Articles | Volume 17, issue 5
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-3339-2017
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-3339-2017
Research article
 | 
08 Mar 2017
Research article |  | 08 Mar 2017

Shortwave radiative forcing, rapid adjustment, and feedback to the surface by sulfate geoengineering: analysis of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project G4 scenario

Hiroki Kashimura, Manabu Abe, Shingo Watanabe, Takashi Sekiya, Duoying Ji, John C. Moore, Jason N. S. Cole, and Ben Kravitz

Related authors

Assessing the relative impacts of satellite ozone and its precursor observations to improve global tropospheric ozone analysis using multiple chemical reanalysis systems
Takashi Sekiya, Emanuele Emili, Kazuyuki Miyazaki, Antje Inness, Zhen Qu, R. Bradley Pierce, Dylan Jones, Helen Worden, William Y. Y. Cheng, Vincent Huijnen, and Gerbrand Koren
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 2243–2268, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-2243-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-2243-2025, 2025
Short summary
Quantifying uncertainties in satellite NO2 superobservations for data assimilation and model evaluation
Pieter Rijsdijk, Henk Eskes, Arlene Dingemans, K. Folkert Boersma, Takashi Sekiya, Kazuyuki Miyazaki, and Sander Houweling
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 483–509, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-483-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-483-2025, 2025
Short summary
QBOi El Niño Southern Oscillation experiments: Assessing relationships between ENSO, MJO, and QBO
Dillon Elsbury, Federico Serva, Julie M. Caron, Seung-Yoon Back, Clara Orbe, Jadwiga H. Richter, James A. Anstey, Neal Butchart, Chih-Chieh Chen, Javier García-Serrano, Anne Glanville, Yoshio Kawatani, Tobias Kerzenmacher, Francois Lott, Hiroaki Naoe, Scott Osprey, Froila M. Palmeiro, Seok-Woo Son, Masakazu Taguchi, Stefan Versick, Shingo Watanabe, and Kohei Yoshida
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3950,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3950, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Weather and Climate Dynamics (WCD).
Short summary
Using Optimization Tools to Explore Stratospheric Aerosol Injection Strategies
Ezra Brody, Yan Zhang, Douglas G. MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, Ben Kravitz, and Ewa M. Bednarz
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3974,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3974, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Earth System Dynamics (ESD).
Short summary
Assessment of regional and interannual variations in tropospheric ozone in chemical reanalyses
Dylan Jones, Lucas Prates, Zhen Qu, William Cheng, Kazuyuki Miyazaki, Takashi Sekiya, Antje Inness, Rajesh Kumar, Xiao Tang, Helen Worden, Gerbrand Koren, and Vincent Huijen
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3759,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3759, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Radiation | Research Activity: Atmospheric Modelling and Data Analysis | Altitude Range: Stratosphere | Science Focus: Physics (physical properties and processes)
Revisiting the question “Why is the sky blue?”
Anna Lange, Alexei Rozanov, and Christian von Savigny
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 14829–14839, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-14829-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-14829-2023, 2023
Short summary
Changes in global teleconnection patterns under global warming and stratospheric aerosol intervention scenarios
Abolfazl Rezaei, Khalil Karami, Simone Tilmes, and John C. Moore
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 5835–5850, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5835-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5835-2023, 2023
Short summary
Exploring accumulation-mode H2SO4 versus SO2 stratospheric sulfate geoengineering in a sectional aerosol–chemistry–climate model
Sandro Vattioni, Debra Weisenstein, David Keith, Aryeh Feinberg, Thomas Peter, and Andrea Stenke
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 4877–4897, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-4877-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-4877-2019, 2019
Short summary
Climate impact of idealized winter polar mesospheric and stratospheric ozone losses as caused by energetic particle precipitation
Katharina Meraner and Hauke Schmidt
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 1079–1089, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-1079-2018,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-1079-2018, 2018
Short summary
Ultraviolet radiation modelling from ground-based and satellite measurements on Reunion Island, southern tropics
Kévin Lamy, Thierry Portafaix, Colette Brogniez, Sophie Godin-Beekmann, Hassan Bencherif, Béatrice Morel, Andrea Pazmino, Jean Marc Metzger, Frédérique Auriol, Christine Deroo, Valentin Duflot, Philippe Goloub, and Charles N. Long
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 227–246, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-227-2018,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-227-2018, 2018
Short summary

Cited articles

Andrews, T.: Using an AGCM to Diagnose Historical Effective Radiative Forcing and Mechanisms of Recent Decadal Climate Change, J. Climate, 27, 1193–1209, 2014.
Andrews, T., Gregory, J. M., Webb, M. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivity in CMIP5 coupled atmosphere-ocean climate models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L09712, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051607, 2012.
Arora, V. K. and Boer, G. J.: Uncertainties in the 20th century carbon budget associated with land use change, Global Change Biol., 16, 3327–3348, 2010.
Arora, V. K., Scinocca, J. F., Boer, G. J., Christian, J. R., Denman, K. L., Flato, G. M., Kharin, V. V., Lee, W. G., and Merryfield, W. J.: Carbon emission limits required to satisfy future representative concentration pathways of greenhouse gases, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L05805, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL046270, 2011.
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.
Download
Short summary
This study analyses shortwave radiation (SW) in the G4 experiment of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project. G4 involves stratospheric injection of 5 Tg yr−1 of SO2 against the RCP4.5 scenario. The global mean forcing of the sulphate geoengineering has an inter-model variablity of −3.6 to −1.6 W m−2, implying a high uncertainty in modelled processes of sulfate aerosols. Changes in water vapour and cloud amounts due to the SO2 injection weaken the forcing at the surface by around 50 %.
Share
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint