Filters

20152

More filters

20192
Reset filters

Settings

search.filters.applied.f.access: openAccess × Author: Friend, A.D. × End date: 2015 × Start date: 2015 × WGL Institute: PIK ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Decomposing uncertainties in the future terrestrial carbon budget associated with emission scenarios, climate projections, and ecosystem simulations using the ISI-MIP results
    (München : European Geopyhsical Union, 2015) Nishina, K.; Ito, A.; Falloon, P.; Friend, A.D.; Beerling, D.J.; Ciais, P.; Clark, D.B.; Kahana, R.; Kato, E.; Lucht, W.; Lomas, M.; Pavlick, R.; Schaphoff, S.; Warszawaski, L.; Yokohata, T.
    We examined the changes to global net primary production (NPP), vegetation biomass carbon (VegC), and soil organic carbon (SOC) estimated by six global vegetation models (GVMs) obtained from the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project. Simulation results were obtained using five global climate models (GCMs) forced with four representative concentration pathway (RCP) scenarios. To clarify which component (i.e., emission scenarios, climate projections, or global vegetation models) contributes the most to uncertainties in projected global terrestrial C cycling by 2100, analysis of variance (ANOVA) and wavelet clustering were applied to 70 projected simulation sets. At the end of the simulation period, changes from the year 2000 in all three variables varied considerably from net negative to positive values. ANOVA revealed that the main sources of uncertainty are different among variables and depend on the projection period. We determined that in the global VegC and SOC projections, GVMs are the main influence on uncertainties (60 % and 90 %, respectively) rather than climate-driving scenarios (RCPs and GCMs). Moreover, the divergence of changes in vegetation carbon residence times is dominated by GVM uncertainty, particularly in the latter half of the 21st century. In addition, we found that the contribution of each uncertainty source is spatiotemporally heterogeneous and it differs among the GVM variables. The dominant uncertainty source for changes in NPP and VegC varies along the climatic gradient. The contribution of GVM to the uncertainty decreases as the climate division becomes cooler (from ca. 80 % in the equatorial division to 40 % in the snow division). Our results suggest that to assess climate change impacts on global ecosystem C cycling among each RCP scenario, the long-term C dynamics within the ecosystems (i.e., vegetation turnover and soil decomposition) are more critical factors than photosynthetic processes. The different trends in the contribution of uncertainty sources in each variable among climate divisions indicate that improvement of GVMs based on climate division or biome type will be effective. On the other hand, in dry regions, GCMs are the dominant uncertainty source in climate impact assessments of vegetation and soil C dynamics.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A framework for the cross-sectoral integration of multi-model impact projections: Land use decisions under climate impacts uncertainties
    (München : European Geopyhsical Union, 2015) Frieler, K.; Levermann, A.; Elliott, J.; Heinke, J.; Arneth, A.; Bierkens, M.F.P.; Ciais, P.; Clark, D.B.; Deryng, D.; Döll, P.; Falloon, P.; Fekete, B.; Folberth, C.; Friend, A.D.; Gellhorn, C.; Gosling, S.N.; Haddeland, I.; Khabarov, N.; Lomas, M.; Masaki, Y.; Nishina, K.; Neumann, K.; Oki, T.; Pavlick, R.; Ruane, A.C.; Schmid, E.; Schmitz, C.; Stacke, T.; Stehfest, E.; Tang, Q.; Wisser, D.; Huber, V.; Piontek, F.; Warszawski, L.; Schewe, J.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Schellnhuber, H.J.
    Climate change and its impacts already pose considerable challenges for societies that will further increase with global warming (IPCC, 2014a, b). Uncertainties of the climatic response to greenhouse gas emissions include the potential passing of large-scale tipping points (e.g. Lenton et al., 2008; Levermann et al., 2012; Schellnhuber, 2010) and changes in extreme meteorological events (Field et al., 2012) with complex impacts on societies (Hallegatte et al., 2013). Thus climate change mitigation is considered a necessary societal response for avoiding uncontrollable impacts (Conference of the Parties, 2010). On the other hand, large-scale climate change mitigation itself implies fundamental changes in, for example, the global energy system. The associated challenges come on top of others that derive from equally important ethical imperatives like the fulfilment of increasing food demand that may draw on the same resources. For example, ensuring food security for a growing population may require an expansion of cropland, thereby reducing natural carbon sinks or the area available for bio-energy production. So far, available studies addressing this problem have relied on individual impact models, ignoring uncertainty in crop model and biome model projections. Here, we propose a probabilistic decision framework that allows for an evaluation of agricultural management and mitigation options in a multi-impact-model setting. Based on simulations generated within the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISI-MIP), we outline how cross-sectorally consistent multi-model impact simulations could be used to generate the information required for robust decision making. Using an illustrative future land use pattern, we discuss the trade-off between potential gains in crop production and associated losses in natural carbon sinks in the new multiple crop- and biome-model setting. In addition, crop and water model simulations are combined to explore irrigation increases as one possible measure of agricultural intensification that could limit the expansion of cropland required in response to climate change and growing food demand. This example shows that current impact model uncertainties pose an important challenge to long-term mitigation planning and must not be ignored in long-term strategic decision making.