https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43630-023-00371-y - Authors - -
- G. H. Bernhard <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43630-023-00371-y#auth-G__H_-Bernhard> , - A. F. Bais <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43630-023-00371-y#auth-A__F_-Bais> , - P. J. Aucamp <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43630-023-00371-y#auth-P__J_-Aucamp> , - A. R. Klekociuk <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43630-023-00371-y#auth-A__R_-Klekociuk> , - J. B. Liley <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43630-023-00371-y#auth-J__B_-Liley> & - R. L. McKenzie <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43630-023-00371-y#auth-R__L_-McKenzie> *Photochemical & Photobiological * <https://link.springer.com/journal/43630> *Sciences* <https://link.springer.com/journal/43630> (2023) Abstract *Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences* <https://link.springer.com/journal/43630> (2023) 21 April 2023 Abstract This assessment provides a comprehensive update of the effects of changes in stratospheric ozone and other factors (aerosols, surface reflectivity, solar activity, and climate) on the intensity of ultraviolet (UV) radiation at the Earth’s surface. The assessment is performed in the context of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and its Amendments and Adjustments. Changes in UV radiation at low- and mid-latitudes (0–60°) during the last 25 years have generally been small (e.g., typically less than 4% per decade, increasing at some sites and decreasing at others) and were mostly driven by changes in cloud cover and atmospheric aerosol content, caused partly by climate change and partly by measures to control tropospheric pollution. Without the Montreal Protocol, erythemal (sunburning) UV irradiance at northern and southern latitudes of less than 50° would have increased by 10–20% between 1996 and 2020. For southern latitudes exceeding 50°, the UV Index (UVI) would have surged by between 25% (year-round at the southern tip of South America) and more than 100% (South Pole in spring). Variability of erythemal irradiance in Antarctica was very large during the last four years. In spring 2019, erythemal UV radiation was at the minimum of the historical (1991–2018) range at the South Pole, while near record-high values were observed in spring 2020, which were up to 80% above the historical mean. In the Arctic, some of the highest erythemal irradiances on record were measured in March and April 2020. For example in March 2020, the monthly average UVI over a site in the Canadian Arctic was up to 70% higher than the historical (2005–2019) average, often exceeding this mean by three standard deviations. Under the presumption that all countries will adhere to the Montreal Protocol in the future and that atmospheric aerosol concentrations remain constant, erythemal irradiance at mid-latitudes (30–60°) is projected to decrease between 2015 and 2090 by 2–5% in the north and by 4–6% in the south due to recovering ozone. Changes projected for the tropics are ≤ 3%. However, in industrial regions that are currently affected by air pollution, UV radiation will increase as measures to reduce air pollutants will gradually restore UV radiation intensities to those of a cleaner atmosphere. Since most substances controlled by the Montreal Protocol are also greenhouse gases, the phase-out of these substances may have avoided warming by 0.5–1.0 °C over mid-latitude regions of the continents, and by more than 1.0 °C in the Arctic; however, the uncertainty of these calculations is large. We also assess the effects of changes in stratospheric ozone on climate, focusing on the poleward shift of climate zones, and discuss the role of the small Antarctic ozone hole in 2019 on the devastating “Black Summer” fires in Australia. Additional topics include the assessment of advances in measuring and modeling of UV radiation; methods for determining personal UV exposure; the effect of solar radiation management (stratospheric aerosol injections) on UV radiation relevant for plants; and possible revisions to the vitamin D action spectrum, which describes the wavelength dependence of the synthesis of previtamin D3 in human skin upon exposure to UV radiation. Implications of solar radiation management on UV radiation Over the last decade, global warming from increasing GHGs has accelerated, and global mean air temperatures near the surface have risen by about 1.1 °C above pre-industrial levels [Chapter 2 of 63]. The resulting changes in climate observed worldwide have stimulated discussions on strategies to mitigate warming through artificially forced reduction of solar radiation entering the troposphere. Impacts of such solar radiation management (SRM) interventions on the atmosphere and the environment have been investigated in numerous modeling studies and discussed in current assessments by the SAP [11 <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43630-023-00371-y#ref-CR11>] and IPCC [Chapter 4 of 63], and the last EEAP assessment [9 <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43630-023-00371-y#ref-CR9>]. The latest SAP report [11 <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43630-023-00371-y#ref-CR11>] extensively addresses the potential impacts on TCO from stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) under different scenarios. Here, we focus on the effects of the possible implementation of SAI on surface UV radiation. The effects are driven not only by changes in TCO but also by the redistribution of solar radiation from the direct-to-diffuse component, plus the global dimming effect expected from back-scattering of solar radiation to space by the aerosol layer. The TCO is affected both by SAI-induced changes in heterogeneous chemical reactions, which depend on the surface area density of the aerosol (e.g., in µm2/cm3), and by changes in atmospheric dynamics (including transport, temperature, and water vapor changes). These effects on TCO differ with latitude and season, and depend on the future SAI scenario because they act in addition to the effects of decreasing ODSs and increasing GHGs. During the Antarctic ozone hole season, destruction of ozone in the stratosphere resulting from SAI would mainly be controlled by halogen chemistry on the surface of aerosols, while transport of ozone through circulation becomes important in other seasons [11 <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43630-023-00371-y#ref-CR11>]. Using models that participated in the Geoengineering Large ENSemble (GLENS) project, Tilmes et al. [270 <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43630-023-00371-y#ref-CR270>] estimated the effect on TCO in the latitude band 63°–90° S from SAI designed to achieve a reduction of 1.5 and 2.0 °C in global surface temperature. They found a reduction of up to 70 DU in the Antarctic TCO at the start of the SAI application (2020–2030), followed by an increase in TCO towards 2100 with a pattern like the projected changes in TCO without the application of SAI. In a more recent study, Tilmes et al. [271 <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43630-023-00371-y#ref-CR271>] estimated the initial abrupt decrease in TCO to be between 8 and 20% in 2030–2039 compared to 2010–2019, depending on injection strategy and model. All scenarios assumed in these studies result in a delayed recovery of Antarctic ozone to pre-ozone-hole levels by 20 to ~ 40 years. The TCO for these SAI scenarios remains below the levels projected by the worst case GHG scenario (SSP5-8.5) until the end of the twenty-first century, which would lead to increased levels of UV-B radiation during the entire period in Antarctica. In a similar study, Tilmes et al. [272 <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43630-023-00371-y#ref-CR272>] estimated the effects of SAI also in the Northern Hemisphere and the tropics based on simulations of the G6 Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). The models agree that sulfur injections result in a robust increase in TCO in winter at middle and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere of up to 20 DU over the twenty-first century compared to simulations based on the SSP5-8.5 scenario without SAI. This increase in TCO, which is linearly related to the increase in the amount of sulfur injections, is driven by the warming of the tropical lower stratosphere and would eventually result in decreasing UV-B radiation at these latitudes during the remainder of the twenty-first century. The magnitude of these changes in UV-B radiation depends on the SAI scenario. The Arctic TCO is initially projected to decrease by 13 to 22 DU depending on the scenario, which is a much smaller decrease than that projected by Tilmes et al. [270 <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43630-023-00371-y#ref-CR270>] for the Antarctic discussed above. By the end of the twenty-first century, the Arctic TCO with and without SAI are approximately the same. Finally for the tropics, changes in ozone due to SAI would be small. The initial reduction in TCO projected by Tilmes et al. [270 <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43630-023-00371-y#ref-CR270>] and Tilmes et al. [272 <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43630-023-00371-y#ref-CR272>] for the Antarctic and Arctic is attributable to heterogeneous reactions on aerosol particles in the presence of ODSs. Robrecht et al. [273 <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43630-023-00371-y#ref-CR273>] showed that this effect is far less important for mid-latitudes and the tropics compared with polar regions. While the above studies have focused on the consequences of SAI on ozone, effects on UV and visible radiation from SAI also depend on the attenuation (dimming) and redistribution of solar radiation. These effects have been quantified with a radiative transfer model using inputs from the GLENS project [271 <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43630-023-00371-y#ref-CR271>] designed to counteract warming from increased GHGs under the RCP 8.5 scenario [274 <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43630-023-00371-y#ref-CR274>]. Estimated changes in the UVI are predominantly driven by the attenuation of solar radiation by the artificial aerosol layer (with concentrations peaking above ~ 30 km in the tropics and above ~ 25 km in the high latitudes). Reduced direct radiation due to aerosol scattering results in substantial reductions in solar irradiance at the Earth’s surface despite an enhanced contribution from diffuse radiation. However, the larger diffuse component may allow more efficient penetration of UV irradiance through forest and crop canopies [275 <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43630-023-00371-y#ref-CR275>], offsetting, to some extent, the reduced irradiance on top of the canopies. The intervention is estimated to reduce the daily average above-canopy UVI in 2080 relative to 2020 by about 15% at 30° N and by 6–22% at 70° N, depending on season. About one third of the reduced UVI at 30° N is due to the relative increase in TCO (~ 3.5%) between the reference and the SRM scenario. The corresponding increase in TCO for 70° N is less than 1% and explains only a very small fraction of the decrease in the UVI. The calculated changes in the UVI are therefore primarily caused by the scattering effect of sulfate aerosols, with a very small contribution from the absorption by sulfur dioxide (SO2). Finally, reductions in photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) are estimated to range from 9 to 16% at 30° N and from 20 to 72% at 70° N, depending on season, with the largest proportional changes occurring in December, when the absolute levels of radiation are small. Such large changes in the UVI and PAR would likely have important consequences for ecosystem services and food security; however, such repercussions have not yet been quantified. While the study only characterized changes in UV radiation and PAR for the NH, similar results can be expected for the SH. *Source: SpringerLink* -- 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/CAHJsh99cJF-mj8JG5_zMbKcTZsvPtW%3DfQ29-e94z6qydC0Dm8Q%40mail.gmail.com.
