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

A protocol for model intercomparison of impacts of Marine Cloud Brightening Climate Intervention
Philip Rasch, Haruki Hirasawa, Mingxuan Wu, Sarah Doherty, Robert Wood, Hailong Wang, Andy Jones, James Haywood, and Hansi Singh
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1031,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1031, 2024
Short summary
G6-1.5K-SAI: a new Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) experiment integrating recent advances in solar radiation modification studies
Daniele Visioni, Alan Robock, Jim Haywood, Matthew Henry, Simone Tilmes, Douglas G. MacMartin, Ben Kravitz, Sarah J. Doherty, John Moore, Chris Lennard, Shingo Watanabe, Helene Muri, Ulrike Niemeier, Olivier Boucher, Abu Syed, Temitope S. Egbebiyi, Roland Séférian, and Ilaria Quaglia
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2583–2596, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2583-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2583-2024, 2024
Short summary
How well are aerosol–cloud interactions represented in climate models? – Part 1: Understanding the sulfate aerosol production from the 2014–15 Holuhraun eruption
George Jordan, Florent Malavelle, Ying Chen, Amy Peace, Eliza Duncan, Daniel G. Partridge, Paul Kim, Duncan Watson-Parris, Toshihiko Takemura, David Neubauer, Gunnar Myhre, Ragnhild Skeie, Anton Laakso, and James Haywood
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 1939–1960, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-1939-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-1939-2024, 2024
Short summary
In-plume and out-of-plume analysis of aerosol-cloud interactions derived from the 2014–15 Holuhraun volcanic eruption
Amy H. Peace, Ying Chen, George Jordan, Daniel G. Partridge, Florent Malavelle, Eliza Duncan, and Jim M. Haywood
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-360,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-360, 2024
Short summary
Projected future changes in extreme precipitation over China under stratospheric aerosol intervention
Ou Wang, Ju Liang, Yuchen Gu, Jim M. Haywood, Ying Chen, Chenwei Fang, and Qingeng Wang
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2904,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2904, 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)
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
A multi-scenario Lagrangian trajectory analysis to identify source regions of the Asian tropopause aerosol layer on the Indian subcontinent in August 2016
Jan Clemens, Bärbel Vogel, Lars Hoffmann, Sabine Griessbach, Nicole Thomas, Suvarna Fadnavis, Rolf Müller, Thomas Peter, and Felix Ploeger
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 763–787, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-763-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-763-2024, 2024
Short summary
Future dust concentration over the Middle East and North Africa region under global warming and stratospheric aerosol intervention scenarios
Seyed Vahid Mousavi, Khalil Karami, Simone Tilmes, Helene Muri, Lili Xia, and Abolfazl Rezaei
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 10677–10695, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-10677-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-10677-2023, 2023
Short summary
How the extreme 2019–2020 Australian wildfires affected global circulation and adjustments
Fabian Senf, Bernd Heinold, Anne Kubin, Jason Müller, Roland Schrödner, and Ina Tegen
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 8939–8958, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-8939-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-8939-2023, 2023
Short summary
Opinion: How fear of nuclear winter has helped save the world, so far
Alan Robock, Lili Xia, Cheryl S. Harrison, Joshua Coupe, Owen B. Toon, and Charles G. Bardeen
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 6691–6701, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-6691-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-6691-2023, 2023
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.
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint