https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-1726/
Authors Sandro Vattioni <[email protected]>, Andrea Stenke <[email protected]>, Beiping Luo, Gabriel Chiodo, Timofei Sukhodolov , Elia Wunderlin, and Thomas Peter How to cite. Vattioni, S., Stenke, A., Luo, B., Chiodo, G., Sukhodolov, T., Wunderlin, E., and Peter, T.: Importance of microphysical settings for climate forcing by stratospheric SO2 injections as modelled by SOCOL-AERv2, EGUsphere [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1726, 2023. *Received: 26 Jul 2023 – Discussion started: 11 Sep 2023* Abstract. Solar radiation management as a sustained deliberate source of SO2 into the stratosphere (strat-SRM) has been proposed as an option for climate intervention. Global interactive aerosol-chemistry-climate models are often used to investigate the potential cooling efficiencies and side effects of hypothesised strat-SRM scenarios. A recent strat-SRM model intercomparison study for composition-climate models with interactive stratospheric aerosol suggests that the modelled climate response to a particular assumed injection strategy, depends on the type of aerosol microphysical scheme used (e.g., modal or sectional representation), alongside also host model resolution and transport. Compared to short-duration volcanic SO2 emission, the continuous SO2 injections in strat-SRM scenarios may pose a greater challenge to the numerical implementation of of microphysical processes such as nucleation, condensation, and coagulation. This study explores how changing the timesteps and sequencing of microphysical processes in the sectional aerosol-chemistry-climate model SOCOL-AERv2 (40 size bins) affect model predicted climate and ozone layer impacts considering strat-SRM SO2 injections of of 5 and 25 Tg(S) yr-1 at 20 km altitude between 30° S and 30° N. The model experiments consider year 2040 boundary conditions for ozone depleting substances and green house gases. We focus on the length of the microphysical timestep and the call sequence of nucleation and condensation, the two competing sink processes for gaseous H2SO4. Under stratospheric background conditions, we find no effect of the microphysical setup on the simulated aerosol properties. However, at the high sulfur loadings reached in the scenarios injecting 25 Mt/yr of sulfur with a default microphysical timesetp of 6 min, changing the call sequence from the default "condensation first" to "nucleation first" leads to a massive increase in the number densities of particles in the nucleation mode (*R* < 0.01 μm) and a small decrease in coarse mode particles (*R* > 1 μm). As expected, the influence of the call sequence becomes negligible when the microphysical timestep is reduced to a few seconds, with the model solutions converging to a size distribution with a pronounced nucleation mode. While the main features and spatial patterns of climate forcing by SO2 injections are not strongly affected by the microphysical configuration, the absolute numbers vary considerably. For the extreme injection with 25 Tg(S) yr-1, the simulated net global radiative forcing ranges from -2.3 W m-2 to -5.3 W m-2, depending on the microphysical configuration. “Nucleation first” shifts the size distribution towards radii better suited for solar scattering (0.3 μm < *R* < 0.4 μm), enhancing the intervention efficiency. The size-distribution shift however generates more ultra-fine aerosol particles, increasing the surface area density, resulting in 10 DU less ozone (about 3 % of total column) in the northern midlatitudes and 20 DU less ozone (6 %) over the polar caps, compared to the "condensation first" approach. Our results suggest that a reasonably short microphysical time step of 2 minutes or less must be applied to accurately capture the magnitude of the H2SO2 supersaturation resulting from SO2 injection scenarios or volcanic eruptions. Taken together these results underscore how structural aspects of model representation of aerosol microphysical processes become important under conditions of elevated stratospheric sulfur in determining atmospheric chemistry and climate impacts. *Source: EGUSphere* -- 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/CAHJsh99%3DmWV3otbMAr7K6pB6AMamVGWcJSk_N9HaY7iHni-Awg%40mail.gmail.com.
