Articles | Volume 26, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-2649-2026
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-2649-2026
Research article
 | 
19 Feb 2026
Research article |  | 19 Feb 2026

Uncertainties of SAI efficiency and impacts depending on the complexity of the aerosol microphysical model

Simone Tilmes, Daniele Visioni, Ilaria Quaglia, Yunqian Zhu, Charles G. Bardeen, Francis Vitt, and Pengfei Yu

Related authors

Assessing the stratospheric temperature response to volcanic sulfate injections by Mt. Pinatubo: insights from the Interactive Stratospheric Aerosol Model Intercomparison Project
Katharina Perny, Timofei Sukhodolov, Ales Kuchar, Pavle Arsenovic, Bernadette Rosati, Christoph Brühl, Sandip S. Dhomse, Andrin Jörimann, Anton Laakso, Graham Mann, Ulrike Niemeier, Giovanni Pitari, Ilaria Quaglia, Takashi Sekiya, Kengo Sudo, Claudia Timmreck, Simone Tilmes, Daniele Visioni, and Harald E. Rieder
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 26, 10997–11025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-10997-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-10997-2026, 2026
Short summary
Temperature stabilization using Stratospheric Aerosol Injections minimises drying over Africa only when combined with a strong decarbonization effort
Temitope S. Egbebiyi, Temitope S. Fafure, Daniele Visioni, Romaric C. Odoulami, Babatunde J. Abiodun, Simone Tilmes, Chris Lennard, and Mark G. New
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3436,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3436, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Earth System Dynamics (ESD).
Short summary
Multi-model analysis of the impact of water vapor on the radiative forcing of volcanic aerosols after the 2022 Hunga Eruption
Ilaria Quaglia, Daniele Visioni, Ewa M. Bednarz, Yunqian Zhu, Georgiy Stenchikov, Valentina Aquila, Cheng-Cheng Liu, Graham W. Mann, Yifeng Peng, Takashi Sekiya, Simone Tilmes, Xinyue Wang, Shingo Watanabe, Pengfei Yu, Jun Zhang, Wandi Yu, and Zhihong Zhuo
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 26, 7677–7704, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-7677-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-7677-2026, 2026
Short summary
The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) contribution to CMIP7 – description of new experimental protocols and preliminary results
Daniele Visioni, Alan Robock, Alistair Duffey, Matthew Henry, Haruki Hirasawa, Walker R. Lee, Cindy Wang, Kelsey Roberts, Shingo Watanabe, Michelle S. Reboita, Masahiro Sugiyama, Ben Kravitz, Jim Haywood, Simone Tilmes, Frederic Bonou, Jack Chen, Timofei Sukodolov, Sandro Vattioni, Andrin Jörimann, Diego Villanueva, Ryan Vella, Paul Farron, Ewa M. Bednarz, Ulrike Niemeier, Colleen Golja, and Juan A. Anel
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2417,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2417, 2026
Short summary
Stratospheric aerosol injection geoengineering has the potential to increase land carbon storage and to protect the Amazon rainforest
Isobel M. Parry, Paul D. L. Ritchie, Olivier Boucher, Peter M. Cox, James M. Haywood, Ulrike Niemeier, Roland Séférian, Simone Tilmes, and Daniele Visioni
Earth Syst. Dynam., 17, 387–414, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-17-387-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-17-387-2026, 2026
Short summary

Cited articles

Bednarz, E. M., Butler, A. H., Visioni, D., Zhang, Y., Kravitz, B., and MacMartin, D. G.: Injection strategy – a driver of atmospheric circulation and ozone response to stratospheric aerosol geoengineering, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 13665–13684, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13665-2023, 2023. a
Benduhn, F., Schallock, J., and Lawrence, M. G.: Early growth dynamical implications for the steerability of stratospheric solar radiation management via sulfur aerosol particles, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 9956–9963, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL070701, 2016. a, b
Brodowsky, C. V., Sukhodolov, T., Chiodo, G., Aquila, V., Bekki, S., Dhomse, S. S., Höpfner, M., Laakso, A., Mann, G. W., Niemeier, U., Pitari, G., Quaglia, I., Rozanov, E., Schmidt, A., Sekiya, T., Tilmes, S., Timmreck, C., Vattioni, S., Visioni, D., Yu, P., Zhu, Y., and Peter, T.: Analysis of the global atmospheric background sulfur budget in a multi-model framework, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 5513–5548, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-5513-2024, 2024. a
Computational and Information Systems Laboratory (CISL): Cheyenne Supercomputer), National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), https://doi.org/10.5065/D6RX99HX, 2021. a
Crutzen, P.: Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections: A Contribution to Resolve a Policy Dilemma?, Clim. Change, 77, 211–220, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9101-y, 2006. a
Download
Short summary
This study compares two sets of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) experiments using the same modeling framework, differing only in their aerosol microphysical schemes. Results show that these two schemes can yield substantially different aerosol burdens, radiative changes, and impacts when simulating the same injection scenarios. These findings suggest that more sophisticated aerosol models may be necessary to accurately assess the efficacy, side effects, and climate impacts of SAI.
Share
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint