DOCSLIB.ORG

Arctic Spring Geoengineering

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arctic Spring Geoengineering KRAVITZ ET AL.: ARCTIC SPRING GEOENGINEERING 1 Climate Model Simulations of Stratospheric Geoengineering in the Arctic Spring 2 3 4 Ben Kravitz, Alan Robock, and Allison Marquardt 5 6 7 Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Submitted to Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres 20 21 September, 2010 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Ben Kravitz, Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, 14 College Farm 32 Road, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA. ([email protected]) (Corresponding 33 Author) 34 35 Alan Robock, Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, 14 College Farm 36 Road, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA. ([email protected]) 37 38 Allison Marquardt, Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University, 14 College Farm 39 Road, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA. ([email protected]) 40 41 42 - 1 - KRAVITZ ET AL.: ARCTIC SPRING GEOENGINEERING 43 Abstract 44 We use a general circulation model of Earth’s climate to conduct simulations of 45 stratospheric sulfate aerosol geoengineering in the Arctic spring to determine whether 46 geoengineering during the months of maximum insolation is as effective as geoengineering year- 47 round. As control cases, we simulate a global warming ensemble and an ensemble of global 48 warming combined with daily stratospheric injections of SO2 at high latitude, totaling 3 Tg SO2 49 per year. We compare these to two ensembles, each with global warming forcing and high 50 latitude stratospheric injections of 0.75 Tg SO2 per year: daily injections throughout April, May, 51 and June; and daily injections throughout April. These spring injection experiments show 52 smaller aerosol optical depth than the year-round injections, especially in the winter, during 53 which all of the sulfate aerosols from the spring injection experiments are removed each year. 54 They also show summer cooling over the Northern Hemisphere continents, as is seen in large 55 volcanic eruptions, although not as much as in the year-round injections. No significant 56 monsoonal precipitation perturbation is detected, in contrast to previous simulations with this 57 same model. Year-round injection results in an increase in Arctic sea ice from a control 58 scenario, and the spring injection experiments show reduced sea ice loss from the global 59 warming simulations. Further simulations are required, but these results suggest that while SO2 60 injections only in the spring are not as effective as year-round injections, a strategy of injections 61 in spring and summer combined would maximize the cooling of the aerosol cloud, requiring 62 slightly smaller total annual injections than a year-round strategy. 63 - 2 - KRAVITZ ET AL.: ARCTIC SPRING GEOENGINEERING 64 1. Introduction 65 Geoengineering with stratospheric sulfate aerosols has been proposed [e.g., Crutzen, 66 2006] as a cheap [e.g., Robock et al., 2009], effective [e.g., Rasch et al., 2008], and temporary 67 [e.g., Wigley, 2006] means of reducing global average surface air temperature to alleviate 68 negative climate impacts from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. In an effort to tailor 69 geoengineering and reduce the degree to which humans directly interfere with and modify the 70 climate, some have suggested geoengineering only in the Arctic [Caldeira and Wood, 2008]. 71 They propose that this would have the effect of cooling the Northern Hemisphere continents and 72 potentially “saving” the Arctic sea ice, as is seen temporarily in the case of large volcanic 73 eruptions, but would not impact temperatures in the tropics or the Southern Hemisphere. Due to 74 the reduced area needing to be shaded by sulfate aerosols, geoengineering in the Arctic would in 75 theory require smaller injections of SO2 than geoengineering in the tropics. 76 Robock et al. [2008] performed simulations of both tropical and Arctic geoengineering. 77 They found features similar to those of large volcanic eruptions: summer cooling over the 78 Northern Hemisphere continents and weakening of the Indian/African summer monsoon, which 79 was more pronounced for the case of the Arctic injection. 80 These simulations by Robock et al. involved year-round injections of SO2. However, in 81 the Arctic, year-round injections would not be necessary, as there is no sunlight for the aerosols 82 to backscatter during the winter. This motivated our study to investigate Arctic geoengineering 83 that is tailored to backscatter solar radiation only during the summer, which is the period of 84 maximum insolation. 85 In addition to replicating the Arctic injection experiment from Robock et al. [2008], we 86 designed two additional experiments of geoengineering only in the Arctic spring. Assuming the - 3 - KRAVITZ ET AL.: ARCTIC SPRING GEOENGINEERING 87 same daily rate of injection as the year-round experiment, this would reduce the amount of SO2 88 that is injected into the stratosphere, lowering the cost and the degree to which humans directly 89 interfere with the climate system. However, we hypothesize that since the aerosols would be 90 present during summer, the radiative effects of the aerosols would be similar to those of a year- 91 round injection. We also wished to investigate whether the Asian/African monsoon system is 92 negatively impacted under these scenarios and whether they can prevent the loss of Arctic sea 93 ice. 94 2. Experiment 95 We conducted simulations with the coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation model 96 ModelE, which was developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard 97 Institute for Space Studies [Schmidt et al., 2006]. We used the stratospheric version with 4° 98 latitude by 5° longitude horizontal resolution and 23 vertical levels up to 80 km. It is fully 99 coupled to a 4° latitude by 5° longitude dynamic ocean with 13 vertical levels [Russell et al., 100 1995]. 101 The aerosol module [Koch et al., 2006] accounts for SO2 conversion to sulfate aerosols, 102 as well as transport and removal of the aerosols. The chemical model calculates the sulfur cycle 103 in the stratosphere, where the conversion rate of SO2 to sulfate is based on the respective 104 concentrations of SO2 and the hydroxyl radical, the latter of which is prescribed [Oman et al., 105 2006a]. We specified the dry aerosol effective radius to be 0.25 µm, which is the value used for 106 simulation of past volcanic eruptions and geoengineering. The model hydrates the aerosols 107 based on ambient humidity values according to formulas prescribed by Tang [1996], resulting in 108 a distribution of hydrated aerosols with an effective radius of approximately 0.30-0.35 µm, 109 which is consistent with the findings of Stothers [1997]. Radiative forcing from the aerosols is - 4 - KRAVITZ ET AL.: ARCTIC SPRING GEOENGINEERING 110 fully interactive with the atmospheric circulation and in our paper is the conventional one as 111 defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC, 2001], also called “adjusted 112 forcing” (Fa) by Hansen et al. [2005]. For more details, we refer the reader to Kravitz et al. 113 [2010a], which used the same model version and setup. 114 This version of ModelE has been successfully used in the past to simulate both volcanic 115 eruptions and geoengineering. Simulations have been conducted for the eruptions of Laki in 116 1783-1784 [Oman et al., 2006a, 2006b], Katmai in 1912 [Oman et al., 2005], Pinatubo in 1991 117 [Robock et al., 2007], and the recent eruption of Kasatochi in 2008 [Kravitz et al., 2010a]. In all 118 of these cases, ModelE was shown to be reliable in recreating the climate impacts of the 119 eruption. Moreover, Robock et al. [2008] used this model to simulate geoengineering, and 120 results from this study agreed with similar experiments performed by the Hadley Centre [Jones 121 et al., 2010]. Therefore, we are confident in this model’s ability to simulate geoengineering to a 122 degree of accuracy that is scientifically useful. 123 We used the same version of ModelE that was used by Robock et al. [2008], using the 124 same specifications except for two tuning parameters and the atmospheric and oceanic initial 125 conditions. Robock et al. used atmospheric and oceanic conditions from the year 1999, whereas 126 we used those conditions from the year 2007. The current version of ModelE was tuned by 127 modifying two parameters that change planetary albedo, and hence, the net radiation of the 128 planet. This model was tuned because Robock et al. detected a significant temperature trend 129 during the period over which they conducted their simulations, due to insufficient time allowed 130 for model spin-up. These tuning parameters modify the critical humidities for ice cloud and 131 water cloud condensation. Specifically, Robock et al. used tuning parameters U00ice=0.590 and 132 U00wtrx=1.33. The version used for the simulations in our study used parameters U00ice=0.595 - 5 - KRAVITZ ET AL.: ARCTIC SPRING GEOENGINEERING 133 and U00wtrx=1.40. Before simulations were performed with these new parameters, the model 134 was spun-up for an additional 100 years. This resulted in a much smaller trend over the model 135 period 2007-2026, and, after conducting further simulation with a control run, the temperature 136 trend under these new tuning parameters is largely negligible. In Section 5, we discuss the 137 effects this tuning had on our results. 138 We began with a 6-member control ensemble of 20-year runs (2007-2026), during which 139 global greenhouse gas concentrations, as well as aerosol concentrations, remained fixed at 140 constant 2007 conditions. We then simulated a 6-member ensemble of 20-year runs covering the 141 same period, in which global greenhouse gas concentrations increased according to the IPCC’s 142 A1B scenario [IPCC, 2007].
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arctic Methane Alert Call for an Urgent Escalation of Scientific Inquiry and Development of Countermeasures
    Arctic Methane Alert Call for an urgent escalation of scientific inquiry and development of countermeasures “Methane is an especially powerful greenhouse gas. There are large amounts of methane presently locked up, frozen, in high latitude tundra and, especially, in ocean sediments on continental shelves. We know from Earth’s history that this frozen methane can be released suddenly by sufficient warming – thus this methane has the potential to greatly amplify humanmade global warming, if that warming reaches a level, a tipping point, such that large volumes of frozen methane begin to melt” James Hansen Club of Rome speech, Amsterdam, 2009 Arctic Methane Alert IPCC ASSESSMENT This report has used as a starting point has been written and produced by the Arctic Methane Emergency Working Group the conclusions made by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 2007, and Chairman John Nissen subsequent updating in the Contributors & Members: Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009, both of Professor Peter Wadhams which addressed the risks posed from Professor Stephen Salter Arctic summer sea ice loss and methane Brian Orr carbon feedback. Peter Carter Sam Carana Key sections include Anthony Cook [1] Risk of Catastrophic or Abrupt Gary Houser Change The possibility of abrupt climate Jon Hughes change and/or abrupt changes in the Graham Ennis earth system triggered by climate Editor: Jon Hughes change, with potentially catastrophic Designer: Cathy Constable consequences, cannot be ruled out. Positive feedback from warming may Details of how to contact the group available at: cause the release of carbon or methane www.arctic-methane-emergency-group.org from the terrestrial biosphere and oceans which would add to the mitiga- The inaugural meeting of the group was held on Oct 15/16 2011 in Chiswick, tion required.
    [Show full text]
  • International Governance Issues on Climate Engineering
    Unedited version – 15 June 2020 Report International governance issues on climate engineering Information for policymakers Commissioned by the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) International Risk Governance Center Unedited version (15 June 2020) International Governance of Climate Engineering Imprint This report was prepared under contract from the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN). The contractor bears sole responsibility for the content. Commissioned by: Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN), International Affairs Division, 3003 Bern, Switzerland. The FOEN is an agency of the Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications (DETEC). Contractor: EPFL (Ecole polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne), International Risk Governance Center (IRGC) Author: Marie-Valentine Florin (Ed.), Paul Rouse, Anna-Maria Hubert, Matthias Honegger, Jesse Reynolds To cite this report: Florin, M.-V. (Ed.), Rouse, P., Hubert, A-H., Honegger, M., Reynolds, J. (2020). International governance issues on climate engineering. Information for policymakers. Lausanne: EPFL International Risk Governance Center (IRGC). Individual chapters: name of author, ‘title of chapter’ in Florin, M.-V. (Ed.), International Governance of Climate Engineering. Information for policymakers (2020), Chapter nr, Lausanne: EPFL International Risk Governance Center (IRGC). DOI:10.5075/epfl-irgc-277726 For any questions, please contact: [email protected] Cover photo by USGC on Unplash i Unedited version (15 June 2020) International Governance of Climate Engineering Abstract Some climate engineering technologies are being developed to remove CO2 from the atmosphere (carbon dioxide removal, CDR), which is expected to contribute to reducing and preventing climate change. Some other technologies (solar radiation modification, SRM) would artificially cool the planet and could reduce some symptoms and risks of climate change.
    [Show full text]
  • Geoengineering in the Arctic: Defining the Governance Dilemma
    Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program 6/17/2010 STPP Working Paper 10-3 Geoengineering in the Arctic: Defining the Governance Dilemma Shobita Parthasarathy Lindsay Rayburn Mike Anderson Jessie Mannisto Molly Maguire Dalal Najib For further information, please contact: Shobita Parthasarathy, PhD Assistant Professor Co-Director, Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program 4202 Weill Hall; 735 S. State Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109-3091 Tel: 734/764-8075; Fax: 734/763-9181 [email protected] ABOUT THE AUTHORS Mike Anderson did his undergraduate work at the University of Michigan, graduating in 2007 with Highest Honors in astronomy/astrophysics and interdisciplinary physics. He earned his Master's degree in Astrophysics in 2008 from the California Institute of Technology, and is now working on his PhD in Astrophysics at Michigan. His research focuses on the "missing baryon" problem and its implications on galaxy formation. Since 2010, he has also been enrolled in the Science, Technology, and Public Policy (STPP) program at Michigan. His primary policy interest is in sustainability policy, particularly energy and environmental issues. Molly Maguire graduated from St Andrews University in 2006, where she studied Modern History. Her focus was primarily on the American history of science, and completed her thesis on the 1925 Scopes “Monkey” Trial. In particular, her thesis chronicled the religion vs. science paradigm that crystallized at the trial and its modern implications. As a graduate student at University of Michigan’s Ford School of Public Policy and a candidate in the Science, Technology and Public Policy program, Molly has worked on bioethics issues, including informed consent, governance in stem cell technology, access to IVF, and the place of the public interest in American patent policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence Brief: Climate-Altering Approaches and the Arctic
    Carnegie Climate EVIDENCE BRIEF Governance Initiative Climate-altering approaches An initiative of and the Arctic 02 August 2021 Summary This briefing summarises the latest evidence around Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) and other climate-altering approaches and techniques relevant to the Arctic environment. It briefly describes a range of approaches currently under consideration and explores their relevance in the Arctic context. It also provides an overview of some generic governance issues and the key instruments relevant for the governance of different approaches. The Carnegie Climate Governance Initiative (C2G) seeks to catalyse the creation of effective governance for climate-altering approaches, and in particular for SRM and CDR. C2G has no position on SRM or CDR research, nor whether any of the techniques should be tested or deployed. This brief presents evidence relating to CDR and SRM approaches specifically as they relate to the Arctic environment. For more detail on the broader evidence relating to these approaches and their governance, please see the respective C2G evidence briefs on the governance of CDR and SRM which can be downloaded from the website at: https://www.c2g2.net/publications/ c2g2.net | [email protected] Evidence Brief: Climate-altering approaches and the Arctic Table of Contents Introduction � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 3 Background � � � � � � � �
    [Show full text]
  • Climate System Response to Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosols
    Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2019-21 Manuscript under review for journal Earth Syst. Dynam. Discussion started: 23 May 2019 c Author(s) 2019. CC BY 4.0 License. Climate System Response to Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosols: Sensitivity to Altitude of Aerosol Layer Krishnamohan Krishna-Pillai Sukumara-Pillai1, Govindasamy Bala1, and Long Cao2, Lei Duan2,3 and Ken Caldeira3 5 1 Centre for Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India 2 Department of Earth Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310027, China 3 Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, CA 94305, USA Correspondence to: Krishnamohan Krishna-Pillai Sukumara-Pillai ([email protected]) Abstract. Reduction of surface temperatures of the planet by injecting sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere has been suggested 10 as an option to reduce the amount of human-induced climate warming. Several previous studies have shown that for a specified amount of injection, aerosols injected at a higher altitude in the stratosphere would produce more cooling because aerosol sedimentation would take longer time. In this study, we isolate and assess the sensitivity to the altitude of the aerosol layer of stratospheric aerosol radiative forcing and the resulting climate change. We study this by prescribing a specified amount of sulfate aerosols, of a size typical of what is produced by volcanoes, distributed uniformly at different levels in the stratosphere. 15 We find that stratospheric sulfate aerosols are more effective in cooling climate when they reside higher in the stratosphere. We explain this sensitivity in terms of effective radiative forcing: volcanic aerosols heat the stratospheric layers where they reside, altering stratospheric water vapor content, tropospheric stability and clouds, and consequently the effective radiative forcing.
    [Show full text]
  • Navigating the New Arctic with CESM
    CESM Cross Working group meeting – Navigating the New Arctic with CESM Andrew Gettelman, Marika Holland, Alice DuVivier June 19, 2019 This material is based upon work supported by the National Center for Atmospheric Research, which is a major facility sponsored by the National Science Foundation under Cooperative Agreement No. 1852977. CESM Directions Where are we now in the Arctic? Where are we going? Atmosphere: Where we are • CAM6 = Much better polar clouds • Improved TOA and surface fluxes TOA Cloud Radiative Effect CESM2-CAM6: Better Arctic Clouds CAM6 CAM6 CAM5 Obs (ARM) Atmosphere: Where we are going • Lots of work on S. Ocean clouds with new data. – Next few years will have more Arctic data • Ice formation important in S. Ocean. Critical in Arctic – Ice Nucleating Particles (INP) & Riming are key processes • Working on improving cloud microphysics and INP Example: Simulating Observed Size Distributions Obs in CESM2 over the S. Ocean from SOCRATES in 2018 (Hobart & South) Atmosphere: Where we are going (High Res) • New Capabilities with SE dynamical core to run refined mesh at high resolution over different regions: e.g. Arctic • Couple to Land, Land Ice at high resolution. • What ocean/sea ice resolution to build? • Could do this with CESM2.1.1 Sample: 25km mesh over the Arctic. • 25km, could do a century • 14km, decades • 7km, seasons to years Sea Ice: Where we are CESM2: • 8 sea ice, 3 snow vertical levels (doubled/tripled respectively) CAM6 • Mushy layer thermodynamics • Mean climate, trends are pretty good • Interesting differences due to atmosphere. WACCM6 Obs From Holland, Bailey, and DuVivier 1979-2014 average CAM6 WACCM6 Sea Ice: Where we are • In development: – Water isotopes – Incorporating CICE6 into CESM3 – the column physics has been separated from the dynamics.
    [Show full text]
  • Glacier Geoengineering to Address Sea-Level Rise: a Geotechnical Approach
    Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Advances in Climate Change Research 11 (2020) 401e414 www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/accr/ Glacier geoengineering to address sea-level rise: A geotechnical approach Andrew LOCKLEYa, Michael WOLOVICKb, Bowie KEEFERc, Rupert GLADSTONEd, Li-Yun ZHAOb,e, John C. MOOREb,d,* a University College London (Bartlett School), London, WC1H 0QB, UK b College of Global Change and Earth System Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, 100875, PR China c 120 Manastee Road, Galiano Island, British Columbia, BC V0N 1P0, Canada d Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, 96101, Finland e Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory, Zhuhai, 519082, China Received 15 January 2020; revised 3 August 2020; accepted 27 November 2020 Available online 5 December 2020 Abstract It is remarkable that the high-end sea level rise threat over the next few hundred years comes almost entirely from only a handful of ice streams and large glaciers. These occupy a few percent of ice sheets’ coastline. Accordingly, spatially limited interventions at source may provide globally-equitable mitigation from rising seas. Ice streams control draining of ice sheets; glacier retreat or acceleration serves to greatly increase potential sea level rise. While various climatic geoengineering approaches have been considered, serious consideration of geotechnical approaches has been limited e particularly regarding glaciers. This study summarises novel and extant geotechnical techniques for glacier restraint, identifying candidates for further research. These include draining or freezing the bed; altering surface albedo; creating obstacles: retaining snow; stiffening shear margins with ice; blocking warm sea water entry; thickening ice shelves (increasing buttressing, and strengthening fractured shelves against disintegration); as well as using regional climate engineering or local cloud seeding to cool the glacier or add snow.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Engineering Contents
    Climate Engineering Contents 0.1 Climate engineering .......................................... 1 0.1.1 Background .......................................... 1 0.1.2 Proposed strategies ...................................... 1 0.1.3 Justification .......................................... 3 0.1.4 Risks and criticisms ...................................... 4 0.1.5 Governance .......................................... 6 0.1.6 Implementation issues ..................................... 6 0.1.7 Evaluation of geoengineering ................................. 7 0.1.8 See also ............................................ 8 0.1.9 References .......................................... 8 0.1.10 Further reading ........................................ 12 0.1.11 External links ......................................... 12 0.2 Weather modification ......................................... 13 0.2.1 History ............................................ 13 0.2.2 Cloud seeding ......................................... 13 0.2.3 Storm prevention ....................................... 14 0.2.4 Hurricane modification .................................... 15 0.2.5 Weather modification and law ................................ 15 0.2.6 In religion and mythology .................................. 15 0.2.7 See also ............................................ 16 0.2.8 References .......................................... 16 0.3 Weather warfare ............................................ 17 0.3.1 See also ............................................ 17 0.3.2 References
    [Show full text]
  • Arctic Climate Interventions
    THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MARINE The International Journal of AND COASTAL Marine and Coastal Law 35 (2020) 596–617 LAW brill.com/estu Arctic Climate Interventions Daniel Bodansky Regents’ Professor, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ 85004, United States [email protected] Hugh Hunt Reader in Engineering Dynamics and Vibration, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, United Kingdom [email protected] Abstract The melting of the Arctic poses enormous risks both to the Arctic itself and to the glob- al climate system. Conventional climate change policies operate too slowly to save the Arctic, so unconventional approaches need to be considered, including technologies to refreeze Arctic ice and slow the melting of glaciers. Even if one believes that global climate interventions, such as injecting aerosols into the stratosphere to scatter sun- light, pose unacceptable risks and should be disqualified from consideration, Arctic interventions differ in important respects. They are closer in kind to conventional miti- gation and adaptation and should be evaluated in similar terms. It is unclear whether they are feasible and would be effective in saving the Arctic. But given the importance of the Arctic, they should be investigated fully. Keywords Arctic – geoengineering – climate change Introduction The Arctic is melting and, using conventional climate change policies, there is little we can do about it. Even if we were able to eliminate all emissions of greenhouse gases overnight – an obviously impossible task – the Arctic would © Daniel Bodansky and Hugh Hunt, 2020 | doi:10.1163/15718085-bja10035 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0Downloaded license.
    [Show full text]
  • Stratospheric Sulfur Geoengineering - Benefits and Risks Alan Robock Department of Environmental Sciences Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey
    10/06/2019 Stratospheric Sulfur Geoengineering - Benefits and Risks Alan Robock Department of Environmental Sciences Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey [email protected] http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock 1 http://www.agu.org/journals/rg/ Reviews of Geophysics distills and places in perspective previous scientific work in currently active subject areas of geophysics. Contributions evaluate overall progress in the field and cover all disciplines embraced by AGU. Authorship is by invitation, but suggestions from readers and potential authors are welcome. If you are interested in writing an article please talk with me, or write to [email protected], with an abstract, outline, and analysis of recent similar review articles, to demonstrate the need for your proposed article. Reviews of Geophysics has an impact factor of 13.5 in the 2017 Journal Citation Reports, highest in the geosciences. Alan Robock Department of Environmental Sciences 2 1 10/06/2019 Anomalies with respect to 1951-1980 mean Tropospheric aerosols mask warming (global dimming) Recovery from volcanic eruptions dominates Greenhouse gases dominate Bad data from WWII http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3_legacy/Fig.A2.pdf Alan Robock Department of Environmental Sciences 3 Figure 21: Reconstructed, observed and future Alan Robock warming projections Department of Environmental Sciences 4 2 10/06/2019 Global Warming in 10 Words It’s real. It’s us. It’s bad. We’re sure. There’s hope. Anthony Leiserowitz, Yale University Alan Robock Department of Environmental Sciences 5 Desire for improved well-being Consumption Impacts on of goods humans and and ecosystems services Geoengineering Climate Consumption change of energy CO2 in the CO2 emissions Treat the symptoms atmosphere Treat the illness After Ken Caldeira Alan Robock Department of Environmental Sciences 6 3 10/06/2019 Geoengineering is defined as “deliberate large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change.” Shepherd, J.
    [Show full text]
  • Options and Proposals for the International Governance of Geoengineering
    CLIMATE CHANGE 14/2014 Options and Proposals for the International Governance of Geoengineering CLIMATE CHANGE 14/2014 ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH OF THE FEDERAL MINISTRY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, NATURE CONSERVATION, BUILDING AND NUCLEAR SAFETY Project No. (FKZ) 3711 11101 Report No. (UBA-FB) 001886/E Options and Proposals for the International Governance of Geoengineering by Ralph Bodle, Sebastian Oberthür (Lead authors), Lena Donat, Gesa Homann, Stephan Sina, Elizabeth Tedsen (contributing authors) Ecologic Institute, Berlin On behalf of the Federal Environment Agency (Germany) Imprint Publisher: Umweltbundesamt Wörlitzer Platz 1 06844 Dessau-Roßlau Tel.: 0340/2103-0 Telefax: 0340/2103 2285 [email protected] Internet: www.umweltbundesamt.de http://fuer-mensch-und-umwelt.de/ www.facebook.com/umweltbundesamt.de www.twitter.com/umweltbundesamt Study performed by: Ecologic Institute, Pfalzburger Str. 43/44, 10717 Berlin, Germany Study completed in: 2013 Edited by: Section I 1.3 Environmental Law Friederike Domke Publikation as pdf: http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/publikationen/options-proposals-for-the- international-governance ISSN 1862-4359 Dessau-Roßlau, June 2014 Options and Proposals for the International Governance of Geoengineering Abstract The debate about geoengineering as a potential option for climate policy is gaining attention at the policy interface. In this research project for the German Federal Environment Agency, Ecologic Institute develops specific proposals for the governance of the main currently discussed geoengineering concepts at the international level. Based on a comprehensive analysis of the existing regulatory framework and its gaps, the study identifies general options and specific recommended actions for the effective governance of geoengineering. A key consideration is that the recommendations can be implemented in practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Global Monsoon Response to Tropical and Arctic Stratospheric Aerosol Injection
    Global monsoon response to tropical and Arctic stratospheric aerosol injection Weiyi Sun, Bin Wang, Deliang Chen, Chaochao Gao, Guonian Lu & Jian Liu Climate Dynamics Observational, Theoretical and Computational Research on the Climate System ISSN 0930-7575 Clim Dyn DOI 10.1007/s00382-020-05371-7 1 23 Your article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution license which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works, as long as the author of the original work is cited. You may self- archive this article on your own website, an institutional repository or funder’s repository and make it publicly available immediately. 1 23 Climate Dynamics https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-020-05371-7 Global monsoon response to tropical and Arctic stratospheric aerosol injection Weiyi Sun1 · Bin Wang2 · Deliang Chen3 · Chaochao Gao4 · Guonian Lu1 · Jian Liu1,5,6 Received: 9 December 2019 / Accepted: 9 July 2020 © The Author(s) 2020 Abstract Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) is considered as a backup approach to mitigate global warming, and understanding its climate impact is of great societal concern. It remains unclear how diferently global monsoon (GM) precipitation would change in response to tropical and Arctic SAI. Using the Community Earth System Model, a control experiment and a suite of 140-year experiments with CO2 increasing by 1% per year (1% CO2) are conducted, including ten tropical SAI and ten Arctic SAI experiments with diferent injecting intensity ranging from 10 to 100 Tg yr−1. For the same amount of injection, a larger reduction in global temperature occurs under tropical SAI compared with Arctic SAI.
    [Show full text]