Abstract Feedback control algorithms are important tools in climate intervention simulation design because they facilitate “top‐down” design, in which climate goals (often temperatures) are prescribed and a strategy chosen to meet the target. This approach is commonly used in simulations of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) interventions, but have never been used with marine cloud brightening (MCB) interventions. Using data from previously published MCB simulations, we use the Community Earth System Model (CESM2) to simulate MCB deployments over regions which expand with time to limit global warming to 1.5°C in the SSP2‐4.5 scenario, and we design a feedback control algorithm to determine the scope of intervention each year. Our methodology is able to control global mean temperature in this way, but controlling global mean temperature does not by itself mitigate regional impacts common to tropical MCB; additionally, the algorithm takes longer than intended to converge, indicating room for future improvement.

The efficiency of marine cloud brightening in cooling Earth’s surface temperature is investigated by using a medium ensemble of simulations with the Community Earth System Model version 2 (CESM2). Various cloud seeding schemes based on susceptibility are examined to determine what area extent will be required to induce 1C cooling under SSP2-4.5. The results indicate that cloud seeding over 5% of the ocean area is capable of achieving this goal. Under this seeding scheme, cloud seeding is mainly deployed over lower latitudes where strong surface temperature and precipitation responses are induced. The simulations also reveal that the 5% cloud seeding scheme induces an overall reduction in global precipitation, with an increase over land and a decrease over the ocean.

Abstract Previous modeling studies indicate that even though marine cloud brightening under a susceptibility‐based strategy is effective in reducing the global average surface temperature, it triggers a La Niña‐like sea‐surface temperature response with cooling mostly confined within lower latitudes. Here we explore a different cloud seeding strategy involving seeding of regions with low susceptibility, primarily over the ocean in midlatitudes during the winter. Simulations with the Community Earth System Model, version 2 reveal that because the regional forcing is weaker and more widespread, cooling is more evenly distributed over the globe. This new strategy also does not result in the La Niña‐like state seen in the other strategies.

Solar climate intervention using stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) has been proposed as a method which could offset some of the adverse effects of global warming. The Assessing Responses and Impacts of Solar climate intervention on the Earth system with Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (ARISE-SAI) set of simulations is based on a moderate-greenhouse-gas-emission scenario and employs injection of sulfur dioxide at four off-equatorial locations using a control algorithm which maintains the global-mean surface temperature at 1.5 K above pre-industrial conditions (ARISE-SAI-1.5), as well as the latitudinal gradient and inter-hemispheric difference in surface temperature. This is the first comparison between two models (CESM2 and UKESM1) applying the same multi-target SAI strategy. CESM2 is successful in reaching its temperature targets, but UKESM1 has considerable residual Arctic warming. This occurs because the pattern of temperature change in a climate with SAI is determined by both the structure of the climate forcing (mainly greenhouse gases and stratospheric aerosols) and the climate models' feedbacks, the latter of which favour a strong Arctic amplification of warming in UKESM1. Therefore, research constraining the level of future Arctic warming would also inform any hypothetical SAI deployment strategy which aims to maintain the inter-hemispheric and Equator-to-pole near-surface temperature differences. Furthermore, despite broad agreement in the precipitation response in the extratropics, precipitation changes over tropical land show important inter-model differences, even under greenhouse gas forcing only. In general, this ensemble comparison is the first step in comparing policy-relevant scenarios of SAI and will help in the design of an experimental protocol which both reduces some known negative side effects of SAI and is simple enough to encourage more climate models to participate.

Owing to increasing greenhouse gas emissions, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet as well as a few subglacial basins in East Antarctica are vulnerable to rapid ice loss in the upcoming decades and centuries, respectively. This study examines the effectiveness of using Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) that minimizes global mean temperature (GMT) change to slow projected 21st century Antarctic ice loss. We use eleven different SAI cases which vary by the latitudinal location(s) and the amount(s) of the injection(s) to examine the climatic response near Antarctica in each case as compared to the reference climate at the turn of the last century. We demonstrate that injecting at a single latitude in the northern hemisphere or at the Equator increases Antarctic shelf ocean temperatures pertinent to ice shelf basal melt, while injecting only in the southern hemisphere minimizes this temperature change. We use these results to analyze the results of more complex multi-latitude injection strategies that maintain GMT at or below 1.5°C above the pre-industrial. All these cases will slow Antarctic ice loss relative to the mid-to-late 21st century SSP2-4.5 emissions pathway. Yet, to avoid a GMT threshold estimated by previous studies pertaining to rapid West Antarctic ice loss (~1.5°C above the pre-industrial), our study suggests SAI would need to cool below this threshold and predominately inject at low southern hemisphere latitudes. These results highlight the complexity of factors impacting the Antarctic response to SAI and the critical role of the injection strategy in preventing future ice loss.

Abstract Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) of reflective sulfate aerosols has been proposed to temporarily reduce the impacts of global warming. In this study, we compare two SAI simulations which inject at different altitudes to provide the same amount of cooling, finding that lower‐altitude SAI requires 64% more injection. SAI at higher altitudes cools the surface more efficiently per unit injection than lower‐altitude SAI through two primary mechanisms: the longer lifetimes of SO2 and SO4 at higher altitudes, and the water vapor feedback, in which lower‐altitude SAI causes more heating in the tropical cold point tropopause region, thereby increasing water vapor transport into the stratosphere and trapping more terrestrial infrared radiation that offsets some of the direct aerosol‐induced cooling. We isolate these individual mechanisms and find that the contribution of lifetime effects to differences in cooling efficiency is approximately five to six times larger than the contribution of the water vapor feedback.

Abstract Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) has been shown in climate models to reduce some impacts of global warming in the Arctic, including the loss of sea ice, permafrost thaw, and reduction of Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) mass; SAI at high latitudes could preferentially target these impacts. In this study, we use the Community Earth System Model to simulate two Arctic‐focused SAI strategies, which inject at 60°N latitude each spring with injection rates adjusted to either maintain September Arctic sea ice at 2030 levels (“Arctic Low”) or restore it to 2010 levels (“Arctic High”). Both simulations maintain or restore September sea ice to within 10% of their respective targets, reduce permafrost thaw, and increase GrIS surface mass balance by reducing runoff. Arctic High reduces these impacts more effectively than a globally focused SAI strategy that injects similar quantities of SO2 at lower latitudes. However, Arctic‐focused SAI is not merely a “reset button” for the Arctic climate, but brings about a novel climate state, including changes to the seasonal cycles of Northern Hemisphere temperature and sea ice and less high‐latitude carbon uptake relative to SSP2‐4.5. Additionally, while Arctic‐focused SAI produces the most cooling near the pole, its effects are not confined to the Arctic, including detectable cooling throughout most of the northern hemisphere for both simulations, increased mid‐latitude sulfur deposition, and a southward shift of the location of the Intertropical Convergence Zone. For these reasons, it would be incorrect to consider Arctic‐focused SAI as “local” geoengineering, even when compared to a globally focused strategy.

There is now substantial literature on climate model studies of equatorial or tropical stratospheric SO2 injections that aim to counteract the surface warming produced by rising concentrations of greenhouse gases. Here we present the results from the first systematic intercomparison of climate responses in three Earth system models wherein the injection of SO2 occurs at different latitudes in the lower stratosphere: CESM2-WACCM6, UKESM1.0 and GISS-E2.1-G. The first two use a modal aerosol microphysics scheme, while two versions of GISS-E2.1-G use a bulk aerosol (One-Moment Aerosol, OMA) and a two-moment (Multiconfiguration Aerosol TRacker of mIXing state, MATRIX) microphysics approach, respectively. Our aim in this work is to determine commonalities and differences between the climate model responses in terms of the distribution of the optically reflective sulfate aerosols produced from the oxidation of SO2 and in terms of the surface response to the resulting reduction in solar radiation. A focus on understanding the contribution of characteristics of models transport alongside their microphysical and chemical schemes, and on evaluating the resulting stratospheric responses in different models, is given in the companion paper (Bednarz et al., 2023). The goal of this exercise is not to evaluate these single-point injection simulations as stand-alone proposed strategies to counteract global warming; instead we determine sources and areas of agreement and uncertainty in the simulated responses and, ultimately, the possibility of designing a comprehensive intervention strategy capable of managing multiple simultaneous climate goals through the combination of different injection locations. We find large disagreements between GISS-E2.1-G and the CESM2-WACCM6 and UKESM1.0 models regarding the magnitude of cooling per unit of aerosol optical depth (AOD) produced, which varies from 4.7 K per unit of AOD in CESM2-WACCM6 to 16.7 K in the GISS-E2.1-G version with two-moment aerosol microphysics. By normalizing the results with the global mean response in each of the models and thus assuming that the amount of SO2 injected is a free parameter that can be managed independently, we highlight some commonalities in the overall distributions of the aerosols, in the inter-hemispheric surface temperature response and in shifts to the Intertropical Convergence Zone, as well as some areas of disagreement, such as the extent of the aerosol confinement in the equatorial region and the efficiency of the transport to polar latitudes. In conclusion, we demonstrate that it is possible to use these simulations to produce more comprehensive injection strategies in multiple climate models. However, large differences in the injection magnitudes can be expected, potentially increasing inter-model spreads in some stratospheric quantities (such as aerosol distribution) while reducing the spread in the surface response in terms of temperature and precipitation; furthermore, the selection of the injection locations may be dependent on the models' specific stratospheric transport.

Owing to increasing greenhouse gas emissions, the Antarctic Ice Sheet is vulnerable to rapid ice loss in the upcoming decades and centuries. This study examines the effectiveness of using stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) that minimizes global mean temperature (GMT) change to slow projected 21st century Antarctic ice loss. We simulate 11 different SAI cases which vary by the latitudinal location(s) and the amount(s) of the injection(s) to examine the climatic response near Antarctica in each case as compared to the reference climate at the turn of the last century. We demonstrate that injecting at a single latitude in the northern hemisphere or at the Equator increases Antarctic shelf ocean temperatures pertinent to ice shelf basal melt, while injecting only in the southern hemisphere minimizes this temperature change. We use these results to analyze the results of more complex multi‐latitude injection strategies that maintain GMT at or below 1.5°C above the pre‐industrial. All these multi‐latitude cases will slow Antarctic ice loss relative to the mid‐to‐late 21st century SSP2‐4.5 emissions pathway. Yet, to avoid a GMT threshold estimated by previous studies pertaining to rapid West Antarctic ice loss (1.5°C above the pre‐industrial GMT, though large uncertainty), our study suggests SAI would need to cool about 1.0°C below this threshold and predominately inject at low southern hemisphere latitudes (∼15°S ‐ 30°S). These results highlight the complexity of factors impacting the Antarctic response to SAI and the critical role of the injection strategy in preventing future ice loss.

Abstract. Solar climate intervention using stratospheric aerosol injection is a proposed method of reducing global mean temperatures to reduce the worst consequences of climate change. A detailed assessment of responses and impacts of such an intervention is needed with multiple global models to support societal decisions regarding the use of these approaches to help address climate change. We present a new modeling protocol aimed at simulating a plausible deployment of stratospheric aerosol injection and reproducibility of simulations using other Earth system models: Assessing Responses and Impacts of Solar climate intervention on the Earth system with stratospheric aerosol injection (ARISE-SAI). The protocol and simulations are aimed at enabling community assessment of responses of the Earth system to solar climate intervention. ARISE-SAI simulations are designed to be more policy-relevant than existing large ensembles or multi-model simulation sets. We describe in detail the first set of ARISE-SAI simulations, ARISE-SAI-1.5, which utilize a moderate emissions scenario, introduce stratospheric aerosol injection at ∼21.5 km in the year 2035, and keep global mean surface air temperature near 1.5 ∘C above the pre-industrial value utilizing a feedback or control algorithm. We present the detailed setup, aerosol injection strategy, and preliminary climate analysis from a 10-member ensemble of these simulations carried out with the Community Earth System Model version 2 with the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model version 6 as its atmospheric component.

Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) is a prospective climate intervention technology that would seek to abate climate change by deflecting back into space a small fraction of the incoming solar radiation. While most consideration given to SAI assumes a global intervention, this paper considers an alternative scenario whereby SAI might be deployed only in the subpolar regions. Subpolar deployment would quickly envelope the poles as well and could arrest or reverse ice and permafrost melt at high latitudes. This would yield global benefit by retarding sea level rise. Given that effective SAI deployment could be achieved at much lower altitudes in these regions than would be required in the tropics, it is commonly assumed that subpolar deployment would present fewer aeronautical challenges. An SAI deployment intended to reduce average surface temperatures in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions by 2 °C is deemed here to be feasible at relatively low cost with conventional technologies. However, we do not find that such a deployment could be undertaken with a small fleet of pre-existing aircraft, nor that relegating such a program to these sparsely populated regions would obviate the myriad governance challenges that would confront any such deployment. Nevertheless, given its feasibility and potential global benefit, the prospect of subpolar-focused SAI warrants greater attention.

Making informed future decisions about solar radiation modification (SRM; also known as solar geoengineering)-approaches such as stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) that would cool the climate by reflecting sunlight-requires projections of the climate response and associated human and ecosystem impacts. These projections, in turn, will rely on simulations with global climate models. As with climate-change projections, these simulations need to adequately span a range of possible futures, describing different choices, such as start date and temperature target, as well as risks, such as termination or interruptions. SRM modeling simulations to date typically consider only a single scenario, often with some unrealistic or arbitrarily chosen elements (such as starting deployment in 2020), and have often been chosen based on scientific rather than policy-relevant considerations (e.g., choosing quite substantial cooling specifically to achieve a bigger response). This limits the ability to compare risks both between SRM and non-SRM scenarios and between different SRM scenarios. To address this gap, we begin by outlining some general considerations on scenario design for SRM. We then describe a specific set of scenarios to capture a range of possible policy choices and uncertainties and present corresponding SAI simulations intended for broad community use.

Abstract. Solar climate intervention using stratospheric aerosol injection is a proposed method of reducing global mean temperatures to reduce some of the consequences of climate change. A detailed assessment of responses and impacts of such an intervention is needed with multiple global models to support societal decisions regarding the use of these approaches to help address climate change. We present here a new modeling protocol and a 10-member ensemble of simulations using one of the most comprehensive Earth system models, aimed at simulating a plausible deployment of stratospheric aerosol injection and reproducibility of simulations using other Earth system models to enable community assessment of responses of the Earth system to solar climate intervention. The Assessing Responses and Impacts of Solar climate intervention on the Earth system with stratospheric aerosol injection (ARISE-SAI) simulations utilize a moderate emission scenario, introduce stratospheric aerosol injection at ~ 21 km in year 2035, and keep global mean surface air temperature near 1.5 °C above the pre-industrial value (ARISE-SAI-1.5). We present here the detailed set-up, aerosol injection strategy, and mean surface climate changes in these simulations so they can be reproduced in other global models.

Stratospheric aerosol geoengineering focused on the Arctic could substantially reduce local and worldwide impacts of anthropogenic global warming. Because the Arctic receives little sunlight during the winter, stratospheric aerosols present in the winter at high latitudes have little impact on the climate, whereas stratospheric aerosols present during the summer achieve larger changes in radiative forcing. Injecting SO 2 in the spring leads to peak aerosol optical depth (AOD) in the summer. We demonstrate that spring injection produces approximately twice as much summer AOD as year‐round injection and restores approximately twice as much September sea ice, resulting in less increase in stratospheric sulfur burden, stratospheric heating, and stratospheric ozone depletion per unit of sea ice restored. We also find that differences in AOD between different seasonal injection strategies are small compared to the difference between annual and spring injection.

What if solar geoengineering were enacted not through careful intergovernmental deliberations or the actions of a rogue state, but by millions of private citizens taking matters into their own hands? This thought experiment—the subject of a scenario exercise at the Sixth International Geoengineering Governance Summer School—produced a range of critical reflections on international responses to such grassroots deployment as participant teams developed and critiqued governance proposals. Consideration of decentralized solar geoengineering, while unlikely, provides compelling insights for the governance of both irregular and more conventional geoengineering scenarios. Participants stressed that concerns with the collecting and reporting of data, hemispheric imbalances, and multidirectional questions of legitimacy are likely to arise in such contexts. Grassroots activity could further serve to galvanize wider state-led deliberations around geoengineering governance, forcing—but not necessarily deciding—the question of whether and how solar geoengineering should be implemented.

By injecting SO 2 into the stratosphere at four latitudes (30°, 15°N/S), it might be possible not only to reduce global mean surface temperature but also to minimize changes in the equator‐to‐pole and inter‐hemispheric gradients of temperature, further reducing some of the impacts arising from climate change relative to equatorial injection. This can happen only if the aerosols are transported to higher latitudes by the stratospheric circulation, ensuring that a greater part of the solar radiation is reflected back to space at higher latitudes, compensating for the reduced sunlight. However, the stratospheric heating produced by these aerosols modifies the circulation and strengthens the stratospheric polar vortex which acts as a barrier to the transport of air toward the poles. We show how the heating results in a feedback where increasing injection rates lead to stronger high‐latitudinal transport barriers. This implies a potential limitation in the high‐latitude aerosol burden and subsequent cooling.

Previous climate modeling studies demonstrate the ability of feedback-regulated, stratospheric aerosol geoengineering with injection at multiple independent latitudes to meet multiple simultaneous temperature-based objectives in the presence of anthropogenic climate change. However, the impacts of climate change are not limited to rising temperatures but also include changes in precipitation, loss of sea ice, and many more; knowing how a given geoengineering strategy will affect each of these climate metrics is vital to understanding the limits and trade-offs of geoengineering. In this study, we first introduce a new method of visualizing the design space in which desired climate outcomes are represented by 2-D surfaces on a 3-D graph. Surface orientations represent how different injection choices influence that objective, and intersecting surfaces represent objectives which can be met simultaneously. Using this representation as a guide, we present simulations of two new strategies for feedback-regulated aerosol injection, using the Community Earth System Model with the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model - CESM1(WACCM). The first simultaneously manages global mean temperature, tropical precipitation centroid, and Arctic sea ice extent, while the second manages global mean precipitation, tropical precipitation centroid, and Arctic sea ice extent. Both simulations control the tropical precipitation centroid to within 5 % of the goal, and the latter controls global mean precipitation to within 1 % of the goal. Additionally, the first simulation overcompensates sea ice, while the second under-compensates sea ice; all of these results are consistent with the expectations of our design space model. In addition to showing that precipitation-based climate metrics can be managed using feedback alongside other goals, our simulations validate the utility of our design space visualization in predicting our climate model behavior under a given geoengineering strategy, and together they help illustrate the fundamental limits and trade-offs of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering.