Articles | Volume 22, issue 9
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-5757-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-5757-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
03 May 2022
Research article |
| 03 May 2022
| 03 May 2022
An approach to sulfate geoengineering with surface emissions of carbonyl sulfide
Ilaria Quaglia
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Department of Physical and Chemical Sciences, Università dell'Aquila, 67100 L'Aquila, Italy
Daniele Visioni
Sibley School for Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
Giovanni Pitari
Department of Physical and Chemical Sciences, Università dell'Aquila, 67100 L'Aquila, Italy
Ben Kravitz
Department of Earth and Atmospheric Science, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
Atmospheric Sciences and Global Change Division, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA
Related authors
Christina V. Brodowsky, Timofei Sukhodolov, Gabriel Chiodo, Valentina Aquila, Slimane Bekki, Sandip S. Dhomse, Michael Höpfner, Anton Laakso, Graham W. Mann, Ulrike Niemeier, Giovanni Pitari, Ilaria Quaglia, Eugene Rozanov, Anja Schmidt, Takashi Sekiya, Simone Tilmes, Claudia Timmreck, Sandro Vattioni, Daniele Visioni, Pengfei Yu, Yunqian Zhu, and Thomas Peter
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 5513–5548, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-5513-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-5513-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The aerosol layer is an essential part of the climate system. We characterize the sulfur budget in a volcanically quiescent (background) setting, with a special focus on the sulfate aerosol layer using, for the first time, a multi-model approach. The aim is to identify weak points in the representation of the atmospheric sulfur budget in an intercomparison of nine state-of-the-art coupled global circulation models.
Ilaria Quaglia, Claudia Timmreck, Ulrike Niemeier, Daniele Visioni, Giovanni Pitari, Christina Brodowsky, Christoph Brühl, Sandip S. Dhomse, Henning Franke, Anton Laakso, Graham W. Mann, Eugene Rozanov, and Timofei Sukhodolov
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 921–948, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-921-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-921-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The last very large explosive volcanic eruption we have measurements for is the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. It is therefore often used as a benchmark for climate models' ability to reproduce these kinds of events. Here, we compare available measurements with the results from multiple experiments conducted with climate models interactively simulating the aerosol cloud formation.
Ezra Brody, Yan Zhang, Douglas G. MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, Ben Kravitz, and Ewa M. Bednarz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 1325–1341, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1325-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1325-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) is being studied as a possible supplement to emission reduction to temporarily mitigate some of the risks associated with climate change. The latitudes at which SAI is done determine the effect on the climate. We try to find if there are combinations of latitudes that do a better job of counteracting climate change than existing strategies. We found that there are, but just how significant these improvements are depends on the amount of cooling.
Cindy Wang, Daniele Visioni, Glen Chua, and Ewa M. Bednarz
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3151, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3151, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric aerosol injection is a proposed method to slow global warming by adding tiny reflective particles high up in the atmosphere to cool the planet. We study how this proposed method might affect air quality and human health using climate models. We find that the health impacts would likely be small and are mainly caused by changes in climate, not by the particles themselves.
Lantao Sun, James W. Hurrell, Kristen L. Rasmussen, Bali Summers, Erin A. Sherman, and Ben Kravitz
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3490, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3490, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
We develop a novel framework using the convection-permitting Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model to assess how stratospheric aerosol injection, a solar climate intervention strategy, affects future convective weather over the contiguous U.S. Results demonstrate the feasibility and scientific potential of this approach for evaluating weather-scale impacts and suggest that such intervention may mitigate changes in temperature, precipitation, and convective activity due to warming.
Simone Tilmes, Ewa M. Bednarz, Andrin Jörimann, Daniele Visioni, Douglas E. Kinnison, Gabriel Chiodo, and David Plummer
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 6001–6023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-6001-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-6001-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper, we describe the details of a new multi-model intercomparison experiment to assess the effects of Stratospheric Aerosol Intervention (SAI) on stratospheric chemistry and dynamics and, therefore, ozone. Second, we discuss the advantages and differences of the more constrained experiment compared to fully interactive model experiments. This way, we advance the process-level understanding of the drivers of SAI-induced atmospheric responses.
Jared Farley, Douglas G. MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, Ben Kravitz, Ewa Bednarz, Alistair Duffey, and Matthew Henry
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1830, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1830, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
As the climate changes, many are studying sunlight reflection as a potential method of cooling. Such climate intervention could be deployed in many possible ways, including in scenarios where not every actor agrees on the strategy of cooling. These scenarios are so diverse that to explore all of them using earth system models proves to be too costly. In this paper, we develop a simplified climate model that allows users to easily explore climate intervention scenarios of their choice.
Martin Juckes, Karl E. Taylor, Fabrizio Antonio, David Brayshaw, Carlo Buontempo, Jian Cao, Paul J. Durack, Michio Kawamiya, Hyungjun Kim, Tomas Lovato, Chloe Mackallah, Matthew Mizielinski, Alessandra Nuzzo, Martina Stockhause, Daniele Visioni, Jeremy Walton, Briony Turner, Eleanor O'Rourke, and Beth Dingley
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2639–2663, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2639-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2639-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Baseline Climate Variables for Earth System Modelling (ESM-BCVs) are defined as a list of 135 variables which have high utility for the evaluation and exploitation of climate simulations. The list reflects the most frequently used variables from Earth system models based on an assessment of data publication and download records from the largest archive of global climate projects.
Ilaria Quaglia and Daniele Visioni
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1527–1541, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1527-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1527-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
On 1 January 2020, international shipping vessels were required to substantially reduce the amount of particulate they emit to improve air quality. In this work we demonstrate how this regulatory change contributed to the anomalous warming observed in recent months using climate model simulations that include such a change. Future policies should also perhaps consider their impact on climate, and climate modelers should promptly include those changes in future modeling efforts.
Yunqian Zhu, Hideharu Akiyoshi, Valentina Aquila, Elisabeth Asher, Ewa M. Bednarz, Slimane Bekki, Christoph Brühl, Amy H. Butler, Parker Case, Simon Chabrillat, Gabriel Chiodo, Margot Clyne, Lola Falletti, Peter R. Colarco, Eric Fleming, Andrin Jörimann, Mahesh Kovilakam, Gerbrand Koren, Ales Kuchar, Nicolas Lebas, Qing Liang, Cheng-Cheng Liu, Graham Mann, Michael Manyin, Marion Marchand, Olaf Morgenstern, Paul Newman, Luke D. Oman, Freja F. Østerstrøm, Yifeng Peng, David Plummer, Ilaria Quaglia, William Randel, Samuel Rémy, Takashi Sekiya, Stephen Steenrod, Timofei Sukhodolov, Simone Tilmes, Kostas Tsigaridis, Rei Ueyama, Daniele Visioni, Xinyue Wang, Shingo Watanabe, Yousuke Yamashita, Pengfei Yu, Wandi Yu, Jun Zhang, and Zhihong Zhuo
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3412, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3412, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
To understand the climate impact of the 2022 Hunga volcanic eruption, we developed a climate model-observation comparison project. The paper describes the protocols and models that participate in the experiments. We designed several experiments to achieve our goal of this activity: 1. evaluate the climate model performance; 2. understand the Earth system responses to this eruption.
Christina V. Brodowsky, Timofei Sukhodolov, Gabriel Chiodo, Valentina Aquila, Slimane Bekki, Sandip S. Dhomse, Michael Höpfner, Anton Laakso, Graham W. Mann, Ulrike Niemeier, Giovanni Pitari, Ilaria Quaglia, Eugene Rozanov, Anja Schmidt, Takashi Sekiya, Simone Tilmes, Claudia Timmreck, Sandro Vattioni, Daniele Visioni, Pengfei Yu, Yunqian Zhu, and Thomas Peter
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 5513–5548, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-5513-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-5513-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The aerosol layer is an essential part of the climate system. We characterize the sulfur budget in a volcanically quiescent (background) setting, with a special focus on the sulfate aerosol layer using, for the first time, a multi-model approach. The aim is to identify weak points in the representation of the atmospheric sulfur budget in an intercomparison of nine state-of-the-art coupled global circulation models.
Anton Laakso, Daniele Visioni, Ulrike Niemeier, Simone Tilmes, and Harri Kokkola
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 405–427, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-405-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-405-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study is the second in a two-part series in which we explore the dependency of the impacts of stratospheric sulfur injections on both the model employed and the strategy of injection utilized. The study uncovers uncertainties associated with these techniques to cool climate, highlighting how the simulated climate impacts are dependent on both the selected model and the magnitude of the injections. We also show that estimating precipitation impacts of aerosol injection is a complex task.
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
Short summary
This paper describes a new experimental protocol for the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). In it, we describe the details of a new simulation of sunlight reflection using the stratospheric aerosols that climate models are supposed to run, and we explain the reasons behind each choice we made when defining the protocol.
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
Short summary
Injecting SO2 into the lower stratosphere can temporarily reduce global mean temperature and mitigate some risks associated with climate change, but injecting it at different latitudes and seasons would have different impacts. This study introduces new stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) strategies and explores the importance of the choice of SAI strategy, demonstrating that it notably affects the distribution of aerosol cloud, injection efficiency, and various surface climate impacts.
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
Short summary
We use a state-of-the-art Earth system model and a set of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) strategies to achieve the same level of global mean surface cooling through different combinations of location and/or timing of the injection. We demonstrate that the choice of SAI strategy can lead to contrasting impacts on stratospheric and tropospheric temperatures, circulation, and chemistry (including stratospheric ozone), thereby leading to different impacts on regional surface climate.
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
Short summary
Solar climate interventions, such as injecting sulfur in the stratosphere, may be used to offset some of the adverse impacts of global warming. We use two independently developed Earth system models to assess the uncertainties around stratospheric sulfur injections. The injection locations and amounts are optimized to maintain the same pattern of surface temperature. While both models show reduced warming, the change in rainfall patterns (even without sulfur injections) is uncertain.
Daniele Visioni, Ben Kravitz, Alan Robock, Simone Tilmes, Jim Haywood, Olivier Boucher, Mark Lawrence, Peter Irvine, Ulrike Niemeier, Lili Xia, Gabriel Chiodo, Chris Lennard, Shingo Watanabe, John C. Moore, and Helene Muri
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 5149–5176, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5149-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-5149-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Geoengineering indicates methods aiming to reduce the temperature of the planet by means of reflecting back a part of the incoming radiation before it reaches the surface or allowing more of the planetary radiation to escape into space. It aims to produce modelling experiments that are easy to reproduce and compare with different climate models, in order to understand the potential impacts of these techniques. Here we assess its past successes and failures and talk about its future.
Ilaria Quaglia, Claudia Timmreck, Ulrike Niemeier, Daniele Visioni, Giovanni Pitari, Christina Brodowsky, Christoph Brühl, Sandip S. Dhomse, Henning Franke, Anton Laakso, Graham W. Mann, Eugene Rozanov, and Timofei Sukhodolov
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 921–948, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-921-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-921-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The last very large explosive volcanic eruption we have measurements for is the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in 1991. It is therefore often used as a benchmark for climate models' ability to reproduce these kinds of events. Here, we compare available measurements with the results from multiple experiments conducted with climate models interactively simulating the aerosol cloud formation.
Daniele Visioni, Ewa M. Bednarz, Walker R. Lee, Ben Kravitz, Andy Jones, Jim M. Haywood, and Douglas G. MacMartin
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 663–685, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-663-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-663-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The paper constitutes Part 1 of a study performing a first systematic inter-model comparison of the atmospheric responses to stratospheric sulfate aerosol injections (SAIs) at various latitudes as simulated by three state-of-the-art Earth system models. We identify similarities and differences in the modeled aerosol burden, investigate the differences in the aerosol approaches between the models, and ultimately show the differences produced in surface climate, temperature and precipitation.
Ewa M. Bednarz, Daniele Visioni, Ben Kravitz, Andy Jones, James M. Haywood, Jadwiga Richter, Douglas G. MacMartin, and Peter Braesicke
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 687–709, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-687-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-687-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Building on Part 1 of this two-part study, we demonstrate the role of biases in climatological circulation and specific aspects of model microphysics in driving the differences in simulated sulfate distributions amongst three Earth system models. We then characterize the simulated changes in stratospheric and free-tropospheric temperatures, ozone, water vapor, and large-scale circulation, elucidating the role of the above aspects in the surface responses discussed in Part 1.
Jadwiga H. Richter, Daniele Visioni, Douglas G. MacMartin, David A. Bailey, Nan Rosenbloom, Brian Dobbins, Walker R. Lee, Mari Tye, and Jean-Francois Lamarque
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 8221–8243, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8221-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8221-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Solar climate intervention using stratospheric aerosol injection is a proposed method of reducing global mean temperatures to reduce the worst consequences of climate change. We present a new modeling protocol aimed at simulating a plausible deployment of stratospheric aerosol injection and reproducibility of simulations using other Earth system models: Assessing Responses and Impacts of Solar climate intervention on the Earth system with stratospheric aerosol injection (ARISE-SAI).
Mari R. Tye, Katherine Dagon, Maria J. Molina, Jadwiga H. Richter, Daniele Visioni, Ben Kravitz, and Simone Tilmes
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1233–1257, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1233-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1233-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We examined the potential effect of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) on extreme temperature and precipitation. SAI may cause daytime temperatures to cool but nighttime to warm. Daytime cooling may occur in all seasons across the globe, with the largest decreases in summer. In contrast, nighttime warming may be greatest at high latitudes in winter. SAI may reduce the frequency and intensity of extreme rainfall. The combined changes may exacerbate drying over parts of the global south.
Simone Tilmes, Daniele Visioni, Andy Jones, James Haywood, Roland Séférian, Pierre Nabat, Olivier Boucher, Ewa Monica Bednarz, and Ulrike Niemeier
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 4557–4579, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-4557-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-4557-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This study assesses the impacts of climate interventions, using stratospheric sulfate aerosol and solar dimming on stratospheric ozone, based on three Earth system models with interactive stratospheric chemistry. The climate interventions have been applied to a high emission (baseline) scenario in order to reach global surface temperatures of a medium emission scenario. We find significant increases and decreases in total column ozone, depending on regions and seasons.
Huiying Ren, Erol Cromwell, Ben Kravitz, and Xingyuan Chen
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 1727–1743, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1727-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1727-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We used a deep learning method called long short-term memory (LSTM) to fill gaps in data collected by hydrologic monitoring networks. LSTM accounted for correlations in space and time and nonlinear trends in data. Compared to a traditional regression-based time-series method, LSTM performed comparably when filling gaps in data with smooth patterns, while it better captured highly dynamic patterns in data. Capturing such dynamics is critical for understanding dynamic complex system behaviors.
Andy Jones, Jim M. Haywood, Adam A. Scaife, Olivier Boucher, Matthew Henry, Ben Kravitz, Thibaut Lurton, Pierre Nabat, Ulrike Niemeier, Roland Séférian, Simone Tilmes, and Daniele Visioni
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 2999–3016, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2999-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2999-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Simulations by six Earth-system models of geoengineering by introducing sulfuric acid aerosols into the tropical stratosphere are compared. A robust impact on the northern wintertime North Atlantic Oscillation is found, exacerbating precipitation reduction over parts of southern Europe. In contrast, the models show no consistency with regard to impacts on the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation, although results do indicate a risk that the oscillation could become locked into a permanent westerly phase.
Debra K. Weisenstein, Daniele Visioni, Henning Franke, Ulrike Niemeier, Sandro Vattioni, Gabriel Chiodo, Thomas Peter, and David W. Keith
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 2955–2973, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2955-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2955-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper explores a potential method of geoengineering that could be used to slow the rate of change of climate over decadal scales. We use three climate models to explore how injections of accumulation-mode sulfuric acid aerosol change the large-scale stratospheric particle size distribution and radiative forcing response for the chosen scenarios. Radiative forcing per unit sulfur injected and relative to the change in aerosol burden is larger with particulate than with SO2 injections.
Daniele Visioni, Simone Tilmes, Charles Bardeen, Michael Mills, Douglas G. MacMartin, Ben Kravitz, and Jadwiga H. Richter
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 1739–1756, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-1739-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-1739-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Aerosols are simulated in a simplified way in climate models: in the model analyzed here, they are represented in every grid as described by three simple logarithmic distributions, mixing all different species together. The size can evolve when new particles are formed, particles merge together to create a larger one or particles are deposited to the surface. This approximation normally works fairly well. Here we show however that when large amounts of sulfate are simulated, there are problems.
Yan Zhang, Douglas G. MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, and Ben Kravitz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 201–217, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-201-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-201-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Adding SO2 to the stratosphere could temporarily cool the planet by reflecting more sunlight back to space. However, adding SO2 at different latitude(s) and season(s) leads to significant differences in regional surface climate. This study shows that, to cool the planet by 1–1.5 °C, there are likely six to eight choices of injection latitude(s) and season(s) that lead to meaningfully different distributions of climate impacts.
Anton Laakso, Ulrike Niemeier, Daniele Visioni, Simone Tilmes, and Harri Kokkola
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 93–118, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-93-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-93-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The use of different spatio-temporal sulfur injection strategies with different magnitudes to create an artificial reflective aerosol layer to cool the climate is studied using sectional and modal aerosol schemes in a climate model. There are significant differences in the results depending on the aerosol microphysical module used. Different spatio-temporal injection strategies have a significant impact on the magnitude and zonal distribution of radiative forcing and atmospheric dynamics.
Dawn L. Woodard, Alexey N. Shiklomanov, Ben Kravitz, Corinne Hartin, and Ben Bond-Lamberty
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 4751–4767, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4751-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4751-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We have added a representation of the permafrost carbon feedback to the simple, open-source global carbon–climate model Hector and calibrated the results to be consistent with historical data and Earth system model projections. Our results closely match previous work, estimating around 0.2 °C of warming from permafrost this century. This capability will be useful to explore uncertainties in this feedback and for coupling with integrated assessment models for policy and economic analysis.
Daniele Visioni, Douglas G. MacMartin, Ben Kravitz, Olivier Boucher, Andy Jones, Thibaut Lurton, Michou Martine, Michael J. Mills, Pierre Nabat, Ulrike Niemeier, Roland Séférian, and Simone Tilmes
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 10039–10063, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-10039-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-10039-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
A new set of simulations is used to investigate commonalities, differences and sources of uncertainty when simulating the injection of SO2 in the stratosphere in order to mitigate the effects of climate change (solar geoengineering). The models differ in how they simulate the aerosols and how they spread around the stratosphere, resulting in differences in projected regional impacts. Overall, however, the models agree that aerosols have the potential to mitigate the warming produced by GHGs.
Nikolas O. Aksamit, Ben Kravitz, Douglas G. MacMartin, and George Haller
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 8845–8861, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-8845-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-8845-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
There exist robust and influential material features evolving within turbulent fluids that behave as the skeleton for fluid transport pathways. Recent developments in applied mathematics have made the identification of these time-varying structures more rigorous and insightful than ever. Using short-range wind forecasts, we detail how and why these material features can be exploited in an effort to optimize the spread of aerosols in the stratosphere for climate geoengineering.
Henning Franke, Ulrike Niemeier, and Daniele Visioni
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 8615–8635, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-8615-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-8615-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric aerosol modification (SAM) can alter the quasi-biennial oscillation (QBO). Our simulations with two different models show that the characteristics of the QBO response are primarily determined by the meridional structure of the aerosol-induced heating. Therefore, the QBO response to SAM depends primarily on the location of injection, while injection type and rate act to scale the specific response. Our results have important implications for evaluating adverse side effects of SAM.
Paolo Tuccella, Giovanni Pitari, Valentina Colaiuda, Edoardo Raparelli, and Gabriele Curci
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 6875–6893, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6875-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6875-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We calculate the radiation-absorbing aerosol quantity in snow with a global chemical and transport atmospheric model, validated with global observations. The perturbation to snow albedo and related climatic impact are assessed. The resulting average radiative flux change in snow is 0.068 W m−2. Black carbon is a major contributor (+0.033 W m−2), followed by dust (+0.012 W m−2) and brown carbon (+0.0066 W m−2). The impact is also characterized by significant seasonal and geographical variability.
Ben Kravitz, Douglas G. MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, Olivier Boucher, Jason N. S. Cole, Jim Haywood, Andy Jones, Thibaut Lurton, Pierre Nabat, Ulrike Niemeier, Alan Robock, Roland Séférian, and Simone Tilmes
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 4231–4247, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-4231-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-4231-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates multi-model response to idealized geoengineering (high CO2 with solar reduction) across two different generations of climate models. We find that, with the exception of a few cases, the results are unchanged between the different generations. This gives us confidence that broad conclusions about the response to idealized geoengineering are robust.
Andy Jones, Jim M. Haywood, Anthony C. Jones, Simone Tilmes, Ben Kravitz, and Alan Robock
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 1287–1304, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1287-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1287-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Two different methods of simulating a geoengineering scenario are compared using data from two different Earth system models. One method is very idealised while the other includes details of a plausible mechanism. The results from both models agree that the idealised approach does not capture an impact found when detailed modelling is included, namely that geoengineering induces a positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation which leads to warmer, wetter winters in northern Europe.
Walker Lee, Douglas MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, and Ben Kravitz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 1051–1072, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-1051-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-1051-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The injection of aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight could reduce global warming, but this type of
geoengineeringwould also impact other variables like precipitation and sea ice. In this study, we model various climate impacts of geoengineering on a 3-D graph to show how trying to meet one climate goal will affect other variables. We also present two computer simulations which validate our model and show that geoengineering could regulate precipitation as well as temperature.
Cited articles
Barkley, M. P., Palmer, P. I., Boone, C. D., Bernath, P. F., and Suntharalingam, P.: Global distributions of carbonyl sulfide in the upper troposphere and stratosphere, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L14810, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL034270, 2008. a
Bartholomaeus, A. and Haritos, V.: Review of the toxicology of carbonyl sulfide, a new grain fumigant, Food Chem. Toxicol., 43, 1687–1701, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2005.06.016, 2006. a, b
Bingaman, D. C., Rice, C. V., Smith, W., and Vogel, P.: A Stratospheric Aerosol Injection Lofter Aircraft Concept: Brimstone Angel, in: AIAA Scitech 2020 Forum, 6–10 January 2020, Orlando, FL, https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2020-0618, 2020. a
Brühl, C. and Crutzen, P. J.: Scenarios of possible changes in atmospheric temperatures and ozone concentrations due to man's activities, estimated with a one-dimensional coupled photochemical climate model, Clim. Dynam., 2, 173–203, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01053474, 1988. a
Brühl, C., Lelieveld, J., Crutzen, P. J., and Tost, H.: The role of carbonyl sulphide as a source of stratospheric sulphate aerosol and its impact on climate, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 1239–1253, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-1239-2012, 2012. a, b, c
Budyko, M. I.: Climatic Changes, Vol. 10, American Geophysical Union, https://doi.org/10.1029/SP010, 1977. a
Conrad, R. and Meuser, K.: Soils contain more than one activity consuming carbonyl sulfide, Atmos. Environ., 34, 3635–3639, 2000. a
Crutzen, P. J.: The possible importance of CSO for the sulfate layer of the stratosphere, Geophys. Res. Lett., 3, 73–76, https://doi.org/10.1029/GL003i002p00073, 1976. a
Crutzen, P. J.: Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections: A Contribution to Resolve a Policy Dilemma?, Climatic Change, 77, 211–220, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9101-y, 2006. a, b
Dai, Z., Weisenstein, D. K., and Keith, D. W.: Tailoring Meridional and Seasonal Radiative Forcing by Sulfate Aerosol Solar Geoengineering, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 1030–1039, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076472, 2018. a
Driscoll, C. T., Lawrence, G. B., Bulger, A. J., Butler, T. J., Cronan, C. S., Eagar, C., Lambert, K. F., Likens, G. E., Stoddard, J. L., and Weathers, K. C.: Acidic Deposition in the Northeastern United States: Sources and Inputs, Ecosystem Effects, and Management Strategies: The effects of acidic deposition in the northeastern United States include the acidification of soil and water, which stresses terrestrial and aquatic biota, BioScience, 51, 180–198, https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0180:ADITNU]2.0.CO;2, 2001. a
Eastham, S. D., Weisenstein, D. K., Keith, D. W., and Barrett, S. R.: Quantifying the impact of sulfate geoengineering on mortality from air quality and UV-B exposure, Atmos. Environ., 187, 424–434, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.05.047, 2018. a
Eichinger, R., Dietmüller, S., Garny, H., Šácha, P., Birner, T., Bönisch, H., Pitari, G., Visioni, D., Stenke, A., Rozanov, E., Revell, L., Plummer, D. A., Jöckel, P., Oman, L., Deushi, M., Kinnison, D. E., Garcia, R., Morgenstern, O., Zeng, G., Stone, K. A., and Schofield, R.: The influence of mixing on the stratospheric age of air changes in the 21st century, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 921–940, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-921-2019, 2019.
a
English, J. M., Toon, O. B., and Mills, M. J.: Microphysical simulations of sulfur burdens from stratospheric sulfur geoengineering, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 4775–4793, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-4775-2012, 2012. a
Eyring, V., Butchart, N., Waugh, D. W., Akiyoshi, H., Austin, J., Bekki, S., Bodeker, G. E., Boville, B. A., Brühl, C., Chipperfield, M. P., Cordero, E., Dameris, M., Deushi, M., Fioletov, V. E., Frith, S. M., Garcia, R. R., Gettelman, A., Giorgetta, M. A., Grewe, V., Jourdain, L., Kinnison, D. E., Mancini, E., Manzini, E., Marchand, M., Marsh, D. R., Nagashima, T., Newman, P. A., Nielsen, J. E., Pawson, S., Pitari, G., Plummer, D. A., Rozanov, E., Schraner, M., Shepherd, T. G., Shibata, K., Stolarski, R. S., Struthers, H., Tian, W., and Yoshiki, M.: Assessment of temperature, trace species, and ozone in chemistry-climate model simulations of the recent past, J. Geophys. Res., 111, D22308, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JD007327, 2006. a
Franke, H., Niemeier, U., and Visioni, D.: Differences in the quasi-biennial oscillation response to stratospheric aerosol modification depending on injection strategy and species, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 8615–8635, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-8615-2021, 2021. a
Grant, W., Fishman, J., Browell, E., Brackett, V., Nganga, D., Minga, A., Cros, B., Veiga, R. E., Butler, C., Fenn, M., and Nowicki, G.: Observations of reduced ozone concentrations in the tropical stratosphere after the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, Geophys. Res. Lett., 19, 1109–1112, 1992. a
Institute of Medicine and National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering: Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, https://doi.org/10.17226/1605, 1992. a
Jiang, J., Cao, L., MacMartin, D. G., Simpson, I. R., Kravitz, B., Cheng, W., Visioni, D., Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., and Mills, M. J.: Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosol Geoengineering Could Alter the High-Latitude Seasonal Cycle, Geophys. Res. Lett., 46, 14153–14163, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085758, 2019. a
Kettle, A. J., Kuhn, U., von Hobe, M., Kesselmeier, J., and Andreae, M. O.: Global budget of atmospheric carbonyl sulfide: Temporal and spatial variations of the dominant sources and sinks, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 107, ACH 25-1–ACH 25-16, https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002187, 2002. a, b
Khalil, M. and Rasmussen, R.: Global sources, lifetimes and mass balances of carbonyl sulfide (OCS) and carbon disulfide (CS2) in the earth's atmosphere, Atmos. Environ. (1967), 18, 1805–1813, 1984. a
Kilburn, K. H. and Warshaw, R. H.: Hydrogen Sulfide and Reduced-Sulfur Gases Adversely Affect Neurophysiological Functions, Toxicol. Ind. Health, 11, 185–197, 1995. a
Kravitz, B., Robock, A., Boucher, O., Schmidt, H., Taylor, K. E., Stenchikov, G., and Schulz, M.: The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP), Atmos. Sci. Lett., 12, 162–167, https://doi.org/10.1002/asl.316, 2011. a, b
Kravitz, B., Rasch, P. J., Wang, H., Robock, A., Gabriel, C., Boucher, O., Cole, J. N. S., Haywood, J., Ji, D., Jones, A., Lenton, A., Moore, J. C., Muri, H., Niemeier, U., Phipps, S., Schmidt, H., Watanabe, S., Yang, S., and Yoon, J.-H.: The climate effects of increasing ocean albedo: an idealized representation of solar geoengineering, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 13097–13113, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-13097-2018, 2018. a
Kuai, L., Worden, J. R., Campbell, J. E., Kulawik, S. S., Li, K.-F., Lee, M., Weidner, R. J., Montzka, S. A., Moore, F. L., Berry, J. A., Baker, I., Denning, A. S., Bian, H., Bowman, K. W., Liu, J., and Yung, Y. L.: Estimate of carbonyl sulfide tropical oceanic surface fluxes using Aura Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer observations, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 120, 11012–11023, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023493, 2015. a
Kuebbeler, M., Lohmann, U., and Feichter, J.: Effects of stratospheric sulfate aerosol geo-engineering on cirrus clouds, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, l23803, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL053797, 2012. a
Kuhn, U. and Kesselmeier, J.: Environmental variables controlling the uptake of carbonyl sulfide by lichens, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 105, 26783–26792, https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900436, 2000. a
Laakso, A., Kokkola, H., Partanen, A.-I., Niemeier, U., Timmreck, C., Lehtinen, K. E. J., Hakkarainen, H., and Korhonen, H.: Radiative and climate impacts of a large volcanic eruption during stratospheric sulfur geoengineering, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 305–323, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-305-2016, 2016. a
Labitzke, K. and McCormick, M. P.: Stratospheric temperature increases due to Pinatubo aerosols, Geophys. Res. Lett., 19, 207–210, https://doi.org/10.1029/91GL02940, 1992. a
Lacis, A., Hansen, J., and Sato, M.: Climate forcing by stratospheric aerosols, Geophys. Res. Lett., 19, 1607–1610, https://doi.org/10.1029/92GL01620, 1992. a
Lamarque, J.-F., Dentener, F., McConnell, J., Ro, C.-U., Shaw, M., Vet, R., Bergmann, D., Cameron-Smith, P., Dalsoren, S., Doherty, R., Faluvegi, G., Ghan, S. J., Josse, B., Lee, Y. H., MacKenzie, I. A., Plummer, D., Shindell, D. T., Skeie, R. B., Stevenson, D. S., Strode, S., Zeng, G., Curran, M., Dahl-Jensen, D., Das, S., Fritzsche, D., and Nolan, M.: Multi-model mean nitrogen and sulfur deposition from the Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Model Intercomparison Project (ACCMIP): evaluation of historical and projected future changes, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 7997–8018, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-7997-2013, 2013. a
Lee, C.-L. and Brimblecombe, P.: Anthropogenic contributions to global carbonyl sulfide, carbon disulfide and organosulfides fluxes, Earth-Sci. Rev., 160, 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2016.06.005, 2016. a
Lockley, A., MacMartin, D., and Hunt, H.: An update on engineering issues concerning stratospheric aerosol injection for geoengineering, Environmental Research Communications, 2, 082001, https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/aba944, 2020. a
MacMartin, D. G., Kravitz, B., Mills, M. J., Tribbia, J. J., Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., Vitt, F., and Lamarque, J.-F.: The Climate Response to Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering Can Be Tailored Using Multiple Injection Locations, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 12574–12590, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017jd026868, 2017. a
Madon, H. N. and Strickland-Constable, R. F.: Production of CS2, Ind. Eng. Chem., 50, 1189–1192, 1958. a
Madronich, S., Tilmes, S., Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., and Richter, J. H.: Response of surface ultraviolet and visible radiation to stratospheric SO2 injections, Atmosphere, 9, 432, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos9110432, 2018. a
Meinshausen, M., Smith, S. J., Calvin, K., Daniel, J. S., Kainuma, M. L. T., Lamarque, J.-F., Matsumoto, K., Montzka, S. A., Raper, S. C. B., Riahi, K., Thomson, A., Velders, G. J. M., and van Vuuren, D. P. P.: The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300, Climatic Change, 109, 213, 2011. a
Morgenstern, O., Giorgetta, M. A., Shibata, K., Eyring, V., Waugh, D. W., Shepherd, T. G., Akiyoshi, H., Austin, J., Baumgaertner, A. J. G., Bekki, S., Braesicke, P., Brühl, C., Chipperfield, M. P., Cugnet, D., Dameris, M., Dhomse, S., Frith, S. M., Garny, H., Gettelman, A., Hardiman, S. C., Hegglin, M. I., Jöckel, P., Kinnison, D. E., Lamarque, J.-F., Mancini, E., Manzini, E., Marchand, M., Michou, M., Nakamura, T., Nielsen, J. E., Olivié, D., Pitari, G., Plummer, D. A., Rozanov, E., Scinocca, J. F., Smale, D., Teyssèdre, H., Toohey, M., Tian, W., and Yamashita, Y.: Review of the formulation of present-generation stratospheric chemistry-climate models and associated external forcings, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D00M02, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013728, 2010. a
Morgenstern, O., Stone, K. A., Schofield, R., Akiyoshi, H., Yamashita, Y., Kinnison, D. E., Garcia, R. R., Sudo, K., Plummer, D. A., Scinocca, J., Oman, L. D., Manyin, M. E., Zeng, G., Rozanov, E., Stenke, A., Revell, L. E., Pitari, G., Mancini, E., Di Genova, G., Visioni, D., Dhomse, S. S., and Chipperfield, M. P.: Ozone sensitivity to varying greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances in CCMI-1 simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 1091–1114, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-1091-2018, 2018. a
Mu, Y., Geng, C., Wang, M., Wu, H., Zhang, X., and Jiang, G.: Photochemical production of carbonyl sulfide in precipitation, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 109, D13301, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003JD004206, 2004. a
Neale, R. B., Richter, J., Park, S., Lauritzen, P. H., Vavrus, S. J., Rasch, P. J., and Zhang, M.: The Mean Climate of the Community Atmosphere Model (CAM4) in Forced SST and Fully Coupled Experiments, J. Climate, 26, 5150–5168, 2013. a
Nowack, P. J., Abraham, N. L., Braesicke, P., and Pyle, J. A.: Stratospheric ozone changes under solar geoengineering: implications for UV exposure and air quality, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 4191–4203, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-4191-2016, 2016. a, b
Orbe, C., Yang, H., Waugh, D. W., Zeng, G., Morgenstern, O., Kinnison, D. E., Lamarque, J.-F., Tilmes, S., Plummer, D. A., Scinocca, J. F., Josse, B., Marecal, V., Jöckel, P., Oman, L. D., Strahan, S. E., Deushi, M., Tanaka, T. Y., Yoshida, K., Akiyoshi, H., Yamashita, Y., Stenke, A., Revell, L., Sukhodolov, T., Rozanov, E., Pitari, G., Visioni, D., Stone, K. A., Schofield, R., and Banerjee, A.: Large-scale tropospheric transport in the Chemistry–Climate Model Initiative (CCMI) simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 7217–7235, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-7217-2018, 2018. a
Pitari, G., Mancini, E., Rizi, V., and Shindell, D. T.: Impact of Future Climate and Emission Changes on Stratospheric Aerosols and Ozone, J. Atmos. Sci., 59, 414–440, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(2002)059<0414:IOFCAE>2.0.CO;2, 2002. a
Pitari, G., Aquila, V., Kravitz, B., Robock, A., Watanabe, S., Cionni, I., Luca, N. D., Genova, G. D., Mancini, E., and Tilmes, S.: Stratospheric ozone response to sulfate geoengineering: Results from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP), J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 2629–2653, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020566, 2014. a, b, c
Quaglia, I. and Visioni, D.: Data from: An approach to sulfate geoengineering with surface emissions of carbonyl sulfide, Cornell University eCommons Digital Repository [data set], https://doi.org/10.7298/mwfw-hf34, 2022. a
Richter, J. H., Tilmes, S., Mills, M. J., Tribbia, J. J., Kravitz, B., Macmartin, D. G., Vitt, F., and Lamarque, J. F.: Stratospheric dynamical response and ozone feedbacks in the presence of SO2 injections, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 12557–12573, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026912, 2017. a, b
Robock, A.: Volcanic eruptions and climate, Rev. Geophys., 38, 191–219, https://doi.org/10.1029/1998RG000054, 2000. a
Roehl, C. M., Boglu, D., Brühl, C., and Moortgat, G. K.: Infrared band intensities and global warming potentials of CF4, C2F6, C3F8, C4F10, C5F12, and C6F14, Geophys. Res. Lett., 22, 815–818, https://doi.org/10.1029/95GL00488, 1995. a
Sandoval-Soto, L., Stanimirov, M., von Hobe, M., Schmitt, V., Valdes, J., Wild, A., and Kesselmeier, J.: Global uptake of carbonyl sulfide (COS) by terrestrial vegetation: Estimates corrected by deposition velocities normalized to the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2), Biogeosciences, 2, 125–132, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2-125-2005, 2005. a, b
Smith, C. J., Kramer, R. J., Myhre, G., Alterskjær, K., Collins, W., Sima, A., Boucher, O., Dufresne, J.-L., Nabat, P., Michou, M., Yukimoto, S., Cole, J., Paynter, D., Shiogama, H., O'Connor, F. M., Robertson, E., Wiltshire, A., Andrews, T., Hannay, C., Miller, R., Nazarenko, L., Kirkevåg, A., Olivié, D., Fiedler, S., Lewinschal, A., Mackallah, C., Dix, M., Pincus, R., and Forster, P. M.: Effective radiative forcing and adjustments in CMIP6 models, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 9591–9618, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-9591-2020, 2020. a, b, c, d
Smith, W. and Wagner, G.: Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years of deployment, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 124001, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aae98d, 2018. a, b, c
Steinbacher, M., Bingemer, H. G., and Schmidt, U.: Measurements of the exchange of carbonyl sulfide (OCS) and carbon disulfide (CS2) between soil and atmosphere in a spruce forest in central Germany, Atmos. Environ., 38, 6043–6052, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.06.022, 2004. a
Stimler, K., Montzka, S. A., Berry, J. A., Rudich, Y., and Yakir, D.: Relationships between carbonyl sulfide (COS) and CO2 during leaf gas exchange, New Phytol., 186, 869–878, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03218.x, 2010. a
Svoronos, P. D. N. and Bruno, T. J.: Carbonyl Sulfide: A Review of Its Chemistry and Properties, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 41, 5321–5336, https://doi.org/10.1021/ie020365n, 2002. a
Tilmes, S., Müller, R., and Salawitch, R.: The Sensitivity of Polar Ozone Depletion to Proposed Geoengineering Schemes, Science, 320, 1201–1204, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1153966, 2008. a
Tilmes, S., Garcia, R. R., Kinnison, D. E., Gettelman, A., and Rasch, P. J.: Impact of geoengineered aerosols on the troposphere and stratosphere, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 114, D12305, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011420, 2009. a
Tilmes, S., Mills, M. J., Niemeier, U., Schmidt, H., Robock, A., Kravitz, B., Lamarque, J.-F., Pitari, G., and English, J. M.: A new Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) experiment designed for climate and chemistry models, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 43–49, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-43-2015, 2015. a
Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., Kravitz, B., Macmartin, D. G., Mills, M. J., Simpson, I. R., Glanville, A. S., Fasullo, J. T., Phillips, A. S., Lamarque, J. F., Tribbia, J., Edwards, J., Mickelson, S., and Ghosh, S.: CESM1(WACCM) stratospheric aerosol geoengineering large ensemble project, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 2361–2371, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0267.1, 2018a. a
Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., Mills, M. J., Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Garcia, R. R., Kinnison, D. E., Lamarque, J. F., Tribbia, J., and Vitt, F.: Effects of Different Stratospheric SO2 Injection Altitudes on Stratospheric Chemistry and Dynamics, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 123, 4654–4673, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD028146, 2018b. a, b, c, d, e
Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., MacMartin, D. G., Kravitz, B., Glanville, A., Visioni, D., Kinnison, D., and Mueller, R.: Sensitivity of total column ozone to stratospheric sulfur injection strategies, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2021GL094058, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL094058, 2021. a
Trisos, C. H., Amatulli, G., Gurevitch, J., Robock, A., Xia, L., and Zambri, B.: Potentially dangerous consequences for biodiversity of solar geoengineering implementation and termination, Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2, 475–482, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0431-0, 2018. a
Ulshofer, V., Flock, O., Uher, G., and Andreae, M.: Photochemical production and air-sea exchange of carbonyl sulfide in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, Mar. Chem., 53, 25–39, 1996. a
Van Diest, H. and Kesselmeier, J.: Soil atmosphere exchange of carbonyl sulfide (COS) regulated by diffusivity depending on water-filled pore space, Biogeosciences, 5, 475–483, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-5-475-2008, 2008. a
Vattioni, S., Weisenstein, D., Keith, D., Feinberg, A., Peter, T., and Stenke, A.: Exploring accumulation-mode H2SO4 versus SO2 stratospheric sulfate geoengineering in a sectional aerosol–chemistry–climate model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 4877–4897, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-4877-2019, 2019. a
Visioni, D., Pitari, G., Aquila, V., Tilmes, S., Cionni, I., Di Genova, G., and Mancini, E.: Sulfate geoengineering impact on methane transport and lifetime: results from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 11209–11226, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-11209-2017, 2017. a, b, c, d, e, f, g
Visioni, D., Pitari, G., di Genova, G., Tilmes, S., and Cionni, I.: Upper tropospheric ice sensitivity to sulfate geoengineering, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 14867–14887, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-14867-2018, 2018a.
a, b, c, d
Visioni, D., Pitari, G., Tuccella, P., and Curci, G.: Sulfur deposition changes under sulfate geoengineering conditions: quasi-biennial oscillation effects on the transport and lifetime of stratospheric aerosols, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 2787–2808, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-2787-2018, 2018b. a, b
Visioni, D., MacMartin, D. G., Kravitz, B., Tilmes, S., Mills, M. J., Richter, J. H., and Boudreau, M. P.: Seasonal Injection Strategies for Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering, Geophys. Res. Lett., 46, 7790–7799, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL083680, 2019. a
Visioni, D., MacMartin, D. G., Kravitz, B., Lee, W., Simpson, I. R., and Richter, J. H.: Reduced Poleward Transport Due to Stratospheric Heating Under Stratospheric Aerosols Geoengineering, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL089470, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL089470, 2020. a
Visioni, D., MacMartin, D. G., and Kravitz, B.: Is Turning Down the Sun a Good Proxy for Stratospheric Sulfate Geoengineering?, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126, e2020JD033952, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033952, 2021a. a
Visioni, D., MacMartin, D. G., Kravitz, B., Boucher, O., Jones, A., Lurton, T., Martine, M., Mills, M. J., Nabat, P., Niemeier, U., Séférian, R., and Tilmes, S.: Identifying the sources of uncertainty in climate model simulations of solar radiation modification with the G6sulfur and G6solar Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 10039–10063, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-10039-2021, 2021b. a
Wang, L., Yang, Y., Shen, W., Kong, X., Li, P., Yu, J., and Rodrigues, A. E.: CO2 Capture from Flue Gas in an Existing Coal-Fired Power Plant by Two Successive Pilot-Scale VPSA Units, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 52, 7947–7955, 2013. a
West, J. J. and Fiore, A. M.: Management of Tropospheric Ozone by Reducing Methane Emissions, Environ. Sci. Technol., 39, 4685–4691, https://doi.org/10.1021/es048629f, 2005. a
Whelan, M. E., Hilton, T. W., Berry, J. A., Berkelhammer, M., Desai, A. R., and Campbell, J. E.: Carbonyl sulfide exchange in soils for better estimates of ecosystem carbon uptake, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 3711–3726, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-3711-2016, 2016. a
Xia, L., Nowack, P. J., Tilmes, S., and Robock, A.: Impacts of stratospheric sulfate geoengineering on tropospheric ozone, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 11913–11928, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-11913-2017, 2017. a, b
Short summary
Carbonyl sulfide is a gas that mixes very well in the atmosphere and can reach the stratosphere, where it reacts with sunlight and produces aerosol. Here we propose that, by increasing surface fluxes by an order of magnitude, the number of stratospheric aerosols produced may be enough to partially offset the warming produced by greenhouse gases. We explore what effect this would have on the atmospheric composition.
Carbonyl sulfide is a gas that mixes very well in the atmosphere and can reach the stratosphere,...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint