Articles | Volume 18, issue 14
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-10133-2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-10133-2018
Research article
 | 
17 Jul 2018
Research article |  | 17 Jul 2018

Extreme temperature and precipitation response to solar dimming and stratospheric aerosol geoengineering

Duoying Ji, Songsong Fang, Charles L. Curry, Hiroki Kashimura, Shingo Watanabe, Jason N. S. Cole, Andrew Lenton, Helene Muri, Ben Kravitz, and John C. Moore

Related authors

Global streamflow and flood response to stratospheric aerosol geoengineering
Liren Wei, Duoying Ji, Chiyuan Miao, Helene Muri, and John C. Moore
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 16033–16050, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-16033-2018,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-16033-2018, 2018
Short summary
The climate effects of increasing ocean albedo: an idealized representation of solar geoengineering
Ben Kravitz, Philip J. Rasch, Hailong Wang, Alan Robock, Corey Gabriel, Olivier Boucher, Jason N. S. Cole, Jim Haywood, Duoying Ji, Andy Jones, Andrew Lenton, John C. Moore, Helene Muri, Ulrike Niemeier, Steven Phipps, Hauke Schmidt, Shingo Watanabe, Shuting Yang, and Jin-Ho Yoon
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 13097–13113, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-13097-2018,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-13097-2018, 2018
Short summary
A statistical examination of the effects of stratospheric sulfate geoengineering on tropical storm genesis
Qin Wang, John C. Moore, and Duoying Ji
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 9173–9188, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-9173-2018,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-9173-2018, 2018
Short summary
Tropical atmospheric circulation response to the G1 sunshade geoengineering radiative forcing experiment
Anboyu Guo, John C. Moore, and Duoying Ji
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 8689–8706, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-8689-2018,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-8689-2018, 2018
Short summary
Response to marine cloud brightening in a multi-model ensemble
Camilla W. Stjern, Helene Muri, Lars Ahlm, Olivier Boucher, Jason N. S. Cole, Duoying Ji, Andy Jones, Jim Haywood, Ben Kravitz, Andrew Lenton, John C. Moore, Ulrike Niemeier, Steven J. Phipps, Hauke Schmidt, Shingo Watanabe, and Jón Egill Kristjánsson
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 621–634, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-621-2018,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-621-2018, 2018
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Clouds and Precipitation | Research Activity: Atmospheric Modelling and Data Analysis | Altitude Range: Troposphere | Science Focus: Physics (physical properties and processes)
Impact of wildfire smoke on Arctic cirrus formation – Part 2: Simulation of MOSAiC 2019–2020 cases
Albert Ansmann, Cristofer Jimenez, Daniel A. Knopf, Johanna Roschke, Johannes Bühl, Kevin Ohneiser, and Ronny Engelmann
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 4867–4884, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-4867-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-4867-2025, 2025
Short summary
Constraining aerosol–cloud adjustments by uniting surface observations with a perturbed parameter ensemble
August Mikkelsen, Daniel T. McCoy, Trude Eidhammer, Andrew Gettelman, Ci Song, Hamish Gordon, and Isabel L. McCoy
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 4547–4570, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-4547-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-4547-2025, 2025
Short summary
Investigating ice formation pathways using a novel two-moment multi-class cloud microphysics scheme
Tim Lüttmer, Peter Spichtinger, and Axel Seifert
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 4505–4529, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-4505-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-4505-2025, 2025
Short summary
Microphysics regimes due to haze–cloud interactions: cloud oscillation and cloud collapse
Fan Yang, Hamed Fahandezh Sadi, Raymond A. Shaw, Fabian Hoffmann, Pei Hou, Aaron Wang, and Mikhail Ovchinnikov
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 3785–3806, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-3785-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-3785-2025, 2025
Short summary
Impact of secondary ice production on thunderstorm electrification under different aerosol conditions
Shiye Huang, Jing Yang, Jiaojiao Li, Qian Chen, Qilin Zhang, and Fengxia Guo
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 1831–1850, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-1831-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-1831-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Allen, M. and Ingram, W.: Constraints on future changes in climate and the hydrologic cycle, Nature, 419, 224–232, 2002. 
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. 
Aswathy, V. N., Boucher, O., Quaas, M., Niemeier, U., Muri, H., Mülmenstädt, J., and Quaas, J.: Climate extremes in multi-model simulations of stratospheric aerosol and marine cloud brightening climate engineering, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 9593–9610, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-9593-2015, 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. 
Berdahl, M., Robock, A., Ji, D., Moore, J., Jones, A., Kravitz, B., and Watanabe, S.: Arctic cryosphere response in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) G3 and G4 scenarios, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 1308–1321, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020627, 2014. 
Download
Short summary
We examine extreme temperature and precipitation under climate-model-simulated solar dimming and stratospheric aerosol injection geoengineering schemes. Both types of geoengineering lead to lower minimum temperatures at higher latitudes and greater cooling of minimum temperatures and maximum temperatures over land compared with oceans. Stratospheric aerosol injection is more effective in reducing tropical extreme precipitation, while solar dimming is more effective over extra-tropical regions.
Share
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint