Cited by 114Climate Change and GeoengineeringAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols

Stratospheric aerosol particles and solar-radiation management

Pope, F. D., Braesicke, P., Grainger, R. G., Kalberer, M., Watson, I. M., Davidson, P. J., Cox, R. A.·2012·Nature Climate Change

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nclimate1528

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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 sulfate efficacy value used falls towards the center of the values present across recent literature.

    “This sulfate efficacy 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).”

    From The cost of stratospheric aerosol injection through 2100 (2020) · cites this paper as Pope et al 2012

  • There are multiple potential design options for SAI deployment configuration, including timing, extent, placement, and aerosol selection.

    “There are also multiple potential 'design' options for deployment configuration (Kravitz et al., 2016), ranging from deployment timing, extent, placement, to aerosol selection (Pope et al., 2012; Keith et al., 2016; MacMartin et al., 2017, 2019; Kravitz et al., 2019; Visioni et al., 2020a).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pope, F. D., Braesicke, P., Grainger, R. G., Kalberer, M., Watson, I. M., Davidson, P. J., & Cox, R. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Pope, F. D.
  • Grainger, R. G.
Venue
Nature Climate Change
Published
2012-08-12
Volume
2
Issue
10
Pages
713-719
ISSN
  • 1758-678X (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-6798
OpenAlex
W2088139058
Cited by
109
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
5.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature Climate Change (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/I01473X/1)
  • Natural Environment Research Council (ncas10009, come20001, earth010004)
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
solar radiation management, stratospheric aerosol injection, geoengineering, mineral dust, light scattering, climate change mitigation, ozone layer, volcanic aerosols, aerosol chemical composition, aerosol particle size

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