Atlantic hurricane surge response to geoengineering

Moore, John C.; Grinsted, Aslak; Guo, Xiaoyi; Yu, Xiaoyong; Jevrejeva, Svetlana; Rinke, Annette; Cui, Xuefeng; Kravitz, Ben; Lenton, Andrew; Watanabe, Shingo; Ji, Duoying

doi:10.1073/pnas.1510530112

Cited by 48 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Supporting information contains an extensive review of the climate response to solar geoengineering and cites the following papers [McCarthy, 2001;Weaver et al, 2001;Cox et al, 2004;Wigley, 2006;IPCC, 2007IPCC, , 2014Matthews and Caldeira, 2007;Lunt et al, 2008;Tilmes et al, 2008Tilmes et al, , 2009Irvine et al, 2009Irvine et al, , 2010Irvine et al, , 2011Irvine et al, , 2012Irvine et al, , 2014aIrvine et al, , 2014bIrvine et al, , 2016Kravitz et al, 2009Kravitz et al, , 2013Kravitz et al, , 2014aMercado et al, 2009;Murphy, 2009;Ridgwell et al, 2009;Bala et al, 2010;Moore et al, 2010Moore et al, , 2015Meinshausen et al, 2011;Trenberth, 2011;Vaughan and Lenton, 2011;Jones and Haywood, 2012;Lau and Kim, 2012;Partanen et al, 2012;Schmidt et al, 2012;Seneviratne et al, 2012;Alterskjaer et al, 2013;Boos and Hurley, 2013;Camargo, 2013;Cheng et al, 2013;Collins et al, 2013;Couce et al, 2013;Cziczo et al, 2013;…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a comprehensive climate impacts assessment of solar geoengineering

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite a growing literature on the climate response to solar geoengineering-proposals to cool the planet by increasing the planetary albedo-there has been little published on the impacts of solar geoengineering on natural and human systems such as agriculture, health, water resources, and ecosystems. An understanding of the impacts of different scenarios of solar geoengineering deployment will be crucial for informing decisions on whether and how to deploy it. Here we review the current state of knowledge about impacts of a solar-geoengineered climate and identify the major research gaps. We suggest that a thorough assessment of the climate impacts of a range of scenarios of solar geoengineering deployment is needed and can be built upon existing frameworks. However, solar geoengineering poses a novel challenge for climate impacts research as the manner of deployment could be tailored to pursue different objectives making possible a wide range of climate outcomes. We present a number of ideas for approaches to extend the survey of climate impacts beyond standard scenarios of solar geoengineering deployment to address this challenge. Reducing the impacts of climate change is the fundamental motivator for emissions reductions and for considering whether and how to deploy solar geoengineering. This means that the active engagement of the climate impacts research community will be important for improving the overall understanding of the opportunities, challenges, and risks presented by solar geoengineering.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a comprehensive climate impacts assessment of solar geoengineering

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…cases it seems that the results from G3 and G4 are statistically similar enough to be combined Moore et al, 2015). We tested the differences between RCP8.5, RCP4.5, and G4 using the four models in common (Table 5) and found the glacier responses are significantly different (p < 0.05).…”

Section: Climate Forcingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Glacier evolution in high-mountain Asia under stratospheric sulfate aerosol injection geoengineering

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Geoengineering by stratospheric sulfate aerosol injection may help preserve mountain glaciers by reducing summer temperatures. We examine this hypothesis for the glaciers in high-mountain Asia using a glacier mass balance model driven by climate simulations from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). The G3 and G4 schemes specify use of stratospheric sulfate aerosols to reduce the radiative forcing under the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 scenario for the 50 years between 2020 and 2069, and for a further 20 years after termination of geoengineering. We estimate and compare glacier volume loss for every glacier in the region using a glacier model based on surface mass balance parameterization under climate projections from three Earth system models under G3, five models under G4, and six models under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5. The ensemble projections suggest that glacier shrinkage over the period 2010-2069 is equivalent to sea-level rise of 9.0 ± 1.6 mm (G3), 9.8 ± 4.3 mm (G4), 15.5 ± 2.3 mm (RCP4.5), and 18.5 ± 1.7 mm (RCP8.5). Although G3 keeps the average temperature from increasing in the geoengineering period, G3 only slows glacier shrinkage by about 50 % relative to losses from RCP8.5. Approximately 72 % of glaciated area remains at 2069 under G3, as compared with about 30 % for RCP8.5. The widely reported reduction in mean precipitation expected for solar geoengineering is unlikely to be as important as the temperaturedriven shift from solid to liquid precipitation for forcing Himalayan glacier change. The termination of geoengineering at 2069 under G3 leads to temperature rise of about 1.3 • C over the period 2070-2089 relative to the period 2050-2069 and corresponding increase in annual mean glacier volume loss rate from 0.17 to 1.1 % yr −1 , which is higher than the 0.66 % yr −1 under RCP8.5 during 2070-2089.

show abstract

“…Figure 2 shows the projected return period of strongest Category 5 hurricanes under RCP4.5 and geoengineering scenarios (based on Moore et al's (2015) prediction). Between 2020 and 2069, under the RCP4.5 scenario, the projected return period of strongest Category 5 hurricanes decreases from 3.828 years to 0.850 year.…”

Section: Hurricane Impacts and Coral Recruitmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering strategy on Caribbean coral reefs

Zhang

Jones

Crabbe

2017

IJCCSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Currently, negotiation on global carbon emissions reduction is very difficult owing to lack of international willingness. In response, geoengineering (climate engineering) strategies are proposed to artificially cool the planet. Meanwhile, as the harbor around one-third of all described marine species, coral reefs are the most sensitive ecosystem on the planet to climate change. However, until now, there is no quantitative assessment on the impacts of geoengineering on coral reefs. This study aims to model the impacts of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering on coral reefs. Design/methodology/approach The HadGEM2-ES climate model is used to model and evaluate the impacts of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering on coral reefs. Findings This study shows that (1) stratospheric aerosol geoengineering could significantly mitigate future coral bleaching throughout the Caribbean Sea; (2) Changes in downward solar irradiation, sea level rise and sea surface temperature caused by geoengineering implementation should have very little impacts on coral reefs; (3) Although geoengineering would prolong the return period of future hurricanes, this may still be too short to ensure coral recruitment and survival after hurricane damage. Originality/value This is the first time internationally to quantitatively assess the impacts of geoengineering on coral reefs.

show abstract

Atlantic hurricane surge response to geoengineering

Cited by 48 publications

References 49 publications

Towards a comprehensive climate impacts assessment of solar geoengineering

Towards a comprehensive climate impacts assessment of solar geoengineering

Glacier evolution in high-mountain Asia under stratospheric sulfate aerosol injection geoengineering

Impacts of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering strategy on Caribbean coral reefs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About