The impact of abrupt suspension of solar radiation management (termination effect) in experiment G2 of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP)

Jones, Andy; Haywood, Jim M.; Alterskjær, Kari; Boucher, Oliviér; Cole, Jason N. S.; Curry, Charles L.; Irvine, Peter J.; Ji, Duoying; Kravitz, Ben; Kristjánsson, Jón Egill; Moore, John C.; Niemeier, Ulrike; Robock, Alan; Schmidt, Hauke; Singh, Balwinder; Tilmes, Simone; Watanabe, Shingo; Yoon, Jin‐Ho

doi:10.1002/jgrd.50762

Cited by 149 publications

(169 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

155

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Both experiments run geoengineering for 50 y starting in 2020. Following cessation of geoengineering in 2069, the scenarios run for a further 20 y to provide information on the so-called "termination effect" (40). We analyzed three models that have completed the G3 experiment and seven models simulating G4; eight models have run at least one of them, and 10 simulations were done in total.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Atlantic hurricane surge response to geoengineering

Moore

Grinsted

Guo

et al. 2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Devastating floods due to Atlantic hurricanes are relatively rare events. However, the frequency of the most intense storms is likely to increase with rises in sea surface temperatures. Geoengineering by stratospheric sulfate aerosol injection cools the tropics relative to the polar regions, including the hurricane Main Development Region in the Atlantic, suggesting that geoengineering may mitigate hurricanes. We examine this hypothesis using eight earth system model simulations of climate under the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) G3 and G4 schemes that use stratospheric aerosols to reduce the radiative forcing under the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 scenario. Global mean temperature increases are greatly ameliorated by geoengineering, and tropical temperature increases are at most half of those temperature increases in the RCP4.5. However, sulfate injection would have to double (to nearly 10 teragrams of SO2 per year) between 2020 and 2070 to balance the RCP4.5, approximately the equivalent of a 1991 Pinatubo eruption every 2 y, with consequent implications for stratospheric ozone. We project changes in storm frequencies using a temperature-dependent generalized extreme value statistical model calibrated by historical storm surges and observed temperatures since 1923. The number of storm surge events as big as the one caused by the 2005 Katrina hurricane are reduced by about 50% compared with no geoengineering, but this reduction is only marginally statistically significant. Nevertheless, when sea level rise differences in 2070 between the RCP4.5 and geoengineering are factored into coastal flood risk, we find that expected flood levels are reduced by about 40 cm for 5-y events and about halved for 50-y surges.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Atlantic hurricane surge response to geoengineering

Moore

Grinsted

Guo

et al. 2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most previous studies comparing solar dimming and stratospheric aerosol SRM have concentrated on the climate mean response (Jones et 25 al., 2011;Niemeier et al, 2013;Ferraro et al, 2014). Curry et al (2014) examined the effect of G1 geoengineering on the same metrics of extreme temperature and precipitation response (both magnitude Atmos.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Tilmes et al (2013) observed, using a 25 larger ensemble of models, that G1-abrupt4×CO2 results in a robust decrease in monsoonal precipitation, while it increases under abrupt4×CO2. However, the change under G4-rcp45 is not as robust, at least partially due to the lowered mean temperature changes and land-sea thermal contrast response to the stratospheric aerosol injection.…”

Section: Spatial Response In Extremesmentioning

confidence: 93%

Extreme temperature and precipitation response to solar dimming and stratospheric aerosol geoengineering

Ji¹,

Fang²,

Curry³

et al. 2018

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We examine extreme temperature and precipitation under two potential geoengineering methods forming part of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). The solar 25 dimming experiment G1 is designed to completely offset the global mean radiative forcing due to a CO2-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 maximum temperatures at higher latitudes, and on land primarily through feedback effects involving high latitude 30 processes such as snow cover, sea ice and soil moisture. Maximum 5-day precipitation increases over subtropical oceans, whereas warm spells decrease markedly in the tropics, and the number of consecutive dry days decreases in most deserts. The precipitation during the tropical cyclone (hurricane) seasons becomes less intense, whilst the remainder of the year becomes wetter. Aerosol injection is more effective 2 than dimming in moderating extreme precipitation (and flooding), possibly due to stratospheric warming by aerosol injection working in tandem with sea surface temperature reductions to moderate extreme tropical storm cyclogenesis. The differences in the response of temperature extremes between the two types of geoengineering are relatively minor. Despite the magnitude of the radiative forcing applied in G1 being ~6.5 times larger than in G4, and differences in the aerosol chemistry and transport schemes 5 amongst the models, one can discern clear differences in the precipitation extremes between the types of geoengineering probably due to the aerosol direct effect and related energetic changes.

show abstract

“…5 Some authors 5 distinguish between technical and social lock-in: technical lock-in being used to refer to the kinds of commitments that would accompany particular technological approaches such as SAI due to the existence of the so-called 'termination effect'. The term is used to refer to the fact that if a programme of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection were implemented but then discontinued, there would be a rapid spike in global temperature that would likely be more damaging than the more gradual temperature increases that would have taken place in the absence of such an intervention, 6 hence societies would be 'locked-in' to continuing the activity. Social lock-in, in this case, is used to refer to the ways in which many of the proposed technologies [e.g., direct air capture (DAC)], would be dependent on the existence of a highly capital-intensive physical infrastructure, the large sunk costs in which would create vested interests in keeping facilities operational, and hence would lead to various types of inertia and lock-in.…”

Section: Socio-technical Lock-in and Climate Geoengineeringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate geoengineering: issues of path‐dependence and socio‐technical lock‐in

Cairns

2014

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As academic and policy interest in climate geoengineering grows, the potential irreversibility of technological developments in this domain has been raised as a pressing concern. The literature on socio‐technical lock‐in and path dependence is illuminating in helping to situate current concerns about climate geoengineering and irreversibility in the context of academic understandings of historical socio‐technical development and persistence. This literature provides a wealth of material illustrating the pervasiveness of positive feedbacks of various types (from the discursive to the material) leading to complex socio‐technical entanglements which may resist change and become inflexible even in the light of evidence of negative impacts. With regard to climate geoengineering, there are concerns that geoengineering technologies might contribute so‐called ‘carbon lock‐in’, or become irreversibly ‘locked‐in’ themselves. In particular, the scale of infrastructures that geoengineering interventions would require, and the issue of the so‐called ‘termination effect’ have been discussed in these terms. Despite the emergent and somewhat ill‐defined nature of the field, some authors also suggest that the extant framings of geoengineering in academic and policy literatures may already demonstrate features recognizable as forms of cognitive lock‐in, likely to have profound implications for future developments in this area. While the concepts of path‐dependence and lock‐in are the subject of ongoing academic critique, by drawing analytical attention to these pervasive processes of positive feedback and entanglement, this literature is highly relevant to current debates around geoengineering. WIREs Clim Change 2014, 5:649–661. doi: 10.1002/wcc.296 This article is categorized under: Policy and Governance > Multilevel and Transnational Climate Change Governance Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Climate Science and Decision Making

show abstract

The impact of abrupt suspension of solar radiation management (termination effect) in experiment G2 of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP)

Cited by 149 publications

References 35 publications

Atlantic hurricane surge response to geoengineering

Atlantic hurricane surge response to geoengineering

Extreme temperature and precipitation response to solar dimming and stratospheric aerosol geoengineering

Climate geoengineering: issues of path‐dependence and socio‐technical lock‐in

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About