Cited by 191Climate Change and GeoengineeringAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsClimate variability and models

Climate impacts of geoengineering marine stratocumulus clouds

Jones, Andy, Haywood, Jim, Boucher, Olivier·2009·Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

Abstract

Theoretical potential geoengineering solutions to the global warming problem have recently been proposed. Here, we present an idealized study of the climate response to deliberately seeding large‐scale stratocumulus cloud decks in the North Pacific, South Pacific, and South Atlantic, thereby inducing cooling via aerosol indirect effects. Atmosphere‐only, atmosphere/mixed‐layer ocean, and fully coupled atmosphere/ocean versions of the Met Office Hadley Centre model are used to investigate the radiative forcing, climate efficacy, and regional response of temperature, precipitation, and net primary productivity to such geoengineering. The radiative forcing simulations indicate that, for our parameterization of aerosol indirect effects, up to 35% of the radiative forcing due to current levels of greenhouse gases could be offset by stratocumulus modification. Equilibrium simulations with the atmosphere/mixed‐layer ocean model, wherein each of the three stratocumulus sheets is modified in turn, reveal that the most efficient cooling per unit radiative forcing occurs when the South Pacific stratocumulus sheet is modified. Transient coupled model simulations suggest that geoengineering all three stratocumulus areas delays the simulated global warming by about 25 years. These simulations also indicate that, while some areas experience increases in precipitation and net primary productivity, sharp decreases are simulated in South America, with particularly detrimental impacts on the Amazon rain forest. These results show that, while some areas benefit from geoengineering, there are significant areas where the response could be very detrimental with implications for the practical applicability of such a scheme.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1029/2008jd011450

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The interhemispheric forcing contrast from IMO2020 has important implications for deliberate geoengineering schemes because interhemispheric forcing contrast can create significant perturbations in precipitation patterns.

    “This creates interhemispheric contrast in the resulting radiative forcing, which has important implications for deliberate geoengineering schemes because interhemispheric forcing contrast can create significant perturbations in precipitation patterns6.”
  • Modes of ocean variability such as PDO and El-Nino Southern Oscillation may contribute to variations in these quantities.

    “It is worth noting that in addition to modes of ocean variability such as PDO and El-Nino Southern Oscillation may contribute to variations in these quantities6.”
  • Because of the large spatial extent of shortwave-absorbing aerosols, they are capable of influencing the interhemispheric energy balance, the location of the ITCZ, and regional precipitation patterns.

    “Because of the large spatial extent of the shortwave-absorbing aerosols, they are capable of influencing the interhemispheric energy balance, the location of the ITCZ, and regional precipitation patterns (Jones et al., 2009;Randles and Ramaswamy, 2010;Sakaeda et al., 2011).”

    From The tropical atlantic observing system (2019) · cites this paper as Jones et al., 2009

  • The primary candidate methods for geoengineering are marine cloud brightening, cirrus thinning, and stratospheric aerosol injection.

    “The primary candidate methods for geoengineering are marine cloud brightening [396] (making low-lying clouds more reflective), cirrus thinning [759] (making high-flying clouds trap less heat), and stratospheric aerosol injection [668] (which we discuss below).”

    From Tackling climate change with machine learning (2023) · cites this paper as [396]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 32 · Cited by 191

Authors
Jones, A., Haywood, J., & Boucher, O.
Affiliations
  • Met Office (GB)
  • Met Office Hadley Centre Exeter UK
Corresponding author
Jones, Andy
Venue
Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
Published
2009-05-27
Volume
114
Issue
D10
ISSN
0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1981402659
Cited by
191
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 17
FWCI
9.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK Government
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 › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
Keywords
solar geoengineering, marine stratocumulus clouds, cloud seeding, aerosol indirect effect, radiative forcing, climate change mitigation, precipitation response, net primary productivity, Amazon rainforest, regional climate impacts, North Pacific, South Pacific, South Atlantic

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