DOE PAGES title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: First Simulations of Designing Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosol Geoengineering to Meet Multiple Simultaneous Climate Objectives

Abstract

In this work, we describe the first simulations of stratospheric sulfate aerosol geoengineering using multiple injection locations to meet multiple simultaneous surface temperature objectives. Simulations were performed using CESM1(WACCM), a coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation model with fully interactive stratospheric chemistry, dynamics (including an internally generated quasi-biennial oscillation), and a sophisticated treatment of sulfate aerosol formation, microphysical growth, and deposition. The objectives are defined as maintaining three temperature features at their 2020 levels against a background of the RCP8.5 scenario over the period 2020-2099. These objectives are met using a feedback mechanism in which the rate of sulfur dioxide injection at each of the four locations is adjusted independently every year of simulation. Even in the presence of uncertainties, nonlinearities, and variability, the objectives are met, predominantly by SO2 injection at 30°N and 30°S. By the last year of simulation, the feedback algorithm calls for a total injection rate of 51 Tg SO2 per year. The injections are not in the tropics, which results in a greater degree of linearity of the surface climate response with injection amount than has been found in many previous studies using injection at the equator. Because the objectives are defined in terms of annual meanmore » temperature, the required geeongineering results in "overcooling" during summer and "undercooling" during winter. The hydrological cycle is also suppressed as compared to the reference values corresponding to the year 2020. The demonstration we describe in this study is an important step toward understanding what geoengineering can do and what it cannot do.« less

Authors:
ORCiD logo [1]; ORCiD logo [2]; ORCiD logo [3]; ORCiD logo [3]; ORCiD logo [3]; ORCiD logo [3]; ORCiD logo [3]; ORCiD logo [3]
  1. Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States). Atmospheric Science and Global Change Div. (ASGC)
  2. Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY (United States); California Inst. of Technology (CalTech), Pasadena, CA (United States)
  3. National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL), Richland, WA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA); National Science Foundation (NSF); USDOE Office of Science (SC), Biological and Environmental Research (BER)
OSTI Identifier:
1430438
Report Number(s):
PNNL-SA-124386
Journal ID: ISSN 2169-897X; 453040135
Grant/Contract Number:  
AC05-76RL01830
Resource Type:
Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 122; Journal Issue: 23; Journal ID: ISSN 2169-897X
Publisher:
American Geophysical Union
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES; geoengineering; feedback; stratospheric aerosols; climate modeling

Citation Formats

Kravitz, Ben, MacMartin, Douglas G., Mills, Michael J., Richter, Jadwiga H., Tilmes, Simone, Lamarque, Jean‐Francois, Tribbia, Joseph J., and Vitt, Francis. First Simulations of Designing Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosol Geoengineering to Meet Multiple Simultaneous Climate Objectives. United States: N. p., 2017. Web. doi:10.1002/2017JD026874.
Kravitz, Ben, MacMartin, Douglas G., Mills, Michael J., Richter, Jadwiga H., Tilmes, Simone, Lamarque, Jean‐Francois, Tribbia, Joseph J., & Vitt, Francis. First Simulations of Designing Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosol Geoengineering to Meet Multiple Simultaneous Climate Objectives. United States. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026874
Kravitz, Ben, MacMartin, Douglas G., Mills, Michael J., Richter, Jadwiga H., Tilmes, Simone, Lamarque, Jean‐Francois, Tribbia, Joseph J., and Vitt, Francis. Thu . "First Simulations of Designing Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosol Geoengineering to Meet Multiple Simultaneous Climate Objectives". United States. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026874. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1430438.
@article{osti_1430438,
title = {First Simulations of Designing Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosol Geoengineering to Meet Multiple Simultaneous Climate Objectives},
author = {Kravitz, Ben and MacMartin, Douglas G. and Mills, Michael J. and Richter, Jadwiga H. and Tilmes, Simone and Lamarque, Jean‐Francois and Tribbia, Joseph J. and Vitt, Francis},
abstractNote = {In this work, we describe the first simulations of stratospheric sulfate aerosol geoengineering using multiple injection locations to meet multiple simultaneous surface temperature objectives. Simulations were performed using CESM1(WACCM), a coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation model with fully interactive stratospheric chemistry, dynamics (including an internally generated quasi-biennial oscillation), and a sophisticated treatment of sulfate aerosol formation, microphysical growth, and deposition. The objectives are defined as maintaining three temperature features at their 2020 levels against a background of the RCP8.5 scenario over the period 2020-2099. These objectives are met using a feedback mechanism in which the rate of sulfur dioxide injection at each of the four locations is adjusted independently every year of simulation. Even in the presence of uncertainties, nonlinearities, and variability, the objectives are met, predominantly by SO2 injection at 30°N and 30°S. By the last year of simulation, the feedback algorithm calls for a total injection rate of 51 Tg SO2 per year. The injections are not in the tropics, which results in a greater degree of linearity of the surface climate response with injection amount than has been found in many previous studies using injection at the equator. Because the objectives are defined in terms of annual mean temperature, the required geeongineering results in "overcooling" during summer and "undercooling" during winter. The hydrological cycle is also suppressed as compared to the reference values corresponding to the year 2020. The demonstration we describe in this study is an important step toward understanding what geoengineering can do and what it cannot do.},
doi = {10.1002/2017JD026874},
journal = {Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres},
number = 23,
volume = 122,
place = {United States},
year = {Thu Dec 07 00:00:00 EST 2017},
month = {Thu Dec 07 00:00:00 EST 2017}
}

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
Publisher's Version of Record

Citation Metrics:
Cited by: 84 works
Citation information provided by
Web of Science

Save / Share:

Works referenced in this record:

Dynamics of the coupled human–climate system resulting from closed-loop control of solar geoengineering
journal, June 2013


The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300
journal, August 2011


Radiative forcing and climate response
journal, March 1997

  • Hansen, J.; Sato, M.; Ruedy, R.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 102, Issue D6
  • DOI: 10.1029/96JD03436

Climate impacts of geoengineering in a delayed mitigation scenario: GEOENGINEERING AND DELAYED MITIGATION
journal, August 2016

  • Tilmes, S.; Sanderson, B. M.; O'Neill, B. C.
  • Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 43, Issue 15
  • DOI: 10.1002/2016GL070122

Solar geoengineering using solid aerosol in the stratosphere
journal, January 2015

  • Weisenstein, D. K.; Keith, D. W.; Dykema, J. A.
  • Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 15, Issue 20
  • DOI: 10.5194/acp-15-11835-2015

Geoengineering as an optimization problem
journal, July 2010


Polar amplification of climate change in coupled models
journal, September 2003


Stratospheric solar geoengineering without ozone loss
journal, December 2016

  • Keith, David W.; Weisenstein, Debra K.; Dykema, John A.
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 113, Issue 52
  • DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1615572113

Toward a minimal representation of aerosols in climate models: description and evaluation in the Community Atmosphere Model CAM5
journal, January 2012

  • Liu, X.; Easter, R. C.; Ghan, S. J.
  • Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 5, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.5194/gmd-5-709-2012

Detecting sulphate aerosol geoengineering with different methods
journal, December 2016

  • Lo, Y. T. Eunice; Charlton-Perez, Andrew J.; Lott, Fraser C.
  • Scientific Reports, Vol. 6, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1038/srep39169

Modeling of solar radiation management: a comparison of simulations using reduced solar constant and stratospheric sulphate aerosols
journal, July 2014

  • Kalidindi, Sirisha; Bala, Govindasamy; Modak, Angshuman
  • Climate Dynamics, Vol. 44, Issue 9-10
  • DOI: 10.1007/s00382-014-2240-3

Solar radiation management impacts on agriculture in China: A case study in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP)
journal, July 2014

  • Xia, Lili; Robock, Alan; Cole, Jason
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 119, Issue 14
  • DOI: 10.1002/2013JD020630

Sensitivity of Simulated Climate to Horizontal and Vertical Resolution in the ECHAM5 Atmosphere Model
journal, August 2006

  • Roeckner, E.; Brokopf, R.; Esch, M.
  • Journal of Climate, Vol. 19, Issue 16
  • DOI: 10.1175/JCLI3824.1

Control of global warming?
journal, September 1990


Geoengineering with stratospheric aerosols: What do we not know after a decade of research?: GEOENGINEERING: WHAT DO WE NOT KNOW?
journal, November 2016

  • MacMartin, Douglas G.; Kravitz, Ben; Long, Jane C. S.
  • Earth's Future, Vol. 4, Issue 11
  • DOI: 10.1002/2016EF000418

Can we test geoengineering?
journal, January 2011

  • MacMynowski, Douglas G.; Keith, David W.; Caldeira, Ken
  • Energy & Environmental Science, Vol. 4, Issue 12
  • DOI: 10.1039/c1ee01256h

Management of trade-offs in geoengineering through optimal choice of non-uniform radiative forcing
journal, October 2012

  • MacMartin, Douglas G.; Keith, David W.; Kravitz, Ben
  • Nature Climate Change, Vol. 3, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1038/nclimate1722

The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment
journal, February 2010

  • Moss, Richard H.; Edmonds, Jae A.; Hibbard, Kathy A.
  • Nature, Vol. 463, Issue 7282
  • DOI: 10.1038/nature08823

The hydrological impact of geoengineering in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP): THE HYDROLOGIC IMPACT OF GEOENGINEERING
journal, October 2013

  • Tilmes, Simone; Fasullo, John; Lamarque, Jean-Francois
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 118, Issue 19
  • DOI: 10.1002/jgrd.50868

Sensitivity of Aerosol Distribution and Climate Response to Stratospheric SO 2 Injection Locations
journal, December 2017

  • Tilmes, Simone; Richter, Jadwiga H.; Mills, Michael J.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 122, Issue 23
  • DOI: 10.1002/2017JD026888

Climate Change from 1850 to 2005 Simulated in CESM1(WACCM)
journal, October 2013

  • Marsh, Daniel R.; Mills, Michael J.; Kinnison, Douglas E.
  • Journal of Climate, Vol. 26, Issue 19
  • DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00558.1

The aerosol-climate model ECHAM5-HAM
journal, January 2005

  • Stier, P.; Feichter, J.; Kinne, S.
  • Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 5, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.5194/acp-5-1125-2005

Microphysical simulations of sulfur burdens from stratospheric sulfur geoengineering
journal, January 2012

  • English, J. M.; Toon, O. B.; Mills, M. J.
  • Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 12, Issue 10
  • DOI: 10.5194/acp-12-4775-2012

The Community Earth System Model (CESM) Large Ensemble Project: A Community Resource for Studying Climate Change in the Presence of Internal Climate Variability
journal, August 2015

  • Kay, J. E.; Deser, C.; Phillips, A.
  • Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 96, Issue 8
  • DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00255.1

The global extent of the mid stratospheric CN layer: A three-dimensional modeling study: The Global Stratospheric CN Layer
journal, January 2014

  • Campbell, Patrick; Mills, Michael; Deshler, Terry
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 119, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1002/2013JD020503

The impact of equilibrating hemispheric albedos on tropical performance in the HadGEM2‐ES coupled climate model
journal, January 2016

  • Haywood, Jim M.; Jones, Andy; Dunstone, Nick
  • Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 43, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1002/2015GL066903

A Multidimensional Model for Aerosols: Description of Computational Analogs
journal, August 1988


Microphysical simulations of new particle formation in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere
journal, January 2011

  • English, J. M.; Toon, O. B.; Mills, M. J.
  • Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 11, Issue 17
  • DOI: 10.5194/acp-11-9303-2011

Arctic cryosphere response in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project G3 and G4 scenarios: ARCTIC RESPONSE TO G3 AND G4 IN GEOMIP
journal, February 2014

  • Berdahl, Mira; Robock, Alan; Ji, Duoying
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 119, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1002/2013JD020627

The Community Earth System Model: A Framework for Collaborative Research
journal, September 2013

  • Hurrell, James W.; Holland, M. M.; Gent, P. R.
  • Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 94, Issue 9
  • DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00121.1

Regional climate responses to geoengineering with tropical and Arctic SO 2 injections
journal, January 2008

  • Robock, Alan; Oman, Luke; Stenchikov, Georgiy L.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 113, Issue D16
  • DOI: 10.1029/2008JD010050

Arctic sea ice and atmospheric circulation under the GeoMIP G1 scenario
journal, January 2014

  • Moore, John C.; Rinke, Annette; Yu, Xiaoyong
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 119, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1002/2013JD021060

Explicit feedback and the management of uncertainty in meeting climate objectives with solar geoengineering
journal, April 2014


Impact of geoengineered aerosols on the troposphere and stratosphere
journal, January 2009

  • Tilmes, Simone; Garcia, Rolando R.; Kinnison, Douglas E.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 114, Issue D12
  • DOI: 10.1029/2008JD011420

Cost analysis of stratospheric albedo modification delivery systems
journal, August 2012


Radiative and Chemical Response to Interactive Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosols in Fully Coupled CESM1(WACCM)
journal, December 2017

  • Mills, Michael J.; Richter, Jadwiga H.; Tilmes, Simone
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 122, Issue 23
  • DOI: 10.1002/2017JD027006

The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP): a control perspective
journal, June 2012

  • Jarvis, Andrew; Leedal, David
  • Atmospheric Science Letters, Vol. 13, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1002/asl.387

Assessing the controllability of Arctic sea ice extent by sulfate aerosol geoengineering: Arctic sea ice geoengineering
journal, February 2015

  • Jackson, L. S.; Crook, J. A.; Jarvis, A.
  • Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 42, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1002/2014GL062240

Global volcanic aerosol properties derived from emissions, 1990-2014, using CESM1(WACCM): VOLCANIC AEROSOLS DERIVED FROM EMISSIONS
journal, March 2016

  • Mills, Michael J.; Schmidt, Anja; Easter, Richard
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 121, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.1002/2015JD024290

Extratropical Influence on ITCZ Shifts in Slab Ocean Simulations of Global Warming
journal, January 2012


Stratospheric Dynamical Response and Ozone Feedbacks in the Presence of SO 2 Injections
journal, December 2017

  • Richter, Jadwiga H.; Tilmes, Simone; Mills, Michael J.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 122, Issue 23
  • DOI: 10.1002/2017JD026912

The impact of geoengineering aerosols on stratospheric temperature and ozone
journal, October 2009


What is the limit of climate engineering by stratospheric injection of SO 2 ?
journal, January 2015


Stratospheric dynamics and midlatitude jets under geoengineering with space mirrors and sulfate and titania aerosols
journal, January 2015

  • Ferraro, A. J.; Charlton-Perez, A. J.; Highwood, E. J.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 120, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1002/2014JD022734

A Risk-Based Framework for Assessing the Effectiveness of Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering
journal, February 2014


The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP)
journal, January 2011

  • Kravitz, Ben; Robock, Alan; Boucher, Olivier
  • Atmospheric Science Letters, Vol. 12, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1002/asl.316

The Response of the ITCZ to Extratropical Thermal Forcing: Idealized Slab-Ocean Experiments with a GCM
journal, July 2008

  • Kang, Sarah M.; Held, Isaac M.; Frierson, Dargan M. W.
  • Journal of Climate, Vol. 21, Issue 14
  • DOI: 10.1175/2007JCLI2146.1

Climate model response from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP): GEOMIP MODEL RESPONSE
journal, August 2013

  • Kravitz, Ben; Caldeira, Ken; Boucher, Olivier
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 118, Issue 15
  • DOI: 10.1002/jgrd.50646

Solar geoengineering to limit the rate of temperature change
journal, December 2014

  • MacMartin, Douglas G.; Caldeira, Ken; Keith, David W.
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, Vol. 372, Issue 2031
  • DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2014.0134

Geoengineering as a design problem
journal, January 2016

  • Kravitz, Ben; MacMartin, Douglas G.; Wang, Hailong
  • Earth System Dynamics, Vol. 7, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.5194/esd-7-469-2016

Volcanic eruptions and climate
journal, May 2000


The Climate Response to Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering Can Be Tailored Using Multiple Injection Locations
journal, December 2017

  • MacMartin, Douglas G.; Kravitz, Ben; Tilmes, Simone
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 122, Issue 23
  • DOI: 10.1002/2017JD026868

Solar irradiance reduction via climate engineering: Impact of different techniques on the energy balance and the hydrological cycle: CLIMATIC IMPACT OF DIFFERENT SRM METHODS
journal, November 2013

  • Niemeier, U.; Schmidt, H.; Alterskjaer, K.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 118, Issue 21
  • DOI: 10.1002/2013JD020445

Stratospheric ozone response to sulfate geoengineering: Results from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP): GeoMIP ozone response
journal, March 2014

  • Pitari, Giovanni; Aquila, Valentina; Kravitz, Ben
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 119, Issue 5
  • DOI: 10.1002/2013JD020566

The detectability of climate engineering: THE DETECTABILITY OF CLIMATE ENGINEERING
journal, November 2015

  • Bürger, Gerd; Cubasch, Ulrich
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 120, Issue 22
  • DOI: 10.1002/2015JD023954

Stratospheric heating by potential geoengineering aerosols: HEATING BY GEOENGINEERING AEROSOLS
journal, December 2011

  • Ferraro, A. J.; Highwood, E. J.; Charlton-Perez, A. J.
  • Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 38, Issue 24
  • DOI: 10.1029/2011GL049761

A multimodel examination of climate extremes in an idealized geoengineering experiment
journal, April 2014

  • Curry, Charles L.; Sillmann, Jana; Bronaugh, David
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 119, Issue 7
  • DOI: 10.1002/2013JD020648

Climatology and Forcing of the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation in the MAECHAM5 Model
journal, August 2006

  • Giorgetta, M. A.; Manzini, E.; Roeckner, E.
  • Journal of Climate, Vol. 19, Issue 16
  • DOI: 10.1175/JCLI3830.1

The impact of geoengineering on vegetation in experiment G1 of the GeoMIP
journal, October 2015

  • Glienke, Susanne; Irvine, Peter J.; Lawrence, Mark G.
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 120, Issue 19
  • DOI: 10.1002/2015JD024202

Geoengineering as a design problem
journal, January 2015

  • Kravitz, B.; MacMartin, D. G.; Wang, H.
  • Earth System Dynamics Discussions, Vol. 6, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.5194/esdd-6-1635-2015

The Paris Climate Agreement and future sea-level rise from Antarctica
journal, May 2021


Climate Change from 1850 to 2005 Simulated in CESM1(WACCM)
text, January 2013

  • Marsh, Daniel R.; Mills, Michael J.; Kinnison, Douglas E.
  • Columbia University
  • DOI: 10.7916/d8df6wzt

Works referencing / citing this record:

A continuous latitudinal energy balance model to explore non-uniform climate engineering strategies
journal, October 2018


Best Scale for Detecting the Effects of Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosol Geoengineering on Surface Temperature
journal, December 2018

  • Lo, Y. T. E.; Charlton‐Perez, Andrew J.; Highwood, Eleanor J.
  • Earth's Future
  • DOI: 10.1029/2018ef000933

Comparison of the Fast and Slow Climate Response to Three Radiation Management Geoengineering Schemes
journal, November 2018

  • Duan, Lei; Cao, Long; Bala, Govindasamy
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 123, Issue 21
  • DOI: 10.1029/2018jd029034

Holistic Assessment of SO 2 Injections Using CESM1(WACCM): Introduction to the Special Issue
journal, January 2019

  • Kravitz, Ben; MacMartin, Douglas G.; Tilmes, Simone
  • Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 124, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1029/2018jd029293

Climate Response to Pulse Versus Sustained Stratospheric Aerosol Forcing
journal, August 2019

  • Duan, Lei; Cao, Long; Bala, Govindasamy
  • Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 46, Issue 15
  • DOI: 10.1029/2019gl083701

Halving warming with idealized solar geoengineering moderates key climate hazards
journal, March 2019


Persistent polar ocean warming in a strategically geoengineered climate
journal, October 2018


Can we use linear response theory to assess geoengineering strategies?
journal, February 2020

  • Bódai, Tamás; Lucarini, Valerio; Lunkeit, Frank
  • Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, Vol. 30, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1063/1.5122255

Technical characteristics of a solar geoengineering deployment and implications for governance
journal, September 2019


Stratospheric aerosol injection tactics and costs in the first 15 years of deployment
journal, November 2018


Multiple input control strategies for robust and adaptive climate engineering in a low-order 3-box model
journal, September 2018

  • Bonetti, F.; McInnes, C.
  • Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, Vol. 474, Issue 2217
  • DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2018.0447

Upper tropospheric ice sensitivity to sulfate geoengineering
journal, January 2018

  • Visioni, Daniele; Pitari, Giovanni; di Genova, Glauco
  • Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 18, Issue 20
  • DOI: 10.5194/acp-18-14867-2018

Global streamflow and flood response to stratospheric aerosol geoengineering
journal, January 2018


Sensitivity of the radiative forcing by stratospheric sulfur geoengineering to the amount and strategy of the SO 2 injection studied with the LMDZ-S3A model
journal, January 2018

  • Kleinschmitt, Christoph; Boucher, Olivier; Platt, Ulrich
  • Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 18, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.5194/acp-18-2769-2018

Exploring accumulation-mode H 2 SO 4 versus SO 2 stratospheric sulfate geoengineering in a sectional aerosol–chemistry–climate model
journal, January 2019

  • Vattioni, Sandro; Weisenstein, Debra; Keith, David
  • Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 19, Issue 7
  • DOI: 10.5194/acp-19-4877-2019

Climate system response to stratospheric sulfate aerosols: sensitivity to altitude of aerosol layer
journal, January 2019

  • Krishnamohan, Krishna-Pillai Sukumara-Pillai; Bala, Govindasamy; Cao, Long
  • Earth System Dynamics, Vol. 10, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.5194/esd-10-885-2019

Can we use linear response theory to assess geoengineering strategies?
text, January 2018