Tag: 2021

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.

How large is the design space for stratospheric aerosol geoengineering?

Zhang, Y., D. G. MacMartin, D. Visioni, and B. Kravitz, “How large is the design space for stratospheric aerosol geoengineering?”, to appear, Earth System Dynamics.

Potential Impacts of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection on Drought Risk Managements over major River Basins in Africa

Abiodun, Babatunde J.; R. C. Odoulami; W. Sawadogo; O.A. Oloniyo; A. A. Abatan; M. New; C. Lennard; I. Pinto; T. S. Egbebiyi; D. G. MacMartin, “Potential Impacts of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection on Drought Risk Managements over major River Basins in Africa”, Climatic Change, 169, 31 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03268-w

Sensitivity of total column ozone to stratospheric sulfur injection strategies

Tilmes, S., J.H. Richter, B. Kravitz, D.G. MacMartin, A.S. Glanville, D. Visioni, D.E. Kinnison, R. Müller (2021), “Sensitivity of total column ozone to stratospheric sulfur injection strategies”, Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2021GL094058, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL094058

Harnessing Stratospheric Diffusion Barriers for Enhanced Climate Geoengineering

Aksamit, N.O., B. Kravitz, D.G. MacMartin, G. Haller, “Harnessing Stratospheric Diffusion Barriers for Enhanced Climate Geoengineering”, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 8845-8861, 2021.  Doi:10.5194/acp-21-8845-2021

High-latitude stratospheric aerosol geoengineering can be more effective if injection is limited to spring

Lee, Walker R., D. G. MacMartin, D. Visioni, B. Kravitz: High-latitude stratospheric aerosol geoengineering can be more effective if injection is limited to spring, Geophysical Research Letters, 48, e2021GL092696, 2021.  Doi: 10.1029/2021GL092696.

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

© 2022 Climate Engineering

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑