Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “geoengineering”

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.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

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.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Conducting more inclusive solar geoengineering research: A feminist science framework

Solar geoengineering, or deliberate climate modification, has been receiving increased attention in recent years. Given the far-reaching consequences of any potential solar geoengineering deployments, it is prudent to identify inherent biases, blind spots, and other potential issues at all stages of the research process. Here we articulate a feminist science-based framework to concretely describe how solar geoengineering researchers can be more inclusive of different perspectives and potentially contradictory conclusions, in the process illuminating potential implicit bias and enhancing the conclusions that can be gained from their studies. Importantly, this framework is an adoptable method of practice that can be refined, with the aim of conducting better research in solar geoengineering. As an illustration, we retrospectively apply this framework to a well-read solar geoengineering study (also led by the first author of this study), improving transparency by revealing its implicit values, conclusions made from its evidence base, and the methodologies that study pursues. We conclude here with a set of recommendations for the geoengineering research community whereby more inclusive research can become a regular part of practice. Throughout this process, we illustrate how feminist science scholars can use this approach to study climate modeling.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Weakening of the Extratropical Storm Tracks in Solar Geoengineering Scenarios

Solar geoengineering that aims to offset global warming could nonetheless alter atmospheric temperature gradients and humidity and thus affect the extratropical storm tracks. Here, we first analyze climate model simulations from experiment G1 of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project, in which a reduction in incoming solar radiation balances a quadrupling of CO 2 . The Northern Hemisphere extratropical storm track weakens by a comparable amount in G1 as it does for increased CO2 only. The Southern Hemisphere storm track also weakens in G1, in contrast to a strengthening and poleward shift for increased CO 2 . Using mean available potential energy, we show that the changes in zonal-mean temperature and humidity are sufficient to explain the different responses of storm-track intensity. We also demonstrate similar weakening in a more complex geoengineering scenario. Here, our results offer insight into how geoengineering affects storm tracks, highlighting the potential for geoengineering to induce novel climate changes.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Changes in Hadley circulation and intertropical convergence zone under strategic stratospheric aerosol geoengineering

Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering has been proposed as a potential solution to reduce climate change and its impacts. Here, we explore the responses of the Hadley circulation (HC) intensity and the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ) using the strategic stratospheric aerosol geoengineering, in which sulfur dioxide was injected into the stratosphere at four different locations to maintain the global-mean surface temperature and the interhemispheric and equator-to-pole temperature gradients at present-day values (baseline). Simulations show that, relative to the baseline, strategic stratospheric aerosol geoengineering generally maintains northern winter December–January–February (DJF) HC intensity under RCP8.5, while it overcompensates for the greenhouse gas (GHG)-forced southern winter June–July–August (JJA) HC intensity increase, producing a 3.5 ± 0.4% weakening. The residual change of southern HC intensity in JJA is mainly associated with stratospheric heating and tropospheric temperature response due to enhanced stratospheric aerosol concentrations. Geoengineering overcompensates for the GHG-driven northward ITCZ shifts, producing 0.7° ± 0.1° and 0.2° ± 0.1° latitude southward migrations in JJA and DJF, respectively relative to the baseline. These migrations are affected by tropical interhemispheric temperature differences both at the surface and in the free troposphere. Further strategies for reducing the residual change of HC intensity and ITCZ shifts under stratospheric aerosol geoengineering could involve minimizing stratospheric heating and restoring and preserving the present-day tropical tropospheric interhemispheric temperature differences.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Solar geoengineering may not prevent strong warming from direct effects of CO2 on stratocumulus cloud cover

Discussions of countering global warming with solar geoengineering assume that warming owing to rising greenhouse gas concentrations can be compensated by artificially reducing the amount of sunlight Earth absorbs. However, here we show that solar geoengineering may not be fail-safe to prevent global warming because CO2 has direct effects on cloud cover: it reduces cloud cover by modulating the longwave radiative cooling within the atmosphere, which is not mitigated by solar geoengineering. We use high-resolution simulations of clouds to show that under a sustained solar geoengineering scenario, the direct CO2 effects may lead to loss of subtropical stratocumulus clouds at concentrations above 1700~ppm. Because stratocumulus clouds cover large swaths of subtropical oceans and cool Earth by reflecting incident sunlight, their loss would trigger strong (about 5 K) global warming. Thus, the results highlight that, at least in an extreme scenario, solar geoengineering may be incapable to counter greenhouse-gas driven global warming.

Schneider, Tapio↗
DOE OSTI2020

Expanding the design space of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering to include precipitation-based objectives and explore trade-offs

Previous climate modeling studies demonstrate the ability of feedback-regulated, stratospheric aerosol geoengineering with injection at multiple independent latitudes to meet multiple simultaneous temperature-based objectives in the presence of anthropogenic climate change. However, the impacts of climate change are not limited to rising temperatures but also include changes in precipitation, loss of sea ice, and many more; knowing how a given geoengineering strategy will affect each of these climate metrics is vital to understanding the limits and trade-offs of geoengineering. Here, we first introduce a new method of visualizing the design space in which desired climate outcomes are represented by 2-D surfaces on a 3-D graph. Surface orientations represent how different injection choices influence that objective, and intersecting surfaces represent objectives which can be met simultaneously. Using this representation as a guide, we present simulations of two new strategies for feedback-regulated aerosol injection, using the Community Earth System Model with the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model – CESM1(WACCM). The first simultaneously manages global mean temperature, tropical precipitation centroid, and Arctic sea ice extent, while the second manages global mean precipitation, tropical precipitation centroid, and Arctic sea ice extent. Both simulations control the tropical precipitation centroid to within 5 % of the goal, and the latter controls global mean precipitation to within 1% of the goal. Additionally, the first simulation overcompensates sea ice, while the second undercompensates sea ice; all of these results are consistent with the expectations of our design space model. In addition to showing that precipitation-based climate metrics can be managed using feedback alongside other goals, our simulations validate the utility of our design space visualization in predicting our climate model behavior under a given geoengineering strategy, and together they help illustrate the fundamental limits and trade-offs of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) report "Reflecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance" focused on three atmospheric-based Solar Geoengineering strategies: Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, Marine Cloud Brightening, Cirrus Cloud Thinning. The study recommends that a national (and internationally-coordinated) Solar Geoengineering research program be established and coordinated by the U.S. Global Change Research Program—with a focus on developing information needed by decision makers, not advancing a path to deployment. The study recommends a detailed framework for governance of this research, at both national and international levels. The study also recommends a detailed research agenda for this program, encompassing over a dozen transdisciplinary research topics that can be loosely grouped into the categories of (i) technical dimensions and impacts, (ii) social dimensions, and (iii) context and goals for solar geoengineering research itself.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Response of the Indian Summer Monsoon to Global Warming, Solar Geoengineering and its Termination

The response of the Indian Summer Monsoon (ISM) to global warming, solar geoengineering and its termination is examined using the multi-model mean of eight global climate model simulations from G2 experiment of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project. Under the global warming scenario, land-ocean temperature contrasts and low-level monsoon circulation progressively strengthen accompanied by enhanced precipitation over the Indian subcontinent. Notably, in the solar geoengineered scenario, marginal surface cooling is projected over the majority of the ISM region, and there is strengthening of both upper and lower level circulation. Upon the termination of the geoengineering, the climatic conditions temperature, precipitation, and winds — would abruptly change to what it would have been under the global warming scenario, and such abrupt change may cause devastating consequences.

Bhowmick, Mansi↗
DOE OSTI2020

New Frontiers in Geoengineering Research

In late summer 2019, the ninth annual workshop of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP; http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/GeoMIP) convened at Beijing Normal University (Fig. 1). This meeting was held in conjunction with a summer school in which 89 participants from five continents learned about climate modeling of solar geoengineering, also known as climate engineering or climate intervention. Solar geoengineering refers to “radiation management” methods, which involve deliberate manipulations of the radiation budget through potential technologies such as stratospheric sulfate aerosols, marine cloud brightening, and cirrus thinning, but not CO2 removal. The students at the summer school were mainly physical science majors, with many from China, but also included some social science people. The summer school was focused on impact modeling (e.g., on agriculture and the cryosphere) and consideration of extremes, rather than just looking at climate modeloutput. There were also lectures on governance and economics. This event signifies the first major international geoengineering meeting held in Asia.

Kravitz, Benjamin S.↗
NASA NTRS1992

Global change - Geoengineering and space exploration

Geoengineering options and alternatives are proposed for mitigating the effects of global climate change and depletion of the ozone layer. Geoengineering options were discussed by the National Academy of Science Panel on the Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming. Several of the ideas conveyed in their published report are space-based or depend on space systems for implementation. Among the geoengineering options using space that are discussed include the use of space power systems as an alternative to fossil fuels for generating electricity, the use of lunar He-3 to aid in the development of fusion energy, and the establishment of a lunar power system for solar energy conversion and electric power beaming back to earth. Other geoengineering options are discussed. They include the space-based modulation of hurricane forces and two space-based approaches in dealing with ozone layer depletion. The engineering challenges and policy implementation issues are discussed for these geongineering options.

Jenkins, Lyle M.↗
NASA NTRS2013

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.

aerosol↗
DOE OSTI2021

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.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2021

Harnessing stratospheric diffusion barriers for enhanced climate geoengineering

Stratospheric sulfate aerosol geoengineering is a proposed method to temporarily intervene in the climate system to increase the reflectance of shortwave radiation and reduce mean global temperature. In previous climate modeling studies, choosing injection locations for geoengineering aerosols has, thus far, only utilized the average dynamics of stratospheric wind fields instead of accounting for the essential role of time-varying material transport barriers in turbulent atmospheric flows. Here we conduct the first analysis of sulfate aerosol dispersion in the stratosphere, comparing what is now a standard fixed-injection scheme with time-varying injection locations that harness short-term stratospheric diffusion barriers. We show how diffusive transport barriers can quickly be identified, and we provide an automated injection location selection algorithm using short forecast and reanalysis data. Within the first 7 d days of transport, the dynamics-based approach is able to produce particle distributions with greater global coverage than fixed-site methods with fewer injections. Additionally, this enhanced dispersion slows aerosol microphysical growth and can reduce the effective radii of aerosols up to 200–300 d after injection. While the long-term dynamics of aerosol dispersion are accurately predicted with transport barriers calculated from short forecasts, the long-term influence on radiative forcing is more difficult to predict and warrants deeper investigation. Statistically significant changes in radiative forcing at timescales beyond the forecasting window showed mixed results, potentially increasing or decreasing forcing after 1 year when compared to fixed injections. We conclude that future feasibility studies of geoengineering should consider the cooling benefits possible by strategically injecting sulfate aerosols at optimized time-varying locations. Our method of utilizing time-varying attracting and repelling structures shows great promise for identifying optimal dispersion locations, and radiative forcing impacts can be improved by considering additional meteorological variables.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

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.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Assessing the performance of solar radiation management geoengineering simulations

Offsetting the global warming caused by anthropogenic increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases by deliberate injection of aerosols into the stratosphere is the most studied of solar radiation management geoengineering schemes. The long-term success or failure of such schemes in achieving their stated goals is assessed by comparing simulated geoengineered temperature, precipitation and tropical cyclones metrics to equivalent fields in the simulated targeted climate simulations. Results using available data sets from three single model stabilized climate target experiments and three multimodel climate change reduction experiments are presented and compared against a measure of internal variability. While all but one experimental scheme is successful in achieving their targeted global mean annual surface temperature, their success at regional scales varies significantly and is often larger than the internal variability metric used here.

climate model evaluation↗
DOE OSTI2021

Is turning down the sun a good proxy for stratospheric sulfate geoengineering?

Deliberately blocking out a small portion of the incoming solar radiation would cool the climate. One such approach would be injecting SO2 into the stratosphere, which would produce sulfate aerosols that would remain in the atmosphere for 1–3 years, reflecting part of the incoming shortwave radiation. The cooling produced by the aerosols can offset the warming produced by increased greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations, but it would also affect the climate differently, leading to residual differences compared to a climate not affected by either. Many climate model simulations of geoengineering have used a uniform reduction of the incoming solar radiation as a proxy for stratospheric aerosols, both because many models are not designed to adequately capture relevant stratospheric aerosol processes, and because a solar reduction has often been assumed to capture the most important differences between how stratospheric aerosols and GHG would affect the climate. Here we show that dimming the sun does not produce the same surface climate effects as simulating aerosols in the stratosphere. By more closely matching the spatial pattern of solar reduction to that of the aerosols, some improvements in this idealized representation are possible, with further improvements if the stratospheric heating produced by the aerosols is included. This is relevant both for our understanding of the physical mechanisms driving the changes observed in stratospheric-sulfate geoengineering simulations, and in terms of the relevance of impact assessments that use a uniform solar dimming.

Visioni, Daniele↗
DOE OSTI2024

Abrupt reduction in shipping emission as an inadvertent geoengineering termination shock produces substantial radiative warming

Abstract Human activities affect the Earth’s climate through modifying the composition of the atmosphere, which then creates radiative forcing that drives climate change. The warming effect of anthropogenic greenhouse gases has been partially balanced by the cooling effect of anthropogenic aerosols. In 2020, fuel regulations abruptly reduced the emission of sulfur dioxide from international shipping by about 80% and created an inadvertent geoengineering termination shock with global impact. Here we estimate the regulation leads to a radiative forcing of $$+0.2\pm 0.11$$ + 0.2 ± 0.11 Wm −2 averaged over the global ocean. The amount of radiative forcing could lead to a doubling (or more) of the warming rate in the 2020 s compared with the rate since 1980 with strong spatiotemporal heterogeneity. The warming effect is consistent with the recent observed strong warming in 2023 and expected to make the 2020 s anomalously warm. The forcing is equivalent in magnitude to 80% of the measured increase in planetary heat uptake since 2020. The radiative forcing also has strong hemispheric contrast, which has important implications for precipitation pattern changes. Our result suggests marine cloud brightening may be a viable geoengineering method in temporarily cooling the climate that has its unique challenges due to inherent spatiotemporal heterogeneity.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

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.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗