2019, Schewe, Jacob, Gosling, Simon N., Reyer, Christopher, Zhao, Fang, Ciais, Philippe, Elliott, Joshua, Francois, Louis, Huber, Veronika, Lotze, Heike K., Seneviratne, Sonia I., van Vliet, Michelle T. H., Vautard, Robert, Wada, Yoshihide, Breuer, Lutz, Büchner, Matthias, Carozza, David A., Chang, Jinfeng, Coll, Marta, Deryng, Delphine, de Wit, Allard, Eddy, Tyler D., Folberth, Christian, Frieler, Katja, Friend, Andrew D., Gerten, Dieter, Gudmundsson, Lukas, Hanasaki, Naota, Ito, Akihiko, Khabarov, Nikolay, Kim, Hyungjun, Lawrence, Peter, Morfopoulos, Catherine, Müller, Christoph, Müller Schmied, Hannes, Orth, René, Ostberg, Sebastian, Pokhrel, Yadu, Pugh, Thomas A. M., Sakurai, Gen, Satoh, Yusuke, Schmid, Erwin, Stacke, Tobias, Steenbeek, Jeroen, Steinkamp, Jörg, Tang, Qiuhong, Tian, Hanqin, Tittensor, Derek P., Volkholz, Jan, Wang, Xuhui, Warszawski, Lila

Global impact models represent process-level understanding of how natural and human systems may be affected by climate change. Their projections are used in integrated assessments of climate change. Here we test, for the first time, systematically across many important systems, how well such impact models capture the impacts of extreme climate conditions. Using the 2003 European heat wave and drought as a historical analogue for comparable events in the future, we find that a majority of models underestimate the extremeness of impacts in important sectors such as agriculture, terrestrial ecosystems, and heat-related human mortality, while impacts on water resources and hydropower are overestimated in some river basins; and the spread across models is often large. This has important implications for economic assessments of climate change impacts that rely on these models. It also means that societal risks from future extreme events may be greater than previously thought.

2018, van Meijl, Hans, Havlik, Petr, Lotze-Campen, Hermann, Stehfest, Elke, Witzke, Peter, Pérez Domínguez, Ignacio, Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon, van Dijk, Michiel, Doelman, Jonathan, Fellmann, Thomas, Humpenöder, Florian, Koopman, Jason F. L., Müller, Christoph, Popp, Alexander, Tabeau, Andrzej, Valin, Hugo, van Zeist, Willem-Jan

Systematic model inter-comparison helps to narrow discrepancies in the analysis of the future impact of climate change on agricultural production. This paper presents a set of alternative scenarios by five global climate and agro-economic models. Covering integrated assessment (IMAGE), partial equilibrium (CAPRI, GLOBIOM, MAgPIE) and computable general equilibrium (MAGNET) models ensures a good coverage of biophysical and economic agricultural features. These models are harmonized with respect to basic model drivers, to assess the range of potential impacts of climate change on the agricultural sector by 2050. Moreover, they quantify the economic consequences of stringent global emission mitigation efforts, such as non-CO2 emission taxes and land-based mitigation options, to stabilize global warming at 2 °C by the end of the century under different Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. A key contribution of the paper is a vis-à-vis comparison of climate change impacts relative to the impact of mitigation measures. In addition, our scenario design allows assessing the impact of the residual climate change on the mitigation challenge. From a global perspective, the impact of climate change on agricultural production by mid-century is negative but small. A larger negative effect on agricultural production, most pronounced for ruminant meat production, is observed when emission mitigation measures compliant with a 2 °C target are put in place. Our results indicate that a mitigation strategy that embeds residual climate change effects (RCP2.6) has a negative impact on global agricultural production relative to a no-mitigation strategy with stronger climate impacts (RCP6.0). However, this is partially due to the limited impact of the climate change scenarios by 2050. The magnitude of price changes is different amongst models due to methodological differences. Further research to achieve a better harmonization is needed, especially regarding endogenous food and feed demand, including substitution across individual commodities, and endogenous technological change.