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).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Great Idea; Send all the warmers to Siberia. Then everyone can be happy!
Mike Haseler says: Jan 26, 2011 1:29 am
“And the fact they are not looking at simple solutions like encouraging more air particulates”
That will also help the Greenies reduce population too.
George E. Smith says:
January 26, 2011 at 2:54 pm
………….
I would say neither, just an oscillator with two feedback loops.
Correct me if Im wrong but wasn’t sun dimming the sky is falling theory of the 70’s? Now they want to artificially simulate it? SIGH!!
AC said:
“Basically the Russians were looking for MORE light for their country . . . .
“golly gee” I thought that was why lightbulbs were invented!
Let them play hot potato with a bottle of Nitroglycerin.
The outcome should come as no surprise in both proposed cases.
P.G. Sharrow says:
January 26, 2011 at 9:04 pm
Great Idea; Send all the warmers to Siberia. Then everyone can be happy!
Putin won’t take idiots.
Of course, I get around to this when most people’s attention is elsewhere.
However, I will ass my 2c worth here for posterity:
I think that WUWT maybe needs to add a new area to keep reminders of all of the hair-brained ideas that people ALMOST implemented which seemed like a wonderful idea at the time but in retrospect would have been disastrous.
My contribution comes from the 1960s.
Back in those primeval days, there were no geosynchronous satellites, so a lot of long distance communication relied upon short-wave radio.
As most people probably know, propagation of SW signals over large distances relies upon reflection of the signal from various layers in the ionosphere. The layers have different properties depending on the time of day, season of the year, sunspots and a whole host of other factors, mainly driven by how much solar radiation is received.
Its incredibly difficult to predict propagation and communication is often erratic to non-existent.
A bunch of very clever (American) scientists came up with the idea of launching several tons of small copper needles into a low earth orbit (which was all they could achieve in those days). These would form a highly reflective layer, and make SW propagation very dependable.
Of course, if they had done this, it would have made using geosynchronous communication satellites impossible. SETI would be impossible, communication with men going to the moon and beyond would be impossible.
This would have been a catastrophy. Not as potentially life-threatening as dumping lots of sulfate particles into the atmosphere, but the world would be a quite different place now.
There are certainly other good ideas that would have been catastrophic. We need to compile a list.
I think it’s a great idea. We could pay utilities to burn high-sulfur coal, give them subsidies to remove their scrubbers, send coal from Newcastle instead of chopping down trees in the Amazon for biofuel, etc. Restart the old Soviet empire factories spewing particulates into the air, send the US EPA packing, and replace them with people from the companies that got fined the most, and pay them extra to make sure we can see the air again.
On the other hand, Los Angeles wouldn’t have to meet any new mandates.
Blizzard of 1958, anyone?