Correction to ‘stratospheric heating by potential geoengineering aerosols’
Open accessAbstract
[1] In the paper “Stratospheric heating by potential geoengineering aerosols” by Angus Ferraro, Eleanor Highwood and Andrew Charlton-Perez (Geophysical Research Letters, 38, L24706, doi:10.1029/2011GL049761, 2011), there is an error we would like to correct. [2] The model runs with limestone aerosol used an incorrect control case, which produced incorrect heating rate changes when compared with a ‘perturbed’ case which included limestone aerosol. We attach a corrected Figure 2, which shows stratospheric temperature change for the SMALL/WIDE distribution of each aerosol type. There is now no cooling in the polar lower stratosphere beneath the layer of limestone aerosol. The temperature change pattern for limestone is now very similar to that for titania, albeit of different magnitude. This renders paragraph 16, which refers to the cooling beneath the layer, superfluous. [3] This change slightly affects the calculation of the lower stratospheric pole-Equator temperature differences shown inFigure 3. We attach a corrected version of Figure 3. There is a slight reduction in the pole-Equator temperature differences in DJF. In JJA the SMALL/WIDE case now slightly reduces the pole-Equator temperature difference. However, the magnitude of these changes are small and do not affect our conclusions that (1) limestone aerosol produces a stratospheric temperature change pattern distinct to other aerosol types, (2) limestone aerosol increases the pole-Equator temperature difference (a proxy for the meridional temperature gradient) in DJF and (3) this pole-Equator temperature difference is extremely sensitive to size for wide size distributions.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The cost of stratospheric aerosol injection through 2100
Smith, W. (2020) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aba7e7 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
“…value differs from that used in Smith and Wagner (2018) (which considered only incoming radiation) and falls towards the center of the values present across recent literature (Ferraro et al 2012, Pope et al 2012, Kuebbeler et al 2012, Pitari et al 2014, Kleinschmitt et al 2017, Dai et al 2018).”
Dai, Z., Weisenstein, D. K., Keutsch, F. N., & Keith, D. W. (2020) · Communications Earth & Environment · doi:10.1038/s43247-020-00058-7 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ferraro, A. J., Highwood, E. J., & Charlton‐Perez, A. J.
- Venue
- Geophysical Research Letters
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2012-05-22
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 10
- ISSN
- 0094-8276 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-8007
- OpenAlex
- W1557556988
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2020: 1
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Geophysical Research Letters (publishedVersion)
- 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 Ozone and Climate
- Keywords
- stratospheric heating, meridional temperature gradient, aerosol size distribution
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