Resolving uncertainties in solar geoengineering through multi-model and large-ensemble simulations (ACP/ESD inter-journal SI)(ACP/ESD inter-journal SI)
Resolving uncertainties in solar geoengineering through multi-model and large-ensemble simulations (ACP/ESD inter-journal SI)(ACP/ESD inter-journal SI)
Editor(s): Hailong Wang, Anja Schmidt, and Ben Kravitz Special issue jointly organized between Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics and Earth System Dynamics

In recent years, there have been multiple community-level efforts to improve our scientific understanding of the possible effectiveness and effects of solar geoengineering, especially the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) and the Geoengineering Large Ensemble (GLENS). These projects have wide international participation among climate modeling centers and researchers, including developing country researchers participating in the Developing Country Impacts Modelling Analysis for SRM (DECIMALS) fund. By producing simulations available for any interested researcher, these two projects have been highly effective in advancing the state of knowledge of solar geoengineering.

Several of these projects are reaching critical stages. A new round of GeoMIP simulations has recently been released as part of CMIP6. The DECIMALS teams are maturing and are at the stage where they are ready to produce papers, with the possibility that the project will be extended. GLENS simulations are continuing to be analyzed and supplemented with simulations from additional research efforts. To capture the interrelated research amongst these projects, the special issue is set up jointly between Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics and Earth System Dynamics. In ACP, we invite papers that emphasize process-level understanding and stratospheric dynamics; in ESD, submissions on Earth system effects, feedbacks, and impacts (like agriculture or ecosystem responses) are invited.

Download citations of all papers

29 Jan 2024
Future water storage changes over the Mediterranean, Middle East, and North Africa in response to global warming and stratospheric aerosol intervention
Abolfazl Rezaei, Khalil Karami, Simone Tilmes, and John C. Moore
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 91–108, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-91-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-91-2024, 2024
Short summary
20 Dec 2023
The Indonesian Throughflow circulation under solar geoengineering
Chencheng Shen, John C. Moore, Heri Kuswanto, and Liyun Zhao
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 1317–1332, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-1317-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-1317-2023, 2023
Short summary
03 Nov 2023
Injection strategy – a driver of atmospheric circulation and ozone response to stratospheric aerosol geoengineering
Ewa M. Bednarz, Amy H. Butler, Daniele Visioni, Yan Zhang, Ben Kravitz, and Douglas G. MacMartin
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 13665–13684, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13665-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-13665-2023, 2023
Short summary
26 Sep 2023
Changes in apparent temperature and PM2.5 around the Beijing–Tianjin megalopolis under greenhouse gas and stratospheric aerosol intervention scenarios
Jun Wang, John C. Moore, and Liyun Zhao
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 989–1013, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-989-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-989-2023, 2023
Short summary
15 Jun 2023
Comment on “An approach to sulfate geoengineering with surface emissions of carbonyl sulfide” by Quaglia et al. (2022)
Marc von Hobe, Christoph Brühl, Sinikka T. Lennartz, Mary E. Whelan, and Aleya Kaushik
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 6591–6598, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-6591-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-6591-2023, 2023
Short summary
31 Mar 2023
The Holton–Tan mechanism under stratospheric aerosol intervention
Khalil Karami, Rolando Garcia, Christoph Jacobi, Jadwiga H. Richter, and Simone Tilmes
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 3799–3818, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-3799-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-3799-2023, 2023
Short summary
02 Mar 2023
Introducing a Comprehensive Set of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection Strategies
Yan Zhang, Douglas G. MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, Ewa Bednarz, and Ben Kravitz
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-117,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-117, 2023
Revised manuscript accepted for ESD (discussion: final response, 6 comments)
Short summary
25 Jan 2023
Northern-high-latitude permafrost and terrestrial carbon response to two solar geoengineering scenarios
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
24 Jan 2023
PInc-PanTher estimates of Arctic permafrost soil carbon under the GeoMIP G6solar and G6sulfur experiments
Aobo Liu, John C. Moore, and Yating Chen
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 39–53, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-39-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-39-2023, 2023
Short summary
16 Jan 2023
Climate response to off-equatorial stratospheric sulfur injections in three Earth system models – Part 1: Experimental protocols and surface changes
Daniele Visioni, Ewa M. Bednarz, Walker R. Lee, Ben Kravitz, Andy Jones, Jim M. Haywood, and Douglas G. MacMartin
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 663–685, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-663-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-663-2023, 2023
Short summary
16 Jan 2023
Climate response to off-equatorial stratospheric sulfur injections in three Earth system models – Part 2: Stratospheric and free-tropospheric response
Ewa M. Bednarz, Daniele Visioni, Ben Kravitz, Andy Jones, James M. Haywood, Jadwiga Richter, Douglas G. MacMartin, and Peter Braesicke
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 687–709, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-687-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-687-2023, 2023
Short summary
05 Jan 2023
Dependence of strategic solar climate intervention on background scenario and model physics
John T. Fasullo and Jadwiga H. Richter
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 163–182, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-163-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-163-2023, 2023
Short summary
18 Nov 2022
Regional dynamical and statistical downscaling temperature, humidity and wind speed for the Beijing region under stratospheric aerosol injection geoengineering
Jun Wang, John C. Moore, Liyun Zhao, Chao Yue, and Zhenhua Di
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1625–1640, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1625-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1625-2022, 2022
Short summary
26 Aug 2022
Indices of extremes: geographic patterns of change in extremes and associated vegetation impacts under climate intervention
Mari R. Tye, Katherine Dagon, Maria J. Molina, Jadwiga H. Richter, Daniele Visioni, Ben Kravitz, and Simone Tilmes
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1233–1257, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1233-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1233-2022, 2022
Short summary
10 May 2022
Assessing the consequences of including aerosol absorption in potential stratospheric aerosol injection climate intervention strategies
Jim M. Haywood, Andy Jones, Ben T. Johnson, and William McFarlane Smith
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 6135–6150, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-6135-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-6135-2022, 2022
Short summary
03 May 2022
An approach to sulfate geoengineering with surface emissions of carbonyl sulfide
Ilaria Quaglia, Daniele Visioni, Giovanni Pitari, and Ben Kravitz
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 5757–5773, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-5757-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-5757-2022, 2022
Short summary
08 Apr 2022
Impacts of three types of solar geoengineering on the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation
Mengdie Xie, John C. Moore, Liyun Zhao, Michael Wolovick, and Helene Muri
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 4581–4597, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-4581-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-4581-2022, 2022
Short summary
08 Apr 2022
Stratospheric ozone response to sulfate aerosol and solar dimming climate interventions based on the G6 Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) simulations
Simone Tilmes​​​​​​​, Daniele Visioni, Andy Jones, James Haywood, Roland Séférian, Pierre Nabat, Olivier Boucher, Ewa Monica Bednarz, and Ulrike Niemeier
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 4557–4579, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-4557-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-4557-2022, 2022
Short summary
07 Mar 2022
The impact of stratospheric aerosol intervention on the North Atlantic and Quasi-Biennial Oscillations in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) G6sulfur experiment
Andy Jones, Jim M. Haywood, Adam A. Scaife, Olivier Boucher, Matthew Henry, Ben Kravitz, Thibaut Lurton, Pierre Nabat, Ulrike Niemeier, Roland Séférian, Simone Tilmes, and Daniele Visioni
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 2999–3016, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2999-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-2999-2022, 2022
Short summary
04 Feb 2022
Limitations of assuming internal mixing between different aerosol species: a case study with sulfate geoengineering simulations
Daniele Visioni, Simone Tilmes, Charles Bardeen, Michael Mills, Douglas G. MacMartin, Ben Kravitz, and Jadwiga H. Richter
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 1739–1756, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-1739-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-1739-2022, 2022
Short summary
25 Jan 2022
How large is the design space for stratospheric aerosol geoengineering?
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
04 Jan 2022
Dependency of the impacts of geoengineering on the stratospheric sulfur injection strategy – Part 1: Intercomparison of modal and sectional aerosol modules
Anton Laakso, Ulrike Niemeier, Daniele Visioni, Simone Tilmes, and Harri Kokkola
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 93–118, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-93-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-93-2022, 2022
Short summary
01 Oct 2021
Assessing the potential efficacy of marine cloud brightening for cooling Earth using a simple heuristic model
Robert Wood
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 14507–14533, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-14507-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-14507-2021, 2021
Short summary
06 Jul 2021
Identifying the sources of uncertainty in climate model simulations of solar radiation modification with the G6sulfur and G6solar Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) simulations
Daniele Visioni, Douglas G. MacMartin, Ben Kravitz, Olivier Boucher, Andy Jones, Thibaut Lurton, Michou Martine, Michael J. Mills, Pierre Nabat, Ulrike Niemeier, Roland Séférian, and Simone Tilmes
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 10039–10063, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-10039-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-10039-2021, 2021
Short summary
08 Jun 2021
Differences in the quasi-biennial oscillation response to stratospheric aerosol modification depending on injection strategy and species
Henning Franke, Ulrike Niemeier, and Daniele Visioni
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 8615–8635, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-8615-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-8615-2021, 2021
Short summary
07 May 2021
Robust winter warming over Eurasia under stratospheric sulfate geoengineering – the role of stratospheric dynamics
Antara Banerjee, Amy H. Butler, Lorenzo M. Polvani, Alan Robock, Isla R. Simpson, and Lantao Sun
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 6985–6997, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6985-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6985-2021, 2021
Short summary
19 Mar 2021
Comparing different generations of idealized solar geoengineering simulations in the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP)
Ben Kravitz, Douglas G. MacMartin, Daniele Visioni, Olivier Boucher, Jason N. S. Cole, Jim Haywood, Andy Jones, Thibaut Lurton, Pierre Nabat, Ulrike Niemeier, Alan Robock, Roland Séférian, and Simone Tilmes
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 4231–4247, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-4231-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-4231-2021, 2021
Short summary
29 Jan 2021
North Atlantic Oscillation response in GeoMIP experiments G6solar and G6sulfur: why detailed modelling is needed for understanding regional implications of solar radiation management
Andy Jones, Jim M. Haywood, Anthony C. Jones, Simone Tilmes, Ben Kravitz, and Alan Robock
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 1287–1304, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1287-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1287-2021, 2021
Short summary
31 Jul 2020
Climate engineering to mitigate the projected 21st-century terrestrial drying of the Americas: a direct comparison of carbon capture and sulfur injection
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
CC BY 4.0