Articles | Volume 26, issue 10
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-7589-2026
© Author(s) 2026. 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-26-7589-2026
© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
29 May 2026
Research article |
| 29 May 2026
| 29 May 2026
Efficacy assessment of stratospheric aerosol scrubbing as a counter climate intervention strategy
Anthony C. Jones
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty of Environment, Science and Economy, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
James M. Haywood
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty of Environment, Science and Economy, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
Matthew Henry
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty of Environment, Science and Economy, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
Alistair Duffey
Department of Earth Sciences, University College London, London, UK
Reflective, San Francisco 94105, CA, USA
Related authors
No articles found.
Walker Raymond Lee, Daniele Visioni, Benjamin Moore Wagman, Christopher Robert Wentland, Ben Kravitz, Shingo Watanabe, Takashi Sekiya, Andy Jones, Jim Haywood, Matthew Henry, and Ewa Monika Bednarz
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 26, 7463–7483, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-7463-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-7463-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) is a proposed method of cooling the planet by introducing reflective particles called aerosols into the middle atmosphere to reflect sunlight back into space. We consider recent simulations of SAI from four different climate models. SAI cools the planet effectively in all four models; we examine the impacts on temperature and precipitation in each model and compare to previous experiments. Our simulations will help inform future research and policy.
Daniel A. Williams, Cyril J. Morcrette, and James M. Haywood
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2490, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2490, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
Short summary
Contrails (condensation trails) are ice clouds that form behind aircraft in a region of cold and moist atmosphere. If contrails persist for many hours or into the night, they warm the climate. A minority of flights produce persistent contrails, so the climate impact of aviation could be decreased if we can predict and avoid where contrails form in advance. Using statistics on climate model and satellite data, we developed a model to predict contrails and tested it against historical data.
Josh Smith, Matthew Henry, Masaru Yoshioka, Ben Johnson, and Jim Haywood
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2654, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2654, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
Short summary
In 2020, new international rules cut sulphur in shipping fuels by roughly eighty percent, removing particles that had been brightening clouds over the oceans and reflecting sunlight. Using a climate model, we tested how this loss of cooling has been calculated and found that recent studies have
likely underestimated the resulting warming by a factor of two to four. This means cleaner shipping fuels may be contributing more to recent global warming than previously recognised.
likely underestimated the resulting warming by a factor of two to four. This means cleaner shipping fuels may be contributing more to recent global warming than previously recognised.
Elizabeth Quaye, Ben T. Johnson, James M. Haywood, Guido R. van der Werf, Roland Vernooij, Stephen A. Sitch, and Tom Eames
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 26, 6629–6654, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-6629-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-6629-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
We find aerosol optical depths in a global climate model are overestimated during extreme wildfire events if emissions are scaled up by a factor of two, typically applied to improve simulated aerosol on seasonal–annual timescales. We propose a technique where a variable scaling factor is determined by fuel consumption, improving correlation in five fire-affected areas. We explore the impact of this change on aerosol radiative effects, during extreme events and on broader space and time scales.
Eliza K. Duncan, George Jordan, Paul Kim, James M. Haywood, Duncan Watson-Parris, Ben Johnson, Alistair Sellar, Zak Kipling, João Teixeira, Florent Malavelle, and Daniel G. Partridge
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1043, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1043, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
Short summary
The 2014–15 Holuhraun eruption offers a natural experiment to assess how well climate models can capture the changes in aerosol associated with the plume. We investigate the aerosol lifecycle during transport to identify key differences in climate models' representation of aerosol processes, which could affect the models’ ability to capture changes in cloud properties. Our study highlights the importance of the representation of boundary layer nucleation processes in climate models.
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
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project is a coordinated international model intercomparison effort aiming to provide robust experimental protocols for simulations of various Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) methods. In this manuscript, we describe a list of novel experiments decided by the community, to be run by climate models to better understand sources of uncertainty in SRM. We also show and discuss some preliminary results from a few climate models.
Haruki Hirasawa, Matthew Henry, Philip J. Rasch, Robert Wood, Sarah J. Doherty, James Haywood, Alex Wong, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Ezra Brody, and Hailong Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 3257–3283, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-3257-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-3257-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Marine cloud brightening (MCB) is a proposal to emit sea salt aerosols to make clouds more reflective and cool the climate. Here, we use three climate models to study a hypothetical future where MCB is used to maintain temperatures near 2020–2039 conditions. The simulation results indicate that using MCB in midlatitude ocean regions can keep the climate close to present day conditions. This reduces many of the negative impacts shown in previous studies, informing future modeling efforts.
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
Short summary
Contrary to some expectations, results from the latest Earth System Models suggest that Solar Radiation Geoengineering could protect the Amazon rainforest from climate-driven dieback. Under Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, carbon storage in Amazonia was projected to increase by a mean of 10.8 % relative to a high CO2 emissions scenario, and even by 8.6% compared to a more conventional medium CO2 emissions scenario.
Alistair Duffey, Walker Lee, Lauren Wheeler, Peter Irvine, Benjamin Wagman, Matthew Henry, Daniele Visioni, Michel Tsamados, and Douglas MacMartin
Earth Syst. Dynam., 17, 353–385, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-17-353-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-17-353-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Adding a layer of reflective particles high in the atmosphere is one suggested way of cooling the planet and reducing the impacts of climate change. This technique might be less logistically difficult in the high latitudes, because the material could be released at lower altitude there. Here, we use new simulations in three earth system models to assess how this form of intervention, High-Latitude Low-Altitude Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (HiLLA-SAI), would impact the global climate.
Masaru Yoshioka, Daniel P. Grosvenor, Amy H. Peace, Jim M. Haywood, Ying Chen, and Paul R. Field
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 26, 4341–4358, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-4341-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-4341-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
We used advanced computer simulations to study how aerosol particles from a volcanic eruption in Iceland affected clouds. The eruption plume increased small droplets, but changes in cloud water and horizontal extent were not clear. Satellite comparisons between plume and non-plume regions can miss volcanic effects due to spatial variability in weather and aerosol, but simulations can isolate the impact by comparing cases with and without the eruption.
Juliette Lavoie, Aude Carreric, Alistair Duffey, Giovanni Chellini, and Elisa Ziegler
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1246, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1246, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) is a large collaborative project to better understand the Earth’s climate system. The data produced through this project is downloaded by users around the world. In this paper, we analyze the patterns of downloads and the usage of this massive dataset. From this analysis, we make some recommendations for future data production and usage tracking.
Jared Farley, Douglas G. MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, Ben Kravitz, Ewa M. Bednarz, Alistair Duffey, Matthew Henry, and Ali Akherati
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 1809–1831, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-1809-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-1809-2026, 2026
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.
Ewa M. Bednarz, Amy H. Butler, James M. Haywood, Matthew Henry, Andy Jones, Ben Kravitz, Walker R. Lee, Douglas G. MacMartin, Amanda C. Maycock, Takashi Sekiya, Shingo Watanabe, and Daniele Visioni
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-310, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-310, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
An assessment of the potential impacts of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, a proposed method to offset global warming, on stratospheric ozone projections over the 21st century using the new multi-model GeoMIP G6-1.5K-SAI experiment. We discuss drivers of the responses, identify areas of model agreement and disagreement and sources of uncertainty. Our results highlight the need to assess any projected SAI impacts in wider strategy and scenario dimension using a multi-model framework.
Alex M. Mason, Matthew Henry, Haruki Hirasawa, Fiona M. O'Connor, and James Haywood
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5591, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5591, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) proposes the spraying of sea salt particles into marine clouds to cool the planet. MCB in midlatitude regions in models gave a relatively even climate response. We use 42 simulations of MCB to target several climate responses. Two optimised combinations are compared to a midlatitude MCB simulation, which improved sea ice restoration and the temperature response pattern, highlighting the importance of high latitude MCB for MCB optimisation in this model.
Huihui Wu, Fanny Peers, Jonathan W. Taylor, Chenjie Yu, Steven J. Abel, Paul A. Barrett, Jamie Trembath, Keith Bower, Jim M. Haywood, and Hugh Coe
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 16589–16609, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-16589-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-16589-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates the transport history of African Biomass-Burning aerosols (BBAs) over the Southeast Atlantic (SEA) and their impacts on cloud properties. Using in situ airborne measurements around Ascension Island, this work provides critical parameterizations of aerosol–cloud interactions to improve the assessment of radiative forcing in the SEA region. It also identifies key entrainment regions for understanding the vertical transport process of African BBAs.
Eliza K. Duncan, Jonathan E. Fieldsend, Alistair Sellar, Emanuele Tovazzi, Paul Kim, James M. Haywood, and Daniel G. Partridge
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4298, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4298, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Atmospheric aerosol particles are a major confounding factor in accurately representing climate change. We build a novel generic framework to untangle the role of complex processes focusing on a remote site in Antarctica as a case study in near-pristine conditions. Our machine-learning model predicts aerosol concentrations from an airmass history, considering the meteorology and potential sources and removal processes, enabling improved representation in climate models.
George Jordan, Florent Malavelle, Jim Haywood, Ying Chen, Ben Johnson, Daniel Partridge, Amy Peace, Eliza Duncan, Duncan Watson-Parris, David Neubauer, Anton Laakso, Martine Michou, and Pierre Nabat
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 13393–13428, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-13393-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-13393-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The 2014–15 Holuhraun eruption created a vast aerosol plume that acted as a natural experiment to assess how well climate models capture changes in cloud properties due to increased aerosol. We find that climate models represent the observed shift to smaller, more numerous cloud droplets well. However, climate models diverge in their aerosol-induced changes to large-scale cloud properties, particularly cloud liquid water content. Our study shows that Holuhraun had a cooling effect on the Earth.
Gideon Futerman, Mira Adhikari, Alistair Duffey, Yuanchao Fan, Jessica Gurevitch, Peter Irvine, and Claudia Wieners
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 939–978, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-939-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-939-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This review assesses the interaction of solar radiation modification (SRM), a technology to reduce the impacts of climate change by reflecting sunlight and earth system tipping elements. We find that SRM at least partially reduces the risk of hitting most (9 out of 15) of the tipping points we studied relative to the same emission pathway and did not overall worsen the risk for any. Uncertainties for all tipping elements studied were high, so we also lay out suggestions for future research.
Matthew Henry, Ewa M. Bednarz, and Jim Haywood
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 13253–13268, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13253-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13253-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) refers to a climate intervention by which aerosols are intentionally added to the high atmosphere to increase the amount of reflected sunlight and reduce Earth's temperature. The climate outcomes of SAI depend on the latitude of injection. While injecting aerosols at the Equator has undesirable side effects, injecting away from the Equator has different effects on temperature, rainfall, ozone, and atmospheric circulation, which are analysed in this work.
Ou Wang, Ju Liang, Yuchen Gu, Jim M. Haywood, Ying Chen, Chenwei Fang, and Qin'geng Wang
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 12355–12373, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-12355-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-12355-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
As extreme precipitation events increase in China, this study explores the potential of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) to mitigate these effects by the end of the 21st century using the UKESM1 model. Results show that SAI reduces extreme precipitation in eastern China. However, caution is advised due to potential side effects in high-latitude regions, and further optimization is required for future SAI deployment.
Philip J. Rasch, Haruki Hirasawa, Mingxuan Wu, Sarah J. Doherty, Robert Wood, Hailong Wang, Andy Jones, James Haywood, and Hansi Singh
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7963–7994, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7963-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7963-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce a protocol to compare computer climate simulations to better understand a proposed strategy intended to counter warming and climate impacts from greenhouse gas increases. This slightly changes clouds in six ocean regions to reflect more sunlight and cool the Earth. Example changes in clouds and climate are shown for three climate models. Cloud changes differ between the models, but precipitation and surface temperature changes are similar when their cooling effects are made similar.
Amy H. Peace, Ying Chen, George Jordan, Daniel G. Partridge, Florent Malavelle, Eliza Duncan, and Jim M. Haywood
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 9533–9553, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-9533-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-9533-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Natural aerosols from volcanic eruptions can help us understand how anthropogenic aerosols modify climate. We use observations and model simulations of the 2014–2015 Holuhraun eruption plume to examine aerosol–cloud interactions in September 2014. We find a shift to clouds with smaller, more numerous cloud droplets in the first 2 weeks of the eruption. In the third week, the background meteorology and previous conditions experienced by air masses modulate the aerosol perturbation to clouds.
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.
George Jordan, Florent Malavelle, Ying Chen, Amy Peace, Eliza Duncan, Daniel G. Partridge, Paul Kim, Duncan Watson-Parris, Toshihiko Takemura, David Neubauer, Gunnar Myhre, Ragnhild Skeie, Anton Laakso, and James Haywood
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 1939–1960, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-1939-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-1939-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The 2014–15 Holuhraun eruption caused a huge aerosol plume in an otherwise unpolluted region, providing a chance to study how aerosol alters cloud properties. This two-part study uses observations and models to quantify this relationship’s impact on the Earth’s energy budget. Part 1 suggests the models capture the observed spatial and chemical evolution of the plume, yet no model plume is exact. Understanding these differences is key for Part 2, where changes to cloud properties are explored.
Jim M. Haywood, Andy Jones, Anthony C. Jones, Paul Halloran, and Philip J. Rasch
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 15305–15324, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-15305-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-15305-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The difficulties in ameliorating global warming and the associated climate change via conventional mitigation are well documented, with all climate model scenarios exceeding 1.5 °C above the preindustrial level in the near future. There is therefore a growing interest in geoengineering to reflect a greater proportion of sunlight back to space and offset some of the global warming. We use a state-of-the-art Earth-system model to investigate two of the most prominent geoengineering strategies.
Alistair Duffey, Robbie Mallett, Peter J. Irvine, Michel Tsamados, and Julienne Stroeve
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 1165–1169, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-1165-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-1165-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Arctic is warming several times faster than the rest of the planet. Here, we use climate model projections to quantify for the first time how this faster warming in the Arctic impacts the timing of crossing the 1.5 °C and 2 °C thresholds defined in the Paris Agreement. We show that under plausible emissions scenarios that fail to meet the Paris 1.5 °C target, a hypothetical world without faster warming in the Arctic would breach that 1.5 °C target around 5 years later.
Calvin Howes, Pablo E. Saide, Hugh Coe, Amie Dobracki, Steffen Freitag, Jim M. Haywood, Steven G. Howell, Siddhant Gupta, Janek Uin, Mary Kacarab, Chongai Kuang, L. Ruby Leung, Athanasios Nenes, Greg M. McFarquhar, James Podolske, Jens Redemann, Arthur J. Sedlacek, Kenneth L. Thornhill, Jenny P. S. Wong, Robert Wood, Huihui Wu, Yang Zhang, Jianhao Zhang, and Paquita Zuidema
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 13911–13940, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13911-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13911-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
To better understand smoke properties and its interactions with clouds, we compare the WRF-CAM5 model with observations from ORACLES, CLARIFY, and LASIC field campaigns in the southeastern Atlantic in August 2017. The model transports and mixes smoke well but does not fully capture some important processes. These include smoke chemical and physical aging over 4–12 days, smoke removal by rain, sulfate particle formation, aerosol activation into cloud droplets, and boundary layer turbulence.
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.
Chenwei Fang, Jim M. Haywood, Ju Liang, Ben T. Johnson, Ying Chen, and Bin Zhu
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 8341–8368, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-8341-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-8341-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The responses of Asian summer monsoon duration and intensity to air pollution mitigation are identified given the net-zero future. We show that reducing scattering aerosols makes the rainy season longer and stronger across South Asia and East Asia but that absorbing aerosol reduction has the opposite effect. Our results hint at distinct monsoon responses to emission controls that target different aerosols.
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.
Alice F. Wells, Andy Jones, Martin Osborne, Lilly Damany-Pearce, Daniel G. Partridge, and James M. Haywood
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 3985–4007, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-3985-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-3985-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
In 2019 the Raikoke volcano erupted explosively, emitting the largest injection of SO2 into the stratosphere since 2011. Observations indicated that a large amount of volcanic ash was also injected. Previous studies have identified that volcanic ash can prolong the lifetime of stratospheric aerosol optical depth, which we explore in UKESM1. Comparisons to observations suggest that including ash in model emission schemes can improve the representation of volcanic plumes in global climate models.
Ju Liang and Jim Haywood
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 1687–1703, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-1687-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-1687-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The recent record-breaking flood events in China during the summer of 2021 highlight the importance of mitigating the risks from future changes in high-impact weather systems under global warming. Based on a state-of-the-art Earth system model, we demonstrate a pilot study on the responses of atmospheric rivers and extreme precipitation over East Asia to anthropogenically induced climate warming and an unconventional mitigation strategy – stratospheric aerosol injection.
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.
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.
Paul A. Barrett, Steven J. Abel, Hugh Coe, Ian Crawford, Amie Dobracki, James Haywood, Steve Howell, Anthony Jones, Justin Langridge, Greg M. McFarquhar, Graeme J. Nott, Hannah Price, Jens Redemann, Yohei Shinozuka, Kate Szpek, Jonathan W. Taylor, Robert Wood, Huihui Wu, Paquita Zuidema, Stéphane Bauguitte, Ryan Bennett, Keith Bower, Hong Chen, Sabrina Cochrane, Michael Cotterell, Nicholas Davies, David Delene, Connor Flynn, Andrew Freedman, Steffen Freitag, Siddhant Gupta, David Noone, Timothy B. Onasch, James Podolske, Michael R. Poellot, Sebastian Schmidt, Stephen Springston, Arthur J. Sedlacek III, Jamie Trembath, Alan Vance, Maria A. Zawadowicz, and Jianhao Zhang
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 15, 6329–6371, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-6329-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-15-6329-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
To better understand weather and climate, it is vital to go into the field and collect observations. Often measurements take place in isolation, but here we compared data from two aircraft and one ground-based site. This was done in order to understand how well measurements made on one platform compared to those made on another. Whilst this is easy to do in a controlled laboratory setting, it is more challenging in the real world, and so these comparisons are as valuable as they are rare.
Flossie Brown, Gerd A. Folberth, Stephen Sitch, Susanne Bauer, Marijn Bauters, Pascal Boeckx, Alexander W. Cheesman, Makoto Deushi, Inês Dos Santos Vieira, Corinne Galy-Lacaux, James Haywood, James Keeble, Lina M. Mercado, Fiona M. O'Connor, Naga Oshima, Kostas Tsigaridis, and Hans Verbeeck
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 12331–12352, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-12331-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-12331-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Surface ozone can decrease plant productivity and impair human health. In this study, we evaluate the change in surface ozone due to climate change over South America and Africa using Earth system models. We find that if the climate were to change according to the worst-case scenario used here, models predict that forested areas in biomass burning locations and urban populations will be at increasing risk of ozone exposure, but other areas will experience a climate benefit.
Jim M. Haywood, Andy Jones, Ben T. Johnson, and William McFarlane Smith
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 6135–6150, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-6135-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-6135-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Simulations are presented investigating the influence of moderately absorbing aerosol in the stratosphere to combat the impacts of climate change. A number of detrimental impacts are noted compared to sulfate aerosol, including (i) reduced cooling efficiency, (ii) increased deficits in global precipitation, (iii) delays in the recovery of the stratospheric ozone hole, and (iv) disruption of the stratospheric circulation and the wintertime storm tracks that impact European precipitation.
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.
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.
Zixia Liu, Martin Osborne, Karen Anderson, Jamie D. Shutler, Andy Wilson, Justin Langridge, Steve H. L. Yim, Hugh Coe, Suresh Babu, Sreedharan K. Satheesh, Paquita Zuidema, Tao Huang, Jack C. H. Cheng, and James Haywood
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 14, 6101–6118, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-6101-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-14-6101-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper first validates the performance of an advanced aerosol observation instrument POPS against a reference instrument and examines any biases introduced by operating it on a quadcopter drone. The results show the POPS performs relatively well on the ground. The impact of the UAV rotors on the POPS is small at low wind speeds, but when operating under higher wind speeds, larger discrepancies occur. It appears that the POPS measures sub-micron aerosol particles more accurately on the UAV.
Cited articles
Abatayo, A. L., Bosetti, V., Casari, M., Ghidoni, R., and Tavoni, M.: Solar geoengineering may lead to excessive cooling and high strategic uncertainty, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 117, 13393–13398, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916637117, 2020.
Archibald, A. T., O'Connor, F. M., Abraham, N. L., Archer-Nicholls, S., Chipperfield, M. P., Dalvi, M., Folberth, G. A., Dennison, F., Dhomse, S. S., Griffiths, P. T., Hardacre, C., Hewitt, A. J., Hill, R. S., Johnson, C. E., Keeble, J., Köhler, M. O., Morgenstern, O., Mulcahy, J. P., Ordóñez, C., Pope, R. J., Rumbold, S. T., Russo, M. R., Savage, N. H., Sellar, A., Stringer, M., Turnock, S. T., Wild, O., and Zeng, G.: Description and evaluation of the UKCA stratosphere-troposphere chemistry scheme (StratTrop vn 1.0) implemented in UKESM1, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 1223–1266, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1223-2020, 2020.
Bas, M. A. and Mahajan, A.: Contesting the climate, Clim. Change, 162, 1985–2002, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02758-7, 2020.
Bednarz, E. M., Haywood, J. M., Visioni, D., Butler, A. H., and Jones, A.: How marine cloud brightening could also affect stratospheric ozone, Sci. Adv., 11, eadu4038, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adu4038, 2025.
Bellouin, N., Mann, G. W., Woodhouse, M. T., Johnson, C., Carslaw, K. S., and Dalvi, M.: Impact of the modal aerosol scheme GLOMAP-mode on aerosol forcing in the Hadley Centre Global Environmental Model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 3027–3044, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-3027-2013, 2013.
Bigham, J. M., Kost, D. A., Stehouwer, R. C., Beeghly, J. H., Fowler, R., Traina, S. J., Wolfe, W. E., and Dick, W. A.: Mineralogical and engineering characteristics of dry flue gas desulfurization products, Fuel, 84, 1839–1848, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2005.03.018, 2005.
Boucher, O.: Atmospheric aerosols, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, Springer, 328 pp., ISBN 9401796483, 2015.
Butchart, N.: The Brewer–Dobson circulation, Rev. Geophys., 52, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013RG000448, 2014.
Clyne, M., Lamarque, J.-F., Mills, M. J., Khodri, M., Ball, W., Bekki, S., Dhomse, S. S., Lebas, N., Mann, G., Marshall, L., Niemeier, U., Poulain, V., Robock, A., Rozanov, E., Schmidt, A., Stenke, A., Sukhodolov, T., Timmreck, C., Toohey, M., Tummon, F., Zanchettin, D., Zhu, Y., and Toon, O. B.: Model physics and chemistry causing intermodel disagreement within the VolMIP-Tambora Interactive Stratospheric Aerosol ensemble, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 3317–3343, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-3317-2021, 2021.
Cziczo, D. J., Wolf, M. J., Gasparini, B., Münch, S., and Lohmann, L.: Unanticipated Side Effects of Stratospheric Albedo Modification Proposals Due to Aerosol Composition and Phase, Sci. Rep., 9, 18825, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-53595-3, 2019.
Dai, Z., Weisenstein, D. K., Keutsch, F. N., and Keith., D. W.: Experimental reaction rates constrain estimates of ozone response to calcium carbonate geoengineering, Commun. Earth. Environ., 1, 63, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-020-00058-7, 2020.
Dykema, J. A., Keith, D. W., and Keutsch, F. N.: Improved aerosol radiative properties as a foundation for solar geoengineering risk assessment, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 7758–7766, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL069258, 2016.
Duffey, A., Henry, M., Smith, W., Tsamados, M., and Irvine, P. J.: Low-altitude high-latitude stratospheric aerosol injection is feasible with existing aircraft, Earth's Future, 13, e2024EF005567, https://doi.org/10.1029/2024EF005567, 2025.
Farley, J., MacMartin, D. G., Visioni, D., Kravitz, B., Bednarz, E. M., Duffey, A., Henry, M., and Akherati, A.: A Climate Intervention Dynamical Emulator (CIDER) for scenario space exploration, Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 1809–1831, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-1809-2026, 2026.
Ferraro, A. J., Highwood, E. J., and Charlton-Perez, A. J.: Stratospheric heating by potential geoengineering aerosols, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L24706, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL049761, 2011.
Forster, J., Vaughan, N. E., Gough, C., Lorenzoni, I., and Chilvers, J.: Mapping feasibilities of greenhouse gas removal: Key issues, gaps and opening up assessments, Glob. Environ. Change, 63, 102073, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102073, 2020.
Fuglestvedt, J. S., Samset, B. H., and Shine, K. P.: Counteracting the climate effects of volcanic eruptions using short-lived greenhouse gases, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 8627–8635, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL061886, 2014.
Gao, R. S., Rosenlof, K. H., Kärcher, B., Tilmes, S., Toon, O. B., Maloney, C., and Yu, P.: Toward practical stratospheric aerosol albedo modification: Solar-powered lofting, Sci. Adv., 7, eabe3416, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abe3416, 2021.
Hamilton, C.: Earthmasters: the dawn of the age of climate engineering, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 247 pp., ISBN 978-0-300-18667-3, 2013.
Haywood, J. M., Jones, A., Johnson, B. T., and McFarlane Smith, W.: Assessing the consequences of including aerosol absorption in potential stratospheric aerosol injection climate intervention strategies, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 6135–6150, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-6135-2022, 2022.
Heckendorn, P., Weisenstein, D., Fueglistaler, S., Luo, B. P., Rozanov, E., Schraner, M., Thomason, L. W., and Peter, T.: The impact of geoengineering aerosols on stratospheric temperature and ozone, Environ. Res. Lett., 4, 045108, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045108, 2009.
Henry, M., Haywood, J., Jones, A., Dalvi, M., Wells, A., Visioni, D., Bednarz, E. M., MacMartin, D. G., Lee, W., and Tye, M. R.: Comparison of UKESM1 and CESM2 simulations using the same multi-target stratospheric aerosol injection strategy, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 13369–13385, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13369-2023, 2023.
Henry, M., Bednarz, E. M., and Haywood, J.: How does the latitude of stratospheric aerosol injection affect the climate in UKESM1?, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 13253–13268, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-13253-2024, 2024.
Heyen, D., Horton, J., and Moreno-Cruz, J.: Strategic implications of counter-geoengineering: Clash or cooperation?, J. Environ. Econ. Manag., 95, 153–177, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2019.03.005, 2019.
Jones, A. , Haywood, J. M., Scaife, A. A., Boucher, O., Henry, M., Kravitz, B., Lurton, T., Nabat, P., Niemeier, U., Séférian, R., Tilmes, S., and Visioni, D.: The impact of stratospheric aerosol intervention on the North Atlantic and Quasi-Biennial Oscillations in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) G6sulfur experiment, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 2999–3016, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2999-2022, 2022.
Jones, A.: Data and Scripts to support “Efficacy assessment of Stratospheric Aerosol Scrubbing as a Counter Climate Intervention strategy” by Jones et al. submitted to Earth's Future, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17574993, 2025.
Jones, A. C., Haywood, J. M., and Jones, A.: Climatic impacts of stratospheric geoengineering with sulfate, black carbon and titania injection, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 2843–2862, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-2843-2016, 2016a.
Jones, A. C., Haywood, J. M., Jones, A., and Aquila, V.: Sensitivity of volcanic aerosol dispersion to meteorological conditions: A Pinatubo case study, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121, 6892–6908, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD025001, 2016b.
Jones, A. C., Haywood, J. M., Dunstone, N., Emanuel, K., Hawcroft, M. K., Hodges, K. I., and Jones, A.: Impacts of hemispheric solar geoengineering on tropical cyclone frequency, Nat. Commun., 8, 1382, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01606-0, 2017.
Jones, A. C., Hawcroft, M. K., Haywood, J. M., Jones, A., Guo, X., and Moore, J. C.: Regional Climate Impacts of Stabilizing Global Warming at 1.5 K Using Solar Geoengineering, Earth's Future, 6, 230–251,, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000720, 2018.
Jones, A. C., Hill, A., Hemmings, J., Lemaitre, P., Quérel, A., Ryder, C. L., and Woodward, S.: Below-cloud scavenging of aerosol by rain: a review of numerical modelling approaches and sensitivity simulations with mineral dust in the Met Office's Unified Model, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 11381–11407,, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-11381-2022, 2022.
Keith, D. W., Weisenstein, D. K., Dykema, J. A., and Keutsch, F. N.: Stratospheric solar geoengineering without ozone loss?, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 113, 14910–14914, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1615572113, 2016.
Kleinschmitt, C., Boucher, O., Bekki, S., Lott, F., and Platt, U.: The Sectional Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosol module (S3A-v1) within the LMDZ general circulation model: description and evaluation against stratospheric aerosol observations, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 3359–3378, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-3359-2017, 2017.
Lee, W. R., Visioni, D., Bednarz, E. M., MacMartin, D. G., Kravitz, B., and Tilmes, S.: Quantifying the efficiency of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering at different altitudes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 50, e2023GL104417, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL104417, 2023.
Laakso, A., Niemeier, U., Visioni, D., Tilmes, S., and Kokkola, H.: Dependency of the impacts of geoengineering on the stratospheric sulfur injection strategy – Part 1: Intercomparison of modal and sectional aerosol modules, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 93–118, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-93-2022, 2022.
Määttänen, A., Merikanto, J., Henschel, H., Duplissy, J., Makkonen, R., Ortega, I. K., and Vehkamäki, H.: New Parameterizations for Neutral and Ion-Induced Sulfuric Acid-Water Particle Formation in Nucleation and Kinetic Regimes, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 1269–1296, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD027429, 2018.
Määttänen, A., Ravetta, F., Bureau, J., Lurton, T., and Boucher, O.: Idealized modeling of stratospheric aerosol injection deployment scenarios with two non-cooperative actors, Environ. Sci. Atmos., 6, 324–337, https://doi.org/10.1039/D5EA00022J, 2026.
Mann, G., Carslaw, K., Spracklen, D., Ridley, D., Manktelow, P., Chipperfield, M., Pickering, S., and Johnson, C.: Description and evaluation of GLOMAP-mode: A modal global aerosol microphysics model for the UKCA composition-climate model, Geosci. Model Dev., 3, 519–551, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-3-519-2010, 2010.
McGrory, M. R., Shepherd, R. H., King, M. D., Davidson, N., Pope, F. D., Watson, I. M., Grainger, R. G., Jones, A. C., and Ward, A. D.: Mie scattering from optically levitated mixed sulfuric acid–silica core–shell aerosols: observation of core–shell morphology for atmospheric science, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys., 24, 5813–5822, 2022.
Morrissey, W.: Avoiding atmospheric anarchy: Geoengineering as a source of interstate tension, Environ. Secur., 2, 291–315, https://doi.org/10.1177/27538796231221597, 2024.
Morton, O.: The Planet Remade: How Geoengineering Could Change the World, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2015.
Mulcahy, J. P., Johnson, C., Jones, C. G., Povey, A. C., Scott, C. E., Sellar, A., Turnock, S. T., Woodhouse, M. T., Abraham, N. L., Andrews, M. B., Bellouin, N., Browse, J., Carslaw, K. S., Dalvi, M., Folberth, G. A., Glover, M., Grosvenor, D. P., Hardacre, C., Hill, R., Johnson, B., Jones, A., Kipling, Z., Mann, G., Mollard, J., O'Connor, F. M., Palmiéri, J., Reddington, C., Rumbold, S. T., Richardson, M., Schutgens, N. A. J., Stier, P., Stringer, M., Tang, Y., Walton, J., Woodward, S., and Yool, A.: Description and evaluation of aerosol in UKESM1 and HadGEM3-GC3.1 CMIP6 historical simulations, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 6383–6423, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-6383-2020, 2020.
Neukermans, A., Cooper, G., Foster, J., Galbraith, L., and Jain, S.: Methods for Dispersal of Precipitated Calcium Carbonate for Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 38, 1571–1584, https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-20-0205.1, 2021.
Niemeier, U. and Timmreck, C.: What is the limit of climate engineering by stratospheric injection of SO2?, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 9129–9141, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-9129-2015, 2015.
Parker, A., Horton, J. B., and Keith, D. W.: Stopping solar geoengineering through technical means: A preliminary assessment of counter-geoengineering, Earth's Future, 6, 1058–1065., https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EF000864, 2018.
Petters, M. D. and Kreidenweis, S. M.: A single parameter representation of hygroscopic growth and cloud condensation nucleus activity, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 1961–1971, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-1961-2007, 2007.
Pope, F., Braesicke, P., Grainger, R., Kalberer, M., Watson, I. M., Davidson, P., and Cox, R.: Stratospheric aerosol particles and solar-radiation management, Nat. Clim. Chang., 2, 713–719, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1528, 2012.
Quaglia, I., Timmreck, C., Niemeier, U., Visioni, D., Pitari, G., Brodowsky, C., Brühl, C., Dhomse, S. S., Franke, H., Laakso, A., Mann, G. W., Rozanov, E., and Sukhodolov, T.: Interactive stratospheric aerosol models' response to different amounts and altitudes of SO2 injection during the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 921–948, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-921-2023, 2023.
Reynolds, R. W., Smith, T. M., Liu, C., Chelton, D. B., Casey, K. S., and Schlax, M. G.: Daily high-resolution blended analyses for sea surface temperature, J. Clim., 20, 5473–5496, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JCLI1824.1, 2007.
Richter, J. H., Visioni, D., MacMartin, D. G., Bailey, D. A., Rosenbloom, N., Dobbins, B., Lee, W. R., Tye, M., and Lamarque, J.-F.: Assessing Responses and Impacts of Solar climate intervention on the Earth system with stratospheric aerosol injection (ARISE-SAI): protocol and initial results from the first simulations, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 8221–8243, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8221-2022, 2022.
Seinfeld, J. H. and Pandis, S. N.: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change, 1326 pp., Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1998.
Smith, W.: The cost of stratospheric aerosol injection through 2100, Environ. Res. Lett., 15, 114004, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aba7e7, 2020.
Smith, W.: An assessment of the infrastructural and temporal barriers constraining a near-term implementation of a global stratospheric aerosol injection program, Environ. Res. Commun., 6, 061007, https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ad4f5c, 2024.
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.
Stenchikov, G. L., Kirchner, I., Robock, A., Graf, H.-F., Antuña, J. C., Grainger, R. G., Lambert, A., and Thomason, L.: Radiative forcing from the 1991 Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 13837–13857, https://doi.org/10.1029/98JD00693, 1998.
Sun, H., Bourguet, S., Eastham, S., and Keith, D.: Optimizing injection locations relaxes altitude-lifetime trade-off for stratospheric aerosol injection, Geophys. Res. Lett., 50, e2023GL105371, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL105371, 2023.
Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Mills, M. J., Simpson, I. R., Glanville, A. S., Faullo, 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, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 99, 2361–2371, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0267.1, 2018.
Tilmes, S., Mills, M. J., Zhu, Y., Bardeen, C. G., Vitt, F., Yu, P., Fillmore, D., Liu, X., Toon, B., and Deshler, T.: Description and performance of a sectional aerosol microphysical model in the Community Earth System Model (CESM2), Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 6087–6125, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6087-2023, 2023.
Vattioni, S., Käslin, S. K., Dykema, J. A.,Beiping, L., Sukhodolov, T., Sedlacek, J., Keutsch, F. N., Peter, T., and Chiodo, G.: Microphysical interactions determine the effectiveness of solar radiation modification via stratospheric solid particle injection, Geophys. Res. Lett., 51, e2024GL110575, https://doi.org/10.1029/2024GL110575, 2024a.
Vattioni, S., Weber, R., Feinberg, A., Stenke, A., Dykema, J. A., Luo, B., Kelesidis, G. A., Bruun, C. A., Sukhodolov, T., Keutsch, F. N., Peter, T., and Chiodo, G.: A fully coupled solid-particle microphysics scheme for stratospheric aerosol injections within the aerosol–chemistry–climate model SOCOL-AERv2, Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7767–7793, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7767-2024, 2024b.
Vehkamäki, H., Kulmala, M., Napari, I., Lehtinen, K. E. J., Timmreck, C., Noppel, M., and Laaksonen, A.: An improved parameterization for sulfuric acid–water nucleation rates for tropospheric and stratospheric conditions. J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 107, AAC 3-1–AAC 3-10, https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002184, 2002.
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.
Walters, D., Baran, A. J., Boutle, I., Brooks, M., Earnshaw, P., Edwards, J., Furtado, K., Hill, P., Lock, A., Manners, J., Morcrette, C., Mulcahy, J., Sanchez, C., Smith, C., Stratton, R., Tennant, W., Tomassini, L., Van Weverberg, K., Vosper, S., Willett, M., Browse, J., Bushell, A., Carslaw, K., Dalvi, M., Essery, R., Gedney, N., Hardiman, S., Johnson, B., Johnson, C., Jones, A., Jones, C., Mann, G., Milton, S., Rumbold, H., Sellar, A., Ujiie, M., Whitall, M., Williams, K., and Zerroukat, M.: The Met Office Unified Model Global Atmosphere 7.0/7.1 and JULES Global Land 7.0 configurations, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 1909–1963, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1909-2019, 2019.
Wells, A. F., Jones, A., Osborne, M., Damany-Pearce, L., Partridge, D. G., and Haywood, J. M.: Including ash in UKESM1 model simulations of the Raikoke volcanic eruption reveals improved agreement with observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 3985–4007, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-3985-2023, 2023.
Wells, A. F., Henry, M., Bednarz, E. M., MacMartin, D. G., Jones, A., Dalvi, M., and Haywood, J. M.: Identifying climate impacts from different stratospheric aerosol injection strategies in UKESM1, Earths Future, 12, e2023EF004358, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023EF004358, 2024.
Willett, M., Brooks, M., Bushell, A., Earnshaw, P., Smith, S., Tomassini, L., Best, M., Boutle, I., Brooke, J., Edwards, J. M., Elvidge, A. D., Furtado, K., Hardacre, C., Hartley, A. J., Hewitt, A. J., Johnson, B., Lock, A., Malcolm, A., Mulcahy, J., Müller, E., Renfrew, I. A., Rumbold, H., Rooney, G. G., Sellar, A., Ujiie, M., van Niekerk, A., Wiltshire, A., and Whitall, M.: The Met Office Unified Model Global Atmosphere 8.0 and JULES Global Land 9.0 configurations, Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 1473–1517, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-1473-2026, 2026.
Woodward, S., Sellar, A. A., Tang, Y., Stringer, M., Yool, A., Robertson, E., and Wiltshire, A.: The simulation of mineral dust in the United Kingdom Earth System Model UKESM1, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 14503–14528, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-14503-2022, 2022.
Wrana, F., Niemeier, U., Thomason, L. W., Wallis, S., and von Savigny, C.: Stratospheric aerosol size reduction after volcanic eruptions, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 9725–9743,, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-9725-2023, 2023.
Xu, Y., Ribar, N.P., Sachnik, J., Schade, G. W., Lockley, A. J., Zhang, Y. G., Yu, P., Hu, J., and Velders, G. J. M.: Can the Artificial Release of Fluorinated Gases Offset Global Cooling Due to Supervolcanic Eruptions?, Atmos., 15, 1322, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos15111322, 2024.
Zanchettin, D., Timmreck, C., Khodri, M., Schmidt, A., Toohey, M., Abe, M., Bekki, S., Cole, J., Fang, S. W., Feng, W., Hegerl, G., Johnson, B., Lebas, N., LeGrande, A. N., Mann, G. W., Marshall, L., Rieger, L., Robock, A., Rubinetti, S., Tsigaridis, K., and Weierbach, H.: Effects of forcing differences and initial conditions on inter-model agreement in the VolMIP volc-pinatubo-full experiment, Geosci Model Dev., 15, 2265–2292, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2265-2022, 2022.
Zhang, Y., MacMartin, D. G., Visioni, D., Bednarz, E. M., and Kravitz, B.: Hemispherically symmetric strategies for stratospheric aerosol injection, Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 191–213, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-191-2024, 2024.
Zhu, Y., Toon, O. B., Jensen, E. J., Bardeen, C. G., Mills, M. J., Tolbert, M. A., Yu, P., and Woods, S.: Persisting volcanic ash particles impact stratospheric SO2 lifetime and aerosol optical properties, Nat. Commun., 11, 4526, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-18352-5, 2020.
Short summary
Injecting aerosol into the stratosphere has been suggested to rapidly cool the planet and counter climate change. Rival actors who oppose deployment may seek to counter stratospheric aerosol injection. Using a climate model, we investigate whether stratospheric aerosol removal could be hastened by injecting coarse aerosol which promote aerosol growth and gravitational settling. We find that this could be effective, reducing aerosol impacts by 30 % in simulations, and warrants further research.
Injecting aerosol into the stratosphere has been suggested to rapidly cool the planet and...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint