CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 13Climate Change and GeoengineeringAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols

Injecting solid particles into the stratosphere could mitigate global warming but currently entails great uncertainties

Open access
Vattioni, Sandro, Peter, Thomas, Weber, Rahel, Dykema, John A., Luo, Beiping, Stenke, Andrea, Feinberg, Aryeh, Sukhodolov, Timofei +6 more·2025·Communications Earth & Environment
DOI 10.1038/s43247-025-02038-1PMC PMC11845316
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Stratospheric aerosol injection could mitigate harmful effects of global warming, but could have undesirable side effects, such as warming the stratosphere and depleting the ozone layer. We explore the potential benefits of solid alumina and calcite particles as alternatives to sulfate aerosols by using an experimentally informed aerosol-chemistry-climate model. Compared to sulfur dioxide, injection of solids reduces stratospheric warming by up to 70% and diffuse radiation by up to 40%, highlighting their potential benefits. Achieving −1 W m−2 of radiative forcing would likely result in very small ozone changes, but sizable uncertainties remain. These arise from poorly understood heterogeneous chemical and microphysical processes, which, under less likely assumptions, could lead to larger global ozone column changes between −14% and +4%. Our work provides recommendations for improving the understanding of stratospheric aerosol injection using materials other than sulfur dioxide, and underscores the need for kinetic laboratory studies. Solar radiation modification by stratospheric solid particle injection could significantly reduce risks from stratospheric heating compared with equivalent sulfate aerosol injection, but impacts on global ozone levels are uncertain, suggest simulations of aerosol microphysics with chemical and radiative interactions.

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 · 10.1038/s43247-025-02038-1

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 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?

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: 57

  1. [1]Budyko, M. Climatic Changes, Vol. 10 (American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, 1977).
  2. [2]Crutzen, P. Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: a contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Clim. Change 77, 211–220 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  3. [4]MacMartin, D. G., Ricke, K. L. & Keith, D. W. Solar geoengineering as part of an overall strategy for meeting the 1. 5 ∘ C Paris target. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A: Math., Phys. Eng. Sci. 376, 20160454 (2018). PMC5897825 29610384 · DOI
  4. [5]Mills, M. J. et al. Global volcanic aerosol properties derived from emissions, 1990-2014, using cesm1(waccm). J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos. 121, 2332–2348 (2016). · DOI
  5. [6]Sukhodolov, T. et al. Stratospheric aerosol evolution after Pinatubo simulated with a coupled size-resolved aerosol-chemistry-climate model, SOCOL-AERv1.0. Geosci. Model Dev. 11, 2633–2647 (2018). · DOI
  6. [7]Feinberg, A. et al. Improved tropospheric and stratospheric sulfur cycle in the aerosol–chemistry–climate model SOCOL-AERv2. Geosci. Model Dev. 12, 3863–3887 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  7. [8]Timmreck, C. et al. The interactive stratospheric aerosol model intercomparison project (ISA-MIP): motivation and experimental design. Geosci. Model Dev. 11, 2581–2608 (2018). · DOI
  8. [9]Quaglia, I. et al. Interactive stratospheric aerosol models’ response to different amounts and altitudes of so 2 injection during the 1991 pinatubo eruption. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 23, 921–948 (2023). · DOI
  9. [10]WMO. Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 2022. Glob. Ozone Res. Monit. Proj.,World Meteorol. Organ. 278, 509 (2022).
  10. [11]Wunderlin, E. et al. Side effects of sulfur-based geoengineering due to absorptivity of sulfate aerosols. Geophys. Res. Lett. 51, e2023GL107285 (2024). · DOI · Paper page
  11. [12]Banerjee, A. et al. Robust winter warming over Eurasia under stratospheric sulfate geoengineering – the role of stratospheric dynamics. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 21, 6985–6997 (2021). · DOI
  12. [13]Simpson, I. R. et al. The regional hydroclimate response to stratospheric sulfate geoengineering and the role of stratospheric heating. J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos. 124, 12587–12616 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  13. [14]Niemeier, U., Schmidt, H., Alterskjær, K. & Kristjánsson, J. E. Solar irradiance reduction via climate engineering: impact of different techniques on the energy balance and the hydrological cycle. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118, 905–11 (2013). · DOI
  14. [16]Haywood, J. M., Jones, A., Johnson, B. T. & McFarlane Smith, W. Assessing the consequences of including aerosol absorption in potential stratospheric aerosol injection climate intervention strategies. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 22, 6135–6150 (2022). · DOI
  15. [17]Ferraro, A. J., Highwood, E. J. & Charlton-Perez, A. J. Stratospheric heating by potential geoengineering aerosols. Geophys. Res. Lett.38, L24706 (2011).
  16. [18]Ferraro, A. J., Charlton-Perez, A. J. & Highwood, E. J. Stratospheric dynamics and midlatitude jets under geoengineering with space mirrors and sulfate and titania aerosols. J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos. 120, 414–429 (2015). · DOI
  17. [19]Dykema, J. A., Keith, D. W. & Keutsch, F. N. Improved aerosol radiative properties as a foundation for solar geoengineering risk assessment. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 7758–7766 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  18. [20]Jones, A. C., Haywood, J. M. & Jones, A. Climatic impacts of stratospheric geoengineering with sulfate, black carbon and titania injection. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 16, 2843–2862 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  19. [22]Vattioni, S. et al. Microphysical interactions determine the effectiveness of solar radiation modification via stratospheric solid particle injection. Geophys. Res. Lett. 51, e2024GL110575 (2024). · DOI
  20. [25]Aquila, V., Garfinkel, C. I., Newman, P., Oman, L. & Waugh, D. Modifications of the quasi-biennial oscillation by a geoengineering perturbation of the stratospheric aerosol layer. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 1738–1744 (2014). · DOI · Paper page
  21. [26]Richter, J. H. et al. Stratospheric dynamical response and ozone feedbacks in the presence of SO 2 injections. J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos. 122, 557–12 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  22. [27]Jones, A. et al. The impact of stratospheric aerosol intervention on the North Atlantic and Quasi-Biennial Oscillations in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) G6sulfur experiment. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 22, 2999–3016 (2022). · DOI
  23. [30]Tilmes, S. et al. Stratospheric ozone response to sulfate aerosol and solar dimming climate interventions based on the G6 Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) simulations. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 22, 4557–4579 (2022). · DOI
  24. [31]Bednarz, E. M. et al. Injection strategy – a driver of atmospheric circulation and ozone response to stratospheric aerosol geoengineering. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 23, 13665–13684 (2023). · DOI
  25. [32]Weisenstein, D. K. et al. An interactive stratospheric aerosol model intercomparison of solar geoengineering by stratospheric injection of SO 2 or accumulation-mode sulfuric acid aerosols. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 22, 2955–2973 (2022). · DOI
  26. [38]Newman, R. & Noy, I. The global costs of extreme weather that are attributable to climate change. Nat. Commun. 14, 6103 (2023). 37775690 PMC10541421 · DOI · Paper page
  27. [39]Smith, J. P., Dykema, J. A. & Keith, D. W. Production of Sulfates onboard an aircraft: implications for the cost and feasibility of stratospheric solar geoengineering. Earth Space Sci. 5, 150–162 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  28. [40]Stefanetti, F. et al. Stratospheric injection of solid particles reduces side effects on circulation and climate compared to SO2 injections. Environ. Res.: Clim.3, 045028 (2024).
  29. [41]Banerjee, A. et al. Stratospheric water vapor: an important climate feedback. Clim. Dyn. 53, 1697–1710 (2019). · DOI
  30. [42]Dessler, A. E., Schoeberl, M. R., Wang, T., Davis, S. M. & Rosenlof, K. H. Stratospheric water vapor feedback. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110, 18087–18091 (2013). 24082126 PMC3831493 · DOI
  31. [43]Visioni, D. et al. Reduced poleward transport due to stratospheric heating under stratospheric aerosols geoengineering. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2020GL089470 (2020). · DOI
  32. [44]Eichinger, R. et al. The influence of mixing on the stratospheric age of air changes in the 21st century. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 19, 921–940 (2019). 32793293 PMC7422694 · DOI
  33. [45]Abalos, M. et al. Future trends in stratosphere-to-troposphere transport in ccmi models. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 20, 6883–6901 (2020). · DOI · Paper page
  34. [46]Dagon, K. & Schrag, D. P. Quantifying the effects of solar geoengineering on vegetation. Clim. Change 153, 235–251 (2019). · DOI
  35. [47]Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G. & Caldeira, K. Geoengineering: whiter skies? Geophys. Res. Lett.39, L11801 (2012).
  36. [48]Neimane-Šroma, S., Durand, M., Lintunen, A., Aalto, J. & Robson, T. M. Shedding light on the increased carbon uptake by a boreal forest under diffuse solar radiation across multiple scales. Glob. Change Biol. 30, e17275 (2024). 38624252 · DOI
  37. [49]Mercado, L. M. et al. Impact of changes in diffuse radiation on the global land carbon sink. Nature 458, 1014–1017 (2009). 19396143 · DOI
  38. [50]Sonntag, S. et al. Quantifying and comparing effects of climate engineering methods on the earth system. Earth’s. Future 6, 149–168 (2018). · DOI
  39. [51]Laurent, B., Marticorena, B., Bergametti, G., Léon, J. F. & Mahowald, N. M. Modeling mineral dust emissions from the Sahara desert using new surface properties and soil database. J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos.113, D14218 (2008).
  40. [52]Visioni, D., Pitari, G., Tuccella, P. & Curci, G. Sulfur deposition changes under sulfate geoengineering conditions: quasi-biennial oscillation effects on the transport and lifetime of stratospheric aerosols. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 18, 2787–2808 (2018). · DOI
  41. [53]Zhu, Y. & Shi, Y. Spatio-temporal variations of pm2.5 concentrations and related premature deaths in asia, africa, and europe from 2000 to 2018. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 99, 107046 (2023). · DOI
  42. [54]Molina, M. J., Molina, L. T., Zhang, R., Meads, R. F. & Spencer, D. D. The reaction of clono2 with hcl on aluminum oxide. Geophys. Res. Lett. 24, 1619–1622 (1997). · DOI · Paper page
  43. [55]Ammann, M. et al. Evaluated kinetic and photochemical data for atmospheric chemistry: Volume VI - heterogeneous reactions with liquid substrates. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 13, 8045–8228 (2013). · DOI
  44. [56]Cziczo, D. J., Wolf, M. J., Gasparini, B., Münch, S. & Lohmann, U. Unanticipated side effects of stratospheric albedo modification proposals due to aerosol composition and phase. Sci. Rep. 9, 18825 (2019). 31827104 PMC6906325 · DOI · Paper page
  45. [57]Henry, M. et al. Comparison of ukesm1 and cesm2 simulations using the same multi-target stratospheric aerosol injection strategy. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 23, 13369–13385 (2023). · DOI
  46. [61]Weisenstein, D. K., Penner, J. E., Herzog, M. & Liu, X. Global 2-D intercomparison of sectional and modal aerosol modules. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 7, 2339–2355 (2007). · DOI
  47. [62]Sheng, J. et al. Global atmospheric sulfur budget under volcanically quiescent conditions: aerosol-chemistry-climate model predictions and validation. J. Geophys. Res. - Atmos. 120, 256–276 (2015). · DOI
  48. [64]Clyne, M. et al. Model physics and chemistry causing intermodel disagreement within the VolMIP-Tambora Interactive Stratospheric Aerosol ensemble. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 21, 3317–3343 (2021). · DOI
  49. [66]Vattioni, S. et al. Exploring accumulation-mode H 2 SO 4 versus SO 2 stratospheric sulfate geoengineering in a sectional aerosol–chemistry–climate model. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 19, 4877–4897 (2019). · DOI
  50. [67]Vattioni, S. et al. Importance of microphysical settings for climate forcing by stratospheric SO 2 injections as modeled by SOCOL-AERv2. Geosci. Model Dev. 17, 4181–4197 (2024). · DOI
  51. [68]Huynh, H. N. & McNeill, V. F. Heterogeneous chemistry of CaCO3 aerosols with HNO3 and HCl. J. Phys. Chem. A 124, 3886–3895 (2020). 32324406 · DOI
  52. [69]Huynh, H. N. & McNeill, V. F. Heterogeneous reactivity of HCl on CaCO3 aerosols at stratospheric temperature. ACS Earth Space Chem. 5, 1896–1901 (2021). · DOI
  53. [70]Pierce, J. R., Weisenstein, D. K., Heckendorn, P., Peter, T. & Keith, D. W. Efficient formation of stratospheric aerosol for climate engineering by emission of condensible vapor from aircraft. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L18805 (2010).
  54. [71]Benduhn, F., Schallock, J. & Lawrence, M. G. Early growth dynamical implications for the steerability of stratospheric solar radiation management via sulfur aerosol particles. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 9956–9963 (2016). · DOI
  55. [73]WMO. Scientific assessment of ozone depletion: 2018. Glob. Ozone Res. Monit. Proj., World Meteorol.Organ. 50, 588 (2018).
  56. [74]Kennedy, J. J., Rayner, N., Atkinson, C. & Killick, R. An ensemble data set of sea surface temperature change from 1850: the met office hadley centre hadsst. 4.0. 0.0 data set. J. Geophys. Res.: Atmos. 124, 7719–7763 (2019). · DOI
  57. [75]Meehl, G. A. et al. Climate change projections in CESM1(CAM5) compared to CCSM4. J. Clim. 26, 6287–6308 (2013). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vattioni, S., Peter, T., Weber, R., Dykema, J. A., Luo, B., Stenke, A., Feinberg, A., Sukhodolov, T., Keutsch, F. N., Ammann, M., Vockenhuber, C., Döbeli, M., Kelesidis, G. A., & Chiodo, G.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss (CH)
  • Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (ES)
  • Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos (CH)
  • Paul Scherrer Institute (CH)
Corresponding author
Vattioni, Sandro
ORCID
Venue
Communications Earth & Environment
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2025-02-21
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
132-132
ISSN
2662-4435 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s43247-025-02038-1
PMC
PMC11845316
OpenAlex
W4407841173
Cited by
13
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 2
FWCI
5.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Communications Earth & Environment (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • DORA Eawag (Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag)) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DORA PSI (Paul Scherrer Institute) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • ETH Zürich Research Collection
Funders
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (PZ00P2_180043, 200020E_219166, 200020_182668,, 206021_170729, 250320_163243)
  • European Commission (ERC StG 101078127)
  • Simons Foundation (SFI-MPS-SRM-00005217, SFI-MPS-SRM-00005223, SFI-MPS-SRM-00005208)
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 injection, solar geoengineering, climate change mitigation, solid particles, alumina particles, calcite particles, sulfate aerosols, stratospheric heating, ozone depletion, radiative forcing, heterogeneous chemistry, aerosol microphysics

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