Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for

  • Author or Editor: Simone Tilmes x
  • Refine by Access: Content accessible to me x
Clear All Modify Search
Simone Tilmes
,
Jadwiga H. Richter
,
Ben Kravitz
,
Douglas G. MacMartin
,
Michael J. Mills
,
Isla R. Simpson
,
Anne S. Glanville
,
John T. Fasullo
,
Adam S. Phillips
,
Jean-Francois Lamarque
,
Joseph Tribbia
,
Jim Edwards
,
Sheri Mickelson
, and
Siddhartha Ghosh

Abstract

This paper describes the Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering Large Ensemble (GLENS) project, which promotes the use of a unique model dataset, performed with the Community Earth System Model, with the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model as its atmospheric component [CESM1(WACCM)], to investigate global and regional impacts of geoengineering. The performed simulations were designed to achieve multiple simultaneous climate goals, by strategically placing sulfur injections at four different locations in the stratosphere, unlike many earlier studies that targeted globally averaged surface temperature by placing injections in regions at or around the equator. This advanced approach reduces some of the previously found adverse effects of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering, including uneven cooling between the poles and the equator and shifts in tropical precipitation. The 20-member ensemble increases the ability to distinguish between forced changes and changes due to climate variability in global and regional climate variables in the coupled atmosphere, land, sea ice, and ocean system. We invite the broader community to perform in-depth analyses of climate-related impacts and to identify processes that lead to changes in the climate system as the result of a strategic application of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering.

Full access
Simone Tilmes
,
Andrea Smith
,
Peter Lawrence
,
Tim Barnes
,
Greeshma Gadikota
,
Wojciech Grabowski
,
Douglas G. MacMartin
,
Brian Medeiros
,
Monica Morrison
,
Andreas Prein
,
Roy Rasmussen
,
Karen Rosenlof
,
Dale S. Rothman
,
Anton Seimon
,
Gyami Shrestha
, and
Britton B. Stephens
Full access
Zoe E. Gillett
,
Julie M. Arblaster
,
Andrea J. Dittus
,
Makoto Deushi
,
Patrick Jöckel
,
Douglas E. Kinnison
,
Olaf Morgenstern
,
David A. Plummer
,
Laura E. Revell
,
Eugene Rozanov
,
Robyn Schofield
,
Andrea Stenke
,
Kane A. Stone
, and
Simone Tilmes

Abstract

Studies have recently reported statistically significant relationships between observed year-to-year spring Antarctic ozone variability and the Southern Hemisphere annular mode and surface temperatures in spring–summer. This study investigates whether current chemistry–climate models (CCMs) can capture these relationships, in particular, the connection between November total column ozone (TCO) and Australian summer surface temperatures, where years with anomalously high TCO over the Antarctic polar cap tend to be followed by warmer summers. The interannual ozone–temperature teleconnection is examined over the historical period in the observations and simulations from the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model (WACCM) and nine other models participating in the Chemistry–Climate Model Initiative (CCMI). There is a systematic difference between the WACCM experiments forced with prescribed observed sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and those with an interactive ocean. Strong correlations between TCO and Australian temperatures are only obtained for the uncoupled experiment, suggesting that the SSTs could be important for driving both variations in Australian temperatures and the ozone hole, with no causal link between the two. Other CCMI models also tend to capture this relationship with more fidelity when driven by observed SSTs, although additional research and targeted modeling experiments are required to determine causality and further explore the role of model biases and observational uncertainty. The results indicate that CCMs can reproduce the relationship between spring ozone and summer Australian climate reported in observational studies, suggesting that incorporating ozone variability could improve seasonal predictions; however, more work is required to understand the difference between the coupled and uncoupled simulations.

Full access