Search

Wind renewable energy (WRE) is an essential component of the global sustainable energy portfolio. Recently, there has been increasing discussion on the potential supplementation of this conventional mitigation portfolio with Solar Radiation Modification (SRM). However, the impact of SRM on conventional mitigation measures has received limited attention to date. In this study, we explore one part of this impact, the potential effect of one type of SRM, Stratospheric Aerosol Injections (SAI), on WRE. Using hourly output from the Earth System Model CNRM‐ESM2‐1, we compare WRE potential under a medium emission scenario (SSP245) and a high emission scenario (SSP585) with an SRM scenario that has SSP585 baseline conditions and uses SAI to offset warming to approximately SSP245 global warming levels. Our results suggest that SAI may affect surface wind resources by modifying large‐scale circulation patterns, such as a significant poleward jet‐shift in the Southern Hemisphere. The modeled total global WRE potential is negligibly reduced under SAI compared to the SSP‐scenarios. However, regional trends are highly variable, with large increases and decreases in WRE potential frequently reaching 12% across the globe with SAI. This study highlights potential downstream effects of SRM on climatic elements, such as wind patterns, and offers perspectives on its implications for our mitigation efforts. Plain Language Summary: Wind renewable energy (WRE) is a pivotal element of the global transition toward sustainable energy. Recently, there has been a surge of interest in Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) as a potential means of managing climate impacts, but its effects on existing strategies like WRE have not been much addressed in the current literature. This research examines the potential impact of one type of SRM, Stratospheric Aerosol Injections (SAI), on WRE potential. An Earth System Model is used to compare WRE potential under three climate scenarios: one with moderate emissions, one with high emissions and one where SAI is used to reduce warming in the high‐emission scenario to match the moderate‐emission global warming level. The findings suggest that SAI may result in a minimal reduction in long‐term global mean WRE potential. However, the effects vary considerably by region and season, with areas experiencing changes in WRE potential that frequently reach approximately 12%. This research highlights the potential for SAI to exert complex effects on wind patterns, which could influence the future of renewable energy strategies. Key Points: Stratospheric Aerosol Injections do not fully compensate for atmospheric circulation changes from climate change but create new dynamicsTotal global wind energy potential is negligibly reduced under Stratospheric Aerosol Injections but regional trends tend to vary substantiallyResults are based on hourly output from CNRM‐ESM2‐1. Changes are likely to be larger in other GeoMIP models in the northern hemisphere [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) has been proposed as a potential supplement to mitigate some climate impacts of anthropogenic warming. Using Community Earth System Model ensemble simulation results, we analyze the response of temperature and precipitation extremes to two different SAI strategies: one injects SO2 at the equator to stabilize global mean temperature and the other injects SO2 at multiple locations to stabilize global mean temperature as well as the interhemispheric and equator‐to‐pole temperature gradients. Our analysis shows that in the late 21st century, compared with the present‐day climate, both equatorial and multi‐location injection lead to reduced hot extremes in the tropics, corresponding to overcooling of the mean climate state. In mid‐to‐high latitude regions, in comparison to the present‐day climate, substantial decreases in cold extremes are observed under both equatorial and multi‐location injection, corresponding to residual winter warming of the mean climate state. Both equatorial and multi‐location injection reduce precipitation extremes in the tropics below the present‐day level, associated with the decrease in mean precipitation. Overall, for most regions, temperature and precipitation extremes show reduced change in response to multi‐location injection than to equatorial injection, corresponding to reduced mean climate change for multi‐location injection. In comparison with equatorial injection, in response to multi‐location injection, most land regions experience fewer years with significant change in cold extremes from the present‐day level, and most tropical regions experience fewer years with significant change in hot extremes. The design of SAI strategies to mitigate anthropogenic climate extremes merits further study. Plain Language Summary: Injecting SO2 into the stratosphere to deflect incoming sunlight back to space has been proposed as a possible means to counteract anthropogenic warming. Previous studies focused on the response of the mean climate change to SO2 injection. Here we analyze how SO2 injection would affect climate extremes using two sets of climate model simulations under a high‐CO2 scenario. In one set of simulations, SO2 is injected into the stratosphere at the equator to stabilize global mean warming at the present‐day level; in another set of simulations, SO2 is injected into the stratosphere at four different latitudes to stabilize global mean temperature, interhemispheric temperature gradient, and equator‐to‐pole temperature gradient at the same time. Our analysis shows that both equatorial injection and multi‐location injection can help reduce temperature and precipitation extreme events induced by global warming, but their effectiveness varies across different regions. In general, compared to equatorial injection, multi‐location injection can be more effective in stabilizing climate extremes at the present‐day level over most regions. This is consistent with the fact that multi‐location injection exhibits smaller changes in mean climate state than that of the equatorial injection relative to the present‐day state. Key Points: We examine the climate extreme response to two stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) strategies: equatorial injection and multi‐location injectionThe response of climate extremes to SAI shows similar characteristics to mean climate responseMulti‐location injection is more effective in stabilizing climate extremes at the present‐day level [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Wind renewable energy (WRE) is an essential component of the global sustainable energy portfolio. Recently, there has been increasing discussion on the potential supplementation of this conventional mitigation portfolio with Solar Radiation Modification (SRM). However, the impact of SRM on conventional mitigation measures has received limited attention to date. In this study, we explore one part of this impact, the potential effect of one type of SRM, Stratospheric Aerosol Injections (SAI), on WRE. Using hourly output from the Earth System Model CNRM‐ESM2‐1, we compare WRE potential under a medium emission scenario (SSP245) and a high emission scenario (SSP585) with an SRM scenario that has SSP585 baseline conditions and uses SAI to offset warming to approximately SSP245 global warming levels. Our results suggest that SAI may affect surface wind resources by modifying large‐scale circulation patterns, such as a significant poleward jet‐shift in the Southern Hemisphere. The modeled total global WRE potential is negligibly reduced under SAI compared to the SSP‐scenarios. However, regional trends are highly variable, with large increases and decreases in WRE potential frequently reaching 12% across the globe with SAI. This study highlights potential downstream effects of SRM on climatic elements, such as wind patterns, and offers perspectives on its implications for our mitigation efforts.

Abstract Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) has been proposed as a potential supplement to mitigate some climate impacts of anthropogenic warming. Using Community Earth System Model ensemble simulation results, we analyze the response of temperature and precipitation extremes to two different SAI strategies: one injects SO2 at the equator to stabilize global mean temperature and the other injects SO2 at multiple locations to stabilize global mean temperature as well as the interhemispheric and equator‐to‐pole temperature gradients. Our analysis shows that in the late 21st century, compared with the present‐day climate, both equatorial and multi‐location injection lead to reduced hot extremes in the tropics, corresponding to overcooling of the mean climate state. In mid‐to‐high latitude regions, in comparison to the present‐day climate, substantial decreases in cold extremes are observed under both equatorial and multi‐location injection, corresponding to residual winter warming of the mean climate state. Both equatorial and multi‐location injection reduce precipitation extremes in the tropics below the present‐day level, associated with the decrease in mean precipitation. Overall, for most regions, temperature and precipitation extremes show reduced change in response to multi‐location injection than to equatorial injection, corresponding to reduced mean climate change for multi‐location injection. In comparison with equatorial injection, in response to multi‐location injection, most land regions experience fewer years with significant change in cold extremes from the present‐day level, and most tropical regions experience fewer years with significant change in hot extremes. The design of SAI strategies to mitigate anthropogenic climate extremes merits further study.

Solar geoengineering refers to proposals, including stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), to slow or reverse climate change by reflecting away incoming sunlight. The rapid changes ongoing in the Arctic and Antarctic, and the risk of exceeding tipping points in the cryosphere within decades, make limiting such changes a plausible objective of solar geoengineering. Here, we review the impacts of SAI on polar climate and cryosphere, including the dependence of these impacts on the latitude(s) of injection, and make recommendations for future research directions. SAI would cool the polar regions and reduce many changes in polar climate under future warming scenarios. Some under‐cooling of the polar regions relative to the global mean is expected under SAI without high latitude injection, due to latitudinal variation in insolation and CO2 forcing, the forcing dependence of the polar lapse rate feedback, and altered atmospheric dynamics. There are also potential limitations in the effectiveness of SAI to arrest changes in winter‐time polar climate and to prevent sea‐level rise from the Antarctic ice sheet. Finally, we also review the prospects for three other solar geoengineering proposals targeting the poles: marine cloud brightening, cirrus cloud thinning, and sea‐ice albedo modification. Sea‐ice albedo modification appears unlikely to be viable on pan‐Arctic or Antarctic scales. Whether marine cloud brightening or cirrus cloud thinning would be effective in the polar regions remains uncertain. Solar geoengineering is an increasingly prominent proposal and a robust understanding of its consequences in the polar regions is needed to inform climate policy in the coming decades. Plain Language Summary: It may be possible to temporarily limit the impacts of climate change by reflecting away part of the incoming sunlight reaching the Earth. Ideas for how to do this are termed solar geoengineering. The Arctic and Antarctic are warming rapidly and change in these regions contributes to serious problems caused by climate change, such as global sea level rise. Additionally, we may exceed warming thresholds within several decades beyond which changes in the polar climate system become self‐perpetuating. As a result the Arctic and Antarctic are potential regional targets of solar geoengineering. In this study we review for the first time the evidence on how various forms of solar geoengineering would impact the Arctic and Antarctic. We find that while solar geoengineering is less effective in the polar regions, which receive less sunlight to reflect away than the lower latitudes, global deployment could meaningfully reduce all the projected changes due to climate change which we assess. The potential effectiveness of local polar schemes, which would aim to change the energy balance only over the Arctic or Antarctic, remains very uncertain. The limited evidence we have suggests such options would be insufficient to prevent regional change under high emissions scenarios. Key Points: Global solar geoengineering, if technically feasible, would likely reduce the rapid climate change ongoing in the Arctic and AntarcticTargeted solar geoengineering strategies would be needed to avoid residual warming in the polar regionsNo truly localized polar geoengineering proposal has been shown viable for restoring climate on a pan‐Arctic or Antarctic scale [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Solar geoengineering refers to proposals, including stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI), to slow or reverse climate change by reflecting away incoming sunlight. The rapid changes ongoing in the Arctic and Antarctic, and the risk of exceeding tipping points in the cryosphere within decades, make limiting such changes a plausible objective of solar geoengineering. Here, we review the impacts of SAI on polar climate and cryosphere, including the dependence of these impacts on the latitude(s) of injection, and make recommendations for future research directions. SAI would cool the polar regions and reduce many changes in polar climate under future warming scenarios. Some under‐cooling of the polar regions relative to the global mean is expected under SAI without high latitude injection, due to latitudinal variation in insolation and CO2 forcing, the forcing dependence of the polar lapse rate feedback, and altered atmospheric dynamics. There are also potential limitations in the effectiveness of SAI to arrest changes in winter‐time polar climate and to prevent sea‐level rise from the Antarctic ice sheet. Finally, we also review the prospects for three other solar geoengineering proposals targeting the poles: marine cloud brightening, cirrus cloud thinning, and sea‐ice albedo modification. Sea‐ice albedo modification appears unlikely to be viable on pan‐Arctic or Antarctic scales. Whether marine cloud brightening or cirrus cloud thinning would be effective in the polar regions remains uncertain. Solar geoengineering is an increasingly prominent proposal and a robust understanding of its consequences in the polar regions is needed to inform climate policy in the coming decades.

Solar radiation modification (SRM) is a proposed method to cool the Earth by intentionally perturbing the Earth's energy balance. One concern about the effect of SRM is disparities in the regional climate response. In this study, we use the Community Earth System Model (CESM1.2) to analyze the regional response of land hydrology and terrestrial carbon uptake to different amounts of SRM. The SRM is implemented by a uniform increase in volcanic‐size sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere under a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Our results show that different amounts of SRM could either moderate or exacerbate CO2‐induced changes in land hydrology including precipitation, precipitation minus evapotranspiration, and soil moisture (SM), but the effect varies widely across regions and specific variables. An "optimal" amount of SRM that moderates land hydrology changes for one region might exacerbate changes for other regions (or vice versa). Also, our study shows that for quite a few regions, partial SRM moderates CO2‐induced change in precipitation minus evaporation but exacerbates changes in CO2‐induced SM. The response of terrestrial Net primary productivity (NPP) to different amounts of SRM shows large regional disparities, depending on whether temperature or water availability constrains NPP more. Our study also shows that the effect of CO2 physiological forcing plays a key role in regulating land hydrology response to SRM, especially at the regional scale. Plain Language Summary: To reduce anthropogenic global warming, different solar radiation modification (SRM) approaches have been proposed. One main concern about the climate effect of SRM is the uneven regional climate response. We use a climate model to analyze how stratospheric aerosol increase would affect regional climate. Our focus is on regional land hydrology (including precipitation, precipitation minus evapotranspiration, and soil moisture [SM]) and carbon cycle response to different intensities of stratospheric aerosol increase. Our results demonstrate that different intensities of aerosol increase would induce strong regional inequalities in reducing the CO2‐induced anomaly of specific quantities. A certain intensity of SRM that reduces the CO2‐induced anomaly of land hydrology for one region might increase the anomaly for other regions. In some regions, SRM reduces the CO2‐induced anomaly in precipitation minus evapotranspiration but increases the CO2‐induced anomaly in SM. In addition, changes in vegetation productivity in response to different intensities of SRM show large regional disparities, depending on whether temperature or water availability is the major limiting factor for vegetation growth. Key Points: We use the Community Earth System Model model to analyze how different amounts of solar radiation modification (SRM) affect regional climateLand hydrology response depends on the amount of SRM, the region, and the specific variables consideredThe response of land productivity to different amounts of SRM is regionally dependent [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Solar radiation modification (SRM) is a proposed method to cool the Earth by intentionally perturbing the Earth's energy balance. One concern about the effect of SRM is disparities in the regional climate response. In this study, we use the Community Earth System Model (CESM1.2) to analyze the regional response of land hydrology and terrestrial carbon uptake to different amounts of SRM. The SRM is implemented by a uniform increase in volcanic‐size sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere under a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Our results show that different amounts of SRM could either moderate or exacerbate CO2‐induced changes in land hydrology including precipitation, precipitation minus evapotranspiration, and soil moisture (SM), but the effect varies widely across regions and specific variables. An “optimal” amount of SRM that moderates land hydrology changes for one region might exacerbate changes for other regions (or vice versa). Also, our study shows that for quite a few regions, partial SRM moderates CO2‐induced change in precipitation minus evaporation but exacerbates changes in CO2‐induced SM. The response of terrestrial Net primary productivity (NPP) to different amounts of SRM shows large regional disparities, depending on whether temperature or water availability constrains NPP more. Our study also shows that the effect of CO2 physiological forcing plays a key role in regulating land hydrology response to SRM, especially at the regional scale.

Abstract Solar radiation modification (SRM) is known to strengthen both land and ocean carbon uptake because of its impacts on surface temperature, solar radiation, and other potential drivers of the global carbon cycle. However, the magnitude and timing of the response of both land and ocean carbon uptake to SRM and its consequence on allowable CO2 emissions remain poorly understood. Here we use the results of six Earth system models simulating a continuous stratospheric injection of 5 Tg of sulfur dioxide per year between 2020 and 2069 under the representative concentration pathways 4.5 to investigate the impact of SRM on land and ocean carbon uptake. We find that 50 years of SRM under this protocol increases the allowable CO2 emissions by 40 ± 19 GtC; 85% of this additional uptake of carbon is stored in the land biosphere and 15% in the ocean. This increase in allowable CO2 emissions is however not sustainable after the stoppage of SRM. Earth system models predict a mean release of 8 ± 11 GtC of the carbon back to the atmosphere 20 years after the stoppage which is dominated by large uncertainties in the response of the simulated land carbon cycle to rising temperature and solar radiation. We demonstrate that the time scales of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) potential of SRM are smaller than the time scales of the geological storage assumed in well‐established CDR options. This shows that the CDR potential of SRM should be compared to well‐established CDR options with caution.

Solar radiation modification (SRM) is known to strengthen both land and ocean carbon uptake because of its impacts on surface temperature, solar radiation, and other potential drivers of the global carbon cycle. However, the magnitude and timing of the response of both land and ocean carbon uptake to SRM and its consequence on allowable CO2 emissions remain poorly understood. Here we use the results of six Earth system models simulating a continuous stratospheric injection of 5 Tg of sulfur dioxide per year between 2020 and 2069 under the representative concentration pathways 4.5 to investigate the impact of SRM on land and ocean carbon uptake. We find that 50 years of SRM under this protocol increases the allowable CO2 emissions by 40 ± 19 GtC; 85% of this additional uptake of carbon is stored in the land biosphere and 15% in the ocean. This increase in allowable CO2 emissions is however not sustainable after the stoppage of SRM. Earth system models predict a mean release of 8 ± 11 GtC of the carbon back to the atmosphere 20 years after the stoppage which is dominated by large uncertainties in the response of the simulated land carbon cycle to rising temperature and solar radiation. We demonstrate that the time scales of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) potential of SRM are smaller than the time scales of the geological storage assumed in well‐established CDR options. This shows that the CDR potential of SRM should be compared to well‐established CDR options with caution. Key Points: The global carbon uptake is reinforced by 40 ± 19 GtC after 50 years of solar radiation modificationEighty‐five percent of this global uptake is driven by the land carbon sink; only 15% is controlled by the oceanThe largest model uncertainties consist in the response of the land carbon cycle to the stoppage of solar radiation modification [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]