Articles | Volume 3, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-3-63-2012
© Author(s) 2012. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-3-63-2012
© Author(s) 2012. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Research article
| Highlight paper
| 
06 Jun 2012
Research article | Highlight paper |
| 06 Jun 2012
Solar irradiance reduction to counteract radiative forcing from a quadrupling of CO2: climate responses simulated by four earth system models
H. Schmidt
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany
K. Alterskjær
University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
D. Bou Karam
Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et l'Environnement, CEA, CNRS, UVSQ, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
O. Boucher
Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
now at: Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique, Institut Pierre Simon Laplace/CNRS, Paris, France
A. Jones
Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
J. E. Kristjánsson
University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
U. Niemeier
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany
M. Schulz
Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway
A. Aaheim
Cicero, Oslo, Norway
F. Benduhn
Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, Mainz, Germany
M. Lawrence
Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, Mainz, Germany
now at: Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, Potsdam, Germany
C. Timmreck
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany
Related subject area
Management of the Earth system: engineering responses to climate change
The deployment length of solar radiation modification: an interplay of mitigation, net-negative emissions and climate uncertainty
Northern-high-latitude permafrost and terrestrial carbon response to two solar geoengineering scenarios
Exploration of a novel geoengineering solution: lighting up tropical forests at night
How large is the design space for stratospheric aerosol geoengineering?
The response of terrestrial ecosystem carbon cycling under different aerosol-based radiation management geoengineering
Expanding the design space of stratospheric aerosol geoengineering to include precipitation-based objectives and explore trade-offs
Climate engineering to mitigate the projected 21st-century terrestrial drying of the Americas: a direct comparison of carbon capture and sulfur injection
Complementing CO2 emission reduction by solar radiation management might strongly enhance future welfare
Assessing carbon dioxide removal through global and regional ocean alkalinization under high and low emission pathways
Climate engineering by mimicking natural dust climate control: the iron salt aerosol method
Geoengineering as a design problem
Delaying future sea-level rise by storing water in Antarctica
Climate response to imposed solar radiation reductions in high latitudes
Susanne Baur, Alexander Nauels, Zebedee Nicholls, Benjamin M. Sanderson, and Carl-Friedrich Schleussner
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 367–381, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-367-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-367-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Solar radiation modification (SRM) artificially cools global temperature without acting on the cause of climate change. This study looks at how long SRM would have to be deployed to limit warming to 1.5 °C and how this timeframe is affected by different levels of mitigation, negative emissions and climate uncertainty. None of the three factors alone can guarantee short SRM deployment. Due to their uncertainty at the time of SRM initialization, any deployment risks may be several centuries long.
Yangxin Chen, Duoying Ji, Qian Zhang, John C. Moore, Olivier Boucher, Andy Jones, Thibaut Lurton, Michael J. Mills, Ulrike Niemeier, Roland Séférian, and Simone Tilmes
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 55–79, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-55-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-55-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Solar geoengineering has been proposed as a way of counteracting the warming effects of increasing greenhouse gases by reflecting solar radiation. This work shows that solar geoengineering can slow down the northern-high-latitude permafrost degradation but cannot preserve the permafrost ecosystem as that under a climate of the same warming level without solar geoengineering.
Xueyuan Gao, Shunlin Liang, Dongdong Wang, Yan Li, Bin He, and Aolin Jia
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 219–230, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-219-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-219-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Numerical experiments with a coupled Earth system model show that large-scale nighttime artificial lighting in tropical forests will significantly increase carbon sink, local temperature, and precipitation, and it requires less energy than direct air carbon capture for capturing 1 t of carbon, suggesting that it could be a powerful climate mitigation option. Side effects include CO2 outgassing after the termination of the nighttime lighting and impacts on local wildlife.
Yan Zhang, Douglas G. MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, and Ben Kravitz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 201–217, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-201-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-201-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Adding SO2 to the stratosphere could temporarily cool the planet by reflecting more sunlight back to space. However, adding SO2 at different latitude(s) and season(s) leads to significant differences in regional surface climate. This study shows that, to cool the planet by 1–1.5 °C, there are likely six to eight choices of injection latitude(s) and season(s) that lead to meaningfully different distributions of climate impacts.
Hanna Lee, Helene Muri, Altug Ekici, Jerry Tjiputra, and Jörg Schwinger
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 313–326, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-313-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-313-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We assess how three different geoengineering methods using aerosol affect land ecosystem carbon storage. Changes in temperature and precipitation play a large role in vegetation carbon uptake and storage, but our results show that increased levels of CO2 also play a considerable role. We show that there are unforeseen regional consequences under geoengineering applications, and these consequences should be taken into account in future climate policies before implementing them.
Walker Lee, Douglas MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, and Ben Kravitz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 1051–1072, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-1051-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-1051-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The injection of aerosols into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight could reduce global warming, but this type of
geoengineeringwould also impact other variables like precipitation and sea ice. In this study, we model various climate impacts of geoengineering on a 3-D graph to show how trying to meet one climate goal will affect other variables. We also present two computer simulations which validate our model and show that geoengineering could regulate precipitation as well as temperature.
Yangyang Xu, Lei Lin, Simone Tilmes, Katherine Dagon, Lili Xia, Chenrui Diao, Wei Cheng, Zhili Wang, Isla Simpson, and Lorna Burnell
Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 673–695, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-673-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-673-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Two geoengineering schemes to mitigate global warming, (a) capturing atmospheric CO2 and (b) injecting stratospheric sulfur gas, are compared. Based on two sets of large-ensemble model experiments, we show that sulfur injection will effectively mitigate projected terrestrial drying over the Americas, and the mitigation benefit will emerge more quickly than with carbon capture. Innovative means of sulfur injection should continue to be explored as one potential low-cost climate solution.
Koen G. Helwegen, Claudia E. Wieners, Jason E. Frank, and Henk A. Dijkstra
Earth Syst. Dynam., 10, 453–472, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-453-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-453-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
We use the climate-economy model DICE to perform a cost–benefit analysis of sulfate geoengineering, i.e. producing a thin artificial sulfate haze in the higher atmosphere to reflect some sunlight and cool the Earth.
We find that geoengineering can increase future welfare by reducing global warming, and should be taken seriously as a policy option, but it can only complement, not replace, carbon emission reduction. The best policy is to combine CO2 emission reduction with modest geoengineering.
Andrew Lenton, Richard J. Matear, David P. Keller, Vivian Scott, and Naomi E. Vaughan
Earth Syst. Dynam., 9, 339–357, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-339-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-339-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Artificial ocean alkalinization (AOA) is capable of reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and surface warming while also addressing ocean acidification. We simulate the Earth system response to a fixed addition of AOA under low and high emissions. We explore the regional and global response to AOA. A key finding is that AOA is much more effective at reducing warming and ocean acidification under low emissions, despite lower carbon uptake.
Franz Dietrich Oeste, Renaud de Richter, Tingzhen Ming, and Sylvain Caillol
Earth Syst. Dynam., 8, 1–54, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-1-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-1-2017, 2017
Ben Kravitz, Douglas G. MacMartin, Hailong Wang, and Philip J. Rasch
Earth Syst. Dynam., 7, 469–497, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-469-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-469-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
Most simulations of solar geoengineering prescribe a particular strategy and evaluate its modeled effects. Here we first choose example climate objectives and then design a strategy to meet those objectives in climate models. We show that certain objectives can be met simultaneously even in the presence of uncertainty, and the strategy for meeting those objectives can be ported to other models. This is part of a broader illustration of how uncertainties in solar geoengineering can be managed.
K. Frieler, M. Mengel, and A. Levermann
Earth Syst. Dynam., 7, 203–210, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-203-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-203-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
Sea level will continue to rise for centuries. We investigate the option of delaying sea-level rise by pumping ocean water onto Antarctica. Due to wave propagation ice is discharged much faster back into the ocean than expected from pure advection. A millennium-scale storage of > 80 % of the additional ice requires a distance of > 700 km from the coastline. The pumping energy required to elevate ocean water to mitigate a sea-level rise of 3 mm yr−1 exceeds 7 % of current global primary energy supply.
M. C. MacCracken, H.-J. Shin, K. Caldeira, and G. A. Ban-Weiss
Earth Syst. Dynam., 4, 301–315, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-4-301-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-4-301-2013, 2013
Cited articles
Alterskjær, K., Kristjánsson, J. E., and Seland, Ø.: Sensitivity to deliberate sea salt seeding of marine clouds – observations and model simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 2795–2807, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-2795-2012, 2012.
Assmann, K. M., Bentsen, M., Segschneider, J., and Heinze, C.: An isopycnic ocean carbon cycle model, Geosci. Model Dev., 3, 143–167, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-3-143-2010, 2010.
Bala, G., Duffy, P. B., and E., T. K.: Impact of geoengineering schemes on the global hydrological cycle, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 105, 7664–7669, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0711648105, 2008.
Ban-Weiss, G. A. and Caldeira, K.: Geoengineering as an optimization problem, Environ. Res. Lett., 5, 034009, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/5/3/034009, 2010.
Branscome, L. E. and Gutowski, W. J.: The impact of doubled CO2 on the energetics and hydrologic processes of mid-latitude transient eddies, Clim. Dynam., 8, 29–37, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00209341, 1992.
Budyko, M. I.: Climatic changes, American Geophysical Society, Washington, D.C., https://doi.org/10.1029/SP010, 1977.
Collins, W. J., Bellouin, N., Doutriaux-Boucher, M., Gedney, N., Halloran, P., Hinton, T., Hughes, J., Jones, C. D., Joshi, M., Liddicoat, S., Martin, G., O'Connor, F., Rae, J., Senior, C., Sitch, S., Totterdell, I., Wiltshire, A., and Woodward, S.: Development and evaluation of an Earth-System model – HadGEM2, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 1051–1075, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-1051-2011, 2011.
Crutzen, P. J.: Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: A contribution toresolve a policy dilemma?, Climatic Change, 77, 211–219, 2006.
Dufresne, J.-L., Foujols, M.-A., Denvil, S., Caubel, A., Marti, O., Aumont, O., Balkanski, Y., Bekki, S., Bellenger, H., Benshila, R., Bony, S., Bopp, L., Braconnot, P., Brockmann, P., Cadule, P., Cheruy, F., Codron, F., Cozic, A., Cugnet, D., de Noblet, N., Duvel, J.-P., Ethé, C., Fairhead, L., Fichefet, T., Flavoni, S., Friedlingstein, P., Grandpeix, J.-Y., Guez, L., Guilyardi, E., Hauglustaine, D., Hourdin, F., Idelkadi, A., Ghattas, J., Joussaume, S., Kageyama, M., Krinner, G., Labetoulle, S., Lahellec, A., Lefebvre, M.-P., Lefevre, F., Levy, C., Li, Z. X., Lloyd, J., Lott, F., Madec, G., Mancip, M., Marchand, M., Masson, S., Meurdesoif, Y., Mignot, J., Musat, I., Parouty, S., Polcher, J., Rio, C., Schulz, M., Swingedouw, D., Szopa, S., Talandier, C., Terray, P., and Viovy, N.: Climate change projections using the IPSL-CM5 Earth System Model: from CMIP3 to CMIP5, Climate Dynam., submitted, 2012.
Essery, R. L. H., Best, M. J., Betts, R. A., Cox, P. M., and Taylor, C. M.: Explicit representation of subgrid heterogeneity in a GCM land surface scheme, J. Hydrometeorol., 4, 530–543, 2003.
GAO: Technology asessment: Climate Engineering: Technical status, future directions and potential responses, US Government Accountability Office, Washington, USA, 2011.
Giorgetta, M. A., Jungclaus, J., Reick, C., Stevens, B., Marotzke, J., Claussen, M., Roeckner, E., Mauritsen, T., Crueger, T., Schmidt, H., Manzini, E., Esch, M., Rast, S., Kinne, S., Zhang, K., Kornblueh, L., Haak, H., Segschneider, J., Six, K., Raddatz, T., Gayler, V., Schnur, R., Legutke, S., Widmann, H., and Glushak, K.: Climate variability and climate change in MPI-ESM CMIP5 simulations, in preparation, 2012.
Govindasamy, B. and Caldeira, K.: Geoengineering Earth's radiation balance to mitigate climate change, Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 2141–2144, 2000.
Govindasamy, B., Caldeira, K., and Duffy, P. B.: Geoengineering Earth's radiation balance to mitigate climate change from a quadrupling of CO2, Global Planet. Change, 37, 157–168, 2003.
Gregory, J. and Webb, M.: Tropospheric adjustment induces a cloud component in CO2 forcing, J. Climate, 21, 58–71, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JCLI1834.1, 2008.
Gregory, J. M., Ingram, W. J., Palmer, M. A., Jones, G. S., Stott, P. A., Thorpe, R. B., Lowe, J. A., Johns, T. C., and Williams, K. D.: A new method for diagnosing radiative forcing and climate sensitivity, Geophys. Res. Lett., 310, L03205, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018747, 2004.
Hansen, J., Sato, M., and Ruedy, R.: Radiative forcing and climate response, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 6831–6864, https://doi.org/10.1029/96JD03436, 1997.
Hansen, J., Sato, M., Ruedy, R., Nazarenko, L., Lacis, A., Schmidt, G. A., Russell, G., Aleinov, I., Bauer, M., Bauer, S., Bell, N., Cairns, B., Canuto, V., Chandler, M., Cheng, Y., Del Genio, A., Faluvegi, G., Fleming, E., Friend, A., Hall, T., Jackman, C., Kelley, M., Kiang, N., Koch, D., Lean, J., Lerner, J., Lo, K., Menon, S., Miller, R., Minnis, P., Novakov, T., Oinas, V., Perlwitz, J., Perlwitz, J., Rind, D., Romanou, A., Shindell, D., Stone, P., Sun, S., Tausnev, N., Thresher, D., Wielicki, B., Wong, T., Yao, M., and Zhang, S.: Efficacy of climate forcings, J. Geophys. Res., 110, D18104, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD005776, 2005.
Hourdin, F., Foujols, M.-A., Codron, F., Guemas, V., Dufresne, J.-L., Bony, S., Denvil, S., Guez, L., Lott, F., Ghattas, J., Braconnot, P., Marti, O., Meurdesoif, Y., and Bopp, L.: Impact of the LMDZ atmospheric grid configuration on the climate and sensitivity of the IPSL-CM5A coupled model, Clim. Dynam., in press, 2012.
Irvine, P. J., Ridgwell, A., and Lunt, D. J.: Assessing the regional disparities in geoengineering impacts, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L18702, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL044447, 2010.
Jones, A., Haywood, J., Boucher, O., Kravitz, B., and Robock, A.: Geoengineering by stratospheric SO2 injection: results from the Met Office HadGEM2 climate model and comparison with the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 5999–6006, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-5999-2010, 2010.
Joshi, M. and Gregory, J.: Dependence of the land-sea contrast in surface climate response on the nature of the forcing, Geophys. Res. Lett., 352, L24802, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL036234, 2008.
Kravitz, B., Robock, A., Boucher, O., Schmidt, H., and Taylor, K.: Specifications for GeoMIP experiments G1 through G4 (frozen version: 1.0), http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/GeoMIP/docs/specificationsG1_G4_v1.0.pdf (last access: 31 May 2012), 2011a.
Kravitz, B., Robock, A., Boucher, O., Schmidt, H., Taylor, K., Stenchikov, G., and Schulz, M.: The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP), Atmos. Sci. Lett., 12, 162–167, https://doi.org/10.1002/asl.316, 2011b.
Krinner, G., Viovy, N., de Noblet-Ducoudr{é}, N., Og{é}e, J., Polcher, J., Friedlingstein, P., Ciais, P., Sitch, S., and Prentice, I. C.: A dynamic global vegetation model for studies of the coupled atmosphere-biosphere system, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 19, GB1015, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GB002199, 2005.
Latham, J.: Control of global warming?, Nature, 347, 339–340, 1990.
Lenton, T. M. and Vaughan, N. E.: The radiative forcing potential of different climate geoengineering options, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 5539–5561, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-5539-2009, 2009.
Lunt, D. J., Ridgwell, A., Valdes, P. J., and Seale, A.: "Sunshade World": A fully coupled GCM evaluation of the climatic impacts of geoengineering, Geophys. Res. Lett., 351, L12710, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL033674, 2008.
MacMynowski, D. G., Keith, D. W., Caldeira, K., and Shin, H.-J.: Can we test geoengineering?, Energy Environ. Sci., 4, 5044–5052, https://doi.org/10.1039/C1EE01256H, 2011.
Madec, G.: NEMO ocean engine, Tech. Rep. 27, Institut Pierre Simon Laplace des Sciences de l'Environnement Global, Paris, France, 2008.
Marsland, S. J., Haak, H., Jungclaus, J. H., Latif, M., and Röske, F.: The Max-Planck-Institute global ocean/sea ice model with orthogonal curvilinear coordinates, Ocean Modell., 5, 91–127, 2003.
Matthews, H. D. and Caldeira, K.: Transient climate carbon simulations of planetary geoengineering, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 104, 9949–9954, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0700419104, 2007.
Mautner, M.: A space-based solar screen against climate warming, J. Brit. Interpl. Soc., 44, 135–138, 1991.
Meehl, G. A., Stocker, T. F., Collins, W. D., Friedlingstein, P., Gaye, A. T., Gregory, J. M., Kitoh, A., Knutti, R., Murphy, J. M., Noda, A., Raper, S. C. B., Watterson, I. G., Weaver, A. J., and Zhao, Z.-C.: Global Climate Projections, in: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, in: Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K. B., Tignor, M., and Miller, H. L., Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 747–845, 2007.
Moss, R. H., Edmonds, J. A., Hibbard, K. A., Manning, M. R., Rose, S. K., van Vuuren, D. P., Carter, T. R., Emori, S., Kainuma, M., Kram, T., Meehl, G. A., Mitchell, J. F. B., Nakicenovic, N., Riahi, K., Smith, S. J., Stouffer, R. J., Thomson, A. M., Weyant, J. P., and Wilbanks, T. J.: The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment, Nature, 463, 747–756, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08823, 2010.
Oleson, K. W., Lawrence, D. M., Bonan, G. B., Flanner, M. G., Kluzek, E., Lawrence, P. J., Levis, S., Swenson, S. C., and Thornton, P. E.: Technical Description of version 4.0 of the Community Land Model (CLM), Tech. Rep. NCAR/TN-478+STR, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA, 2010.
Oman, L., Robock, A., Stenchikov, G., Schmidt, G. A., and Ruedy, R.: Climatic response to high-latitude volcanic eruptions, J. Geophys. Res., 110, D13103, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JD005487, 2005.
Oman, L., Robock, A., Stenchikov, G. L., and Thordarson, T.: High-latitude eruptions cast shadow over the African monsoon and the flow of the Nile, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L18711, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL027665, 2006.
Pongratz, J., Lobell, D. B., Cao, L., and Caldeira, K.: Crop yields in a geoengineered climate, Nat. Clim. Change, 2, 101–105, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1373, 2012.
Raddatz, T. J., Reick, C. H., Knorr, W., Kattge, J., Roeckner, E., Schnur, R., Schnitzler, K.-G., Wetzel, P., and Jungclaus, J.: Will the tropical land biosphere dominate the climate-carbon cycle feedback during the twenty-first century?, Clim. Dynam., 29, 565–574, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-007-0247-8, 2007.
Ramaswamy, V., Boucher, O., Haigh, J., Hauglustaine, D., Haywood, J., Myhre, G., Nakajima, T., Shi, G., and Solomon, S.: Radiative Forcing of Climate Change, in: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of working group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Houghton, J. T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D. J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P. J., Dai, X., Maskell, K., and Johnson, C. A., Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 349–416, 2001.
Randall, D. A., Wood, S., Bony, R., Colman, T., Fichefet, J., Fyfe, V., Kattsov, A., Pitman, J., Shukla, J., Srinivasan, R. J., Stouffer, A., Sumi, A., and Taylor, K. E.: Climate Models and their Evaluation, in: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K. B., Tignor, M., and Miller, H. L., Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 589–662, 2007.
Ricke, K. L., Morgan, M. G., and Allen, M. R.: Regional climate response to solar-radiation management, Nat. Geosci., 3, 537–541, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo915, 2010.
Rickels, W., Klepper, G., Dovern, J., Betz, G., Brachatzek, N., Cacean, S., Güssow, K., Heintzenberg, J., Hiller, S., Hoose, C., Leisner, T., Oschlies, A., Platt, U., Proelss, A., Renn, O., Schäfer, S., and Zürn, M.: Large-Scale Intentional Interventions into the Climate System? – Assessing the Climate Engineering Debate. Scoping report conducted on behalf of the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), Kiel Earth Institute, Kiel, Germany, 2011.
Robock, A., Oman, L., and Stenchikov, G. L.: Regional climate responses to geoengineering with tropical and Arctic SO2 injections, J. Geophys. Res., 113, D16101, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010050, 2008.
Robock, A., Bunzl, M., Kravitz, B., and Stenchikov, G. L.: A Test for Geoengineering?, Science, 327, 530–531, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1186237, 2010.
Seland, Ø., Iversen, T., Kirkevåg, A., and Storelvmo, T.: Aerosol-climate interactions in the CAM-Oslo atmospheric GCM and investigation of associated basic shortcomings, Tellus A, 60, 459–491, 2008.
Shepherd, J., Caldeira, K., Cox, P., Haigh, J., Keith, D., Launder, D., Mace, G., MacKerron, G., Pyle, J., Rayner, S., Redgwell, C., and Watson, A.: Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty, The Royal Society, London, UK, 2009.
Stevens, B., Crueger, T., Esch, M., Giorgetta, M., Mauritsen, T., Rast, S., Schmidt, H., Bader, J., Block, K., Brokopf, R., Fast, I., Kinne, S., Kornblueh, L., Lohmann, U., Pincus, R., Reichler, T., Salzmann, M., and Roeckner, E.: The Atmospheric Component of the MPI-M Earth System Model: ECHAM6, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., submitted, 2012.
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., and Meehl, G. A.: An Overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93, 485–498, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1, 2012.
The HadGEM2 Development Team: Martin, G. M. Bellouin, N., Collins, W. J., Culverwell, I. D., Halloran, P. R., Hardiman, S. C., Hinton, T. J., Jones, C. D., McDonald, R. E., McLaren, A. J., O'Connor, F. M., Roberts, M. J., Rodriguez, J. M., Woodward, S., Best, M. J., Brooks, M. E., Brown, A. R., Butchart, N., Dearden, C., Derbyshire, S. H., Dharssi, I., Doutriaux-Boucher, M., Edwards, J. M., Falloon, P. D., Gedney, N., Gray, L. J., Hewitt, H. T., Hobson, M., Huddleston, M. R., Hughes, J., Ineson, S., Ingram, W. J., James, P. M., Johns, T. C., Johnson, C. E., Jones, A., Jones, C. P., Joshi, M. M., Keen, A. B., Liddicoat, S., Lock, A. P., Maidens, A. V., Manners, J. C., Milton, S. F., Rae, J. G. L., Ridley, J. K., Sellar, A., Senior, C. A., Totterdell, I. J., Verhoef, A., Vidale, P. L., and Wiltshire, A.: The HadGEM2 family of Met Office Unified Model climate configurations, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 723–757, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-723-2011, 2011.
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint