Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Regional Scale Analysis of Climate Extremes in an SRM Geoengineering Simulation, Part 2:Temperature Extremes


Affiliations
1 Department of Geography, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ 08854, United States
2 Centre for Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru 560 012, India
 

In this study, we examine the statistics of temperature extremes in a model simulation of solar radiation management (SRM) geoengineering. We consider both intensity and frequency-based extreme indices for temperature. The analysis is performed over both large-scale domains as well as regional scales (22 Giorgi land regions). We find that temperature extremes are substantially reduced in geoengineering simulation: the magnitude of change is much smaller than that occur in a simulation with elevated atmospheric CO2 alone. Large increase (~10–20 K) in the lower tails (0.1 percentile) of Tmin and Tmax in the northern hemisphere extra-tropics that are simulated under doubling of CO2 are reduced in geoengineering simulation, but significant increase (~4–7 K) persist over high-latitude land regions. Frequency of temperature extremes is largely offset over land regions in geoengineered climate. We infer that SRM schemes are likely to reduce temperature extremes and the associated impacts on a global scale. However, we note that a comprehensive assessment of moral, social, ethical, legal, technological, economic, political and governance issues is required for using SRM methods to counter the impacts of climate change.

Keywords

Extreme Events, Geoengineering, Regional Analysis, Solar Radiation Constant.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Govindasamy, B. and Caldeira, K., Geoengineering earth’s radiation balance to mitigate CO2-induced climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett., 2000, 27, 2141–2144; doi:10.1029/1999GL00 6086.

  • Govindasamy, B., Thompson, S., Duffy, P. B., Caldeira, K. and Delire, C., Impact of geoengineering schemes on the terrestrial biosphere. Geophys. Res. Lett., 2002, 29(22), 2061; doi:10.1029/2002GL015911.

  • Govindasamy, B., Caldeira, K. and Duffy, P. B., Geoengineering earth’s radiation balance to mitigate climate change from a quadrupling of CO2. Global Planet Change, 2003, 37(1–2), 157–168; doi:10.1016/S0921-8181(02)00195-9.

  • Matthews, H. D. and Caldeira, K., Transient climate–carbon simulations of planetary geoengineering. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 2007, 104, 9949–9954; doi:10.1073/pnas.0700419104.

  • Robock, A., Oman, L. and Stenchikov, G. L., Regional climate responses to geoengineering with tropical and Arctic SO2 injections. J. Geophys. Res., 2008, 113, D16101; doi:10.1029/2008JD010050.

  • Rasch, P. J. et al., An overview of geoengineering of climate using stratospheric sulphate aerosols. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A, 2008, 366, 4007–4037; doi:10.1098/rsta.2008.013.

  • Ricke, K. L., Granger Morgan, M. and Allen, M. R., Regional climate response to solar-radiation management. Nature Geosci., 2010, 3, 537–541; doi:10.1038/ngeo915.

  • Schmidt, H. et al., Solar irradiance reduction to counteract radiative forcing from a quadrupling of CO2: climate responses simulated by four earth system models. Earth Syst. Dyn., 2012, 3, 63–78; doi:10.5194/esd-3-63-2012.

  • Kravitz, B. et al., Climate model response from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 2013, 118, 8320–8331; doi:10.1002/jgrd.50646.

  • Tilmes, S. et al., The hydrologic impact of Geoengineering in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 2013, 118(11036–11), 058; doi:10.1002/jgrd.50868.

  • Muthyala, R., M., Bala, G. and Nalam, A., Regional scale analysis of climate extremes in an SRM geoengineering simulation, Part 1: precipitation extremes. Curr. Sci., 2018, 114(5), 1024–1035.

  • Kharin, V. V., Zwiers. F. W., Zhang, X. and Hegerl, G. C., Changes in temperature and precipitation extremes in the IPCC ensemble of global coupled model simulations. J. Climate, 2007, 20, 1419–1444; doi:10.1175/JCLI4066.1.

  • Sillmann, J., Kharin, V. V., Zhang, X., Zwiers, F. W. and Bronaugh, D., Climate extreme indices in the CMIP5 multi-model ensemble: Part 2. Future climate projections. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 2013, 118, 2473–2493; doi:10.1002/jgrd.50188.

  • Curry, C. L. et al., A multimodel examination of climate extremes in an idealized geoengineering experiment. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 2014, 119, 3900–3923; doi:10.1002/2013JD020648.

  • Aswathy, V. N., Boucher, O., Quaas, M., Niemier, U., Muri, H. and Quaas, J., Climate extremes in multi-model simulations of stratospheric aerosol and marine cloud brightening climate engineering. Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 2014, 14, 32393–32425; doi:10.5194/acpd-14-32393-2014.

  • Richard, B. N. et al., Description of the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM 5.0). NCAR Technical Note NCAR/TN-464 + STR, National Centre for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA, 2012.

  • Sillmann, J., Kharin, V. V., Zhang, X., Zwiers, F. W. and Bronaugh, D., Climate extreme indices in the CMIP5 multi-model ensemble: Part 1. Model evaluation in the present climate. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 2013, 118, 1716–1733; doi:10.1002/jgrd.50203.

  • Giorgi, F. and Francisco, R., Uncertainties in regional climate change prediction: a regional analysis of ensemble simulations with the HADCM2 coupled AOGCM. Climate Dyn., 2000, 16, 169–182.

  • Bala, G., Duffy, P. B. and Taylor, K. E., Impact of geoengineering schemes on the global hydrological cycle. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 2008, 105, 7664–7669; doi:10.1073/pnas.0711648105.

  • Bala, G., Caldeira, K., Nemani, R., Cao, L., Ban-Weiss, G. and Shin, H. J., Albedo enhancement of marine clouds to counteract global warming: impacts on the hydrological cycle. Climate Dyn., 2010, 37(5–6), 915–931; doi:10.1007/s00382-010-0868-1.

  • Bala, G. and Nag, B., Albedo enhancement over land to counteract global warming: impacts on hydrological cycle. Climate Dyn., 2012, 39, 1527–1542; doi:10.1007/s00382-011-1256-1.

  • Kalidindi, S., Bala, G., Modak, A. and Caldeira, K., Modeling of solar radiation management: a comparison of simulations using reduced solar constant and stratospheric sulphate aerosols. Climate Dyn., 2015, 44, 2909–2925; doi:10.1007/s00382-014-2240-3.

  • Robock, A., 20 Reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea. Bull. Atmos. Sci., 2008, 64(2), 14–18, 59; doi:10.2968/064002006.


Abstract Views: 276

PDF Views: 76




  • Regional Scale Analysis of Climate Extremes in an SRM Geoengineering Simulation, Part 2:Temperature Extremes

Abstract Views: 276  |  PDF Views: 76

Authors

Rohi Muthyala
Department of Geography, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ 08854, United States
Govindasamy Bala
Centre for Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru 560 012, India
Aditya Nalam
Centre for Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru 560 012, India

Abstract


In this study, we examine the statistics of temperature extremes in a model simulation of solar radiation management (SRM) geoengineering. We consider both intensity and frequency-based extreme indices for temperature. The analysis is performed over both large-scale domains as well as regional scales (22 Giorgi land regions). We find that temperature extremes are substantially reduced in geoengineering simulation: the magnitude of change is much smaller than that occur in a simulation with elevated atmospheric CO2 alone. Large increase (~10–20 K) in the lower tails (0.1 percentile) of Tmin and Tmax in the northern hemisphere extra-tropics that are simulated under doubling of CO2 are reduced in geoengineering simulation, but significant increase (~4–7 K) persist over high-latitude land regions. Frequency of temperature extremes is largely offset over land regions in geoengineered climate. We infer that SRM schemes are likely to reduce temperature extremes and the associated impacts on a global scale. However, we note that a comprehensive assessment of moral, social, ethical, legal, technological, economic, political and governance issues is required for using SRM methods to counter the impacts of climate change.

Keywords


Extreme Events, Geoengineering, Regional Analysis, Solar Radiation Constant.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv114%2Fi05%2F1036-1045