Author: Daniele Visioni (page 2 of 2)

The impact of stratospheric aerosol intervention on the North Atlantic and Quasi-Biennial Oscillations in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) G6sulfur experiment

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.

Dependency of the impacts of geoengineering on the stratospheric sulfur injection strategy – Part 1: Intercomparison of modal and sectional aerosol modules

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.

Comparing different generations of idealized solar geoengineering simulations in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP)

Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Visioni, D., Boucher, O., Cole, J. N. S., Haywood, J., Jones, A., Lurton, T., Nabat, P., Niemeier, U., Robock, A., Séférian, R., and Tilmes, S.: Comparing different generations of idealized solar geoengineering simulations in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 4231–4247, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-4231-2021, 2021.

Identifying the sources of uncertainty in climate model simulations of solar radiation modification with the G6sulfur and G6solar Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) simulations

Visioni, D., MacMartin, D. G., Kravitz, B., Boucher, O., Jones, A., Lurton, T., Martine, M., Mills, M. J., Nabat, P., Niemeier, U., Séférian, R., and Tilmes, S.: Identifying the sources of uncertainty in climate model simulations of solar radiation modification with the G6sulfur and G6solar Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) simulations,Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 10029-10063, 2021.  https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-10039-2021

Is Turning Down the Sun a Good Proxy for Stratospheric Sulfate Geoengineering?

Visioni, D.MacMartin, D. G., & Kravitz, B. (2021). Is turning down the sun a good proxy for stratospheric sulfate geoengineering? Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres126, e2020JD033952. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033952

Dataset Visioni et al. (2019)

Data used for the GRL paper “Seasonal injection strategies for stratospheric aerosol geoengineering”

Data composition: The single zip files are named after the variable. A description for the variables can be found here http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/experiments/cesm1.2/GLE/GLENS_output_fields/

Files are the single 2d (or 3d in case of O3) zonal mean from 2042 to 2045 (or to 2050) for the variable for each of the 25 cases, as decsribed in the paper.  All_data_2d_zm_GRL_Visioni2019

A climate engineering technique for a warming planet

Visioni, D., “A climate engineering technique for a warming planet – Stratospheric Sulfur injection as a temporary solution to greenhouse gases increase”, Aracne Publishing, 2019. ISBN:  978-88-255-2042-2

Newer posts

© 2024 Climate Engineering

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑