*WEEKLY SUMMARY (11 MARCH - 17 MARCH 2024)*

*Subscribe to our newsletter to receive monthly updates on Solar
Geoengineering:*
Solar Geoengineering Updates
<https://solargeoengineeringupdates.substack.com?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=publication_embed&utm_medium=email>
Monthly news summaries about solar geoengineering. Links to scientific
papers, news articles, jobs, podcasts, and videos.
<https://solargeoengineeringupdates.substack.com?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=publication_embed&utm_medium=email>
By Andrew Lockley
<https://solargeoengineeringupdates.substack.com?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=publication_embed&utm_medium=email>
------------------------------
RESEARCH PAPERSThe El Niño response to tropical volcanic eruptions and
geoengineering
<https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU24/EGU24-11374.html>

Kroll, C., & Wills, R. J. (2024). *The El Niño response to tropical
volcanic eruptions and geoengineering* (No. EGU24-11374). Copernicus
Meetings.

*Abstract*

Following tropical volcanic eruptions and in response to geoengineering
efforts in climate models, the occurrence of El Niño is notably enhanced.
However, the precise mechanisms leading to the preference of the El Niño
state remain a subject of ongoing debate. In this study, we explore the El
Niño response within the context of stratospheric aerosol injection
experiments using the Community Earth System Model version 1, with the
Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model atmospheric component (CESM1
WACCM). Our investigation is centered around the Stratospheric Aerosol
Geoengineering Large Ensemble Dataset encompassing three distinct
scenarios: a simulation of the RCP8.5 scenario as baseline climate change
scenario, a geoengineering scenario, in which surface temperature increases
are completely compensated and a scenario focusing solely on the
stratospheric heating derived from the geoengineering approach. Our
analysis reveals that the El Niño response is primarily linked to the
heating in the tropical tropopause layer and lower stratosphere, and
notably, it occurs independently of tropospheric cooling effects. We
explain the increased occurrence of El Niño after volcanic eruptions and
simulated geoengineering interventions by a slow down of the tropical
atmospheric circulation, which is caused by increases in gross moist
stability due to aerosol heating in tropical tropopause layer.

Impacts of ice-nucleating particles on cirrus clouds and radiation derived
from global model simulations with MADE3 in EMAC
<https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/24/3217/2024/>

Beer, C. G., Hendricks, J., & Righi, M. (2023). Impacts of ice-nucleating
particles on cirrus clouds and radiation derived from global model
simulations with MADE3 in EMAC. *EGUsphere*, *2023*, 1-29.

*Abstract*

Atmospheric aerosols can act as ice-nucleating particles (INPs) and
influence the formation and the microphysical properties of cirrus clouds,
resulting in distinct climate effects. We employ a global aerosol–climate
model, including a two-moment cloud microphysical scheme and a
parameterization for aerosol-induced ice formation in cirrus clouds, to
quantify the climate impact of INPs on cirrus clouds (simulated period
2001–2010). The model considers mineral dust, soot, crystalline ammonium
sulfate, and glassy organics as INPs in the cirrus regime. Several
sensitivity experiments are performed to analyse various aspects of the
simulated INP–cirrus effect regarding (i) the ice-nucleating potential of
the INPs, (ii) the inclusion of ammonium sulfate and organic particles as
INPs in the model, and (iii) the model representations of vertical
updraughts. The resulting global radiative forcing of the total INP–cirrus
effect, considering all different INP types, assuming a smaller and a
larger ice-nucleating potential of INPs, to explore the range of possible
forcings due to uncertainties in the freezing properties of INPs, is
simulated as −28 and −55 mW m−2, respectively. While the simulated impact
of glassy organic INPs is mostly small and not statistically significant,
ammonium sulfate INPs contribute a considerable radiative forcing, which is
nearly as large as the combined effect of mineral dust and soot INPs.
Additionally, the anthropogenic INP–cirrus effect is analysed considering
the difference between present-day (2014) and pre-industrial conditions
(1750) and amounts to −29 mW m−2, assuming a larger ice-nucleating
potential of INPs. In a further sensitivity experiment we analyse the
effect of highly efficient INPs proposed for cirrus cloud seeding as a
means to reduce global warming by climate engineering. However, the results
indicate that this approach risks an overseeding of cirrus clouds and often
results in positive radiative forcings of up to 86 mW m−2 depending on
number concentration of seeded INPs. Idealized experiments with prescribed
vertical velocities highlight the crucial role of the model dynamics for
the simulated INP–cirrus effects. For example, resulting forcings increase
about 1 order of magnitude (−42 to −340 mW m−2) when increasing the
prescribed vertical velocity (from 1 to 50 cm s−1). The large discrepancy
in the magnitude of the simulated INP–cirrus effect between different model
studies emphasizes the need for future detailed analyses and efforts to
reduce this uncertainty and constrain the resulting climate impact of INPs.

The role of sulfur injection strategy in determining atmospheric
circulation and ozone response to solar geoengineering
<https://gfzpublic.gfz-potsdam.de/pubman/faces/ViewItemFullPage.jsp?itemId=item_5018213_1>

Bednarz, E., Visioni, D., Butler, A., Zhang, Y., MacMartin, D., & Kravitz,
B. (2023). The role of sulfur injection strategy in determining atmospheric
circulation and ozone response to solar geoengineering. In *XXVIII General
Assembly of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG)*. GFZ
German Research Centre for Geosciences.

*Abstract*

Despite offsetting global mean surface temperature, various studies
demonstrated that Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) could influence the
recovery of stratospheric ozone and have important impacts on stratospheric
and tropospheric circulation, thereby potentially playing an important role
in modulating regional and seasonal climate variability. However, so far
most of the assessments of such an approach have come from climate model
simulations in which SO2 is injected only in a single location or a set of
locations. Here we use CESM2-WACCM6 SAI simulations under a comprehensive
set of SAI strategies achieving the same global mean surface temperature
with different locations and/or timing of injections: an equatorial
injection, an annual injection of equal amounts of SO2 at 15N and 15S, an
annual injection of equal amounts of SO2 at 30N and 30S, and a polar
strategy injecting SO2 at 60N and 60S only in spring in each hemisphere. We
demonstrate that despite achieving the same global mean surface
temperature, the different strategies result in contrastingly different
impacts on stratospheric temperatures and circulation, thereby leading to
different impacts on Northern Hemispheric polar vortex and, thus, winter
mid- and high latitude surface climate, as well as leading to important
differences in the future evolution of stratospheric ozone throughout the
globe. Overall, the results contribute to an increased understanding of the
underlying physical processes as well as lay ground for identifying an
optimal SAI strategy that could form a basis of a future multi-model
assessment.

Exploring ship track spreading rates with a physics-informed Langevin
particle parameterization
<https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-235/>

McMichael, L. A., Schmidt, M. J., Wood, R., Blossey, P. N., & Patel, L.
(2024). Exploring ship track spreading rates with a physics-informed
Langevin particle parameterization. *EGUsphere*, *2024*, 1-33.

*Abstract*

The rate at which aerosols spread from a point source injection, such as
from a ship or other stationary pollution source, is critical for
accurately representing subgrid plume spreading in a climate model. Such
climate model results will guide future decisions regarding the feasibility
and application of large-scale intentional marine cloud brightening (MCB).
Prior modeling studies have shown that the rate at which ship plumes spread
may be strongly dependent on meteorological conditions, such as
precipitating versus non-precipitating boundary layers and shear. In this
study, we apply a Lagrangian particle model (PM-ABL v1.0), governed by a
Langevin stochastic differential equation, to create a simplified framework
for predicting the rate of spreading from a ship-injected aerosol plume in
sheared, precipitating, and non-precipitating boundary layers. The velocity
and position of each stochastic particle is predicted with the acceleration
of each particle being driven by the turbulent kinetic energy, dissipation
rate, momentum variance, and mean wind. These inputs to the stochastic
particle-velocity equation are derived from high-fidelity large-eddy
simulations (LES) equipped with a prognostic aerosol-cloud microphysics
scheme (UWSAM) to simulate an aerosol injection from a ship into a
cloud-topped marine boundary layer. The resulting spreading rate from the
reduced-order stochastic model is then compared to the spreading rate in
the LES. The stochastic particle-velocity representation is shown to
reasonably reproduce spreading rates in sheared, precipitating, and
non-precipitating cases using domain-averaged turbulent statistics from the
LES.

------------------------------
WEB POSTSHarvard has halted its long-planned atmospheric geoengineering
experiment
<https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/03/18/1089879/harvard-halts-its-long-planned-atmospheric-geoengineering-experiment/>
(MIT Technology Review)How rerouting planes to produce fewer contrails
could help cool the planet
<https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/03/12/1089620/how-rerouting-planes-to-produce-fewer-contrails-could-help-cool-the-planet/>
(MIT Technology Review)Degrees-funded scientists lead key discussions at
Gordon Research Conference
<https://www.degrees.ngo/degrees-funded-scientists-lead-key-discussions-at-gordon-research-conference/>
(The Degrees Initiative)Can’t Solve a Problem — Take a Step Back and Share
It
<https://medium.com/@honegger.matthias/cant-solve-a-problem-take-a-step-back-and-share-it-1b7a9734ba44>
(Medium)Effects of geoengineering must be urgently investigated, experts say
<https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/14/geoengineering-must-be-urgently-investigated-experts-say>
(The Guardian)The Best Way to Find Out if We Can Cool the Planet
<https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/17/opinion/solar-geoengineering-risks-research.html>
(The New York Times)Climate change: The 'insane' plan to save the Arctic's
sea-ice <https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68206309> (BBC)
------------------------------
REPORTStratospheric Controlled Perturbation Experiment (SCoPEx) Advisory
Committee-Final Report <https://scopexac.com/finalreport/>
<https://scopexac.com/finalreport/>
------------------------------
THESISAssessing the Potential of Cirrus Cloud Thinning through Cloud
Chamber Experiments and Parcel Model Simulations
<https://publikationen.bibliothek.kit.edu/1000168905>

*Abstract*

Cirrus cloud thinning (CCT) is a climate engineering approach to achieve
regional cooling by reducing the coverage of effectively warming cirrus
clouds. Seeding with ice-nucleating particles (INPs) would affect the
natural cirrus cloud formation process and is expected to change the cloud
properties to a thinner cloud with a shorter lifetime. With cirrus clouds
having a warming effect (on average), diminishing these clouds could lead
to a surface cooling. The Arctic could particularly benefit from such a
intervention, due to regional feedback effects.

In this work cloud chamber experiments and parcel model simulations on CCT
are presented. These results contribute to a better understanding of the
competition between heterogeneous and homogeneous freezing and will
therefore support a more rigorous evaluation of CCT effectiveness.

In our cloud chamber studies, CCT effectiveness is probed by investigating
the competition between homogeneous freezing of sulfuric acid solution
droplets and heterogeneous ice nucleation by three different seeding
agents, i.e. fumed silica, quartz and calcium carbonate. These cloud
chamber experiments show that CCT effectiveness (i.e. minimizing the total
ice crystal number concentration) is dependent on the ambient temperature
and the concentration of the seeding aerosol. The Lagrangian parcel model
MAID (Model for Aerosol and Ice Dynamics) is validated against our
experimental results and used to further analyze CCT effectiveness beyond
the experimentally accessible parameter space. As part of this work, the
model as improved and expanded by a new heterogeneous freezing scheme,
internally calculated trajectories and the representation of gravity wave
driven fluctuations. After validation we conduct atmospheric CCT
simulations with smaller seeding concentrations and slower updraft
velocities along adiabatic updraft trajectories. The results show regimes
of optimal seeding conditions, as well as regimes with the opposite effect
(overseeding). If the updraft trajectories are superimposed with gravity
wave driven fluctuations, the characteristics of those regimes become less
distinct and the effect of CCT is significantly reduced.

Our results underline the complexity of CCT effectiveness and highlight the
sensitivity with regard to variations of the seeding concentration, updraft
velocity and gravity wave fluctuations. Due to the strong impact and
statistical nature of gravity wave fluctuations a controlled application of
CCT is challenging. Yet, a statistical analysis of stochastic updraft
fluctuations shows thinned cirrus in 20 % to 30 % of the scenarios with low
to moderate seeding. Our model simulations emphasize the importance of the
competition between heterogeneous and homogeneous freezing, as well as
gravity wave driven updraft fluctuations.

------------------------------
UPCOMING EVENTS(NEW) Solar Radiation Modification, Clouds, Aerosols, and
their Impacts on the Biosphere and Earth System | EGU General Assembly
<https://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU24/session/49142> | 18 April
2024

Solar Geoengineering Events Calendar <https://teamup.com/ks64mmvtit583eitxx>

GUIDELINES:*Sync selected events to your default calendar in these simple
steps:*1) Click on the event you want to sync.2) Tap the menu icon (three
vertical lines) at the top left.3) Choose 'Share.'4) Pick your default
calendar.5) Save the event.*Sync the entire Teamup Calendar to your default
calendar with these simple steps:**1) Tap the menu icon (three vertical
lines) at the top right.**2) Choose 'Preferences.'**3) Click 'iCalendar
Feeds.'**4) Copy the URL shown for 'Solar Geoengineering Events / SRM
Deadlines.'’**5) Paste the URL into your default calendar settings.**6)
Click 'Subscribe' or 'Add Calendar.'**For more detailed instructions,
visit: https://calendar.teamup.com/kb/subscribe-to-teamup-icalendar-feeds/
<https://calendar.teamup.com/kb/subscribe-to-teamup-icalendar-feeds/>*

<https://teamup.com/ks64mmvtit583eitxx>

------------------------------
PODCASTSMCB with drones - Claudel | Reviewer 2 does geoengineering

MCB with drones - Claudel

Reviewer 2 does geoengineering

1:37:39
<https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mcb-with-drones-claudel/id1529459393?i=1000648967322&uo=4>

“Christian Claudel comes on to explore the issues around using drones to
distribute MCB particles. These are made by anti-solvent precipitation
(much like diluting Ricard spirit). Despite @geoengineering1 being AN
ACTUAL AUTHOR on the paper he still finds plenty of opportunities for
nitpicking.

Paper: Marine-cloud brightening: an airborne concept

Christian Claudel, Andrew John Lockley, Fabian Hoffmann and Younan Xia

DOI 10.1088/2515-7620/ad2f71”

How to think about solar radiation management | Volts
Volts
How to think about solar radiation management
<https://www.volts.wtf/p/how-to-think-about-solar-radiation?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=email>
Even if greenhouse gas emissions halted entirely right now, we would
continue to feel climate change effects for decades due to existing carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere — and warming could accelerate, as we reduce the
aerosol pollution that happens to be acting as a partial shield. In this
episode, Kelly Wanser of nonprofit SilverLining makes the pitch…
Listen now
<https://www.volts.wtf/p/how-to-think-about-solar-radiation?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=email>
a year ago · 31 likes · 8 comments · David Roberts

“Even if greenhouse gas emissions halted entirely right now, we would
continue to feel climate change effects for decades due to existing carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere — and warming could accelerate, as we reduce the
aerosol pollution that happens to be acting as a partial shield. In this
episode, Kelly Wanser of nonprofit SilverLining makes the pitch for solar
radiation management, the practice of adding our own shielding particles to
the atmosphere to buy us some time while we step up our greenhouse gas
reductions.”

------------------------------
YOUTUBE VIDEOS*We Need to Start Climate Engineering Soon, New Study Says
| Sabine Hossenfelder* <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZiEcx0F_CM>

Climate engineering is the cheapest way to get us out of this unfolding
climate disaster, but how do we do it? Two new papers have recently been
released - one discussing the need to start stratospheric aerosol
injections soon and the other introducing a new method of climate
engineering. What are the pros and cons of stratospheric aerosol
injections? What is this new method? Let’s have a look.

Paper 1: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GL106132

Paper 2: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adk0593

2023 2024 A New Era of Policy in Solar Geoengineering KCEP Digest 59 Solar
Geoengineering | METERRORIST MEDIA
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRVrYAm_e6w>2024 Towards a Non Use Regime
on Solar Geoengineering Lessons from International Law and Governance |
METERRORIST MEDIA <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eocYPYI4DH4>Solar
Climate Intervention Virtual Symposium 9 (Daniel Hueholt & Prof David
Keith) | Solar Climate Intervention Talks
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ1Kv-GlhsA>

“Solar Climate Intervention Virtual Symposium 9

Daniel Hueholt (Colorado State University, USA): "Climate speeds help frame
relative ecological risk in future climate change and stratospheric aerosol
injection scenarios."

Prof. David Keith (University of Chicago, USA): "Solar geoengineering could
start soon if it is small."

Solar Geoengineering/Sunlight Reflection Methods: Safe, Effective, Needed?
w/ Doug MacMartin | Climate Chat
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JBLMsXNmhs>

“In this Climate Chat episode, we interview Cornell climate scientist
Douglas MacMartin. Doug researches climate intervention techniques
including Sunlight Reflection Methods (SRM, aka Solar Radiation Management
or Solar Geoengineering). We will discuss how SRM can be achieved, how safe
it is, how does SRM side effects compare with the side effects of not doing
SRM, and why SRM may be needed very soon.”

MEERTALK March 2024 - Tim Garrett | MEER SRM
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvJ1VUsnlgY>

“Clouds play a controlling role in the atmosphere, in large part because
they cool it during daytime by reflecting sunlight to space. In recent
decades clouds have been a primary target for climate modification because
the addition of tiny aerosol particles to clouds can clearly be shown to
make them brighter. However, clouds are highly dynamic creatures, and their
overall response at the global scales that matter most to climate change is
much harder to measure. and their overall response at the global scales
that matter most to climate change is much harder to measure.

Tim Garrett is a Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of
Utah. His research interests focus on the measurement and modeling of
clouds and precipitation and their role in weather and climate.”

------------------------------

-- 
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/CAHJsh9_Dmugk-dyxX34MvgiW2pX0icd%2BFR5u93zhxRGen88wSg%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to