Articles | Volume 16, issue 5
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-2843-2016
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, James M. Haywood, and Andy Jones

Related authors

How well are aerosol–cloud interactions represented in climate models? – Part 2: Isolating the aerosol impact on clouds following the 2014–15 Holuhraun eruption
George Jordan, Florent Malavelle, Jim Haywood, Ying Chen, Ben Johnson, Daniel Partridge, Amy Peace, Eliza Duncan, Duncan Watson-Parris, David Neubauer, Anton Laakso, Martine Michou, and Pierre Nabat
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-835,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-835, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
The transport history of African biomass burning aerosols arriving in the remote Southeast Atlantic marine boundary layer and their impacts on cloud properties
Huihui Wu, Fanny Peers, Jonathan W. Taylor, Chenjie Yu, Steven J. Abel, Paul A. Barrett, Jamie Trembath, Keith Bower, Jim M. Haywood, and Hugh Coe
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3975,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3975, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
How does the latitude of stratospheric aerosol injection affect the climate in UKESM1?
Matthew Henry, Ewa M. Bednarz, and Jim Haywood
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 13253–13268, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13253-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13253-2024, 2024
Short summary
Projected future changes in extreme precipitation over China under stratospheric aerosol intervention in the UKESM1 climate model
Ou Wang, Ju Liang, Yuchen Gu, Jim M. Haywood, Ying Chen, Chenwei Fang, and Qin'geng Wang
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 12355–12373, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-12355-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-12355-2024, 2024
Short summary
A protocol for model intercomparison of impacts of marine cloud brightening climate intervention
Philip J. Rasch, Haruki Hirasawa, Mingxuan Wu, Sarah J. Doherty, Robert Wood, Hailong Wang, Andy Jones, James Haywood, and Hansi Singh
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7963–7994, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7963-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7963-2024, 2024
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Aerosols | Research Activity: Atmospheric Modelling and Data Analysis | Altitude Range: Stratosphere | Science Focus: Physics (physical properties and processes)
Impact of SO2 injection profiles on simulated volcanic forcing for the 2009 Sarychev eruptions – investigating the importance of using high-vertical-resolution methods when compiling SO2 data
Emma Axebrink, Moa K. Sporre, and Johan Friberg
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 2047–2059, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-2047-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-2047-2025, 2025
Short summary
Stratospheric residence time and the lifetime of volcanic stratospheric aerosols
Matthew Toohey, Yue Jia, Sujan Khanal, and Susann Tegtmeier
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2400,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2400, 2024
Short summary
Variability of stratospheric aerosol size distribution parameters between 2002 and 2005 from measurements with SAGE III/M3M
Felix Wrana, Terry Deshler, Christian Löns, Larry W. Thomason, and Christian von Savigny
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2942,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2942, 2024
Short summary
Surface Temperature Dependence of Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosol Forcing and Feedback
Ravikiran Hegde, Moritz Günther, Hauke Schmidt, and Clarissa Kroll
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2221,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2221, 2024
Short summary
Explaining the green volcanic sunsets after the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa
Christian von Savigny, Anna Lange, Christoph G. Hoffmann, and Alexei Rozanov
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 2415–2422, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-2415-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-2415-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Aquila, V., Oman, L. D., Stolarski, R. S., Colarco, P. R., and Newman, P. A.: Dispersion of the volcanic sulfate cloud from a Mount Pinatubo–like eruption, J. Geophys. Res., 117, D06216, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016968, 2012.
Aquila, V., Garfinkel, C. I., Newman, P. A., Oman, L. D., and Waugh, D. W.: Modifications of the quasi-biennial oscillation by a geoengineering perturbation of the stratospheric aerosol layer, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 1738–1744, 2014.
Bala, G., Duffy, P. B., and Taylor, K. E.: Impact of geoengineering schemes on the global hydrological cycle, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 105, 7664–7669, 2008.
Bellouin, N., Boucher, O., Haywood, J., Johnson, C., Jones, A., Rae, J., and Woodward, S.: Improved representation of aerosols for HadGEM2, Hadley Centre technical note 73, Hadley Centre, Met Office, Exeter, UK, available at: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/8/f/HCTN_73.pdf, 42 pp., 2007.
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.
Share
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint