, , , , & (2023). The choice of baseline period influences the assessments of the outcomes of stratospheric aerosol injection. Earth’s Future, 11, e2023EF003851. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023EF003851
Author: Daniele Visioni (page 2 of 3)
, , , , , , et al. (2023). Climate, variability, and climate sensitivity of “Middle Atmosphere” chemistry configurations of the Community Earth System Model Version 2, Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model Version 6 (CESM2(WACCM6)). Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 15, e2022MS003579. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022MS003579
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.
, , , , , , et al. (2023). High-latitude stratospheric aerosol injection to preserve the Arctic. Earth’s Future, 11, e2022EF003052. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EF003052
Bednarz, E. M., Visioni, D., Kravitz, B., Jones, A., Haywood, J. M., Richter, J., MacMartin, D. G., and Braesicke, P.: Climate response to off-equatorial stratospheric sulfur injections in three Earth system models – Part 2: Stratospheric and free-tropospheric response, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 687–709, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-687-2023, 2023.
Cheng, W., MacMartin, D.G., Kravitz, B., Visioni, D., Bednarz, E.M., Xu, Y., Luo, Y., Huang, L., Hu, Y., Staten, P.W. and Hitchcock, P., 2022. Changes in Hadley circulation and intertropical convergence zone under strategic stratospheric aerosol geoengineering. npj Climate and Atmospheric Science, 5(1), pp.1-11.
Tilmes, S., Visioni, D., Jones, A., Haywood, J., Séférian, R., Nabat, P., Boucher, O., Bednarz, E. M., and Niemeier, U.: Stratospheric ozone response to sulfate aerosol and solar dimming climate interventions based on the G6 Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 4557–4579, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-4557-2022, 2022.
Visioni, D., Tilmes, S., Bardeen, C., Mills, M., MacMartin, D. G., Kravitz, B., and Richter, J. H.: Limitations of assuming internal mixing between different aerosol species: a case study with sulfate geoengineering simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 1739–1756, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-1739-2022, 2022.
Visioni, D., & Robock, A. (2022). Future Geoengineering Scenarios: Balancing Policy Relevance and Scientific Significance, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 103(3), E817-E820
Weisenstein, D. K., Visioni, D., Franke, H., Niemeier, U., Vattioni, S., Chiodo, G., Peter, T., and Keith, D. W.: An interactive stratospheric aerosol model intercomparison of solar geoengineering by stratospheric injection of SO2 or accumulation-mode sulfuric acid aerosols, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 2955–2973, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2955-2022, 2022
© 2024 Climate Engineering
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑