Fwd: [CDR] CO2 shrinks the stratosphere

[Andrew Lockley]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2021, 11:03
Subject: [CDR] CO2 shrinks the stratosphere
To: 'Greg Rau' via Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>

Yet another unexpected reason why CDR is needed!

 

Stratospheric contraction caused by increasing greenhouse gases

To cite this article before publication: Petr Pisoft et al 2021 Environ. Res. Lett. in press https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abfe2b

P. Pisoft1 , P. Sacha1,2, L. M. Polvani3 , J. A. Añel4 , L. de la Torre4 , R. Eichinger1,5,6, U. Foelsche7 , P. Huszar1 , C. Jacobi8 , J. Karlicky1,2, A. Kuchar1,8, J. Miksovsky1 , M. Zak1 , H. E. Rieder2

 

Abstract Rising emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHG) have led to tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling over recent decades. As a thermodynamic consequence, the troposphere has expanded and the rise of the tropopause, the boundary between the troposphere and stratosphere, has been suggested as one of the most robust fingerprints of anthropogenic climate change. Conversely, at altitudes above ~55 km (in the mesosphere and thermosphere) observational and modeling evidence indicates a downward shift of the height of pressure levels or decreasing density at fixed altitudes. The layer in between, the stratosphere, has not been studied extensively with respect to changes of its global structure. Here we show that this atmospheric layer has contracted substantially over the last decades, and that the main driver for this are increasing concentrations of GHG. Using data from coupled chemistry-climate models we show that this trend will continue and the mean climatological thickness of the stratosphere will decrease by 1.3 km following representative concentration pathway 6.0 by 2080. We also demonstrate that the stratospheric contraction is not only a response to cooling, as changes in both tropopause and stratopause pressure contribute. Moreover, its short emergence time (less than 15 years) makes it a novel and independent indicator of GHG induced climate change.

 

Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance

Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.

Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK

37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139

gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)

 

Books:

Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase

http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392

 

Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration

http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734

 

No one can change the past, everybody can change the future

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/F9887C8D-8B48-49D4-9557-92398C135843%40globalcoral.org.

[Alan Robock ☮]

This is certainly not unexpected.  We wrote a paper on this 25 years ago:

Vinnikov, Konstantin Ya., Alan Robock, Ronald J. Stouffer and Syukuro Manabe, 1996: Vertical patterns of free and forced climate variations. Geophys. Res. Lett., 23, 1801-1804.
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/VinnikovVertical96GL01736.pdf

And I don't think it is an important reason to do CDR.  There are other good reasons, but this does not affect us nearly as much as other impacts of global warming.

Alan

Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
  Chair-Elect, AGU College of Fellows
  Associate Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Department of Environmental Sciences         Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers University                            E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
14 College Farm Road            http://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551     ☮ https://twitter.com/AlanRobock

"I've got a feeling 21 is going to be a good year" - The Who from the album Tommy

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04p8nju0X3oxEAG%3DmMU_h41bQ%2Beie%3D9sv88YK3X-E6ipw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Andrew Lockley]

I'm interested to understand the effect on SRM. Eg more technical difficulties with lofting, earlier rain out, etc. I'd welcome discussion.

Andrew 

[Wingenter, Oliver]

Alan

Does the temperature of the tropopause change? What is the impact, if any, on the stratospheric exchange time? I am thinking about the effect on CFCs, CH4, and stratospheric chemistry.

Is there a paper on this? Does added sulfate from SO2 injection into the stratosphere warm the stratosphere significantly?

Regards

Oliver Wingenter

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CAJ3C-04Y5_Lv14%2BTSgPB6TmEKQWb7%2Bqc2hm6TDehJnie42_qqg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Daniele Visioni]

Added SO2 would change stratospheric temperature locally in a significant way, as it was observed after volcanic eruptions. The actual value would depend on the size of the particles formed and on the S-burden, together with the changes produced chemically on stratospheric ozone, which in turn modifies the heating rates. The localised heating would result in an increase in tropical w* and increase tropospheric-stratospheric transport (and it would also change TTL temperatures, resulting in slightly more water vapor entering the stratosphere, see https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020JD033952,water vapor is in Fig. S1. In Fig. 10 you can see the different height of the tropopause.) We have looked at the effect this would have on CH4 and other tracers here: https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/17/11209/2017/acp-17-11209-2017-metrics.html and so did Tilmes et al. here https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017JD028146. We found, overall, that due to chemical changes produced by less OH available and transport differences methane lifetime may increase by around 10%, and so would concentration. But in terms of RF, it is a fraction of that produced by the increased stratospheric sulfate layer

Hope this helps!

Daniele

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CA%2BSMC_%2B1%2BY7XB1YVBA4VfTAb3qSdHOpKrnEm7rN2qWW3ToFFHA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Olivier Boucher]

Dear Oliver,

you may also refer to https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL074647  (figures 2 & 3) though I have always felt our model overwarms the stratosphere in response to the stratospheric aerosols probably due to a RT model that is not sophisticated enough. The heating is due to both absorption by the aerosols but also by additional absorption by ozone due to the longer photon path in the aerosol plume. I've never seen a proper quantification of both effects.

All the best,

Olivier

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/CA%2BSMC_%2B1%2BY7XB1YVBA4VfTAb3qSdHOpKrnEm7rN2qWW3ToFFHA%40mail.gmail.com.