the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A fully coupled solid particle microphysics scheme for stratospheric aerosol injections within the aerosol-chemistry-climate-model SOCOL-AERv2
Abstract. Recent studies have suggested that injection of solid particles such as alumina and calcite particles for stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) instead of sulfur-based injections could reduce some of the adverse side effects of SAI such as ozone depletion and stratospheric heating. Here, we present a version of the global aerosol-chemistry-climate model SOCOL-AERv2 and the Earth System Model (ESM) SOCOLv4 which incorporate a solid particle microphysics scheme for assessment of SAI of solid particles. Microphysical interactions of the solid particle with the stratospheric sulfur cycle were interactively coupled to the heterogeneous chemistry scheme and the radiative transfer code (RTC) for the first time within an ESM. Therefore, the model allows simulation of heterogeneous chemistry at the particle surface as well as feedbacks between microphysics, chemistry, radiation and climate. We show that sulfur-based SAI results in a doubling of the stratospheric aerosol burden compared to the same injection rate of calcite and alumina particles with radius of 240 nm, mainly due to the smaller density and the smaller average particle size of sulfuric acid aerosols and thus, slower sedimentation. Therefore, to achieve the same radiative forcing, larger injection rates are needed for calcite and alumina particle injection than for sulfur-based SAI. The stratospheric sulfur cycle would be significantly perturbed, with a reduction in stratospheric sulfuric acid burden by 53 %, when injecting 5 Mt/yr of alumina or calcite particles of 240 nm radius. We show that alumina particles will acquire a sulfuric acid coating equivalent of about 10 nm thickness, if the sulfuric acid is equally distributed over the whole available particle surface area in the lower stratosphere. However, due to a steep contact angle of sulfuric acid on alumina particles, the sulfuric acid coating would likely not cover the entire alumina surface, which would result in available surface for heterogeneous reactions other than the ones on sulfuric acid. When applying realistic uptake coefficients of 1.0, 10-5 and 10-4 for H2SO4, HCl and HNO3, respectively, the same scenario with injections of calcite particles results in 94 % of the particle mass remaining in the form of CaCO3. This likely keeps the optical properties of the calcite particles intact, but could significantly alter the heterogeneous reactions occurring on the particle surfaces. The major process uncertainties of solid particle SAI are 1) the solid particle microphysics in the injection plume and degree of agglomeration of solid particles on the sub-ESM grid scale, 2) the scattering properties of the resulting agglomerates 3) heterogeneous chemistry on the particle surface and 4) aerosol-cloud interactions. These uncertainties can only be addressed with extensive, coordinated, experimental and modelling research efforts. The model presented in this work offers a useful tool for sensitivity studies and impact analysis of new experimental results on points 1) to 3) for SAI of solid particles.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(2285 KB)
-
Supplement
(4443 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2285 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(4443 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-444', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 May 2024
General Comment
This paper, titled "A fully coupled solid particle microphysics scheme for stratospheric aerosol injections within the aerosol-chemistry-climate-model SOCOL-AERv2," presents an innovative and significant advancement in the field of geoengineering. The authors have successfully integrated a solid particle microphysics scheme into the SOCOL-AERv2 model, enabling a comprehensive assessment of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) using solid particles such as alumina and calcite. This approach addresses several limitations associated with traditional sulfur-based SAI methods, including ozone depletion and stratospheric heating.
The study is well-structured and meticulously detailed, offering a thorough explanation of the new model's components and its capabilities. The methodology is robust, with clearly described simulation scenarios and a comparative analysis between solid particle injections and sulfur-based aerosols. The results are compelling, demonstrating the potential advantages of using solid particles for SAI, such as higher radiative forcing efficiency and reduced adverse environmental impacts.
However, while the paper is comprehensive, it would be useful to include more information on the validation of the model and comparison with observational data. I believe that by adding information on how well the model can reproduce the observed data, the reliability of both the model and the paper will be enhanced, so please consider this aspect.
Overall, this paper makes a substantial contribution to the field of climate engineering, providing valuable insights and a new tool for evaluating the feasibility and impacts of SAI with solid particles. The SOCOL-AERv2 model with solid particle microphysics represents a significant step forward in exploring alternative materials for geoengineering, and the findings of this study will undoubtedly stimulate further research and discussion in this critical area.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-444-RC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Sandro Vattioni, 09 Jul 2024
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your review and positive feedback on the manuscript and the comments that helped to improve it. We appreciate the time you took to review the manuscript. Please find the answer to your comments in the pdf attached.
Sincerely,
Sandro Vattioni and Co-Authors
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Sandro Vattioni, 09 Jul 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-444', Anton Laakso, 21 May 2024
The manuscript by Vattioni et al. investigates the injection of solid particles, in particular alumina and calcite particles for stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI). They also implement a solid particle microphysics scheme on SOCOL-AER chemistry climate model, which is then coupled with the existing sulfur cycle, the heterogeneous chemistry scheme and radiative transfer model. This allows a relatively thorough and comprehensive review of solid particle injections. Alternative injection materials are an important issue for SAI and research into them is very welcome and needed. Despite the expected limitations and uncertainties in modelling the subject, this study is a major step forward in the field. Overall, this is an interesting, well written and really good study. It is therefore difficult to find anything to criticise or disagree with. Therefore, I have only few comments for authors to consider and recommend that this manuscript be published.
The only thing I would have liked to know a bit more about was stratospheric heating. As the authors state, this is one of the main interests of using alternative material instead of sulfur-based injections. If there are some restrictions on why stratospheric heating cannot be shown, it would be nice to see values for absorbed radiation. It is also interesting that based on Supplementary Figure S5 the absorption cross section for calcite is larger than for H2SO4 or alumina for the visible light spectrum. I am unable to estimate whether this leads to significantly greater absorption of shortwave radiation, but it would be interesting to see.
The separate presentation of shortwave and longwave radiative forcing (e.g. in a supplement) could also be a good addition.
Few comments on specific lines:
P2 L21-23: This may give the impression that these listed uncertainties are results that have been investigated and shown in this study.P3 L56: Not only are they inefficient at backscattering solar radiation, but they can also absorb thermal radiation, which is not good.
P3 L62 Perhaps there could be some discussion in the conclusions as to whether solid aerosols offered a solution to these limitations based on this study. Of course, it is quite difficult to estimate e.g whether there are lower inter-model uncertainties in the case of solid materials than for sulfur injections based on this study, but there were some rather large differences between Weinstein et al. 2015 and this study that I found interesting.
P3 L66: Just a comment: larger absorption leads to a reduction in (global) precipitation, which is especially important for larger injections (see e.g. Laakso, A et al: Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 405-427, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-405-2024, 2024). Personally, this is one of the main reasons why I think solid materials could be an interesting alternative to sulfur.
P6 L169: Emissions of SW radiation?
P7 L201: Is the lack of aerosols in the largest bins mainly due to lack of agglomeration? "Large number"-mers are quite large if the monomer radius is 200nm and I assume their lifetime in the atmosphere is not long.
P12 L315-323: It may just be me, but I had some problems understanding how the alumina particles are presented, but I have no suggestion as to how this could be made clearer. It may be that I was confused by the monomers and agglomerates and thought at first that they were something else than different bins in the same 10-bin distribution. It was also only later that I realised that the injections were indeed always made in the first bin, regardless of the size of the particles. However, unless I am completely wrong, there are now 10 bins for Alumina (partially coated particles), H2SO4 (partially coated), Alumina (fully coated), H2SO4 (fully coated)? A figure would always be helpful, but I am not sure if it is that important here. Maybe for a supplement at most.
P13-14 L357-361. When I read this, I wondered where the contact angle came from. Later in the results section it is found that it is predefined. It could be mentioned here.
P17 L445 CasO_4 -> CaSO_4
P19 L480-490 Since the model has been updated, it is not surprising that the burdens are different (lower) than in Weisenstein et al. (2015). However, if I have calculated and understood the units correctly (there is a good chance that I haven't), the sulfur burdens in your study are slightly higher than in Weisenstein et al. (2015). But this is just interesting (if true) and I don't mean that you should open up differences in every single process between models to explain it. But if you had an idea for a reason, you could mention it.
P19 L504-506 It is also interesting to note that in this study, the injection of 80nm particles resulted in a much larger radiative forcing than in Weisenstein et al 2015. Do you know why this is? The burden was larger in Weisenstein et al., but on the other hand, in this study the mass fraction is largest in 16mers, whereas in Weisenstein et al. it was 64mers (with 4 Tg/yr). This is probably the answer. If so, this is another nice example of how important aerosol microphysics is, even when simulating solid particles.
P21 L526. These fractions of depleted sulfate burdens might also be worth mentioning in calcite simulations, although they can also be seen in Fig. 9. It is also interesting that the fraction of depleted H2SO4 mass is larger in alumina than in calcite for 80 nm injections, but vice versa for e.g. 320 nm injections.
P26 L610 TOC already used in P25 L560, so could be opened there
P31 L681 “…on polar stratospheric clouds (PSC) is unclear..” <--please add “(PSC)”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-444-RC2 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Sandro Vattioni, 09 Jul 2024
Dear Anton Laakso,
Thank you very much for your positive review and your very useful comments and suggestions, which have helped improve the document. We very much appreciate the time you invested. Please find the answers to your comments in the attached pdf.
Sincerely,
Sandro Vattioni and Co-Authors
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Sandro Vattioni, 09 Jul 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-444', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 May 2024
General Comment
This paper, titled "A fully coupled solid particle microphysics scheme for stratospheric aerosol injections within the aerosol-chemistry-climate-model SOCOL-AERv2," presents an innovative and significant advancement in the field of geoengineering. The authors have successfully integrated a solid particle microphysics scheme into the SOCOL-AERv2 model, enabling a comprehensive assessment of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) using solid particles such as alumina and calcite. This approach addresses several limitations associated with traditional sulfur-based SAI methods, including ozone depletion and stratospheric heating.
The study is well-structured and meticulously detailed, offering a thorough explanation of the new model's components and its capabilities. The methodology is robust, with clearly described simulation scenarios and a comparative analysis between solid particle injections and sulfur-based aerosols. The results are compelling, demonstrating the potential advantages of using solid particles for SAI, such as higher radiative forcing efficiency and reduced adverse environmental impacts.
However, while the paper is comprehensive, it would be useful to include more information on the validation of the model and comparison with observational data. I believe that by adding information on how well the model can reproduce the observed data, the reliability of both the model and the paper will be enhanced, so please consider this aspect.
Overall, this paper makes a substantial contribution to the field of climate engineering, providing valuable insights and a new tool for evaluating the feasibility and impacts of SAI with solid particles. The SOCOL-AERv2 model with solid particle microphysics represents a significant step forward in exploring alternative materials for geoengineering, and the findings of this study will undoubtedly stimulate further research and discussion in this critical area.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-444-RC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Sandro Vattioni, 09 Jul 2024
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your review and positive feedback on the manuscript and the comments that helped to improve it. We appreciate the time you took to review the manuscript. Please find the answer to your comments in the pdf attached.
Sincerely,
Sandro Vattioni and Co-Authors
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Sandro Vattioni, 09 Jul 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-444', Anton Laakso, 21 May 2024
The manuscript by Vattioni et al. investigates the injection of solid particles, in particular alumina and calcite particles for stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI). They also implement a solid particle microphysics scheme on SOCOL-AER chemistry climate model, which is then coupled with the existing sulfur cycle, the heterogeneous chemistry scheme and radiative transfer model. This allows a relatively thorough and comprehensive review of solid particle injections. Alternative injection materials are an important issue for SAI and research into them is very welcome and needed. Despite the expected limitations and uncertainties in modelling the subject, this study is a major step forward in the field. Overall, this is an interesting, well written and really good study. It is therefore difficult to find anything to criticise or disagree with. Therefore, I have only few comments for authors to consider and recommend that this manuscript be published.
The only thing I would have liked to know a bit more about was stratospheric heating. As the authors state, this is one of the main interests of using alternative material instead of sulfur-based injections. If there are some restrictions on why stratospheric heating cannot be shown, it would be nice to see values for absorbed radiation. It is also interesting that based on Supplementary Figure S5 the absorption cross section for calcite is larger than for H2SO4 or alumina for the visible light spectrum. I am unable to estimate whether this leads to significantly greater absorption of shortwave radiation, but it would be interesting to see.
The separate presentation of shortwave and longwave radiative forcing (e.g. in a supplement) could also be a good addition.
Few comments on specific lines:
P2 L21-23: This may give the impression that these listed uncertainties are results that have been investigated and shown in this study.P3 L56: Not only are they inefficient at backscattering solar radiation, but they can also absorb thermal radiation, which is not good.
P3 L62 Perhaps there could be some discussion in the conclusions as to whether solid aerosols offered a solution to these limitations based on this study. Of course, it is quite difficult to estimate e.g whether there are lower inter-model uncertainties in the case of solid materials than for sulfur injections based on this study, but there were some rather large differences between Weinstein et al. 2015 and this study that I found interesting.
P3 L66: Just a comment: larger absorption leads to a reduction in (global) precipitation, which is especially important for larger injections (see e.g. Laakso, A et al: Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 405-427, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-405-2024, 2024). Personally, this is one of the main reasons why I think solid materials could be an interesting alternative to sulfur.
P6 L169: Emissions of SW radiation?
P7 L201: Is the lack of aerosols in the largest bins mainly due to lack of agglomeration? "Large number"-mers are quite large if the monomer radius is 200nm and I assume their lifetime in the atmosphere is not long.
P12 L315-323: It may just be me, but I had some problems understanding how the alumina particles are presented, but I have no suggestion as to how this could be made clearer. It may be that I was confused by the monomers and agglomerates and thought at first that they were something else than different bins in the same 10-bin distribution. It was also only later that I realised that the injections were indeed always made in the first bin, regardless of the size of the particles. However, unless I am completely wrong, there are now 10 bins for Alumina (partially coated particles), H2SO4 (partially coated), Alumina (fully coated), H2SO4 (fully coated)? A figure would always be helpful, but I am not sure if it is that important here. Maybe for a supplement at most.
P13-14 L357-361. When I read this, I wondered where the contact angle came from. Later in the results section it is found that it is predefined. It could be mentioned here.
P17 L445 CasO_4 -> CaSO_4
P19 L480-490 Since the model has been updated, it is not surprising that the burdens are different (lower) than in Weisenstein et al. (2015). However, if I have calculated and understood the units correctly (there is a good chance that I haven't), the sulfur burdens in your study are slightly higher than in Weisenstein et al. (2015). But this is just interesting (if true) and I don't mean that you should open up differences in every single process between models to explain it. But if you had an idea for a reason, you could mention it.
P19 L504-506 It is also interesting to note that in this study, the injection of 80nm particles resulted in a much larger radiative forcing than in Weisenstein et al 2015. Do you know why this is? The burden was larger in Weisenstein et al., but on the other hand, in this study the mass fraction is largest in 16mers, whereas in Weisenstein et al. it was 64mers (with 4 Tg/yr). This is probably the answer. If so, this is another nice example of how important aerosol microphysics is, even when simulating solid particles.
P21 L526. These fractions of depleted sulfate burdens might also be worth mentioning in calcite simulations, although they can also be seen in Fig. 9. It is also interesting that the fraction of depleted H2SO4 mass is larger in alumina than in calcite for 80 nm injections, but vice versa for e.g. 320 nm injections.
P26 L610 TOC already used in P25 L560, so could be opened there
P31 L681 “…on polar stratospheric clouds (PSC) is unclear..” <--please add “(PSC)”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-444-RC2 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Sandro Vattioni, 09 Jul 2024
Dear Anton Laakso,
Thank you very much for your positive review and your very useful comments and suggestions, which have helped improve the document. We very much appreciate the time you invested. Please find the answers to your comments in the attached pdf.
Sincerely,
Sandro Vattioni and Co-Authors
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Sandro Vattioni, 09 Jul 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
596 | 183 | 113 | 892 | 126 | 20 | 27 |
- HTML: 596
- PDF: 183
- XML: 113
- Total: 892
- Supplement: 126
- BibTeX: 20
- EndNote: 27
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Sandro Vattioni
Rahel Weber
Aryehe Feinberg
Andrea Stenke
John A. Dykema
Beiping Luo
Georgios A. Kelesidis
Christian A. Bruun
Timofei Sukhodolov
Frank N. Keutsch
Thomas Peter
Gabriel Chiodo
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2285 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(4443 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper