Literature DB >> 18436741

The sensitivity of polar ozone depletion to proposed geoengineering schemes.

Simone Tilmes1, Rolf Müller, Ross Salawitch.   

Abstract

The large burden of sulfate aerosols injected into the stratosphere by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 cooled Earth and enhanced the destruction of polar ozone in the subsequent few years. The continuous injection of sulfur into the stratosphere has been suggested as a "geoengineering" scheme to counteract global warming. We use an empirical relationship between ozone depletion and chlorine activation to estimate how this approach might influence polar ozone. An injection of sulfur large enough to compensate for surface warming caused by the doubling of atmospheric CO2 would strongly increase the extent of Arctic ozone depletion during the present century for cold winters and would cause a considerable delay, between 30 and 70 years, in the expected recovery of the Antarctic ozone hole.

Entities:  

Year:  2008        PMID: 18436741     DOI: 10.1126/science.1153966

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Science        ISSN: 0036-8075            Impact factor:   47.728


  14 in total

Review 1.  Arctic climate tipping points.

Authors:  Timothy M Lenton
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 5.129

2.  Atlantic hurricane surge response to geoengineering.

Authors:  John C Moore; Aslak Grinsted; Xiaoran Guo; Xiaoyong Yu; Svetlana Jevrejeva; Annette Rinke; Xuefeng Cui; Ben Kravitz; Andrew Lenton; Shingo Watanabe; Duoying Ji
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-10-26       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Estimating option values of solar radiation management assuming that climate sensitivity is uncertain.

Authors:  Yosuke Arino; Keigo Akimoto; Fuminori Sano; Takashi Homma; Junichiro Oda; Toshimasa Tomoda
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-05-09       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 4.  Ecosystem impacts of geoengineering: a review for developing a science plan.

Authors:  Lynn M Russell; Philip J Rasch; Georgina M Mace; Robert B Jackson; John Shepherd; Peter Liss; Margaret Leinen; David Schimel; Naomi E Vaughan; Anthony C Janetos; Philip W Boyd; Richard J Norby; Ken Caldeira; Joonas Merikanto; Paulo Artaxo; Jerry Melillo; M Granger Morgan
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2012-03-20       Impact factor: 5.129

5.  Solar geoengineering as part of an overall strategy for meeting the 1.5°C Paris target.

Authors:  Douglas G MacMartin; Katharine L Ricke; David W Keith
Journal:  Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci       Date:  2018-05-13       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Photophoretic levitation of engineered aerosols for geoengineering.

Authors:  David W Keith
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2010-09-07       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Stratospheric solar geoengineering without ozone loss.

Authors:  David W Keith; Debra K Weisenstein; John A Dykema; Frank N Keutsch
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-12-12       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Mapping the landscape of climate engineering.

Authors:  P Oldham; B Szerszynski; J Stilgoe; C Brown; B Eacott; A Yuille
Journal:  Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci       Date:  2014-12-28       Impact factor: 4.226

9.  Stratospheric controlled perturbation experiment: a small-scale experiment to improve understanding of the risks of solar geoengineering.

Authors:  John A Dykema; David W Keith; James G Anderson; Debra Weisenstein
Journal:  Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci       Date:  2014-12-28       Impact factor: 4.226

Review 10.  Evaluating climate geoengineering proposals in the context of the Paris Agreement temperature goals.

Authors:  Mark G Lawrence; Stefan Schäfer; Helene Muri; Vivian Scott; Andreas Oschlies; Naomi E Vaughan; Olivier Boucher; Hauke Schmidt; Jim Haywood; Jürgen Scheffran
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2018-09-13       Impact factor: 14.919

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.