Comparison of UKESM1 and CESM2 simulations using the same multi-target stratospheric aerosol injection strategy

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Abstract. Solar climate intervention using stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) has been proposed as a method which could offset some of the adverse effects of global warming. The Assessing Responses and Impacts of Solar climate intervention on the Earth system with Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (ARISE-SAI) set of simulations is based on a moderate-greenhouse-gas-emission scenario and employs injection of sulfur dioxide at four off-equatorial locations using a control algorithm which maintains the global-mean surface temperature at 1.5 K above pre-industrial conditions (ARISE-SAI-1.5), as well as the latitudinal gradient and inter-hemispheric difference in surface temperature. This is the first comparison between two models (CESM2 and UKESM1) applying the same multi-target SAI strategy. CESM2 is successful in reaching its temperature targets, but UKESM1 has considerable residual Arctic warming. This occurs because the pattern of temperature change in a climate with SAI is determined by both the structure of the climate forcing (mainly greenhouse gases and stratospheric aerosols) and the climate models' feedbacks, the latter of which favour a strong Arctic amplification of warming in UKESM1. Therefore, research constraining the level of future Arctic warming would also inform any hypothetical SAI deployment strategy which aims to maintain the inter-hemispheric and Equator-to-pole near-surface temperature differences. Furthermore, despite broad agreement in the precipitation response in the extratropics, precipitation changes over tropical land show important inter-model differences, even under greenhouse gas forcing only. In general, this ensemble comparison is the first step in comparing policy-relevant scenarios of SAI and will help in the design of an experimental protocol which both reduces some known negative side effects of SAI and is simple enough to encourage more climate models to participate.

Related collections

Most cited references 56

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Is Open Access

The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6

Gerald Meehl, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Elmar Kriegler … (2016)

Projections of future climate change play a fundamental role in improving understanding of the climate system as well as characterizing societal risks and response options. The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) is the primary activity within Phase 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) that will provide multi-model climate projections based on alternative scenarios of future emissions and land use changes produced with integrated assessment models. In this paper, we describe ScenarioMIP's objectives, experimental design, and its relation to other activities within CMIP6. The ScenarioMIP design is one component of a larger scenario process that aims to facilitate a wide range of integrated studies across the climate science, integrated assessment modeling, and impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability communities, and will form an important part of the evidence base in the forthcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments. At the same time, it will provide the basis for investigating a number of targeted science and policy questions that are especially relevant to scenario-based analysis, including the role of specific forcings such as land use and aerosols, the effect of a peak and decline in forcing, the consequences of scenarios that limit warming to below 2 °C, the relative contributions to uncertainty from scenarios, climate models, and internal variability, and long-term climate system outcomes beyond the 21st century. To serve this wide range of scientific communities and address these questions, a design has been identified consisting of eight alternative 21st century scenarios plus one large initial condition ensemble and a set of long-term extensions, divided into two tiers defined by relative priority. Some of these scenarios will also provide a basis for variants planned to be run in other CMIP6-Endorsed MIPs to investigate questions related to specific forcings. Harmonized, spatially explicit emissions and land use scenarios generated with integrated assessment models will be provided to participating climate modeling groups by late 2016, with the climate model simulations run within the 2017–2018 time frame, and output from the climate model projections made available and analyses performed over the 2018–2020 period.

0 comments Cited 733 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

The Community Earth System Model Version 2 (CESM2)

G. Danabasoglu, J-F. Lamarque, J. Bacmeister … (2020)

0 comments Cited 317 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Exceeding 1.5°C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points.

David I Armstrong McKay, Arie Staal, Jesse F Abrams … (2022)

Climate tipping points occur when change in a part of the climate system becomes self-perpetuating beyond a warming threshold, leading to substantial Earth system impacts. Synthesizing paleoclimate, observational, and model-based studies, we provide a revised shortlist of global "core" tipping elements and regional "impact" tipping elements and their temperature thresholds. Current global warming of ~1.1°C above preindustrial temperatures already lies within the lower end of some tipping point uncertainty ranges. Several tipping points may be triggered in the Paris Agreement range of 1.5 to <2°C global warming, with many more likely at the 2 to 3°C of warming expected on current policy trajectories. This strengthens the evidence base for urgent action to mitigate climate change and to develop improved tipping point risk assessment, early warning capability, and adaptation strategies.