Articles | Volume 16, issue 5
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-2843-2016
© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-2843-2016
© Author(s) 2016. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
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
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
College of Engineering Maths and Physical Sciences,
University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
James M. Haywood
College of Engineering Maths and Physical Sciences,
University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
Andy Jones
Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
Viewed
Total article views: 8,518 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Cumulative views and downloads
(calculated since 03 Nov 2015)
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3,954 | 4,275 | 289 | 8,518 | 784 | 94 | 93 |
- HTML: 3,954
- PDF: 4,275
- XML: 289
- Total: 8,518
- Supplement: 784
- BibTeX: 94
- EndNote: 93
Total article views: 7,106 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Cumulative views and downloads
(calculated since 04 Mar 2016)
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2,997 | 3,850 | 259 | 7,106 | 613 | 73 | 69 |
- HTML: 2,997
- PDF: 3,850
- XML: 259
- Total: 7,106
- Supplement: 613
- BibTeX: 73
- EndNote: 69
Total article views: 1,412 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Cumulative views and downloads
(calculated since 03 Nov 2015)
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 957 | 425 | 30 | 1,412 | 171 | 21 | 24 |
- HTML: 957
- PDF: 425
- XML: 30
- Total: 1,412
- Supplement: 171
- BibTeX: 21
- EndNote: 24
Cited
33 citations as recorded by crossref.
- Dependency of the impacts of geoengineering on the stratospheric sulfur injection strategy – Part 1: Intercomparison of modal and sectional aerosol modules A. Laakso et al. 10.5194/acp-22-93-2022
- North Atlantic Oscillation response in GeoMIP experiments G6solar and G6sulfur: why detailed modelling is needed for understanding regional implications of solar radiation management A. Jones et al. 10.5194/acp-21-1287-2021
- The impact of stratospheric aerosol intervention on the North Atlantic and Quasi-Biennial Oscillations in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) G6sulfur experiment A. Jones et al. 10.5194/acp-22-2999-2022
- Sensitivity of volcanic aerosol dispersion to meteorological conditions: A Pinatubo case study A. Jones et al. 10.1002/2016JD025001
- Stratospheric Dynamical Response and Ozone Feedbacks in the Presence of SO2 Injections J. Richter et al. 10.1002/2017JD026912
- Radiative Forcing of Climate: The Historical Evolution of the Radiative Forcing Concept, the Forcing Agents and their Quantification, and Applications V. Ramaswamy et al. 10.1175/AMSMONOGRAPHS-D-19-0001.1
- The potential environmental and climate impacts of stratospheric aerosol injection: a review H. Huynh & V. McNeill 10.1039/D3EA00134B
- Assessing the consequences of including aerosol absorption in potential stratospheric aerosol injection climate intervention strategies J. Haywood et al. 10.5194/acp-22-6135-2022
- Opinion: The scientific and community-building roles of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) – past, present, and future D. Visioni et al. 10.5194/acp-23-5149-2023
- Radiative forcing geoengineering causes higher risk of wildfires and permafrost thawing over the Arctic regions R. Müller et al. 10.1038/s43247-024-01329-3
- The cost of stratospheric climate engineering revisited R. Moriyama et al. 10.1007/s11027-016-9723-y
- Stratospheric solar geoengineering without ozone loss D. Keith et al. 10.1073/pnas.1615572113
- How geoengineering scenarios frame assumptions and create expectations A. Talberg et al. 10.1007/s11625-018-0527-8
- Climate engineering by mimicking natural dust climate control: the iron salt aerosol method F. Oeste et al. 10.5194/esd-8-1-2017
- Future changes in atmospheric rivers over East Asia under stratospheric aerosol intervention J. Liang & J. Haywood 10.5194/acp-23-1687-2023
- Evaluating climate geoengineering proposals in the context of the Paris Agreement temperature goals M. Lawrence et al. 10.1038/s41467-018-05938-3
- Solar radiation management and ecosystem functional responses A. Ito 10.1007/s10584-017-1930-3
- Annual Solar Geoengineering: Mitigating Yearly Global Warming Increases A. Feinberg 10.3390/cli12020026
- Regional Climate Impacts of Stabilizing Global Warming at 1.5 K Using Solar Geoengineering A. Jones et al. 10.1002/2017EF000720
- Best Scale for Detecting the Effects of Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosol Geoengineering on Surface Temperature Y. Lo et al. 10.1029/2018EF000933
- Optimal Control of Aerosol Emissions into the Stratosphere to Stabilize the Earth’s Climate S. Soldatenko & R. Yusupov 10.1134/S0001433818050122
- Improved aerosol radiative properties as a foundation for solar geoengineering risk assessment J. Dykema et al. 10.1002/2016GL069258
- Shortwave radiative forcing, rapid adjustment, and feedback to the surface by sulfate geoengineering: analysis of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project G4 scenario H. Kashimura et al. 10.5194/acp-17-3339-2017
- Impacts of hemispheric solar geoengineering on tropical cyclone frequency A. Jones et al. 10.1038/s41467-017-01606-0
- Mie scattering from optically levitated mixed sulfuric acid–silica core–shell aerosols: observation of core–shell morphology for atmospheric science M. McGrory et al. 10.1039/D1CP04068E
- Radiative and climate effects of stratospheric sulfur geoengineering using seasonally varying injection areas A. Laakso et al. 10.5194/acp-17-6957-2017
- Experimental reaction rates constrain estimates of ozone response to calcium carbonate geoengineering Z. Dai et al. 10.1038/s43247-020-00058-7
- Radiative and chemical implications of the size and composition of aerosol particles in the existing or modified global stratosphere D. Murphy et al. 10.5194/acp-21-8915-2021
- Stratospheric Response in the First Geoengineering Simulation Meeting Multiple Surface Climate Objectives J. Richter et al. 10.1029/2018JD028285
- Atmospheric Aerosols: Clouds, Chemistry, and Climate V. McNeill 10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-060816-101538
- Heterogeneous reaction of ClONO<sub>2</sub> with TiO<sub>2</sub> and SiO<sub>2</sub> aerosol particles: implications for stratospheric particle injection for climate engineering M. Tang et al. 10.5194/acp-16-15397-2016
- Differing responses of the quasi-biennial oscillation to artificial SO<sub>2</sub> injections in two global models U. Niemeier et al. 10.5194/acp-20-8975-2020
- An overview of the Earth system science of solar geoengineering P. Irvine et al. 10.1002/wcc.423
32 citations as recorded by crossref.
- Dependency of the impacts of geoengineering on the stratospheric sulfur injection strategy – Part 1: Intercomparison of modal and sectional aerosol modules A. Laakso et al. 10.5194/acp-22-93-2022
- North Atlantic Oscillation response in GeoMIP experiments G6solar and G6sulfur: why detailed modelling is needed for understanding regional implications of solar radiation management A. Jones et al. 10.5194/acp-21-1287-2021
- The impact of stratospheric aerosol intervention on the North Atlantic and Quasi-Biennial Oscillations in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) G6sulfur experiment A. Jones et al. 10.5194/acp-22-2999-2022
- Sensitivity of volcanic aerosol dispersion to meteorological conditions: A Pinatubo case study A. Jones et al. 10.1002/2016JD025001
- Stratospheric Dynamical Response and Ozone Feedbacks in the Presence of SO2 Injections J. Richter et al. 10.1002/2017JD026912
- Radiative Forcing of Climate: The Historical Evolution of the Radiative Forcing Concept, the Forcing Agents and their Quantification, and Applications V. Ramaswamy et al. 10.1175/AMSMONOGRAPHS-D-19-0001.1
- The potential environmental and climate impacts of stratospheric aerosol injection: a review H. Huynh & V. McNeill 10.1039/D3EA00134B
- Assessing the consequences of including aerosol absorption in potential stratospheric aerosol injection climate intervention strategies J. Haywood et al. 10.5194/acp-22-6135-2022
- Opinion: The scientific and community-building roles of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) – past, present, and future D. Visioni et al. 10.5194/acp-23-5149-2023
- Radiative forcing geoengineering causes higher risk of wildfires and permafrost thawing over the Arctic regions R. Müller et al. 10.1038/s43247-024-01329-3
- The cost of stratospheric climate engineering revisited R. Moriyama et al. 10.1007/s11027-016-9723-y
- Stratospheric solar geoengineering without ozone loss D. Keith et al. 10.1073/pnas.1615572113
- How geoengineering scenarios frame assumptions and create expectations A. Talberg et al. 10.1007/s11625-018-0527-8
- Climate engineering by mimicking natural dust climate control: the iron salt aerosol method F. Oeste et al. 10.5194/esd-8-1-2017
- Future changes in atmospheric rivers over East Asia under stratospheric aerosol intervention J. Liang & J. Haywood 10.5194/acp-23-1687-2023
- Evaluating climate geoengineering proposals in the context of the Paris Agreement temperature goals M. Lawrence et al. 10.1038/s41467-018-05938-3
- Solar radiation management and ecosystem functional responses A. Ito 10.1007/s10584-017-1930-3
- Annual Solar Geoengineering: Mitigating Yearly Global Warming Increases A. Feinberg 10.3390/cli12020026
- Regional Climate Impacts of Stabilizing Global Warming at 1.5 K Using Solar Geoengineering A. Jones et al. 10.1002/2017EF000720
- Best Scale for Detecting the Effects of Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosol Geoengineering on Surface Temperature Y. Lo et al. 10.1029/2018EF000933
- Optimal Control of Aerosol Emissions into the Stratosphere to Stabilize the Earth’s Climate S. Soldatenko & R. Yusupov 10.1134/S0001433818050122
- Improved aerosol radiative properties as a foundation for solar geoengineering risk assessment J. Dykema et al. 10.1002/2016GL069258
- Shortwave radiative forcing, rapid adjustment, and feedback to the surface by sulfate geoengineering: analysis of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project G4 scenario H. Kashimura et al. 10.5194/acp-17-3339-2017
- Impacts of hemispheric solar geoengineering on tropical cyclone frequency A. Jones et al. 10.1038/s41467-017-01606-0
- Mie scattering from optically levitated mixed sulfuric acid–silica core–shell aerosols: observation of core–shell morphology for atmospheric science M. McGrory et al. 10.1039/D1CP04068E
- Radiative and climate effects of stratospheric sulfur geoengineering using seasonally varying injection areas A. Laakso et al. 10.5194/acp-17-6957-2017
- Experimental reaction rates constrain estimates of ozone response to calcium carbonate geoengineering Z. Dai et al. 10.1038/s43247-020-00058-7
- Radiative and chemical implications of the size and composition of aerosol particles in the existing or modified global stratosphere D. Murphy et al. 10.5194/acp-21-8915-2021
- Stratospheric Response in the First Geoengineering Simulation Meeting Multiple Surface Climate Objectives J. Richter et al. 10.1029/2018JD028285
- Atmospheric Aerosols: Clouds, Chemistry, and Climate V. McNeill 10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-060816-101538
- Heterogeneous reaction of ClONO<sub>2</sub> with TiO<sub>2</sub> and SiO<sub>2</sub> aerosol particles: implications for stratospheric particle injection for climate engineering M. Tang et al. 10.5194/acp-16-15397-2016
- Differing responses of the quasi-biennial oscillation to artificial SO<sub>2</sub> injections in two global models U. Niemeier et al. 10.5194/acp-20-8975-2020
1 citations as recorded by crossref.
Saved (final revised paper)
Saved (preprint)
Discussed (final revised paper)
Latest update: 18 Apr 2024
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.
In this paper we assess the potential climatic impacts of geoengineering with sulfate, black...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint