Articles | Volume 16, issue 5
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 2843–2862, 2016
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-2843-2016

Special issue: The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP):...

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 2843–2862, 2016
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-2843-2016

Research article 04 Mar 2016

Research article | 04 Mar 2016

Climatic impacts of stratospheric geoengineering with sulfate, black carbon and titania injection

Anthony C. Jones et al.

Download

Interactive discussion

Status: closed
Status: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
AR by Anna Wenzel on behalf of the Authors (05 Feb 2016)  Author's response    Manuscript
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (05 Feb 2016) by Ben Kravitz
ED: Reconsider after minor revisions (Editor review) (24 Feb 2016) by Ben Kravitz
AR by Anthony Crawford Jones on behalf of the Authors (25 Feb 2016)  Author's response    Manuscript
ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (26 Feb 2016) by Ben Kravitz
Download
Short summary
In this paper we assess the potential climatic impacts of geoengineering with sulfate, black carbon and titania injection strategies. We find that black carbon injection results in severe stratospheric warming and precipitation impacts, and therefore black carbon is unsuitable for geoengineering purposes. As the injection rates and climatic impacts for titania are close to those for sulfate, there appears little benefit of using titania when compared to injection of sulfur dioxide.
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint