Articles | Volume 4, issue 2
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-4-301-2013
© Author(s) 2013. 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-4-301-2013
© Author(s) 2013. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Climate response to imposed solar radiation reductions in high latitudes
M. C. MacCracken
Climate Institute, 900 17th St. NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20006, USA
H.-J. Shin
Carnegie Institution for Science, Dept. of Global Ecology, 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
Ocean Circulation and Climate Research Division, Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology (KIOST), 787Haean-ro, Sangnok-gu, Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do, 426-744, South Korea
K. Caldeira
Carnegie Institution for Science, Dept. of Global Ecology, 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
G. A. Ban-Weiss
Carnegie Institution for Science, Dept. of Global Ecology, 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089, USA
Related authors
Michael C. MacCracken and Hans Volkert
Hist. Geo Space. Sci., 10, 119–136, https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-10-119-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-10-119-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents the scientific and organizational context for formation of the International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences (IAMAS) in 1919 under the auspices of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics. As IAMAS has since evolved, commissions were formed to bring together scientists researching atmospheric radiation, ozone, electricity, clouds and precipitation, dynamics, global pollution, climate, polar regions, the middle atmosphere, and planetary atmosphere.
B. Kravitz, A. Robock, S. Tilmes, O. Boucher, J. M. English, P. J. Irvine, A. Jones, M. G. Lawrence, M. MacCracken, H. Muri, J. C. Moore, U. Niemeier, S. J. Phipps, J. Sillmann, T. Storelvmo, H. Wang, and S. Watanabe
Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 3379–3392, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3379-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3379-2015, 2015
Michael C. MacCracken and Hans Volkert
Hist. Geo Space. Sci., 10, 119–136, https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-10-119-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/hgss-10-119-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents the scientific and organizational context for formation of the International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences (IAMAS) in 1919 under the auspices of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics. As IAMAS has since evolved, commissions were formed to bring together scientists researching atmospheric radiation, ozone, electricity, clouds and precipitation, dynamics, global pollution, climate, polar regions, the middle atmosphere, and planetary atmosphere.
B. Kravitz, A. Robock, S. Tilmes, O. Boucher, J. M. English, P. J. Irvine, A. Jones, M. G. Lawrence, M. MacCracken, H. Muri, J. C. Moore, U. Niemeier, S. J. Phipps, J. Sillmann, T. Storelvmo, H. Wang, and S. Watanabe
Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 3379–3392, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3379-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3379-2015, 2015
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
Solar irradiance reduction to counteract radiative forcing from a quadrupling of CO2: climate responses simulated by four earth system models
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.
H. Schmidt, K. Alterskjær, D. Bou Karam, O. Boucher, A. Jones, J. E. Kristjánsson, U. Niemeier, M. Schulz, A. Aaheim, F. Benduhn, M. Lawrence, and C. Timmreck
Earth Syst. Dynam., 3, 63–78, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-3-63-2012, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-3-63-2012, 2012
Cited articles
ACIA – Arctic Climate Impact Assessment: Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, Cambridge University Press, 140 pp., 2004.
AMAP – Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme: Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA): Climate Change and the Cryosphere, Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme, Oslo, 538 pp., 2011.
Asilomar Scientific Organizing Committee (MacCracken, M. (chair), Barrett, S., Barry, R., Crutzen, P., Hamburg, S., Lampitt, R., Liverman, D., Lovejoy, T., McBean, G., Parson, E., Seidel, S., Shepherd, J., Somerville, R., and Wigley, T. M. L.): The Asilomar Conference Recommendations on Principles for Research into Climate Engineering Technologies: Conference Report, Climate Institute, Washington, D.C., 37 pp., 2010.
Bala, G., Duffy, P. B., and Taylor, K. E.: Impact of geoengineering schemes on the global hydrological cycle, P. Natl. Acad. Sci USA, 105, 7664–7669, 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.
Blunden, J. and Arndt, D. S., Eds.: State of the Climate in 2011, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93, S1–S264, 2012.
Boer, G. J. and Yu, B.: Climate sensitivity and response, Clim. Dynam., 20, 415–429, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-002-0283-3, 2003.
Broccoli, A. J., Dahl, K. A., and Stouffer, R. J.: Response of the ITCZ to Northern Hemisphere cooling, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L01702, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL024546, 2006.
Budyko, M. I.: The effect of solar radiation variations on the climate of the Earth, Tellus, 21, 611-619, 1969.
Budyko, M. I.: The method of climate modification, Meteorol. Hydro., 2, 91–97, 1974.
Caldeira, K. and Wood, L.: Global and Arctic climate engineering: Numerical model studies, Philos. T. Roy. Soc. A, 366, 4039–4056, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0132, 2008.
Caldeira, K., Bala, G., and Cao, L.: The science of geoengineering, Annu. Rev. Earth Sci., 41, 231–256, 2013.
Collins, W. D., Bitz, C. M., Blackmon, M. L., Bonan, G. B., Bretherton, C. S., Carton, J. A., Chang, P., Doney, S. C., Hack, J. J., Henderson, T. B., Kiehl, J. T., Large, W. G., McKenna, D. S., Santer, B. D., and Smith, R. D.: The Community Climate System Model Version 3 (CCSM3), J. Climate, 19, 2122–2143, 2006.
Crutzen, P. J.: Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfate injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma?, Climatic Change, 77, 211–219, 2006.
Flannery, B. P., Marland, G., Broecker, W., Ishatani, H., Keshgi, H., Komiyama, H., MacCracken, M., Rosenberg, N., Steinberg, M., and Wigley, T. M. L.: Geoengineering Climate, 379–427, Chapter 8, in: The Engineering Response to Climate Change, edited by: Watts, R. G., Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, 492 pp., 1997.
Francis, J. A. and Vavrus, S. J.: Evidence Linking Arctic Amplification to Extreme Weather in Mid-Latitudes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L06801, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051000, 2012.
Friedlingstein, P., Houghton, R. A., Marland, G., Hackler, J., Boden, T. A., Conway, T. J., Canadell, J. G., Raupach, M. R., Ciais, P., and Le Quéré, C.: Update on CO2 emissions, Nat. Geosci., 3, 811–812, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1022, 2010.
GAO – Government Accountability Office: A Coordinated Strategy Could Focus Federal Geoengineering Research and Inform Governance Efforts, GAO-10-903, Washington, D.C., 70 pp., 2010.
Govindasamy, B. and Caldeira, K.: Geoengineering Earth's radiative balance to mitigate CO2-induced climatic change, Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 2141–2144, 2000.
Hall, A.: The role of surface albedo feedback in climate, J. Climate, 17, 1550–1568, 2004.
Held, I. M. and Soden, B. J.: Robust responses of the hydrological cycle to global warming, J. Climate, 19, 5686–5699, 2006.
Helm, D.: Climate-change policy: Why has so little been achieved?, Oxford Rev. Econ. Policy, 24, 211–238, 2008.
IEA – International Energy Agency: CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion – Highlights, IEA, Paris, France, 138 pp., 2012.
IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Climate Change 1994: Radiative Forcing of Climate Change and an Evaluation of the IPCC IS92 Emission Scenarios, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 339 pp., 1994.
IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: 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., Marquis, M., Averyt, K., Tignor, M. M. B., Miller Jr., H. L., and Chen, Z., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 996 pp., 2007a.
IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, in: Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Parry, M., Canziani, O., Palutikof, J., van der Linden, P., and Hanson, C., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 976 pp., 2007b.
IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation, in: Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Metz, B., Davidson, O., Bosch, P., Dave, R., and Meyer, L., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, 851 pp., 2007c.
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.
Kang, S. M., Held, I. M., Frierson, D. M. W., and Zhao, M.: The Response of the ITCZ to extratropical forcing: Idealized slab-ocean experiments with a GCM, J. Climate, 21, 3521–3532, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JCLI2146.1, 2008.
Keith, D. W.: Geoengineering the climate: History and prospect, Annu. Rev. Energ. Env., 25, 245–284, 2000.
Khan, E., Ferrell, W., MacCracken, M. C., Schwartz, S. E., Duffy, P. B., Thompson, S., and Marland, G. H.: Response Options to Limit Rapid or Severe Climate Change, Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., 37 pp., 2001.
Koutavas, A. and Lynch-Stieglitz, J.: Variability of the marine ITCZ over the eastern Pacific during the past 30,000 years: Regional perspective and global context, in: The Hadley Circulation: Present, Past, and Future, edited by: Diaz, H. F. and Bradley, R. S., Springer, 347–369, 2004.
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, 2011.
Lane, L., Caldeira, K., Chatfield, R., and Langhoff, S. (Eds.): Workshop Report on Managing Solar Radiation, NASA/CP–2007-214558, NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, Hanover, MD, 31 pp., 2007.
Latham, J., Rasch, P. J., Chen, C. C., Kettles, L., Gadian, A., Gettelman, A., Morrison, H., Bower, K., and Choularton, T. W.: Global temperature-stabilization via controlled albedo enhancement of low-level maritime clouds, Philos. T. Roy. Soc. A, 366, 3969–3987, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0137, 2008.
Leemans, R., Agrawala, S., Edmonds, J. A., MacCracken, M. C., Moss, R., and Ramakrishnan, P. S.: Mitigation: Cross-Sectoral and Other Issues, 799–819, Chapter 25, in: Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses, Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Watson, R. T., Zinyowera, M. C., and Moss, R. H., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 879 pp., 1995.
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.
Long J., Rademaker, S., Anderson, J. G., Caldeira, K., Chaisson, J., Goldston, D., Hamburg, S., Keith, D., Lehman, R., Loy, F., Morgan, G., Sarewitz, D., Schelling, T., Shepherd, J., Victor, D., Whelan, D., and Winickoff, D. E.: Task Force on Climate Remediation Research, Bipartisan Policy Center, Washington, D.C., 33 pp., 2011
MacCracken, M. C.: On the possible use of geoengineering to moderate specific climate change impacts, Environ. Res. Lett., 4, 045107, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045107, 2009.
MacCracken, M. C.: Potential applications of climate engineering technologies to moderation of critical climate change impacts, IPCC Expert Meeting on Geoengineering, 20–22 June 2011, Lima, Peru, 55–56, in: Meeting Report, edited by: Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R., Sokona, Y., Field, C., Barros, V., Stocker, T. F., Dahe, Q., Minx, J., Mach, K., Plattner, G.-K., Schlömer, S., Hansen, G., and Mastrandrea, M., Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland, 2011.
MacMartin, D. G., Keith, D. W., Kravitz, B., and Caldeira, K.: Management of trade-offs in geoengineering through optimal choice of non-uniform radiative forcing, Nat. Clim. Change, 3, 365–368, 2013.
Meier, M. F., Dyurgerov, M. B., Rick, U. K., O'Neel, S., Pfeffer, W. T., Anderson, R. S., Anderson, S. P., and Glazovsky, A. F.: Glaciers dominate eustatic sea-level rise in the 21st century, Science 317, 1064–1067, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1143906, 2007.
Meinshausen, M., Meinshausen, N., Hare, W., Raper, S. C. B., Frieler, K., Knutti, R., Frame, D. J., and Allen, M. R.: Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C, Nature, 458, 1158–1162, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08017, 2009.
Mitchell, D. L. and Finnegan, W.: Modification of cirrus clouds to reduce global warming, Environ. Res. Lett., 4, 045102, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045102, 2009.
Murphy, D. M.: Constraining climate sensitivity with linear fits to outgoing radiation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L09704, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL042911, 2010.
NAS – National Academy of Sciences: Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Mitigation, Adaptation, and the Science Base, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 918 pp., 1992.
NRC – National Research Council: America's Climate Choices: Advancing the Science of Climate Change, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 528 pp., 2010.
Overland, J. E., Francis, J. A., Hanna, E., and Wang, M.: The recent shift in early summer Arctic atmospheric circulation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L19804, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL053268, 2012.
Pierce, J. R., Weisenstein, D. K., Heckendorn, P., Peter, T., and Keith, D. W.: Efficient formation of stratospheric aerosol for geoengineering by emission of condensible vapor from aircraft, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L18805, https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL043975, 2010.
PIK – Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics: Turn Down the Heat: Why a 4 °C Warmer World Must be Avoided, report for the World Bank, Washington, D.C., 94 pp. 2012.
PIK – Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics: Turn Down the Heat: Climate Extremes, Regional Impacts, and the Case for Resilience, report for the World Bank, Washington, D.C., 238 pp., 2013.
PSAC – President's Science Advisory Committee: Appendix Y4: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, 111–133, in: Restoring the Quality of our Environment, Report of the Environmental Pollution Panel, The White House, Washington, D.C., 317 pp., 1965.
Pritchard, H. D., Ligtenberg, S. R. M., Fricker, H. A., Vaughan, D. G., van den Broeke, M. R., and Padman, L.: Antarctic ice-sheet loss driven by basal melting of ice shelves, Nature 484, 502–505, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10968, 2012.
Rahmstorf, S.: A semi-empirical approach to projecting future sea-level rise, Science, 315, 368–370, 2007.
Rasch, P. J., Crutzen, P. J., and Coleman, D. B.: Exploring the geoengineering of climate using stratospheric sulfate aerosols: The role of particle size, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L02809, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL032179, 2008a.
Rasch, P. J., Tilmes, S., Turco, R. P., Robock, A., Oman, L., Chen, C.-C., Stenchikov, G. L., and Garcia, R. R.: An overview of geoengineering of climate using stratospheric sulfate aerosols, Philos. T. Roy. Soc. A, 366, 4007–4037, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0131, 2008b.
Rasch, P. J., Latham, J., and Dhen, C.-C.: 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.
Rayner, S., Redgwell, C., Savulescu, J., Pidgeon, N., and Kruger, T.: Memorandum on draft principles for the conduct of geoengineering research (the "Oxford Principles"), reproduced in House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, The Regulation of Geoengineering, Fifth Report of the Session 2009-10, HC 221, 18 March 2010, see: www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/221/221.pdf, (last access: 19 July 2012), 2010.
Robock, A.: 20 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea, Bull. Atomic. Sci., 64, 14–18, https://doi.org/10.2968/064002006, 2008.
Robock, A., Oman, L., and Stenchikov, G.: 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., Marquardt, A. B., Kravitz, B., and Stenchikov, G.: The benefits, risks, and costs of stratospheric geoengineering, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L19703, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL039209, 2009.
Schneider, S. H.: Earth systems: Engineering and management, Nature, 409, 417–421, 2001.
Seitz, R.: Bright water: hydrosols, water conservation and climate change, Climatic Change, 105, 365–381, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9965-8, 2011.
Shepherd, J., Caldeira, K., Cox, P., Haigh, J., Keith, D., Launder, B., Mace, G., MacKerron, G., Pyle, J., Rayner, S., Redgwell, C., Watson, A., Garthwaite, R., Heap, R., Parker, A., and Wilsdon, J.: Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty, Science Policy Centre of The Royal Society, London, UK, 98 pp., 2009.
Truffer, M. and Fahnestock, M.: Rethinking Ice Sheet Time Scales, Science, 315, 1508–1510, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1140469, 2007.
Valero, F. P. J., Ackerman, T. P., and Gore, W. J. Y.: The absorption of solar radiation by the Arctic atmosphere during the haze season and its effects on the radiation balance, Geophys. Res. Lett., 11, 465–468, https://doi.org/10.1029/GL011i005p00465, 1984.
Wigley, T. M. L.: A combined mitigation/geoengineering approach to climate stabilization, Science, 314, 452–454, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1131728, 2006.
Winton, M.: Surface albedo feedback estimates for the AR4 climate models, J. Climate, 19, 359–365, 2005.
Winton, M.: Amplified Arctic climate change: What does surface albedo feedback have to do with it?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L03701, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL025244, 2006.
Zwiers, F. W. and von Storch, H.: Taking serial correlation into account in tests of the mean, J. Climate, 8, 336–351, 1995.
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint