New paper: What Impact Would Sun Dimming Have on Earth’s Weather?

From the journal Atmospheric Science Letters press release:

Could Dimming the Sun Change Teleconnections in Weather Patterns as we Know Them?

Solar radiation management projects, also known as sun dimming, seek to reduce the amount of sunlight hitting the Earth to counteract the effects of climate change. Global dimming can occur as a side-effect of fossil fuels or as a result of volcanic eruptions, but the consequences of deliberate sun dimming as a geoengineering tool are unknown.

A new study by Dr Peter Braesicke, from the Centre for Atmospheric Science at Cambridge University, seeks to answer this question by focusing on the possible impacts of a dimming sun on atmospheric teleconnections.

Teleconnections, important for the predictability of weather regimes, are the phenomenon of distant climate anomalies being related to each other at large distances, such as the link between sea-level pressure at Tahiti and Darwin, Australia, which defines the Southern Oscillation.

“It is important that we look for unintended consequences of any sun dimming schemes,” said Braesicke. “We have to test our models continuously against observations to make sure that they are ‘fit-for-purpose’, and it’s important that we should not only look at highly averaged ‘global’ quantities.”

Dr Braesicke’s team believes that the link between tropical temperatures and extra-tropical circulation are well captured for the recent past and that the link changes when the sun is dimmed.

“This could have consequences for prevailing weather regimes,” said Braesicke, “particularly for the El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) teleconnection. Our research allows us to assess how forced atmospheric variability, exemplified by the northern polar region, might change in a geoengineered world with a dimmed sun.”

A dimmed sun will change the temperature structure of the atmosphere with a cooling throughout the atmosphere. In the troposphere, temperatures drop because less solar radiation reaches the ground and therefore less can be converted into heat. In the stratosphere, less shortwave radiation is available for absorption by ozone and, therefore, heating rates in the stratosphere are lower.

“We have shown that important teleconnections are likely to change in such a geoengineered future, due to chemistry-climate interactions and in particular, due to changing stratospheric ozone,” concluded Braesicke. “In our model, the forced variability of northern high latitude temperatures changes spatially, from a polecentred pattern to a pattern over the Pacific region when the solar irradiance is reduced. Future geoengineering studies need to consider the full evolution of the stratosphere, including its chemical behaviour.”

The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project

In an accompanying paper Ben Kravitz, from Rutgers University, reviews the new project to coordinate and compare experiments in aerosol geoengineering and evaluates the effects of stratospheric geoengineering with sulfate aerosols.

Since the idea of geoengineering was thrust back into the scientific arena many have wondered whether it could reduce global warming as a mitigation measure. Kravitz’s team argues that one of the most feasible methods is through stratospheric sulfate aerosols. While geoengineering projects are not yet favored by policy makers this method is inexpensive compared with other such projects and so may prove more attractive.

However, stratospheric geoengineering with sulfate aerosols may have unintended consequences. Research indicates that stratospheric geoengineering could, by compensating for increased greenhouse gas concentrations, reduce summer monsoon rainfall in Asia and Africa, potentially threatening the food supply for billions of people.

“Some unanswered questions include whether a continuous stratospheric aerosol cloud would have the same effect as a transient one, such as that from a volcano, and to what extent regional changes in precipitation would be compensated by regional changes in evapotranspiration,” said Kravitz.

A consensus has yet to be reached on these, as well as other, important issues and to answer these questions the team propose a suite of standardised climate modeling experiments, as well as a coordinating framework for performing such experiments, known as the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP).

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

85 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Monty
January 26, 2011 12:09 am

Oh yes. Please. Dim the sun during the end of our interglacial.

January 26, 2011 12:28 am

Geo-Engineering by people that can’t determine the natural variation in the Earth’s temperature is doomed to failure at a level almost impossible to comprehend.
I can see mirrors placed in orbit that start blocking the sun, then something prevents future space missions and suddenly the Earth enters a billion year ice age because no one can get the mirrors down.
This is entering very dangerous territory.
John Kehr
The Inconvenient Skeptic

latitudetwentyfivesouth
January 26, 2011 12:33 am

Medling with climate matters about which we know very little can surely be construed as very dangerous. I know certain people can’t help themselves and want to fix something that isn’t broke. They must be stopped.

January 26, 2011 12:34 am

SC24 max approaching ? Polar fields waste no time.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC6.htm
The formula is coming up trumps.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC-CETfiles.htm

crosspatch
January 26, 2011 12:38 am

Still seems to me they are concentrating too much on “dimming” and not enough on spectral energy variation. Moving energy from UV to visible makes a huge difference even with a TSI of the same overall value.
If the spectral distribution of the energy changes, so does its impact on Earth, even if the total energy doesn’t change. You end up with shallower heating of the oceans, less ozone created, less ionospheric activity, etc. Because, for example, there is shallower heating of the oceans, more of the heat that is created is radiated right back out into space as soon as the sun sets. If you only heat the very surface, the very surface cools pretty quickly.

Espen
January 26, 2011 1:03 am

What a waste of research money. It could have been used to study real climate threats instead (e.g. the next glacial period or mini ice age, or asteroid impacts).

Carl Chapman
January 26, 2011 1:11 am

“climate modeling experiments”. Running a model isn’t an experiment. It isn’t science. Is that what people have to say to get grants, or is that how “researchers” think now? Climate Change truly is the first postmodern science where the model is the reality and all “truths” are equally valid. The models don’t predict the weather and climate accurately now, so how could anyone have any faith in their prediction of what would happen with geoengineering?

UK Sceptic
January 26, 2011 1:21 am

face/palm

Staffan Lindström
January 26, 2011 1:22 am

…Couldn’t we just change the orbit of the moon a tiny bit so all people abhoring any sort of warmth could have a sustainable shade…

January 26, 2011 1:29 am

Ever heard of the Nuclear winter?
As I’ve said many times before, we should invite all those people who really believe in global warming to a small remote atoll where we will show them how to stop global warming using a small but powerful nuclear weapon.
… I guarantee they’ll be none of this global warming doomsday rubbish afterwards!
Still, seriously, I once saw a satellite photo of smoke from woodburning stoves used for cooking in India and I suddenly realised just how powerful is the combined effect of many people releasing small amounts of particulates. Then if you remember the Victorian smogs they used to have in London before the clean air acts, and then the massive change from heating our own homes with coal to heating via clean gas and electricity, add to that the fad with putting out any and every natural fire.
There’s not a doubt in my mind that the changes in dry pan evaporation rates was due to a massive change in the level of released particulates leading to a significant change in global temperatures (something the warmers have always tried to hide because they don’t want to admit that all the apparent rise can be explained by a reduction in global dimming).
So, if we want to reduce global warming … we just scrap the clean air acts. After all if the warmers were really serious (which they are not …. except for the money!) they’d take any solution they could for the “worst” problem facing mankind. And the fact they are not looking at simple solutions like encouraging more air particulates, really shows that all this nonsense about the “worst” problem facing humanity is complete utter BS.

John Marshall
January 26, 2011 1:41 am

How this study can be said to be comprehensive when we:-
1, Do not completely understand climate, or what drives it.
2, Are as yet unaware of all teleconnections, either planetary or solar connected.
3, Do not yet understand all solar physics.
4, Still refuse to accept that cosmic rays have a climate impact. ( At least the IPCC refuses to accept the cosmic ray theory of climate change)
5, Seem to think that we are actually capable of geoengineering, or will be in the future when, hopefully, climate will be understood and we realize that the planet likes the climate that it gets naturally.

Henry Galt
January 26, 2011 1:53 am

Mad.
Scientists.
Remove their funding immediately. They claim that the Sun drives our climate when we just KNOW that CO2 does 99% of all the changifications.

Mark Nutley
January 26, 2011 2:00 am

There not really thinking of doing this are they? I mean, that`s just insane

jamie
January 26, 2011 2:00 am

Haven’t they seen the matrix?

RichieP
January 26, 2011 2:03 am

These people are quite, quite mad, never mind the sheer psychotic grandiosity of it all. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.

Jimbo
January 26, 2011 2:17 am

I hate to say this but we need to rapidly enter into cooling phase or even another Little Ice Age as I feel it is the only way to stop these loons.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend

January 26, 2011 2:24 am

Climate scientist; we keep refining our models by closely comparing them to actual observations until they can eerily predict the past and the present. We keep getting future predictions wrong though, must be a problem with the data or something….
Geoengineering scientist; we keep refining our models by closely comparing them to actual observations until they can eerily predict the past and the present. Then we can make future predictions about various geoengineering…. what was that the climate guy said?

Beth Cooper
January 26, 2011 2:35 am

Read that last paragraph again…”A consensus has yet to be reached”…Consensus by whom? YOU DONT OWN OUR GODDAMN PLANET…”The team proposes”…Team? Now why does that sound ominous?
If it wasn’t so serious it could be a Friday Funny, echoes of Charlie Chaplin as fascist dictator playing with a globe of the world.

David Rodgers
January 26, 2011 2:48 am

What breathtaking arrogance………still I suppose the theory will allow for a full career worth of funding and save its proponents from having to get a real job!

Alan the Brit
January 26, 2011 2:49 am

Oh no! Not another Consensus in the offing?
Deja vu: We don’t really understand what effect element “A” (the Sun), has on element “B” (the Earth’s climate), yet we know for certain that element “C ” (manmade CO2) over powers element “A”! Brilliant (Ref:IPCC/TAR & IPCC/AR4 all in black & white & every pretty little colour they can think of – politicians are a bit thick hence the crayon work). With a mindset like that no wonder we get crap science!

steveta_uk
January 26, 2011 2:49 am

“A consensus has yet to be reached” – so it isn’t real science yet, no worries.

Stacey
January 26, 2011 2:52 am

I think what they are trying to say would in plain English be ” If you shade the earth the planet will get cooler”
So when the planet gets cooler the earth will be colder and there will be more ice, the more ice the cooler the earth will get and hence more ice. So on and so forth.
A planet fit for polar bears end penguins?

CW
January 26, 2011 3:02 am

Judging by SC24 data some are interpreting a possible minimum as low as Maunder minimum.
Could be ,ice fairs on the thames would certainly be the end for the warmists.
Not to mention governments who are ill prepared.
However it’s one of those events that are difficult to predict ,you know the events that happen.

kim
January 26, 2011 3:13 am

Sorceror’s Apprentices.
================

1DandyTroll
January 26, 2011 3:21 am

OMG ! ! ! The climate be a changing!
IT IS WORTH THEN WE THOUGHT!
I t I s C a t a s t r o p h i c C l i m a t e C h a n g e
And It Be Anthropogenic Also Known As–Humans Did It.
OMG! What will the humans do?
But try and change it back to the golden olden horrors of the 80’s. o_O
Watch it unfold in a science lab o’ the macabre close to home. It is better even ‘an re-animator for it is based on
T R U E C L I M A T E C R I M E
OoooOhOoooOhOoooOh . . .
CUT!

1 2 3 4