levels stipulated by the 21st Conference of Parties in Paris has led to increased interest in solar radiation management (SRM) techniques. Proposed SRM schemes aim to increase planetary albedo to reflect more sunlight back to space and induce a cooling that acts to partially offset global warming. Under the auspices of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project, we have performed model experiments whereby global temperature under the high-forcing SSP5-8.5 scenario is reduced to follow that of the medium-forcing SSP2-4.5 scenario. Two different mechanisms to achieve this are employed: the first via a reduction in the solar constant (experiment G6solar) and the second via modelling injections of sulfur dioxide (experiment G6sulfur) which forms sulfate aerosol in the stratosphere. Results from two state-of-the-art coupled Earth system models (UKESM1 and CESM2-WACCM6) both show an impact on the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) in G6sulfur but not in G6solar. Both models show a persistent positive anomaly in the NAO during the Northern Hemisphere winter season in G6sulfur, suggesting an increase in zonal flow and an increase in North Atlantic storm track activity impacting the Eurasian continent and leading to high-latitude warming over Europe and Asia. These results are broadly consistent with previous findings which show similar impacts from stratospheric volcanic aerosol on the NAO and emphasize that detailed modelling of geoengineering processes is required if accurate impacts of SRM effects are to be simulated. Differences remain between the two models in predicting regional changes over the continental USA and Africa, suggesting that more models need to perform such simulations before attempting to draw any conclusions regarding potential continental-scale climate change under SRM.
The impact of stratospheric aerosol intervention on the North Atlantic and Quasi-Biennial Oscillations in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) G6sulfur experiment
As part of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project a numerical experiment known as G6sulfur has been designed in which temperatures under a high-forcing future scenario (SSP5-8.5) are reduced to those under a medium-forcing scenario (SSP2-4.5) using the proposed geoengineering technique of stratospheric aerosol intervention (SAI). G6sulfur involves introducing sulfuric acid aerosol into the tropical stratosphere where it reflects incoming sunlight back to space, thus cooling the planet. Here, we compare the results from six Earth-system models that have performed the G6sulfur experiment and examine how SAI affects two important modes of natural variability, the northern wintertime North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO). Although all models show that SAI is successful in reducing global mean temperature as designed, they are also consistent in showing that it forces an increasingly positive phase of the NAO as the injection rate increases over the course of the 21st century, exacerbating precipitation reductions over parts of southern Europe compared with SSP5-8.5. In contrast to the robust result for the NAO, there is less consistency for the impact on the QBO, but the results nevertheless indicate a risk that equatorial SAI could cause the QBO to stall and become locked in a phase with permanent westerly winds in the lower stratosphere.
The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (GeoMIP6): Simulation design and preliminary results
We present a suite of new climate model experiment designs for the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). This set of experiments, named GeoMIP6 (to be consistent with the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6), builds on the previous GeoMIP project simulations, and has been expanded to address several further important topics, including key uncertainties in extreme events, the use of geoengineering as part of a portfolio of responses to climate change, and the relatively new idea of cirrus cloud thinning to allow more long wave radiation to escape to space. We discuss experiment designs, as well as the rationale for those designs, showing preliminary results from individual models when available. We also introduce a new feature, called the GeoMIP Testbed, which provides a platform for simulations that will be performed with a few models and subsequently assessed to determine whether the proposed experiment designs will be adopted as core (Tier 1) GeoMIP experiments. In conclusion, this is meant to encourage various stakeholders to propose new targeted experiments that address their key open science questions, with the goal of making GeoMIP more relevant to a broader set of communities.
The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project- Introduction to the Second Special Issue
The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) has just concluded its second special issue, which this article introduces. Here we discuss the history of GeoMIP, what was learned in the first special issue, why a second special issue was needed, the additional knowledge that was provided in that issue, and some next steps for GeoMIP and the field of geoengineering research. We focus on response and uncertainty across climate models, questions for which GeoMIP is particularly well suited.
Future Directions in Simulating Solar Geoengineering
Solar geoengineering is a proposed set of technologies to temporarily alleviate some of the consequences of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) created a framework of geoengineering simulations in climate models that have been performed by modeling centers throughout the world (B. Kravitz et al., The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP), Atmospheric Science Letters, 12(2), 162-167, doi:10.1002/asl.316, 2011). These experiments use state-of-the-art climate models to simulate solar geoengineering via uniform solar reduction, creation of stratospheric sulfate aerosol layers, or injecting sea spray into the marine boundary layer. GeoMIP has been quite successful in its mission of revealing robust features and key uncertainties of the modeled effects of solar geoengineering.
Extreme temperature and precipitation response to solar dimming and stratospheric aerosol geoengineering
We examine extreme temperature and precipitation under two potential geoengineering methods forming part of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). The solar dimming experiment G1 is designed to completely offset the global mean radiative forcing due to a CO 2 -quadrupling experiment (abrupt4 × CO2), while in GeoMIP experiment G4, the radiative forcing due to the representative concentration pathway 4.5 (RCP4.5) scenario is partly offset by a simulated layer of aerosols in the stratosphere. Both G1 and G4 geoengineering simulations lead to lower minimum temperatures (TNn) at higher latitudes and on land, primarily through feedback effects involving high-latitude processes such as snow cover, sea ice and soil moisture. There is larger cooling of TNn and maximum temperatures (TXx) over land compared with oceans, and the land–sea cooling contrast is larger for TXx than TNn. Maximum 5-day precipitation (Rx5day) increases over subtropical oceans, whereas warm spells (WSDI) decrease markedly in the tropics, and the number of consecutive dry days (CDDs) decreases in most deserts. The precipitation during the tropical cyclone (hurricane) seasons becomes less intense, whilst the remainder of the year becomes wetter. Stratospheric aerosol injection is more effective than solar dimming in moderating extreme precipitation (and flooding). Despite the magnitude of the radiative forcing applied in G1 being ~7.7 times larger than in G4 and despite differences in the aerosol chemistry and transport schemes amongst the models, the two types of geoengineering show similar spatial patterns in normalized differences in extreme temperatures changes. Large differences mainly occur at northern high latitudes, where stratospheric aerosol injection more effectively reduces TNn and TXx. While the pattern of normalized differences in extreme precipitation is more complex than that of extreme temperatures, generally stratospheric aerosol injection is more effective in reducing tropical Rx5day, while solar dimming is more effective over extra-tropical regions.
On solar geoengineering and climate uncertainty
Uncertainty in the climate system response has been raised as a concern regarding solar geoengineering. Here we show that model projections of regional climate change outcomes may have greater agreement under solar geoengineering than with CO 2 alone. We explore the effects of geoengineering on one source of climate system uncertainty by evaluating the inter-model spread across 12 climate models participating in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison project (GeoMIP). The model spread in regional temperature and precipitation changes is reduced with CO 2 and a solar reduction, in comparison to the case with increased CO 2 alone. That is, the intermodel spread in predictions of climate change and the model spread in the response to solar geoengineering are not additive but rather partially cancel. Furthermore, differences in efficacy explain most of the differences between models in their temperature response to an increase in CO 2 that is offset by a solar reduction. Lastly, these conclusions are important for clarifying geoengineering risks.
Implication of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering on compound precipitation and temperature extremes in Africa
Three Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) models that simulated the G4 experiment of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) were used to investigate the impact of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) on combined temperature and precipitation extremes in Africa that can have greater negative impacts on human and the environment than individual rainfall or temperature extremes. The examined compound extremes included the dry (R warm|dry and R cold|dry ) and wet (R warm|wet and R cold|wet ) modes assessed during the injection (SAI, 2050-2069) and post-injection (postSAI, 2070-2089) periods compared with the historical period (1986-2005). We found a significant projected change in the occurrence of both wet and dry modes during SAI and postSAI related to the historical period. The magnitude and sign of this change depend on the season and the geographical location. During the SAI and postSAI, the wet (R warm|wet and R cold|wet ) modes are projected to be significantly lower while the dry modes are noted to increase in a large part of African continent depending on the season and the geographical location and may consequently leads to an increase of the droughts prone areas. Furthermore, the termination effect is noted to re duce the occurrence of dry modes, which may reduce the potential negative effects of the injection after halting. As the effect may vary from one region to another and according to the season, it suggested assessing the key sector impacts of SAI. Thus, this change in dry modes due to SAI could affect all activities which depend on water resources such as water supply, agriculture and food production, energy demand, and production with adverse effects on health, security, and sustainable development, but this needs to be assessed and quantified at regional scales.
Impact of solar geoengineering on temperatures over the Indonesian Maritime Continent
Climate change has been projected to increase the intensity and magnitude of extreme temperature in Indonesia. Solar radiation management (SRM) has been proposed as a strategy to temporarily combat global warming, buying time for negative emissions. Though the global impacts of SRM have been extensively studied in recent years, regional impacts, especially in the tropics, have received much less attention. This paper investigates the potential stratospheric sulfate aerosol geoengineering to modify mean and extreme temperature, as well as the relative humidity and wet bulb temperature (WBT) change over Indonesian Maritime Continent (IMC) based on simulations from three different earth system models. We applied statistical downscaling and corrected the bias of model output to reproduce historical temperatures and relative humidity over IMC. We compared SRM as specified by the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) G4 experiment – 5 Tg of SO 2 into the lower stratosphere between 2020 and 2069 – concurrent with the RCP4.5 emissions scenario. SRM is able to significantly reduce the temperature means and extremes, and although differences in magnitude of response and spatial pattern occur, there is a generally consistent response. Additionally, the spatial response of changes forced by RCP4.5 scenario and SRM impact is notably heterogeneous in the archipelago, highlighting uncertainties that would be critical in assessing socio-economic consequences of both doing, and not doing SRM. In general, SRM has bigger impacts in reducing temperatures over land than oceans, and the southern monsoon region shows more variability. SRM is also effective at reducing the likelihood of WBT > 27OC events compared to RCP4.5 after some years of SRM deployment as well as during the post-termination period of SRM. Regional downscaling may be an effective tool in obtaining policy-relevant information about local effects of different future scenarios involving SRM.