22.03.2017

# New Publications

0 Comments

Visioni, Daniele; et al. (2017): Sulfate geoengineering. A review of the factors controlling the needed injection of sulfur dioxide

Visioni, Daniele; Pitari, Giovanni; Aquila, Valentina (2017): Sulfate geoengineering. A review of the factors controlling the needed injection of sulfur dioxide. In Atmos. Chem. Phys 17 (6), pp. 3879–3889. DOI: 10.5194/acp-17-3879-2017.

"A review of previous studies on these effects is presented here, with an outline of the important factors that control the amount of sulfur dioxide to be injected in an eventual realization of the experiment. However, we need to take into account that atmospheric models used for these studies have shown a wide range of climate sensitivity and differences in the response to stratospheric volcanic aerosols. In addition, large uncertainties exist in the estimate of some of these aerosol effects."

LINK


Read more »

06.03.2017

# New Publications

0 Comments

Smith, C. J.; et al. (2017): Impacts of stratospheric sulfate geoengineering on global solar photovoltaic and concentrating solar power resource. (in press)

Smith, C. J.; Crook, J. A.; Crook, R. (2017): Impacts of stratospheric sulfate geoengineering on global solar photovoltaic and concentrating solar power resource. (in press). In Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology.

"We analyze results from the HadGEM2-CCS climate model with stratospheric emissions of 10 Tg yr-1 of SO2, designed to offset global temperature rise by around 1°C. A reduction in concentrating solar power (CSP) output of 5.9% on average over land is shown under SSI compared to a baseline future climate change scenario (RCP4.5) due to a decrease in direct radiation."

LINK


Read more »

09.02.2017

# New Publications

0 Comments

Asayama, Shinichiro; et al. (2017): Ambivalent climate of opinions. Tensions and dilemmas in understanding geoengineering experimentation

Asayama, Shinichiro; Sugiyama, Masahiro; Ishii, Atsushi (2017): Ambivalent climate of opinions. Tensions and dilemmas in understanding geoengineering experimentation. In Geoforum 80, pp. 82–92. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.01.012.

"This paper examines how the meanings of geoengineering experimentation, specifically SAI field trials, are reconfigured in the deliberation of the lay public. To this end, we conducted focus groups with Japanese citizens in June 2015 on the geoengineering concept and SAI field trials."

LINK


Read more »

07.02.2017

# New Publications

0 Comments

Laakso, Anton; et al. (2017): Radiative and climate effects of stratospheric sulfur geoengineering using seasonally varying injection areas

Laakso, Anton; Korhonen, Hannele; Romakkaniemi, Sami; Kokkola, Harri (2017): Radiative and climate effects of stratospheric sulfur geoengineering using seasonally varying injection areas. In: Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., S. 1–25. DOI: 10.5194/acp-2017-107.

"In this study we employ alternative aerosol injection scenarios to investigate if the resulting radiative forcing can be optimized to be zonally more uniform without decreasing the global efficacy. We used a global aerosol-climate model together with an Earth system model to study the radiative and climate effects of stratospheric sulfur injection scenarios with different injection areas. According to our simulations, varying the SO2 injection area seasonally would result in a similar global mean cooling effect as injecting SO2 to the equator, but with a more uniform zonal distribution of shortwave radiative forcing."

LINK


Read more »

22.12.2016

# New Publications

0 Comments

MacMartin, Douglas G.; Kravitz, Ben (2016): Dynamic climate emulators for solar geoengineering

MacMartin, Douglas G.; Kravitz, Ben (2016): Dynamic climate emulators for solar geoengineering. In: Atmos. Chem. Phys. 16 (24), S. 15789–15799. DOI: 10.5194/acp-16-15789-2016.

"Climate emulators trained on existing simulations can be used to project project the climate effects that result from different possible future pathways of anthropogenic forcing, without further relying on general circulation model (GCM) simulations. We extend this idea to include different amounts of solar geoengineering in addition to different pathways of greenhouse gas concentrations, by training emulators from a multi-model ensemble of simulations from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP)."

Link


Read more »

18.12.2016

# New Publications

0 Comments

Lo, Y. T. Eunice; et al. (2016): Detecting sulphate aerosol geoengineering with different methods

Lo, Y. T. Eunice; Charlton-Perez, Andrew J.; Lott, Fraser C.; Highwood, Eleanor J. (2016): Detecting sulphate aerosol geoengineering with different methods. In: Scientific reports 6, S. 39169. DOI: 10.1038/srep39169.

"Sulphate aerosol injection has been widely discussed as a possible way to engineer future climate. Monitoring it would require detecting its effects amidst internal variability and in the presence of other external forcings. We investigate how the use of different detection methods and filtering techniques affects the detectability of sulphate aerosol geoengineering in annual-mean global-mean near-surface air temperature. This is done by assuming a future scenario that injects 5 Tg yr−1 of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere and cross-comparing simulations from 5 climate models."

Link


Read more »

18.12.2016

# Media

0 Comments

Chemistry World: Atmospheric limestone dust injection could halt global warming

"Geoengineering using limestone aerosols would also help to stop ozone layer depletion"

Link


Read more »

18.12.2016

# Media

0 Comments

EOS: A Date Under the Stars? Maybe Not with Aerosol Injection

"Injecting aerosols into the atmosphere on purpose could help cool Earth, but new research shows that it could also make the night sky brighter and negatively affect human health."

Link


Read more »

13.12.2016

# New Publications

0 Comments

Keith, David W.; et al. (2016): Stratospheric solar geoengineering without ozone loss

Keith, David W.; Weisenstein, Debra K.; Dykema, John A.; Keutsch, Frank N. (2016): Stratospheric solar geoengineering without ozone loss. In Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, p. 201615572–201615572. DOI 10.1073/pnas.1615572113.

"The combination of emissions cuts and solar geoengineering could reduce climate risks in ways that cannot be achieved by emissions cuts alone: It could keep Earth under the 1.5-degree mark agreed at Paris, and it might stop sea level rise this century. However, this promise comes with many risks. Injection of sulfuric acid into the stratosphere, for example, would damage the ozone layer. Injection of calcite (or limestone) particles rather than sulfuric acid could counter ozone loss by neutralizing acids resulting from anthropogenic emissions, acids that contribute to the chemical cycles that destroy stratospheric ozone. Calcite aerosol geoengineering may cool the planet while simultaneously repairing the ozone layer."

Link


Read more »

28.11.2016

# New Publications

0 Comments

Irvine, Peter J.; et al. (2016): Towards a comprehensive climate impacts assessment of solar geoengineering

Irvine, Peter J.; Kravitz, Ben; Lawrence, Mark G.; Gerten, Dieter; Caminade, Cyril; Gosling, Simon N. et al. (2016): Towards a comprehensive climate impacts assessment of solar geoengineering. In Earth's Future. DOI 10.1002/2016EF000389.

"We suggest that a thorough assessment of the climate impacts of a range of scenarios of solar geoengineering deployment is needed and can build upon existing frameworks. However, solar geoengineering poses a novel challenge for climate impacts research as the manner of deployment could be tailored to pursue different objectives making possible a wide range of climate outcomes. We present a number of ideas for approaches to extend the survey of climate impacts beyond standard scenarios of solar geoengineering deployment to address this challenge."

Link


Read more »