So2 Global Warming

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 2

Integrated Assessment 2: 111–122, 2001.

 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

The climate impacts of sulfate aerosols


Robert Mendelsohn a , Michael Schlesinger b and Larry Williams c
a Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, 360 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT 06511, USA
b University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, 105 South Gregory Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
c Electric Power Research Institute, 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94303, USA

Received 12 January 2000; revised 8 January 2001

Sulfate aerosols (SO4 ) from anthropogenic emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) generally have a cooling effect. However, if SO2 emissions
fall over time, accounting for sulfate aerosols will increase the predicted warming from greenhouse gases. This paper integrates the four
marker emission scenarios for CO2 and SO4 from the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES), the UIUC general circulation model
(GCM), and a country-specific impact model (GIM) to calculate the impacts of sulfate aerosols. By 2100, lower SO2 emissions slightly
increase warming in the temperate and polar regions causing small damages in the former and small benefits in the latter. If SO2 emissions
are also lower in tropical regions, temperatures will rise causing small damages there as well. However, if SO2 emissions rise in tropical
regions, temperatures will fall leading to small benefits.

1. Introduction alternative SRES scenarios affect impacts. Starting with the


SRES scenarios, we use the University of Illinois Urbana
Although it has long been known that carbon dioxide Champaign (UIUC) climate model [17] to make country-
(CO2 ) is a greenhouse gas (GHG) that tends to warm the specific forecasts of climate for each emission scenario. The
atmosphere, it has only more recently been understood that Global Impact Model (GIM) [8] calculates country-specific
sulfate aerosols (SO4 ) generated in the atmosphere from the estimates of market impacts from the predicted changes in
anthropogenic emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) gas tend surface temperature and precipitation in each country. By
to cool the atmosphere [2]. This paper combines country- capturing country-specific detail, this integrated assessment
specific climate and impact models to estimate the impacts approach can capture the geographic detail of changing re-
of including sulfate aerosols in integrated assessment mod- gional SO2 emissions.
els. The paper illustrates the value of having more geo- This research illustrates the value of integrated assess-
graphically precise integrated assessment models for climate ment applied to climate change. It is important to recognize
change. The paper is also intended to inform policy makers that there are many uncertainties in each component of such
about the importance to global warming of sulfur-dioxide an assessment: emissions, concentrations, climate change,
policies. and impacts. Although point estimates are presented in this
The IPCC has constructed four families of alternative fu- paper, the reader should not interpret these estimates as cer-
ture emission scenarios for the Special Report on Emissions tain. Further, the models used in this analysis are not the only
Scenarios (SRES) [13]. The scenarios predict both GHG models of each component. There are a host of predictions
and SO2 emissions for the 21st century. The CO2 predic- of CO2 emissions, many scenarios of SO2 emissions, sev-
tions are intended to represent “business-as-usual” scenar- eral carbon-cycle models, some 27 general circulation mod-
ios, that is, what would happen if no greenhouse-gas con- els with many variants, and several impact models. This re-
trols were put in place. The SO2 -emission paths, however, search does not encompass the full range of estimates for
include explicit control policies for sulfur dioxide. Whereas each component. However, the research does give a sense
greenhouse gases are predicted to increase over the next cen- of the magnitude of impacts that are likely to occur in each
tury, SO2 emissions may or may not increase in each region case. Specifically for the case of sulfates, the research does
depending upon whether the growth in the fossil-fuel energy vary emissions and climate sensitivity, so that the reader can
consumption outweighs new SO2 control policies. If control
get a sense of some of the range of impacts that is possible.
policies reduce (increase) SO2 emissions, regional tempera-
tures will be higher (lower) than otherwise. Thus, although
SO2 cools the atmosphere, through its control, SO2 might 2. Emissions, models and methods
be responsible for additional warming. This study examines
the potential impacts of SO2 emissions control and explores Three major research efforts are combined here to gener-
how alternative scenarios might affect each region. ate impact predictions. The emission trajectories were de-
From earlier research, it is clear that regional SO2 emis- veloped by the IPCC for the SRES using a series of sto-
sions change the geographic distribution of temperature in rylines and numerical models [13]. The climate projec-
2100 [17]. In this paper, we specifically examine how the tions were developed using the UIUC atmospheric general
112 R. Mendelsohn et al. / The climate impacts of sulfate aerosols

Table 1
SRES scenarios for year 2100.

SRES GWP Population CO2 Change in SO2 emissions from


emissions (trillion (billion) concentration 2000 to 2100
scenario USD) (ppmv)a (billion tons sulfur)b
OECD Soviet ROW

B1 338 7.1 562 −20.1 −14.5 −10.4


B2 235 10.4 613 −19.2 −13.4 9.6
A1 528 7.1 693 −18.1 −15.4 −9.7
A2 244 15.0 836 −10.9 −13.8 14.1
a The CO concentrations are from Schlesinger et al. [17] for the SRES CO emissions.
2 2
b The OECD is the developed countries, Soviet includes the former Soviet Union and Eastern
Europe, and ROW is the rest of the world.

circulation/mixed-layer-ocean (AGC/MLO) model, a simple model generated the A1 scenario [12], the ASF model pro-
climate-ocean model, and a sophisticated interpolation tech- vided the A2 scenario [21], the IMAGE model created the
nique [17]. The impacts were calculated by the Global Im- B1 scenario [1], and the MESSAGE model generated the B2
pact Model (GIM) [8]. scenario [11]. The resulting global characteristics of each
marker scenario are shown in table 1.
2.1. SO2 emissions scenarios
2.2. Climate changes
When it became clear that sulfate aerosols can have a sig-
nificant effect on climate, it also became clear that sulfate In principle, climate changes could be calculated for each
aerosols would have to be included in future climate projec- SRES emission scenario using a coupled atmosphere–ocean
tions. The IPCC recently completed the difficult exercise of general circulation model. However, these models are ex-
generating a number of alternative emission scenarios for the pensive to run so that, in practice, they cannot be used for
SRES [13]. It is a difficult task to forecast these emissions the myriad of possible scenarios of interest to policymakers.
far into the future, requiring not only an ability to foresee Consequently, Schlesinger et al. [17] constructed geographi-
economic and energy development through the 21st century, cal distributions of surface temperature changes using a vari-
but also an ability to predict how future pollution regulation ant of the scenario-construction method developed by Santer
might shape SO2 emissions. et al. [16]. Here we employ the same method to construct the
The authors of the SRES report do not provide a single geographical scenarios of changes in precipitation.
“best estimate”, but instead provide four alternative marker The model begins by predicting the concentration of
scenarios, each being representative of a scenario family. greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosols for each emission sce-
The authors are very explicit that these are not four equally nario [17]. Carbon dioxide emissions become well mixed
likely outcomes, but merely four possible alternatives. We in the atmosphere, so that region-specific emissions are not
examine all four marker scenarios to present a range of pos- important. All that matters is global emissions. Sulfur diox-
sible effects. We, like the authors of the SRES report, do not ide emissions are more short-lived, so they lead to region-
assess the likely occurrence of each scenario. Some of the specific sulfate levels. Each SRES scenario makes a differ-
SRES marker scenarios may be more likely than others and ent forecast of regional SO2 emissions, leading to different
the set of scenarios does not reflect a broad range of likely regional sulfate aerosol concentrations. We assume that the
outcomes. Consequently the reader must be careful inter- spatial distribution of emissions within each region resem-
preting the results across the scenarios. bles current emissions.
The four marker scenarios correspond roughly to four sto- The concentration of greenhouse gases depends on the
rylines. The A1 scenario is a high economic and low popu- path of emissions over time. In addition to carbon being
lation growth story. Carbon dioxide emissions are moderate released by man-made emissions, some carbon is captured
and SO2 emissions are low. The B1 scenario is a moderate by natural processes through the carbon cycle. Given the
economic and low population growth story, with emphasis concentration of the greenhouse gases and the burden of the
on reduced materialization of the economy and movement sulfate aerosols, the level of radiative forcing is predicted for
away from fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide and SO2 emissions each scenario.
are low. The A2 scenario has low economic and high popula- The Atmospheric General Circulation/Mixed Layer
tion growth. It results in the highest CO2 and SO2 emissions Ocean (AGC/MLO) model calculates the geographical dis-
and continued disparity between rich and poor countries. tribution of temperature and precipitation change for eight
The B2 scenario has low economic and moderate population scenarios. One scenario examines a doubling of CO2 alone.
growth with continued disparity across countries. Carbon Six scenarios examine a 10 times increase in sulfates in each
dioxide and SO2 emissions are moderate. of 6 regions individually (Europe, North Africa, Siberia,
Four different integrated assessment models were used to Asia, North America and the Southern Hemisphere). A fi-
provide concrete values for each marker scenario. The AIM nal scenario examines a 10 times increase in sulfates jointly

You might also like