Articles | Volume 16, issue 6
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 4191–4203, 2016
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-4191-2016
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 4191–4203, 2016
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-4191-2016
Research article
 | Highlight paper
31 Mar 2016
Research article  | Highlight paper | 31 Mar 2016

Stratospheric ozone changes under solar geoengineering: implications for UV exposure and air quality

Peer Johannes Nowack et al.

Related authors

A machine learning approach to quantify meteorological drivers of ozone pollution in China from 2015 to 2019
Xiang Weng, Grant L. Forster, and Peer Nowack
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 8385–8402, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-8385-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-8385-2022, 2022
Short summary
Machine learning calibration of low-cost NO2 and PM10 sensors: non-linear algorithms and their impact on site transferability
Peer Nowack, Lev Konstantinovskiy, Hannah Gardiner, and John Cant
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 5637–5655, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-5637-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-5637-2021, 2021
Short summary
An unsupervised learning approach to identifying blocking events: the case of European summer
Carl Thomas, Apostolos Voulgarakis, Gerald Lim, Joanna Haigh, and Peer Nowack
Weather Clim. Dynam., 2, 581–608, https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-581-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/wcd-2-581-2021, 2021
Short summary
The importance of antecedent vegetation and drought conditions as global drivers of burnt area
Alexander Kuhn-Régnier, Apostolos Voulgarakis, Peer Nowack, Matthias Forkel, I. Colin Prentice, and Sandy P. Harrison
Biogeosciences, 18, 3861–3879, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-3861-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-3861-2021, 2021
Short summary
Evaluating stratospheric ozone and water vapour changes in CMIP6 models from 1850 to 2100
James Keeble, Birgit Hassler, Antara Banerjee, Ramiro Checa-Garcia, Gabriel Chiodo, Sean Davis, Veronika Eyring, Paul T. Griffiths, Olaf Morgenstern, Peer Nowack, Guang Zeng, Jiankai Zhang, Greg Bodeker, Susannah Burrows, Philip Cameron-Smith, David Cugnet, Christopher Danek, Makoto Deushi, Larry W. Horowitz, Anne Kubin, Lijuan Li, Gerrit Lohmann, Martine Michou, Michael J. Mills, Pierre Nabat, Dirk Olivié, Sungsu Park, Øyvind Seland, Jens Stoll, Karl-Hermann Wieners, and Tongwen Wu
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 5015–5061, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5015-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-5015-2021, 2021
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Gases | Research Activity: Atmospheric Modelling | Altitude Range: Stratosphere | Science Focus: Chemistry (chemical composition and reactions)
Atmospheric impacts of chlorinated very short-lived substances over the recent past – Part 1: Stratospheric chlorine budget and the role of transport
Ewa M. Bednarz, Ryan Hossaini, Martyn P. Chipperfield, N. Luke Abraham, and Peter Braesicke
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 10657–10676, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-10657-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-10657-2022, 2022
Short summary
Effects of reanalysis forcing fields on ozone trends and age of air from a chemical transport model
Yajuan Li, Sandip S. Dhomse, Martyn P. Chipperfield, Wuhu Feng, Andreas Chrysanthou, Yuan Xia, and Dong Guo
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 10635–10656, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-10635-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-10635-2022, 2022
Short summary
The historical ozone trends simulated with the SOCOLv4 and their comparison with observations and reanalysis
Arseniy Karagodin-Doyennel, Eugene Rozanov, Timofei Sukhodolov, ‪Tatiana Egorova, Jan Sedlacek, William Ball, and Thomas Peter
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-701,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-701, 2022
Short summary
The influence of energetic particle precipitation on Antarctic stratospheric chlorine and ozone over the 20th century
Ville Maliniemi, Pavle Arsenovic, Annika Seppälä, and Hilde Nesse Tyssøy
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 8137–8149, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-8137-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-8137-2022, 2022
Short summary
From the middle stratosphere to the surface, using nitrous oxide to constrain the stratosphere–troposphere exchange of ozone
Daniel J. Ruiz and Michael J. Prather
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 2079–2093, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2079-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2079-2022, 2022
Short summary

Cited articles

Avnery, S., Mauzerall, D. L., Liu, J., and Horowitz, L. W.: Global crop yield reductions due to surface ozone exposure: 2. Year 2030 potential crop production losses and economic damage under two scenarios of O3 pollution, Atmos. Environ., 45, 2297–2309, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.01.002, 2011.
Bais, A. F., McKenzie, R. L., Bernhard, G., Aucamp, P. J., Ilyas, M., Madronich, S., and Tourpali, K.: Ozone depletion and climate change: impacts on UV radiation, Photochem. Photobiol. Sci., 14, 19–52, https://doi.org/10.1039/C4PP90032D, 2015.
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, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0711648105, 2008.
Banerjee, A., Maycock, A. C., Archibald, A. T., Abraham, N. L., Telford, P., Braesicke, P., and Pyle, J. A.: Drivers of changes in stratospheric and tropospheric ozone between year 2000 and 2100, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 2727–2746, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-2727-2016, 2016.
Download
Short summary
Various forms of solar radiation management (SRM) have been proposed to counteract man-made climate change. However, all these countermeasures could have unintended side-effects. We add a novel perspective to this discussion by showing how atmospheric ozone changes under solar geoengineering could affect UV exposure and air pollution. This would have implications for human health and ecology. Atmospheric composition changes are therefore important to consider in the evaluation of any SRM scheme.
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint