Shortwave radiative forcing and feedback to the surface by sulphate geoengineering: Analysis of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project G4 scenario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. This study evaluates the forcing and feedback of net shortwave radiation at the surface in the G4 experiment of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project by analysing outputs from six participating models. G4 involves injection of 5 Tg yr−1 of SO2, a sulphate aerosol precursor, into the lower stratosphere from year 2020 to 2070 against a background scenario of RCP4.5. A single layer atmospheric model for shortwave radiative transfer is used to estimate the direct forcing of solar radiation management (SRM) and feedback effects from changes in the water vapour amount, cloud amount, and surface albedo (compared with RCP4.5). The analysis shows that the globally and temporally averaged SRM forcing ranges from −3.6 to −1.6 W m−2, depending on the model. The feedback effects due to changes in the water vapour and cloud amounts on net shortwave radiation have heating effects ranging from approximately 0.4 to 1.5 W m−2 and weaken the effect of SRM by around 50 %. The surface albedo changes have a cooling effect, which is locally strong (~ 4 W m−2) in snow and sea ice melting regions, but minor for the global average. The analyses show that the results of the G4 experiment, which simulates sulphate geoengineering, include large inter-model variability both in the direct SRM forcing and the feedback from changes in the cloud amount, and imply a high uncertainty in modelled processes of sulphate aerosols and clouds.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".