the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Middle atmosphere chemical and dynamical effects in the CCMI-2022 stratospheric aerosol injection scenario
Abstract. Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) could slow surface warming and help prevent some irreversible tipping points in the climate system. However, potential side effects include changes in stratospheric ozone and warming due to infrared ab sorption by the aerosol, which can alter surface ultraviolet radiation, hydrology, and weather through stratosphere-troposphere coupling. Previous multi-model studies have reported large model discrepancies regarding these effects. Here we present results from an experiment within the Chemistry-Climate Model Initiative Phase 2 (CCMI-2022), designed to constrain inter-model uncertainties by applying a common stratospheric aerosol forcing to five chemistry-climate models using an SAI scenario offsetting all surface warming after 2025 in a moderate greenhouse gas emission scenario. All models show a global total column ozone decrease in the first three decades of no more than ∼10 DU relative to a no-SAI case. Despite sizable differences in stratospheric heating, the models yield a qualitatively similar pattern of ozone redistribution. Changes in key processes, such as the ClOx activation and NOx passivation, and the strengthening of the deep branch of the Brewer-Dobson circulation, are widely robust across all models, though their relative importance and contribution to ozone changes varies considerably. In three of the models, we separate chemical and dynamical contributions, and find significant nonlinearities from feedbacks between chemistry and dynamics, highlighting where model development and sensitivity experiments are most needed to advance the understanding of the middle atmosphere in future mitigation scenarios involving SAI.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(78706 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 15 Apr 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-444', Anonymous Referee #1, 31 Mar 2026 reply
Data sets
CCMI-2022 post-processed model data Andrin Jörimann https://zenodo.org/records/18331211
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 199 | 106 | 15 | 320 | 61 | 66 |
- HTML: 199
- PDF: 106
- XML: 15
- Total: 320
- BibTeX: 61
- EndNote: 66
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Major comments
The paper contains a comparison of 5 chemistry climate models on geo-engineering in the framework of CCMI. The paper might be suitable for
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics after some mostly minor revisions.
In the abstract the kind of simulation and the time period should be mentioned. Only acronyms for insiders are not sufficient. The abstract should also include more results. The description of the simulations requires some clarifications. It also looks like that one model has not simulated the full time period (without mentioning in text).
Specific comments
Line 7: Please mention simulation period and if the simulation is transient (or time slice?).
Line 82: Transient SAD?
Line 85: 'Forcings' or VMRs of radiatively active species like GHGs, ODS, sulfate? Refer at least to Table 1.
Table 1: Is the here mentioned WMO-Report used or the one of line 40? Please clarify or correct. Are GHGs and ODS transient? Please mention in caption and/or the corresponding rows. QBO nudged to what? References or links?
Line 97: 'SSTs and SIC' from model HadlSSTI? Please be clear here.
Line 104: Complete the WMO-citation here.
Line 135: Are there 2 ozone tracers in this scenario, one for radiation (solar and IR) and one for chemistry? Please clarify and add a sentence on that.
Line 175: Odd assumption. This may add biases.
Line 185: Assumptions for volcanoes in the future?
Line 194: Include '(T63)'.
Line 209: Is it possible, to convert this to a notation consistent with the one used in the other models?
Line 212: List the 6 halocarbons.
Line 256ff: Does TCO include model specific tropospheric ozone (which only partially cancels out in differences)? I also would prefer to use the abbreviation 'total ozone' later in the text.
Line 349: Photolysis of what? This sentence is confusing, please be more specific. Is more formation of O(1D) by photolysis of ozone and subsequent OH production meant?
Line 350: Insert 'and the largest increase in tropical upwelling'.
Line 401f: It might be too warm for the heterogeneous reactions HCl+ClONO2 and H2O+ClONO2 here.
Line 404: 'because of too high temperatures there...'
Line 411: 'key regions' should be in title of subsection for easier reading.
Line 413ff: It might be better to merge Fig. 9 and Fig. C1 for easier reading, especially concerning the panel with 'dyn'. The same holds for Fig. 10 and Fig. C2.
Figure 10: Inconsistent to Figure 2 concerning time period.
Line 517 : i.e. equivalent latitude.
Technical corrections
Line 79: Typo.
Table 1: Improve syntax of citation.
Figure 2: WACCM-results missing after 2082. Unit missing at y-axis of panel b.
Figure 3: 'ppmv'.
Line 423: Better ':' instead of '.'.
Line 452: Improve wording.
Line 484: Typo.
Line 569: Typo.
Line 622, 656, 665: DOI or link?
Line 739 and 742: Provide links to electronic version or DOI, available at least for WMO (2019).