Cited by 173Climate Change and GeoengineeringAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols

The climate response to stratospheric aerosol geoengineering can be tailored using multiple injection locations

Open access
MacMartin, Douglas G., Kravitz, Ben, Tilmes, Simone, Richter, Jadwiga H., Mills, Michael J., Lamarque, Jean‐Francois, Tribbia, Joseph J., Vitt, Francis·2017·Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres

Abstract

Abstract By injecting different amounts of SO 2 at multiple different latitudes, the spatial pattern of aerosol optical depth (AOD) can be partially controlled. This leads to the ability to influence the climate response to geoengineering with stratospheric aerosols, providing the potential for design. We use simulations from the fully coupled whole‐atmosphere chemistry climate model CESM1(WACCM) to demonstrate that by appropriately combining injection at just four different locations, 30°S, 15°S, 15°N, and 30°N, then three spatial degrees of freedom of AOD can be achieved: an approximately spatially uniform AOD distribution, the relative difference in AOD between Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and the relative AOD in high versus low latitudes. For forcing levels that yield 1–2°C cooling, the AOD and surface temperature response are sufficiently linear in this model so that the response to different combinations of injection at different latitudes can be estimated from single‐latitude injection simulations; nonlinearities associated with both aerosol growth and changes to stratospheric circulation will be increasingly important at higher forcing levels. Optimized injection at multiple locations is predicted to improve compensation of CO 2 ‐forced climate change relative to a case using only equatorial aerosol injection (which overcools the tropics relative to high latitudes). The additional degrees of freedom can be used, for example, to balance the interhemispheric temperature gradient and the equator to pole temperature gradient in addition to the global mean temperature. Further research is needed to better quantify the impacts of these strategies on changes to long‐term temperature, precipitation, and other climate parameters.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/2017jd026868

Cites

46 of 47 references verified1 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Equatorial injection is the most efficient if the only deployment objective is to maximize Earth's overall cooling.

    “Equatorial injection is the most efficient if the only deployment objective is to maximize Earth's overall cooling.”

    From A Fate Worse Than Warming? Stratospheric Aerosol Injection and Global Catastrophic Risk (2021) · cites this paper as MacMartin et al., 2017

    The paper’s discussion of injection locations (page unavailable) says that, at high injection rates in its model, equatorial injection does not produce a greater decrease in global-mean temperature than other locations. That directly qualifies—and contradicts—the unqualified claim that equatorial injection is the most efficient way to maximize overall cooling. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Equatorial injection would lead to high variance in temperature distributions, namely overcooling of the tropics and undercooling of poles.

    “However, this would lead to high variance in temperature distributions, namely overcooling of the tropics and undercooling of poles (MacMartin et al., 2017).”

    From A Fate Worse Than Warming? Stratospheric Aerosol Injection and Global Catastrophic Risk (2021) · cites this paper as MacMartin et al., 2017

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. National Academy of Sciences (2015). Climate intervention: reflecting sunlight to cool Earth. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.
  2. Pitari, G. (1993). A numerical study of the possible perturbation of stratospheric dynamics due to Pinatubo aerosols: Implications for tracer transport. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 50, 2443-2461.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
MacMartin, D. G., Kravitz, B., Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., Mills, M. J., Lamarque, J., Tribbia, J. J., & Vitt, F.
Affiliations
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
  • Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (US)
  • NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research (US)
  • Atmospheric Chemistry, Observations, and Modeling Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA
Corresponding author
MacMartin, Douglas G.
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres
Published
2017-12-07
Volume
122
Issue
23
ISSN
  • 0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
  • 2169-897X
  • 2169-8996
OpenAlex
W2767341664
Cited by
173
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 4
FWCI
8.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres (publishedVersion)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
  • CaltechAUTHORS (California Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Battelle (DE-AC05-76RL01830)
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate Change and Geoengineering
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Atmospheric aerosols and clouds
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Atmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Keywords
stratospheric aerosol geoengineering, solar geoengineering, sulfur dioxide insertion, aerosol optical depth, climate response, surface temperature response, equator-to-pole temperature gradient, stratospheric circulation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review