CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 60Climate Change and GeoengineeringAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsClimate variability and models

Opinion: The scientific and community-building roles of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) – past, present, and future

Open access
Visioni, Daniele, Kravitz, Ben, Robock, Alan, Tilmes, Simone, Haywood, Jim, Boucher, Olivier, Lawrence, Mark, Irvine, Peter +7 more·2023·Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
DOI 10.5194/acp-23-5149-2023

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) is a coordinating framework, started in 2010, that includes a series of standardized climate model experiments aimed at understanding the physical processes and projected impacts of solar geoengineering. Numerous experiments have been conducted, and numerous more have been proposed as “test-bed” experiments, spanning a variety of geoengineering techniques aimed at modifying the planetary radiation budget: stratospheric aerosol injection, marine cloud brightening, surface albedo modification, cirrus cloud thinning, and sunshade mirrors. To date, more than 100 studies have been published that used results from GeoMIP simulations. Here we provide a critical assessment of GeoMIP and its experiments. We discuss its successes and missed opportunities, for instance in terms of which experiments elicited more interest from the scientific community and which did not, and the potential reasons why that happened. We also discuss the knowledge that GeoMIP has contributed to the field of geoengineering research and climate science as a whole: what have we learned in terms of intermodel differences, robustness of the projected outcomes for specific geoengineering methods, and future areas of model development that would be necessary in the future? We also offer multiple examples of cases where GeoMIP experiments were fundamental for international assessments of climate change. Finally, we provide a series of recommendations, regarding both future experiments and more general activities, with the goal of continuously deepening our understanding of the effects of potential geoengineering approaches and reducing uncertainties in climate outcomes, important for assessing wider impacts on societies and ecosystems. In doing so, we refine the purpose of GeoMIP and outline a series of criteria whereby GeoMIP can best serve its participants, stakeholders, and the broader science community.

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 · 10.5194/acp-23-5149-2023

Cites

18 of 18 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?

  • For SAI, critical gaps include ozone-depleting chemical reactions triggered by aerosols.

    “ozone-depleting chemical reactions triggered by aerosols”

    From Past Field Experiments of Solar Radiation Modification: A Review of the Scientific and Technical Aspects for Governance (2026) · cites this paper as Visioni et al., 2023

    Section 2.3 identifies a gap in models' ability to represent the heterogeneous chemistry processes crucial to ozone chemistry in stratospheric aerosol injection. Section 6.1.2 also describes ozone changes as a problem for which alternative aerosol materials have been proposed. Neither passage specifies that the reactions deplete ozone, so the direction of the claimed effect is not established by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The GeoMIP opinion reinforces the importance of scientific justification, uncertainty analysis, and reversibility within modeling frameworks used to inform experimental design.

    “The GeoMIP opinion reinforces the importance of scientific justification, uncertainty analysis, and reversibility within modeling frameworks used to inform experimental design”

    From Past Field Experiments of Solar Radiation Modification: A Review of the Scientific and Technical Aspects for Governance (2026) · cites this paper as Visioni et al., 2023

    Section 6.2 (page not available) calls for scientifically relevant GeoMIP scenarios, and section 7 discusses ways to examine model uncertainty. The paper also discusses modeling the effects of abruptly ending geoengineering in section 6.1.1, but it does not identify reversibility as a criterion for experiment design. Its recommendations concern modeling experiments, not the design of outdoor experiments. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 155

  1. Abiodun, B. J., Odoulami, R. C., Sawadogo, W., Oloniyo, O. A., Abatan, A. A., New, M., Lennard, C., Izidine, P., Eg- bebiyi, T. S., and MacMartin, D. G.: Potential impacts of stratospheric aerosol injection on drought risk managements over major river basins in Africa, Climatic Change, 169, 31, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03268-w, 2021. · DOI
  2. Ahlm, L., Jones, A., Stjern, C. W., Muri, H., Kravitz, B., and Kristjánsson, J. E.: Marine cloud brightening -as effec- tive without clouds, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 13071-13087, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-13071-2017, 2017. · DOI
  3. Alterskjaer, K., Kristjánsson, J. E., Boucher, O., Muri, H., Niemeier, U., Schmidt, H., Schulz, M., and Timmreck, C.: Sea-salt injections into the low-latitude marine bound- ary layer: The transient response in three Earth sys- tem models, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 12195-12206, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020432, 2013. · DOI
  4. Angel, R.: Feasibility of cooling the Earth with a cloud of small spacecraft near the inner Lagrange point (L1), P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 103, 17184-17189, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0608163103, 2006. · DOI
  5. Aswathy, V. N., Boucher, O., Quaas, M., Niemeier, U., Muri, H., Mülmenstädt, J., and Quaas, J.: Climate extremes in multi-model simulations of stratospheric aerosol and marine cloud brighten- ing climate engineering, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 9593-9610, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-9593-2015, 2015. · DOI
  6. Bal, P. K., Pathak, R., Mishra, S. K., and Sahany, S.: Effects of global warming and solar geoengineering on precipitation seasonality, Environ. Res. Lett., 14, 034011, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aafc7d, 2019. · DOI
  7. Bednarz, E. M., Visioni, D., Banerjee, A., Braesicke, P., Kravitz, B., and MacMartin, D. G.: The Overlooked Role of the Stratosphere Under a Solar Constant Reduction, Geophys. Res. Lett., 49, e2022GL098773, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL098773, 2022. · DOI · Paper page
  8. Benduhn, F., Schallock, J., and Lawrence, M. G.: Early growth dy- namical implications for the steerability of stratospheric solar ra- diation management via sulfur aerosol particles, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 9956-9963, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL070701, 2016. · DOI
  9. Bengtsson, L.: Geo-Engineering to Confine Climate Change: Is it at all Feasible?, Climatic Change, 77, 229, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9133-3, 2006. · DOI
  10. Berdahl, M., Robock, A., Ji, D., Moore, J. C., Jones, A., Kravitz, B., and Watanabe, S.: Arctic cryosphere response in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project G3 and G4 scenarios, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 1308-1321, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020627, 2014. · DOI
  11. Boettcher, M. and Schäfer, S.: Reflecting upon 10 years of geoengineering research: Introduction to the Crutzen + 10 special issue, Earth's Future, 5, 266-277, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000521, 2017. · DOI
  12. Boucher, O., Schwartz, S. E., Ackerman, T. P., Anderson, T. L., Bergstrom, B., Bonnel, B., Chýlek, P., Dahlback, A., Fouquart, Y., Fu, Q., Halthore, R. N., Haywood, J. M., Iversen, T., Kato, S., Kinne, S., Kirkevåg, A., Knapp, K. R., Lacis, A., Laszlo, I., Mishchenko, M. I., Nemesure, S., Ramaswamy, V., Roberts, D. L., Russell, P., Schlesinger, M. E., Stephens, G. L., Wa- gener, R., Wang, M., Wong, J., and Yang, F.: Intercomparison of models representing direct shortwave radiative forcing by sulfate aerosols, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 103, 16979-16998, https://doi.org/10.1029/98JD00997, 1998. · DOI
  13. Budyko, M. I.: The Climate of the Future, American Geophysical Union, https://doi.org/10.1029/EO053i010p00868, 1978. · DOI
  14. Butchart, N., Anstey, J. A., Hamilton, K., Osprey, S., McLandress, C., Bushell, A. C., Kawatani, Y., Kim, Y.-H., Lott, F., Scinocca, J., Stockdale, T. N., Andrews, M., Bellprat, O., Braesicke, P., Cagnazzo, C., Chen, C.-C., Chun, H.-Y., Dobrynin, M., Garcia, R. R., Garcia-Serrano, J., Gray, L. J., Holt, L., Kerzenmacher, T., Naoe, H., Pohlmann, H., Richter, J. H., Scaife, A. A., Schen- zinger, V., Serva, F., Versick, S., Watanabe, S., Yoshida, K., and Yukimoto, S.: Overview of experiment design and comparison of models participating in phase 1 of the SPARC Quasi-Biennial Oscillation initiative (QBOi), Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1009- 1032, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1009-2018, 2018. · DOI
  15. Cess, R. D., Potter, G. L., Blanchet, J. P., Boer, G. J., Ghan, S. J., Kiehl, J. T., Treut, H. L., Li, Z.-X., Liang, X.-Z., Mitchell, J. F. B., Morcrette, J.-J., Randall, D. A., Riches, M. R., Roeckner, E., Schlese, U., Slingo, A., Taylor, K. E., Washington, W. M., Wetherald, R. T., and Yagai, I.: Interpre- tation of Cloud-Climate Feedback as Produced by 14 Atmo- spheric General Circulation Models, Science, 245, 513-516, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.245.4917.513, 1989. · DOI
  16. Chen, D., Rojas, M., Samset, B. H., Cobb, K., Diongue Niang, A., Edwards, P., Emori, S., Faria, S. H., Hawkins, E., Hope, P., Huybrechts, P., Meinshausen, M., Mustafa, S. K., Plattner, G. K., and Tréguier, A. M.: Framing, Context, and Methods, in: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, Contri- bution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, book section 1, edited by: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M. I., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J. B. R., Maycock, T. K., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and Zhou, B., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/ downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_01.pdf (last ac- cess: 3 May 2023), 2021.
  17. Chen, Y., Liu, A., and Moore, J. C.: Mitigation of Arctic permafrost carbon loss through stratospheric aerosol geoengineering, Nat. Commun., 11, 2430, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16357- 8, 2020. · DOI
  18. Chrysanthou, A., Maycock, A. C., Chipperfield, M. P., Dhomse, S., Garny, H., Kinnison, D., Akiyoshi, H., Deushi, M., Garcia, R. R., Jöckel, P., Kirner, O., Pitari, G., Plummer, D. A., Rev- ell, L., Rozanov, E., Stenke, A., Tanaka, T. Y., Visioni, D., and Yamashita, Y.: The effect of atmospheric nudging on the strato- spheric residual circulation in chemistry-climate models, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 11559-11586, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19- 11559-2019, 2019. · DOI
  19. Chung, E.-S. and Soden, B. J.: An Assessment of Direct Radia- tive Forcing, Radiative Adjustments, and Radiative Feedbacks in Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Models, J. Climate, 28, 4152- 4170, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00436.1, 2015. · DOI
  20. Cicerone, R. J.: Geoengineering: Encouraging Research and Overseeing Implementation, Climatic Change, 77, 221-226, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9102-x, 2006. · DOI
  21. Clyne, M., Lamarque, J.-F., Mills, M. J., Khodri, M., Ball, W., Bekki, S., Dhomse, S. S., Lebas, N., Mann, G., Marshall, L., Niemeier, U., Poulain, V., Robock, A., Rozanov, E., Schmidt, A., Stenke, A., Sukhodolov, T., Timmreck, C., Toohey, M., Tum- mon, F., Zanchettin, D., Zhu, Y., and Toon, O. B.: Model physics and chemistry causing intermodel disagreement within the VolMIP-Tambora Interactive Stratospheric Aerosol ensemble, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 331-3343, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp- 21-3317-2021, 2021. · DOI
  22. Collins, W. D., Ramaswamy, V., Schwarzkopf, M. D., Sun, Y., Port- mann, R. W., Fu, Q., Casanova, S. E. B., Dufresne, J.-L., Fill- more, D. W., Forster, P. M. D., Galin, V. Y., Gohar, L. K., Ingram, W. J., Kratz, D. P., Lefebvre, M.-P., Li, J., Marquet, P., Oinas, V., Tsushima, Y., Uchiyama, T., and Zhong, W. Y.: Radiative forcing by well-mixed greenhouse gases: Estimates from climate mod- els in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 111, D14317, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006713, 2006. · DOI
  23. Coupe, J. and Robock, A.: The Influence of Stratospheric Soot and Sulfate Aerosols on the Northern Hemisphere Winter- time Atmospheric Circulation, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126, e2020JD034513, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD034513, 2021. · DOI
  24. Crutzen, P. J.: Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injec- tions: A Contribution to Resolve a Policy Dilemma?, Climatic Change, 77, 211-220, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9101- y, 2006. · DOI · Paper page
  25. Dai, Z., Weisenstein, D. K., and Keith, D. W.: Tailoring Merid- ional and Seasonal Radiative Forcing by Sulfate Aerosol Solar Geoengineering, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 1030-1039, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076472, 2018. · DOI
  26. DallaSanta, K. and Polvani, L. M.: Volcanic stratospheric injections up to 160 Tg(S) yield a Eurasian winter warming indistinguish- able from internal variability, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 8843- 8862, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-8843-2022, 2022. · DOI
  27. Davis, N. A., Davis, S. M., Portmann, R. W., Ray, E., Rosenlof, K. H., and Yu, P.: A comprehensive assessment of tropical strato- spheric upwelling in the specified dynamics Community Earth System Model 1.2.2 -Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model (CESM (WACCM)), Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 717-734, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-717-2020, 2020. · DOI
  28. DeAngelis, A. M., Qu, X., Zelinka, M. D., and Hall, A.: An ob- servational radiative constraint on hydrologic cycle intensifica- tion, Nature, 528, 249-253, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15770, 2015. · DOI
  29. Diamond, M. S., Gettelman, A., Lebsock, M. D., McComiskey, A., Russell, L. M., Wood, R., and Feingold, G.: To assess ma- rine cloud brightening's technical feasibility, we need to know what to study -and when to stop, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 119, e2118379119, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2118379119, 2022. · DOI
  30. Dong, Y., Proistosescu, C., Armour, K. C., and Battisti, D. S.: At- tributing Historical and Future Evolution of Radiative Feedbacks to Regional Warming Patterns using a Green's Function Ap- proach: The Preeminence of the Western Pacific, J. Climate, 32, 5471-5491, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0843.1, 2019. · DOI
  31. Dykema, J. A., Keith, D. W., and Keutsch, F. N.: Improved aerosol radiative properties as a foundation for solar geoengi- neering risk assessment, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 7758-7766, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL069258, 2016. · DOI · Paper page
  32. Eichinger, R., Dietmüller, S., Garny, H., Šácha, P., Birner, T., Bönisch, H., Pitari, G., Visioni, D., Stenke, A., Rozanov, E., Rev- ell, L., Plummer, D. A., Jöckel, P., Oman, L., Deushi, M., Kinni- son, D. E., Garcia, R., Morgenstern, O., Zeng, G., Stone, K. A., and Schofield, R.: The influence of mixing on the stratospheric age of air changes in the 21st century, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 921-940, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-921-2019, 2019. · DOI
  33. Ekström, M., Grose, M. R., and Whetton, P. H.: An appraisal of downscaling methods used in climate change research, WIREs Clim. Change, 6, 301-319, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.339, 2015. · DOI
  34. Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimen- tal design and organization, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1937-1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, 2016. · DOI · Paper page
  35. Ferraro, A. J. and Griffiths, H. G.: Quantifying the temperature- independent effect of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering on global-mean precipitation in a multi-model ensemble, En- viron. Res. Lett., 11, 034012, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748- 9326/11/3/034012, 2016. · DOI
  36. Ferraro, A. J., Charlton-Perez, A. J., and Highwood, E. J.: Strato- spheric dynamics and midlatitude jets under geoengineering with space mirrors and sulfate and titania aerosols, J. Geophys. Res.- Atmos., 120, 414-429, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022734, 2015. · DOI
  37. Franke, H., Niemeier, U., and Visioni, D.: Differences in the quasi-biennial oscillation response to stratospheric aerosol mod- ification depending on injection strategy and species, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 8615-8635, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21- 8615-2021, 2021. · DOI · Paper page
  38. Gabriel, C. J., Robock, A., Xia, L., Zambri, B., and Kravitz, B.: The G4Foam Experiment: global climate impacts of regional ocean albedo modification, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 595-613, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-595-2017, 2017. · DOI
  39. Gasparini, B., Meyer, A., Neubauer, D., Münch, S., and Lohmann, U.: Cirrus Cloud Properties as Seen by the CALIPSO Satel- lite and ECHAM-HAM Global Climate Model, J. Climate, 31, 1983-2003, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0608.1, 2018. · DOI
  40. Gasparini, B., McGraw, Z., Storelvmo, T., and Lohmann, U.: To what extent can cirrus cloud seeding counteract global warming?, Environ. Res. Lett., 15, 054002, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748- 9326/ab71a3, 2020. · DOI
  41. Golja, C. M., Chew, L. W., Dykema, J. A., and Keith, D. W.: Aerosol Dynamics in the Near Field of the SCoPEx Stratospheric Balloon Experiment, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126, e2020JD033438, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033438, 2021. · DOI
  42. Govindasamy, B., Caldeira, K., and Duffy, P.: Geoengineering Earth's radiation balance to mitigate climate change from a quadrupling of CO 2 , Global Planet. Change, 37, 157-168, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8181(02)00195-9, 2003. · DOI
  43. Harding, A. R., Ricke, K., Heyen, D., MacMartin, D. G., and Moreno-Cruz, J.: Climate econometric models indicate solar geoengineering would reduce inter-country income inequality, Nat. Commun., 11, 227, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019- 13957-x, 2020. · DOI
  44. Harrop, B. E., Lu, J., Liu, F., Garuba, O. A., and Leung, L. R.: Sensitivity of the ITCZ Location to Ocean Forcing Via Q-Flux Green's Function Experiments, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 13116- 13123, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL080772, 2018. · DOI
  45. Hawkins, E. and Sutton, R.: The Potential to Narrow Uncertainty in Regional Climate Predictions, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 90, 1095- 1108, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009BAMS2607.1, 2009. · DOI · Paper page
  46. Haywood, J. M., Jones, A., Bellouin, N., and Stephenson, D.: Asymmetric forcing from stratospheric aerosols im- pacts Sahelian rainfall, Nat. Clim. Change, 3, 660-665, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1857, 2013. · DOI · Paper page
  47. Haywood, J. M., Jones, A., Dunstone, N., Milton, S., Vellinga, M., Bodas-Salcedo, A., Hawcroft, M., Kravitz, B., Cole, J., Watanabe, S., and Stephens, G.: The impact of equilibrating hemispheric albedos on tropical performance in the HadGEM2- ES coupled climate model, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 395-403, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL066903, 2016. · DOI
  48. Irvine, P. J., Boucher, O., Kravitz, B., Alterskjær, K., Cole, J. N. S., Ji, D., Jones, A., Lunt, D. J., Moore, J. C., Muri, H., Niemeier, U., Robock, A., Singh, B., Tilmes, S., Watan- abe, S., Yang, S., and Yoon, J.-H.: Key factors governing uncertainty in the response to sunshade geoengineering from a comparison of the GeoMIP ensemble and a perturbed pa- rameter ensemble, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 7946-7962, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020716, 2014. · DOI
  49. Irvine, P. J., Kravitz, B., Lawrence, M. G., Gerten, D., Caminade, C., Gosling, S. N., Hendy, E. J., Kassie, B. T., Kissling, W. D., Muri, H., Oschlies, A., and Smith, S. J.: Towards a comprehen- sive climate impacts assessment of solar geoengineering, Earth's Future, 5, 93-106, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000389, 2017. · DOI · Paper page
  50. Jackson, L. S., Crook, J. A., Jarvis, A., Leedal, D., Ridg- well, A., Vaughan, N., and Forster, P. M.: Assessing the controllability of Arctic sea ice extent by sulfate aerosol geoengineering, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 1223-1231, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL062240, 2015. · DOI
  51. Jones, A. and Haywood, J. M.: Sea-spray geoengineering in the HadGEM2-ES earth-system model: radiative impact and climate response, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 10887-10898, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-10887-2012, 2012. · DOI
  52. Jones, A., Haywood, J., and Boucher, O.: Climate impacts of geoengineering marine stratocumulus clouds, J. Geophys. Res.- Atmos., 114, D10106, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011450, 2009. · DOI · Paper page
  53. Jones, A., Haywood, J., Boucher, O., Kravitz, B., and Robock, A.: Geoengineering by stratospheric SO 2 injection: results from the Met Office HadGEM2 climate model and compari- son with the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE, At- mos. Chem. Phys., 10, 5999-6006, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp- 10-5999-2010, 2010. · DOI
  54. Jones, A., Haywood, J. M., Alterskjær, K., Boucher, O., Cole, J. N. S., Curry, C. L., Irvine, P. J., Ji, D., Kravitz, B., Egill Kristjáns- son, J., Moore, J. C., Niemeier, U., Robock, A., Schmidt, H., Singh, B., Tilmes, S., Watanabe, S., and Yoon, J.-H.: The impact of abrupt suspension of solar radiation management (termination effect) in experiment G2 of the Geoengineering Model Intercom- parison Project (GeoMIP), J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 9743- 9752, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50762, 2013. · DOI
  55. Jones, A., Haywood, J. M., Jones, A. C., Tilmes, S., Kravitz, B., and Robock, A.: North Atlantic Oscillation response in Ge- oMIP experiments G6solar and G6sulfur: why detailed mod- elling is needed for understanding regional implications of so- lar radiation management, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 1287-1304, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1287-2021, 2021. · DOI
  56. Jones, A. C., Haywood, J. M., and Jones, A.: Climatic im- pacts of stratospheric geoengineering with sulfate, black car- bon and titania injection, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 2843-2862, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-2843-2016, 2016. · DOI · Paper page
  57. Jones, A. L., Feldman, D. R., Freidenreich, S., Paynter, D., Ramaswamy, V., Collins, W. D., and Pincus, R.: A New Paradigm for Diagnosing Contributions to Model Aerosol Forcing Error, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 12004-12012, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075933, 2017. · DOI
  58. Kiehl, J. T.: Geoengineering climate Change: Treating the symptom over the cause?, Climatic Change, 77, 227-228, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9132-4, 2006. · DOI
  59. Kleidon, A., Kravitz, B., and Renner, M.: The hydrological sensi- tivity to global warming and solar geoengineering derived from thermodynamic constraints, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 138-144, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL062589, 2015. · DOI
  60. Kotlarski, S., Keuler, K., Christensen, O. B., Colette, A., Déqué, M., Gobiet, A., Goergen, K., Jacob, D., Lüthi, D., van Meij- gaard, E., Nikulin, G., Schär, C., Teichmann, C., Vautard, R., Warrach-Sagi, K., and Wulfmeyer, V.: Regional climate model- ing on European scales: a joint standard evaluation of the EURO- CORDEX RCM ensemble, Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 1297-1333, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-1297-2014, 2014. · DOI
  61. Kravitz, B. and MacMartin, D. G.: Uncertainty and the basis for confidence in solar geoengineering research, Nat. Rev. Earth Environ., 1, 64-75, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-019-0004-7, 2020. · DOI
  62. Kravitz, B., Robock, A., Boucher, O., Schmidt, H., Taylor, K. E., Stenchikov, G., and Schulz, M.: The Geoengineering Model In- tercomparison Project (GeoMIP), Atmos. Sci. Lett., 12, 162- 167, https://doi.org/10.1002/asl.316, 2011. · DOI
  63. Kravitz, B., Robock, A., Shindell, D. T., and Miller, M. A.: Sensitiv- ity of stratospheric geoengineering with black carbon to aerosol size and altitude of injection, J. Geophys. Res., 117, D09203, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD017341, 2012. · DOI
  64. Kravitz, B., Rasch, P. J., Forster, P. M., Andrews, T., Cole, J. N., Irvine, P. J., Ji, D., Kristjánsson, J. E., Moore, J. C., Muri, H., Niemeier, U., Robock, A., Singh, B., Tilmes, S., Watan- abe, S., and Yoon, J. H.: An energetic perspective on hydro- logical cycle changes in the Geoengineering Model Intercom- parison Project, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 13087-13102, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020502, 2013. · DOI
  65. Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Robock, A., Rasch, P. J., Ricke, K. L., Cole, J. N. S., Curry, C. L., Irvine, P. J., Ji, D., Keith, D. W., Kristjánsson, J. E., Moore, J. C., Muri, H., Singh, B., Tilmes, S., Watanabe, S., Yang, S., and Yoon, J.-H.: A multi-model assess- ment of regional climate disparities caused by solar geoengineer- ing, Environ. Res. Lett., 9, 074013, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748- 9326/9/7/074013, 2014. · DOI
  66. Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Wang, H., and Rasch, P. J.: Geoengi- neering as a design problem, Earth Syst. Dynam., 7, 469-497, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-469-2016, 2016. · DOI · Paper page
  67. Kravitz, B., Rasch, P. J., Wang, H., Robock, A., Gabriel, C., Boucher, O., Cole, J. N. S., Haywood, J., Ji, D., Jones, A., Lenton, A., Moore, J. C., Muri, H., Niemeier, U., Phipps, S., Schmidt, H., Watanabe, S., Yang, S., and Yoon, J.-H.: The cli- mate effects of increasing ocean albedo: an idealized represen- tation of solar geoengineering, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 13097- 13113, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-13097-2018, 2018. · DOI
  68. Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., Mills, M. J., Cheng, W., Dagon, K., Glanville, A. S., Lamarque, J.-F., Simpson, I. R., Tribbia, J., and Vitt, F.: Comparing Surface and Stratospheric Impacts of Geoengineering With Different SO 2 In- jection Strategies, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 7900-7918, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD030329, 2019. · DOI
  69. Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D. G., Visioni, D., Boucher, O., Cole, J. N. S., Haywood, J., Jones, A., Lurton, T., Nabat, P., Niemeier, U., Robock, A., Séférian, R., and Tilmes, S.: Comparing differ- ent generations of idealized solar geoengineering simulations in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 423-4247, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp- 21-4231-2021, 2021. · DOI
  70. Kuswanto, H., Kravitz, B., Miftahurrohmah, B., Fauzi, F., Sopa- haluwaken, A., and Moore, J.: Impact of solar geoengineering on temperatures over the Indonesian Maritime Continent, Int. J. Cli- matol., 42, 2795-2814, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.7391, 2022. · DOI
  71. Laakso, A., Korhonen, H., Romakkaniemi, S., and Kokkola, H.: Radiative and climate effects of stratospheric sulfur geo- engineering using seasonally varying injection areas, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 6957-6974, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17- 6957-2017, 2017. · DOI · Paper page
  72. Laakso, A., Niemeier, U., Visioni, D., Tilmes, S., and Kokkola, H.: Dependency of the impacts of geoengineering on the strato- spheric sulfur injection strategy -Part 1: Intercomparison of modal and sectional aerosol modules, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 93-118, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-93-2022, 2022. · DOI
  73. Latham, J.: Control of global warming?, Nature, 347, 339-340, https://doi.org/10.1038/347339b0, 1990. · DOI
  74. Lawrence, D. M., Hurtt, G. C., Arneth, A., Brovkin, V., Calvin, K. V., Jones, A. D., Jones, C. D., Lawrence, P. J., de Noblet- Ducoudré, N., Pongratz, J., Seneviratne, S. I., and Shevliakova, E.: The Land Use Model Intercomparison Project (LUMIP) con- tribution to CMIP6: rationale and experimental design, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 2973-2998, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2973- 2016, 2016. · DOI
  75. Lawrence, M. G.: The Geoengineering Dilemma: To Speak or not to Speak, Climatic Change, 77, 245-248, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9131-5, 2006. · DOI
  76. Lawrence, M. G. and Crutzen, P. J.: Was breaking the taboo on re- search on climate engineering via albedo modification a moral hazard, or a moral imperative?, Earth's Future, 5, 136-143, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000463, 2017. · DOI
  77. Lee, L. A., Reddington, C. L., and Carslaw, K. S.: On the rela- tionship between aerosol model uncertainty and radiative forc- ing uncertainty, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 113, 5820-5827, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1507050113, 2016. · DOI
  78. Lee, W. R., MacMartin, D. G., Visioni, D., and Kravitz, B.: High- Latitude Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering Can Be More Ef- fective if Injection Is Limited to Spring, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2021GL092696, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL092696, 2021. · DOI · Paper page
  79. Lee, W. R., MacMartin, D. G., Visioni, D., Kravitz, B., Chen, Y., Moore, J. C., Leguy, G., Lawrence, D. M., and Bai- ley, D. A.: High-Latitude Stratospheric Aerosol Injection to Preserve the Arctic, Earth's Future, 11, e2022EF003052, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EF003052, 2023. · DOI
  80. Lehner, F., Deser, C., Maher, N., Marotzke, J., Fischer, E. M., Brun- ner, L., Knutti, R., and Hawkins, E.: Partitioning climate pro- jection uncertainty with multiple large ensembles and CMIP5/6, Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 491-508, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd- 11-491-2020, 2020. · DOI
  81. Lenton, T. M., Held, H., Kriegler, E., Hall, J. W., Lucht, W., Rahmstorf, S., and Schellnhuber, H. J.: Tipping elements in the Earth's climate system, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 105, 1786- 1793, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0705414105, 2008. · DOI · Paper page
  82. Liu, F., Gao, C., Chai, J., Robock, A., Wang, B., Li, J., Zhang, X., Huang, G., and Dong, W.: Tropical volcanism enhanced the East Asian summer monsoon during the last millennium, Nat. Commun., 13, 3429, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-31108- 7, 2022. · DOI
  83. Long, J. C. S. and Shepherd, J. G.: The Strategic Value of Geoengi- neering Research, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 757-770, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5784-4_24, 2014. · DOI
  84. MacCracken, M. C.: Geoengineering: Worthy of Cau- tious Evaluation?, Climatic Change, 77, 235-243, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9130-6, 2006. · DOI
  85. MacMartin, D. G. and Kravitz, B.: Dynamic climate emulators for solar geoengineering, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 15789-15799, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-15789-2016, 2016. · DOI
  86. MacMartin, D. G. and Kravitz, B.: Mission-driven research for stratospheric aerosol geoengineering, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 116, 1089-1094, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1811022116, 2019. · DOI
  87. MacMartin, D. G., Ricke, K. L., and Keith, D. W.: Solar geo- engineering as part of an overall strategy for meeting the 1.5 • C Paris target, Philos. T. Roy. Soc. A, 376, 20160454, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0454, 2018. · DOI
  88. MacMartin, D. G., Wang, W., Richter, J. H., Mills, M. J., Kravitz, B., and Tilmes, S.: Timescale for Detecting the Climate Response to Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering, J. Geophys. Res.- Atmos., 124, 1233-1247, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018jd028906, 2019. · DOI
  89. MacMartin, D. G., Visioni, D., Kravitz, B., Richter, J., Fel- genhauer, T., Lee, W. R., Morrow, D. R., Parson, E. A., and Sugiyama, M.: Scenarios for modeling solar radiation modification, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 119, e2202230119, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2202230119, 2022. · DOI
  90. McLaren, D. and Corry, O.: Clash of Geofutures and the Re- making of Planetary Order: Faultlines underlying Conflicts over Geoengineering Governance, Global Policy, 12, 20-33, https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12863, 2021. · DOI · Paper page
  91. Melnikova, I., Boucher, O., Cadule, P., Tanaka, K., Gasser, T., Hajima, T., Quilcaille, Y., Shiogama, H., Séférian, R., Tachi- iri, K., Vuichard, N., Yokohata, T., and Ciais, P.: Impact of bioenergy crop expansion on climate-carbon cycle feed- backs in overshoot scenarios, Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 779-794, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-779-2022, 2022. · DOI
  92. Moore, J. C., Grinsted, A., Guo, X., Yu, X., Jevrejeva, S., Rinke, A., Cui, X., Kravitz, B., Lenton, A., Watanabe, S., and Ji, D.: Atlantic hurricane surge response to geo- engineering, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 112, 13794-13799, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1510530112, 2015. · DOI
  93. Morgenstern, O., Hegglin, M. I., Rozanov, E., O'Connor, F. M., Abraham, N. L., Akiyoshi, H., Archibald, A. T., Bekki, S., Butchart, N., Chipperfield, M. P., Deushi, M., Dhomse, S. S., Garcia, R. R., Hardiman, S. C., Horowitz, L. W., Jöckel, P., Josse, B., Kinnison, D., Lin, M., Mancini, E., Manyin, M. E., Marchand, M., Marécal, V., Michou, M., Oman, L. D., Pitari, G., Plummer, D. A., Revell, L. E., Saint-Martin, D., Schofield, R., Stenke, A., Stone, K., Sudo, K., Tanaka, T. Y., Tilmes, S., Yamashita, Y., Yoshida, K., and Zeng, G.: Review of the global models used within phase 1 of the Chemistry-Climate Model Initiative (CCMI), Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 639-671, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-639-2017, 2017. · DOI
  94. Muller, W. A., Jungclaus, J. H., Mauritsen, T., Baehr, J., Bit- tner, M., Budich, R., Bunzel, F., Esch, M., Ghosh, R., Haak, H., Ilyina, T., Kleine, T., Kornblueh, L., Li, H., Modali, K., Notz, D., Pohlmann, H., Roeckner, E., Stemm- ler, I., Tian, F., and Marotzke, J.: A Higher-resolution Ver- sion of the Max Planck Institute Earth System Model (MPI- ESM1.2-HR), J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 10, 1383-1413, https://doi.org/10.1029/2017MS001217, 2018. · DOI
  95. Muri, H., Kristjánsson, J. E., Storelvmo, T., and Pfeffer, M. A.: The climatic effects of modifying cirrus clouds in a climate engi- neering framework, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 4174-4191, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD021063, 2014. · DOI · Paper page
  96. Nakicenovic, N., Davidson, O., Davis, G., Grübler, Arnulf, Kram, T., La Lebre Rovere, E., Metz, B., Morita, T., Pep- per, P. H., Sankovski, A., Shukla, P., Swart, R., Watson, R., and Dadi, Z.: IPCC Special Report: Emissions scenarios: Sum- mary for policymakers, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Genf, https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ sres-en.pdf (last access: 3 May 2023), 2000. National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine: Re- flecting Sunlight: Recommendations for Solar Geoengineering Research and Research Governance, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, https://doi.org/10.17226/25762, 2021. · DOI · Paper page
  97. Niemeier, U., Schmidt, H., Alterskjær, K., and Kristjánsson, J. E.: Solar irradiance reduction via climate engineering: Impact of different techniques on the energy balance and the hydro- logical cycle, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 11905-11917, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020445, 2013. · DOI
  98. Niemeier, U., Richter, J. H., and Tilmes, S.: Differing responses of the quasi-biennial oscillation to artificial SO 2 injections in two global models, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 8975-8987, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-8975-2020, 2020. · DOI
  99. Odaka, T. E., Banihirwe, A., Eynard-Bontemps, G., Ponte, A., Maze, G., Paul, K., Baker, J., and Abernathey, R.: The Pangeo Ecosystem: Interactive Computing Tools for the Geosciences: Benchmarking on HPC, in: Tools and Techniques for High Performance Computing, edited by: Juckeland, G. and Chan- drasekaran, S., Springer International Publishing, Cham, 190- 204, ISBN 9783030447274, 2020.
  100. Orbe, C., Plummer, D. A., Waugh, D. W., Yang, H., Jöckel, P., Kin- nison, D. E., Josse, B., Marecal, V., Deushi, M., Abraham, N. L., Archibald, A. T., Chipperfield, M. P., Dhomse, S., Feng, W., and Bekki, S.: Description and Evaluation of the specified-dynamics experiment in the Chemistry-Climate Model Initiative, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 3809-3840, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20- 3809-2020, 2020. · DOI
  101. Parker, A. and Irvine, P. J.: The Risk of Termination Shock From Solar Geoengineering, Earth's Future, 6, 456-467, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000735, 2018. · DOI · Paper page
  102. Pedersen, J. S. T., van Vuuren, D. P., Aparício, B. A., Swart, R., Gupta, J., and Santos, F. D.: Variability in historical emis- sions trends suggests a need for a wide range of global sce- narios and regional analyses, Commun. Earth Environ., 1, 41, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-020-00045-y, 2020. · DOI
  103. Pierce, J. R., Weisenstein, D. K., Heckendorn, P., Peter, T., and Keith, D. W.: Efficient formation of stratospheric aerosol for climate engineering by emission of condensi- ble vapor from aircraft, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L18805, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL043975, 2010. · DOI · Paper page
  104. Pincus, R., Forster, P. M., and Stevens, B.: The Radiative Forcing Model Intercomparison Project (RFMIP): experimen- tal protocol for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3447-3460, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3447-2016, 2016. · DOI
  105. Pinto, I., Jack, C., Lennard, C., Tilmes, S., and Odoulami, R. C.: Africa's Climate Response to Solar Radiation Man- agement With Stratospheric Aerosol, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2019GL086047, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL086047, 2020. · DOI
  106. Polvani, L. M., Banerjee, A., and Schmidt, A.: Northern Hemisphere continental winter warming following the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption: reconciling models and observations, At- mos. Chem. Phys., 19, 6351-6366, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp- 19-6351-2019, 2019. · DOI
  107. Quaglia, I., Timmreck, C., Niemeier, U., Visioni, D., Pitari, G., Brodowsky, C., Brühl, C., Dhomse, S. S., Franke, H., Laakso, A., Mann, G. W., Rozanov, E., and Sukhodolov, T.: Interactive stratospheric aerosol models' response to different amounts and altitudes of SO 2 injection during the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, At- mos. Chem. Phys., 23, 921-948, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23- 921-2023, 2023. · DOI
  108. Rabitz, F.: Going rogue? Scenarios for uni- lateral geoengineering, Futures, 84, 98-107, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.11.001, 2016. · DOI
  109. Rahman, A. A., Artaxo, P., Asrat, A., and Parker, A.: Developing countries must lead on solar geoengineering research, Nature, 556, 22-24, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-03917-8, 2018. · DOI
  110. Rasch, P. J., Latham, J., and Chen, C.-C. J.: Geoengineering by cloud seeding: influence on sea ice and climate system, Environ. Res. Lett., 4, 045112, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748- 9326/4/4/045112, 2009. · DOI
  111. Reynolds, J. L.: Communication of solar geoengineering sci- ence: Forms, examples, and explanation of skewing, Anthro- pocene Rev., https://doi.org/10.1177/20530196221095569, in press, 2022. · DOI
  112. Richter, J. H., Visioni, D., MacMartin, D. G., Bailey, D. A., Rosenbloom, N., Dobbins, B., Lee, W. R., Tye, M., and Lamarque, J.-F.: Assessing Responses and Impacts of Solar climate intervention on the Earth system with stratospheric aerosol injection (ARISE-SAI): protocol and initial results from the first simulations, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 8221-8243, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8221-2022, 2022. · DOI
  113. Robock, A. and Mao, J.: The Volcanic Signal in Surface Temperature Observations, J. Cli- mate, 8, 1086-1103, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520- 0442(1995)008<1086:TVSIST>2.0.CO;2, 1995. · DOI
  114. Robock, A., Oman, L., and Stenchikov, G. L.: Regional cli- mate responses to geoengineering with tropical and Arc- tic SO 2 injections, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 113, D16101, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010050, 2008. · DOI
  115. Rosenzweig, C., Jones, J. W., Hatfield, J. L., Mutter, C. Z., Adiku, S. G. K., Ahmad, A., Beletse, Y., Gangwar, B., Gun- tuku, D., Kihara, J., Masikati, P., Paramasivan, P., Rao, K. P. C., and Zubair, L.: The Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP): Integrated regional assessment projects, in: ICP Series on Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation, and Mitigation, Vol. 2, Imperial College Press, London, 263-280, https://doi.org/10.1142/9781848169845_0014, 2012. · DOI
  116. Rosenzweig, C., Arnell, N. W., Ebi, K. L., Lotze-Campen, H., Raes, F., Rapley, C., Smith, M. S., Cramer, W., Frieler, K., Reyer, C. P. O., Schewe, J., van Vuuren, D., and Warszawski, L.: As- sessing inter-sectoral climate change risks: the role of ISIMIP, Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 010301, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748- 9326/12/1/010301, 2017. · DOI
  117. Russotto, R. D. and Ackerman, T. P.: Changes in clouds and ther- modynamics under solar geoengineering and implications for re- quired solar reduction, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 11905-11925, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-11905-2018, 2018a. · DOI
  118. Russotto, R. D. and Ackerman, T. P.: Energy transport, polar am- plification, and ITCZ shifts in the GeoMIP G1 ensemble, At- mos. Chem. Phys., 18, 2287-2305, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp- 18-2287-2018, 2018b. · DOI
  119. Schmidt, A., Mills, M. J., Ghan, S., Gregory, J. M., Al- lan, R. P., Andrews, T., Bardeen, C. G., Conley, A., Forster, P. M., Gettelman, A., Portmann, R. W., Solomon, S., and Toon, O. B.: Volcanic Radiative Forcing From 1979 to 2015, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 123, 12491-12508, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD028776, 2018. · DOI
  120. Schmidt, H., Alterskjær, K., Bou Karam, D., Boucher, O., Jones, A., Kristjánsson, J. E., Niemeier, U., Schulz, M., Aaheim, A., Benduhn, F., Lawrence, M., and Timmreck, C.: Solar irradiance reduction to counteract radiative forcing from a quadrupling of CO 2 : climate responses simulated by four earth system models, Earth Syst. Dynam., 3, 63-78, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-3-63- 2012, 2012a. · DOI
  121. Simpson, I., Tilmes, S., Richter, J., Kravitz, B., MacMartin, D., Mills, M., Fasullo, J., and Pendergrass, A.: The regional hy- droclimate response to stratospheric sulfate geoengineering and the role of stratospheric heating, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124, 2019JD031093, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD031093, 2019. · DOI · Paper page
  122. Singh, J., Sahany, S., and Robock, A.: Can stratospheric geoengi- neering alleviate global warming-induced changes in deciduous fruit cultivation? The case of Himachal Pradesh (India), Cli- matic Change, 162, 1323-1343, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584- 020-02786-3, 2020. · DOI
  123. Smith, W., Bhattarai, U., MacMartin, D. G., Lee, W. R., Visioni, D., Kravitz, B., and Rice, C. V.: A subpolar-focused stratospheric aerosol injection deployment scenario, Environ. Res. Commun., 4, 095009, https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ac8cd3, 2022. · DOI
  124. Sourdeval, O., Gryspeerdt, E., Krämer, M., Goren, T., Delanoë, J., Afchine, A., Hemmer, F., and Quaas, J.: Ice crystal number con- centration estimates from lidar-radar satellite remote sensing - Part 1: Method and evaluation, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 14327- 14350, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-14327-2018, 2018. · DOI
  125. Stjern, C. W., Muri, H., Ahlm, L., Boucher, O., Cole, J. N. S., Ji, D., Jones, A., Haywood, J., Kravitz, B., Lenton, A., Moore, J. C., Niemeier, U., Phipps, S. J., Schmidt, H., Watanabe, S., and Kristjánsson, J. E.: Response to marine cloud brightening in a multi-model ensemble, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 621-634, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-621-2018, 2018. · DOI
  126. Storelvmo, T., Kristjansson, J. E., Muri, H., Pfeffer, M., Bara- hona, D., and Nenes, A.: Cirrus cloud seeding has po- tential to cool climate, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 178-182, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL054201, 2013. · DOI
  127. Sun, H., Eastham, S., and Keith, D.: Developing a Plume- in-Grid Model for Plume Evolution in the Strato- sphere, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 14, e2021MS002816, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021MS002816, 2022. The Royal Society: Geoengineering the climate: science, governance and uncertainty, The Royal Society, London, https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/ publications/2009/8693.pdf (last access: 3 May 2023), 2009. · DOI
  128. Tilmes, S., Mills, M. J., Niemeier, U., Schmidt, H., Robock, A., Kravitz, B., Lamarque, J.-F., Pitari, G., and English, J. M.: A new Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) experiment designed for climate and chemistry models, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 43-49, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-43-2015, 2015. · DOI
  129. Tilmes, S., Richter, J. H., Mills, M. J., Kravitz, B., Macmartin, D. G., Vitt, F., Tribbia, J. J., and Lamarque, J. F.: Sensitivity of aerosol distribution and climate response to stratospheric SO 2 in- jection locations, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 12591-12615, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026888, 2017. · DOI
  130. Tilmes, S., MacMartin, D. G., Lenaerts, J. T. M., van Kampen- hout, L., Muntjewerf, L., Xia, L., Harrison, C. S., Krumhardt, K. M., Mills, M. J., Kravitz, B., and Robock, A.: Reaching 1.5 and 2.0 • C global surface temperature targets using strato- spheric aerosol geoengineering, Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 579- 601, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-579-2020, 2020. · DOI
  131. Tilmes, S., Visioni, D., Jones, A., Haywood, J., Séférian, R., Nabat, P., Boucher, O., Bednarz, E. M., and Niemeier, U.: Stratospheric ozone response to sulfate aerosol and solar dimming climate in- terventions based on the G6 Geoengineering Model Intercom- parison Project (GeoMIP) simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 4557-4579, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-4557-2022, 2022. · DOI
  132. Timmreck, C., Mann, G. W., Aquila, V., Hommel, R., Lee, L. A., Schmidt, A., Brühl, C., Carn, S., Chin, M., Dhomse, S. S., Diehl, T., English, J. M., Mills, M. J., Neely, R., Sheng, J., Toohey, M., and Weisenstein, D.: The Interactive Stratospheric Aerosol Model Intercomparison Project (ISA-MIP): motivation and experimental design, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 2581-2608, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2581-2018, 2018. · DOI
  133. Trisos, C. H., Amatulli, G., Gurevitch, J., Robock, A., Xia, L., and Zambri, B.: Potentially dangerous consequences for biodi- versity of solar geoengineering implementation and termination, Nat. Ecol. Evol., 2, 475-482, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559- 017-0431-0, 2018. · DOI · Paper page
  134. Tye, M. R., Dagon, K., Molina, M. J., Richter, J. H., Visioni, D., Kravitz, B., and Tilmes, S.: Indices of extremes: geographic pat- terns of change in extremes and associated vegetation impacts under climate intervention, Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1233-1257, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1233-2022, 2022. · DOI
  135. Vattioni, S., Weisenstein, D., Keith, D., Feinberg, A., Peter, T., and Stenke, A.: 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, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-4877-2019, 2019. · DOI
  136. Virgin, J. G. and Fletcher, C. G.: On the Linearity of Ex- ternal Forcing Response in Solar Geoengineering Ex- periments, Geophys. Res. Lett., 49, e2022GL100200, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL100200, 2022. · DOI
  137. Visioni, D. and Robock, A.: Future Geoengineering Scenarios: Bal- ancing Policy Relevance and Scientific Significance, B. Am. Me- teorol. Soc., 103, E817-E820, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D- 21-0201.1, 2022. · DOI
  138. Visioni, D., Pitari, G., Tuccella, P., and Curci, G.: Sulfur depo- sition changes under sulfate geoengineering conditions: quasi- biennial oscillation effects on the transport and lifetime of stratospheric aerosols, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 2787-2808, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-2787-2018, 2018. · DOI
  139. Visioni, D., MacMartin, D. G., and Kravitz, B.: Is Turning Down the Sun a Good Proxy for Stratospheric Sulfate Geo- engineering?, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126, e2020JD033952, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033952, 2021a. · DOI · Paper page
  140. Visioni, D., MacMartin, D. G., Kravitz, B., Boucher, O., Jones, A., Lurton, T., Martine, M., Mills, M. J., Nabat, P., Niemeier, U., Séférian, R., and Tilmes, S.: Identifying the sources of un- certainty in climate model simulations of solar radiation modi- fication with the G6sulfur and G6solar Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 10039-10063, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-10039- 2021, 2021b. · DOI · Paper page
  141. Wang, J., Moore, J. C., Zhao, L., Yue, C., and Di, Z.: Regional dy- namical and statistical downscaling temperature, humidity and wind speed for the Beijing region under stratospheric aerosol injection geoengineering, Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1625-1640, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1625-2022, 2022. · DOI
  142. Webb, M. J., Andrews, T., Bodas-Salcedo, A., Bony, S., Brether- ton, C. S., Chadwick, R., Chepfer, H., Douville, H., Good, P., Kay, J. E., Klein, S. A., Marchand, R., Medeiros, B., Siebesma, A. P., Skinner, C. B., Stevens, B., Tselioudis, G., Tsushima, Y., and Watanabe, M.: The Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) contribution to CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 359-384, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-359-2017, 2017. · DOI
  143. Wei, L., Ji, D., Miao, C., Muri, H., and Moore, J. C.: Global streamflow and flood response to stratospheric aerosol geoengineering, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 16033-16050, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-16033-2018, 2018. · DOI
  144. Weisenstein, D. K., Penner, J. E., Herzog, M., and Liu, X.: Global 2- D intercomparison of sectional and modal aerosol modules, At- mos. Chem. Phys., 7, 2339-2355, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7- 2339-2007, 2007. · DOI
  145. Weisenstein, D. K., Visioni, D., Franke, H., Niemeier, U., Vat- tioni, S., Chiodo, G., Peter, T., and Keith, D. W.: An interac- tive stratospheric aerosol model intercomparison of solar geo- engineering by stratospheric injection of SO2 or accumulation- mode sulfuric acid aerosols, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 2955- 2973, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2955-2022, 2022. · DOI
  146. Wigley, T. M. L.: A Combined Mitigation/Geoengineering Ap- proach to Climate Stabilization, Science, 314, 452-454, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1131728, 2006. · DOI
  147. Xia, L., Robock, A., Cole, J., Curry, C. L., Ji, D., Jones, A., Kravitz, B., Moore, J. C., Muri, H., Niemeier, U., Singh, B., Tilmes, S., Watanabe, S., and Yoon, J.-H.: So- lar radiation management impacts on agriculture in China: A case study in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP), J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 8695-8711, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JD020630, 2014. · DOI
  148. Xia, L., Nowack, P. J., Tilmes, S., and Robock, A.: Im- pacts of stratospheric sulfate geoengineering on tropo- spheric ozone, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 11913-11928, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-11913-2017, 2017. · DOI · Paper page
  149. Xie, M., Moore, J. C., Zhao, L., Wolovick, M., and Muri, H.: Impacts of three types of solar geoengineering on the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 4581-4597, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-4581-2022, 2022. · DOI
  150. Xu, Y., Lin, L., Tilmes, S., Dagon, K., Xia, L., Diao, C., Cheng, W., Wang, Z., Simpson, I., and Burnell, L.: Climate engi- neering to mitigate the projected 21st-century terrestrial dry- ing of the Americas: a direct comparison of carbon cap- ture and sulfur injection, Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 673-695, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-673-2020, 2020. · DOI
  151. Yu, X., Moore, J. C., Cui, X., Rinke, A., Ji, D., Kravitz, B., and Yoon, J.-H.: Impacts, effectiveness and regional in- equalities of the GeoMIP G1 to G4 solar radiation man- agement scenarios, Global Planet. Change, 129, 10-22, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2015.02.010, 2015. · DOI
  152. Zanchettin, D., Khodri, M., Timmreck, C., Toohey, M., Schmidt, A., Gerber, E. P., Hegerl, G., Robock, A., Pausata, F. S. R., Ball, W. T., Bauer, S. E., Bekki, S., Dhomse, S. S., LeGrande, A. N., Mann, G. W., Marshall, L., Mills, M., Marchand, M., Niemeier, U., Poulain, V., Rozanov, E., Rubino, A., Stenke, A., Tsigaridis, K., and Tummon, F.: The Model Intercomparison Project on the climatic response to Volcanic forcing (VolMIP): experimental design and forcing input data for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 270-2719, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2701-2016, 2016. · DOI
  153. Zanchettin, D., Timmreck, C., Khodri, M., Schmidt, A., Toohey, M., Abe, M., Bekki, S., Cole, J., Fang, S.-W., Feng, W., Hegerl, G., Johnson, B., Lebas, N., LeGrande, A. N., Mann, G. W., Marshall, L., Rieger, L., Robock, A., Rubinetti, S., Tsigaridis, K., and Weierbach, H.: Effects of forcing differences and ini- tial conditions on inter-model agreement in the VolMIP volc- pinatubo-full experiment, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2265-2292, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2265-2022, 2022. · DOI
  154. Zelinka, M. D., Myers, T. A., McCoy, D. T., Po-Chedley, S., Caldwell, P. M., Ceppi, P., Klein, S. A., and Tay- lor, K. E.: Causes of Higher Climate Sensitivity in CMIP6 Models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2019GL085782, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085782, 2020. · DOI
  155. Zhao, L., Yang, Y., Cheng, W., Ji, D., and Moore, J. C.: Glacier evo- lution in high-mountain Asia under stratospheric sulfate aerosol injection geoengineering, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 6547-6564, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-6547-2017, 2017. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Visioni, D., Kravitz, B., Robock, A., Tilmes, S., Haywood, J., Boucher, O., Lawrence, M., Irvine, P., Niemeier, U., Xia, L., Chiodo, G., Lennard, C., Watanabe, S., Moore, J. C., & Muri, H.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (US)
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research (US)
  • Met Office (GB)
  • University of Potsdam (DE)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (DE)
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • University of Cape Town (ZA)
  • Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JP)
  • Beijing Normal University (CN)
  • Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NO)
Corresponding author
Visioni, Daniele
ORCID
Venue
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Published
2023-05-05
Volume
23
Issue
9
Pages
5149-5176
ISSN
  • 1680-7316 (ISSN-L)
  • 1680-7324
DOI
10.5194/acp-23-5149-2023
OpenAlex
W4387430711
Cited by
60
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 12
FWCI
6.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Atmospheric chemistry and physics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Publication Database IASS (Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS)) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • LaCRIS (University of Lapland) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • ETH Zürich Research Collection
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (ENG-2028541, AGS-2017113)
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JP2103668)
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
GeoMIP, solar geoengineering, climate model intercomparison, stratospheric aerosol injection, marine cloud brightening, cirrus cloud thinning, inter-model differences, climate change assessment, uncertainty reduction

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