Abstract:Solar radiation modification by a sustained deliberate source of SO 2 into the stratosphere (strat-SRM) has been proposed as an option for climate intervention. Global interactive aerosol–chemistry–climate models are often used to investigate the potential cooling efficiencies and associated side effects of hypothesized strat-SRM scenarios. A recent model intercomparison study for composition–climate models with interactive stratospheric aerosol suggests that the modeled climate response to a particular assumed injection strategy depends on the type of aerosol microphysical scheme used (e.g., modal or sectional representation) alongside host model resolution and transport. Compared to short-duration volcanic SO 2 emissions, the continuous SO 2 injections in strat-SRM scenarios may pose a greater challenge to the numerical implementation of microphysical processes such as nucleation, condensation, and coagulation. This study explores how changing the time steps and sequencing of microphysical processes in the sectional aerosol–chemistry–climate model SOCOL-AERv2 (40 mass bins) affects model-predicted climate and ozone layer impacts considering strat-SRM by SO 2 injections of 5 and 25 Tg(S) yr −1 at 20 km altitude between 30° S and 30° N. The model experiments consider the year 2040 to be the boundary conditions for ozone-depleting substances and greenhouse gases (GHGs). We focus on the length of the microphysical time step and the call sequence of nucleation and condensation, the two competing sink processes for gaseous H 2 SO 4 . Under stratospheric background conditions, we find no effect of the microphysical setup on the simulated aerosol properties. However, at the high sulfur loadings reached in the scenarios injecting 25 Tg(S) yr −1 of SO 2 with a default microphysical time step of 6 min, changing the call sequence from the default "condensation first" to "nucleation first" leads to a massive increase in the number densities of particles in the nucleation mode ( R <0.01 μm ) and a small decrease in coarse-mode particles ( R >1 μm ). As expected, the influence of the call sequence becomes negligible when the microphysical time step is reduced to a few seconds, with the model solutions converging to a size distribution with a pronounced nucleation mode. While the main features and spatial patterns of climate forcing by SO 2 injections are not strongly affected by the microphysical configuration, the absolute numbers vary considerably. For the extreme injection with 25 Tg(S) yr −1 , the simulated net global radiative forcing ranges from − 2.3 to − 5.3 W m −2 , depending on the microphysical configuration. Nucleation first shifts the size distribution towards radii better suited for solar scattering (0.3 μm 0.4 μm ), enhancing the intervention efficiency. The size distribution shift, however, generates more ultrafine aerosol particles, increasing the surface area density and resulting in 10 DU (Dobson units) less ozone (about 3 % of the total column) in the northern mid-latitudes and 20 DU less ozone (6 %) over the polar caps compared to the condensation first approach. Our results suggest that a reasonably short microphysical time step of 2 min or less must be applied to accurately capture the magnitude of the H 2 SO 4 supersaturation resulting from SO 2 injection scenarios or volcanic eruptions. Taken together, these results underscore how structural aspects of model representation of aerosol microphysical processes become important under conditions of elevated stratospheric sulfur in determining atmospheric chemistry and climate impacts.

Stratospheric Albedo Modification by Aerosol Injection

Climate Response to Latitudinal and Altitudinal Distribution of Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosols

Climate System Response to Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosols: Sensitivity to Altitude of Aerosol Layer

The Climatic Effects of Hygroscopic Growth of Sulfate Aerosols in the Stratosphere

Microphysical Interactions Determine the Effectiveness of Solar Radiation Modification via Stratospheric Solid Particle Injection

Small Scale Stratospheric Aerosol Injection Experiments Benefits Solar Geoengineering Research

Injection strategy – a driver of atmospheric circulation and ozone response to stratospheric aerosol geoengineering

A Living Assessment of Different Materials for Stratospheric Aerosol Injection—Building Bridges Between Model World and the Messiness of Reality

Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosol Geoengineering Could Alter the High‐Latitude Seasonal Cycle

On Nucleation Pathways and Particle Size Distribution Evolutions in Stratospheric Aircraft Exhaust Plumes with H 2 SO 4 Enhancement

An assessment of the infrastructural and temporal barriers constraining a near-term implementation of a global stratospheric aerosol injection program

Changes in Hadley Circulation and Intertropical Convergence Zone under Strategic Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering

Kicking the Can Down the Road: Understanding the Effects of Delaying the Deployment of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection

Dependency of the impacts of geoengineering on the stratospheric sulfur injection strategy – Part 2: How changes in the hydrological cycle depend on the injection rate and model used

Importance of microphysical settings for climate forcing by stratospheric SO2 injections as modeled by SOCOL-AERv2

Mixed Chloride Aerosols and their Atmospheric Implications: A Review

Simultaneous stabilization of global temperature and precipitation through cocktail geoengineering

Climate Response to Pulse Versus Sustained Stratospheric Aerosol Forcing

Different Strategies of Stratospheric Aerosol Injection Would Significantly Affect Climate Extreme Mitigation

Side Effects of Sulfur‐Based Geoengineering Due To Absorptivity of Sulfate Aerosols

How large is the design space for stratospheric aerosol geoengineering?