Cited by 47Climate Change and GeoengineeringAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateAtmospheric aerosols and clouds

Climate response to off-equatorial stratospheric sulfur injections in three Earth system models – Part 2: Stratospheric and free-tropospheric response

Open access
Bednarz, Ewa M., Visioni, Daniele, Kravitz, Ben, Jones, Andy, Haywood, James M., Richter, Jadwiga, MacMartin, Douglas G., Braesicke, Peter·2023·Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

The paper constitutes Part 2 of a study performing a first systematic inter-model comparison of the atmospheric responses to stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) at various single latitudes in the tropics, as simulated by three state-of-the-art Earth system models – CESM2-WACCM6, UKESM1.0, and GISS-E2.1-G. Building on Part 1 (Visioni et al., 2023) we demonstrate the role of biases in the climatological circulation and specific aspects of the model microphysics in driving the inter-model differences in the simulated sulfate distributions. We then characterize the simulated changes in stratospheric and free-tropospheric temperatures, ozone, water vapor, and large-scale circulation, elucidating the role of the above aspects in the surface SAI responses discussed in Part 1. We show that the differences in the aerosol spatial distribution can be explained by the significantly faster shallow branches of the Brewer–Dobson circulation in CESM2, a relatively isolated tropical pipe and older tropical age of air in UKESM, and smaller aerosol sizes and relatively stronger horizontal mixing (thus very young stratospheric age of air) in the two GISS versions used. We also find a large spread in the magnitudes of the tropical lower-stratospheric warming amongst the models, driven by microphysical, chemical, and dynamical differences. These lead to large differences in stratospheric water vapor responses, with significant increases in stratospheric water vapor under SAI in CESM2 and GISS that were largely not reproduced in UKESM. For ozone, good agreement was found in the tropical stratosphere amongst the models with more complex microphysics, with lower stratospheric ozone changes consistent with the SAI-induced modulation of the large-scale circulation and the resulting changes in transport. In contrast, we find a large inter-model spread in the Antarctic ozone responses that can largely be explained by the differences in the simulated latitudinal distributions of aerosols as well as the degree of implementation of heterogeneous halogen chemistry on sulfate in the models. The use of GISS runs with bulk microphysics demonstrates the importance of more detailed treatment of aerosol processes, with contrastingly different stratospheric SAI responses to the models using the two-moment aerosol treatment; however, some problems in halogen chemistry in GISS are also identified that require further attention. Overall, our results contribute to an increased understanding of the underlying physical mechanisms as well as identifying and narrowing the uncertainty in model projections of climate impacts from SAI.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5194/acp-23-687-2023

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 55 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bednarz, E. M., Visioni, D., Kravitz, B., Jones, A., Haywood, J. M., Richter, J., MacMartin, D. G., & Braesicke, P.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (US)
  • Met Office (GB)
  • NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research (US)
  • Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Bednarz, Ewa M.
  • Visioni, Daniele
  • Kravitz, Ben
  • Jones, Andy
  • MacMartin, Douglas G.
Venue
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Published
2023-01-16
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
687-709
ISSN
  • 1680-7316 (ISSN-L)
  • 1680-7324
OpenAlex
W4316467183
Cited by
47
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 1
FWCI
5.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Atmospheric chemistry and physics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository KITopen (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
  • KITopen (cc-by)
Funders
  • David R. Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future , Cornell University (SilverLining's Safe Climate Research Initiative)
  • National Science Foundation (CBET-2038246, CBET-1931641)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate Change and Geoengineering
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Atmospheric Ozone and Climate
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric aerosols and clouds
Keywords
stratospheric aerosol injection, sulfur aerosols, model intercomparison, Earth system models, CESM2-WACCM6, Brewer-Dobson circulation, stratospheric water vapor, stratospheric ozone, Antarctic ozone, age of air, aerosol microphysics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review