Articles | Volume 17, issue 6
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-3879-2017
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-3879-2017
Review article
 | 
21 Mar 2017
Review article |  | 21 Mar 2017

Sulfate geoengineering: a review of the factors controlling the needed injection of sulfur dioxide

Daniele Visioni, Giovanni Pitari, and Valentina Aquila

Related authors

Hemispherically symmetric strategies for stratospheric aerosol injection
Yan Zhang, Douglas G. MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, Ewa M. Bednarz, and Ben Kravitz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 191–213, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-191-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-191-2024, 2024
Short summary
Dependency of the impacts of geoengineering on the stratospheric sulfur injection strategy part 2: How changes in the hydrological cycle depend on injection rates and model?
Anton Laakso, Daniele Visioni, Ulrike Niemeier, Simone Tilmes, and Harri Kokkola
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2520,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2520, 2023
Short summary
Injection strategy – a driver of atmospheric circulation and ozone response to stratospheric aerosol geoengineering
Ewa M. Bednarz, Amy H. Butler, Daniele Visioni, Yan Zhang, Ben Kravitz, and Douglas G. MacMartin
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 13665–13684, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13665-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13665-2023, 2023
Short summary
Comparison of UKESM1 and CESM2 simulations using the same multi-target stratospheric aerosol injection strategy
Matthew Henry, Jim Haywood, Andy Jones, Mohit Dalvi, Alice Wells, Daniele Visioni, Ewa M. Bednarz, Douglas G. MacMartin, Walker Lee, and Mari R. Tye
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 13369–13385, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13369-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13369-2023, 2023
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 Doherty, John Moore, Chris Lennard, Shingo Watanabe, Helene Muri, Ulrike Niemeier, Olivier Boucher, Abu Syed, and Temitope S. Egbebiyi
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2406,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2406, 2023
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., Douglass, A. R., and Newman, P. A.: The Response of Ozone and Nitrogen Dioxide to the Eruption of Mt. Pinatubo at Southern and Northern Midlatitudes, J. Atmos. Sci., 70, 894–900, 2013.
Aquila, V., Garfinkel, C., Newman, P., Oman, L., and Waugh, D.: Modifications of the quasi-biennial oscillation by a geoengineering perturbation of the stratospheric aerosol layer, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 1738–1744, 2014a.
Aquila, V., Pitari, G., Tilmes, S., Cionni, I., De Luca, N., Di Genova, G., and Iachetti, D.: Sensitivity of Methane Lifetime and Transport to Sulfate Geoengineering, in: Fall Meeting, AGU, San Francisco, CA, 15–19 December, Abstract GC13I-0787, http://abstractsearch.agu.org/meetings/2014/FM/A23J-3389.html, 2014b.
Budyko, M. I.: The Climate of the Future, American Geophysical Union, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118665251.ch7, 2013.
Canty, T., Mascioli, N. R., Smarte, M. D., and Salawitch, R. J.: An empirical model of global climate – Part 1: A critical evaluation of volcanic cooling, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 3997–4031, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-3997-2013, 2013.
Download
Short summary
This review paper summarizes the state-of-the-art knowledge of the direct and indirect side effects of sulfate geoengineering, that is, the injection of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere in order to offset the warming caused by the anthropic increase in greenhouse gasses. An overview of the various effects and their uncertainties, using results from published scientific articles, may help fine-tune the best amount of sulfate to be injected in an eventual realization of the experiment.
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint