https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/22/2955/2022/

An interactive stratospheric aerosol model intercomparison of solar
geoengineering by stratospheric injection of SO2 or accumulation-mode
sulfuric acid aerosols

Debra K. Weisenstein, Daniele Visioni, Henning Franke, Ulrike Niemeier,
Sandro Vattioni, Gabriel Chiodo, Thomas Peter, and David W. Keith

Abstract

Studies of stratospheric solar geoengineering have tended to focus on
modification of the sulfuric acid aerosol layer, and almost all climate
model experiments that mechanistically increase the sulfuric acid aerosol
burden assume injection of SO2. A key finding from these model studies is
that the radiative forcing would increase sublinearly with increasing
SO2 injection
because most of the added sulfur increases the mass of existing particles,
resulting in shorter aerosol residence times and aerosols that are above
the optimal size for scattering. Injection of SO3 or H2SO4 from an aircraft
in stratospheric flight is expected to produce particles predominantly in
the accumulation-mode size range following microphysical processing within
an expanding plume, and such injection may result in a smaller average
stratospheric particle size, allowing a given injection of sulfur to
produce more radiative forcing. We report the first multi-model
intercomparison to evaluate this approach, which we label AM-H2SO4 injection.
A coordinated multi-model experiment designed to represent this SO3- or H2SO
4-driven geoengineering scenario was carried out with three interactive
stratospheric aerosol microphysics models: the National Center for
Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Community Earth System Model (CESM2) with the
Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model (WACCM) atmospheric configuration,
the Max-Planck Institute's middle atmosphere version of ECHAM5 with the HAM
microphysical module (MAECHAM5-HAM) and ETH's SOlar Climate Ozone Links
with AER microphysics (SOCOL-AER) coordinated as a test-bed experiment
within the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). The
intercomparison explores how the injection of new accumulation-mode
particles changes the large-scale particle size distribution and thus the
overall radiative and dynamical response to stratospheric sulfur injection.
Each model used the same injection scenarios testing AM-H2SO4 and SO2
injections
at 5 and 25 Tg(S) yr−1 to test linearity and climate response sensitivity.
All three models find that AM-H2SO4 injection increases the radiative
efficacy, defined as the radiative forcing per unit of sulfur injected,
relative to SO2 injection. Increased radiative efficacy means that when
compared to the use of SO2 to produce the same radiative forcing,
AM-H2SO4 emissions
would reduce side effects of sulfuric acid aerosol geoengineering that are
proportional to mass burden. The model studies were carried out with two
different idealized geographical distributions of injection mass
representing deployment scenarios with different objectives, one designed
to force mainly the midlatitudes by injecting into two grid points at 30∘ N
and 30∘ S, and the other designed to maximize aerosol residence time by
injecting uniformly in the region between 30∘ S and 30∘ N. Analysis of
aerosol size distributions in the perturbed stratosphere of the models
shows that particle sizes evolve differently in response to concentrated
versus dispersed injections depending on the form of the injected sulfur (SO
2 gas or AM-H2SO4 particulate) and suggests that prior model results for
concentrated injection of SO2 may be strongly dependent on model
resolution. Differences among models arise from differences in aerosol
formulation and differences in model dynamics, factors whose interplay
cannot be easily untangled by this intercomparison.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAKSzgpb8efEaZEhgpLnGYj_umURcA%2B9KWU_D7xwKZRW8eydFdA%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to