Search Results
Spatially explicit analysis identifies significant potential for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage in China
2021, Xing, Xiaofan, Wang, Rong, Bauer, Nico, Ciais, Philippe, Cao, Junji, Chen, Jianmin, Tang, Xu, Wang, Lin, Yang, Xin, Boucher, Olivier, Goll, Daniel, Peñuelas, Josep, Janssens, Ivan A., Balkanski, Yves, Clark, James, Ma, Jianmin, Pan, Bo, Zhang, Shicheng, Ye, Xingnan, Wang, Yutao, Li, Qing, Luo, Gang, Shen, Guofeng, Li, Wei, Yang, Yechen, Xu, Siqing
As China ramped-up coal power capacities rapidly while CO2 emissions need to decline, these capacities would turn into stranded assets. To deal with this risk, a promising option is to retrofit these capacities to co-fire with biomass and eventually upgrade to CCS operation (BECCS), but the feasibility is debated with respect to negative impacts on broader sustainability issues. Here we present a data-rich spatially explicit approach to estimate the marginal cost curve for decarbonizing the power sector in China with BECCS. We identify a potential of 222 GW of power capacities in 2836 counties generated by co-firing 0.9 Gt of biomass from the same county, with half being agricultural residues. Our spatially explicit method helps to reduce uncertainty in the economic costs and emissions of BECCS, identify the best opportunities for bioenergy and show the limitations by logistical challenges to achieve carbon neutrality in the power sector with large-scale BECCS in China.
Global irrigation contribution to wheat and maize yield
2021, Wang, Xuhui, Müller, Christoph, Elliot, Joshua, Mueller, Nathaniel D., Ciais, Philippe, Jägermeyr, Jonas, Gerber, James, Dumas, Patrice, Wang, Chenzhi, Yang, Hui, Li, Laurent, Deryng, Delphine, Folberth, Christian, Liu, Wenfeng, Makowski, David, Olin, Stefan, Pugh, Thomas A. M., Reddy, Ashwan, Schmid, Erwin, Jeong, Sujong, Zhou, Feng, Piao, Shilong
Irrigation is the largest sector of human water use and an important option for increasing crop production and reducing drought impacts. However, the potential for irrigation to contribute to global crop yields remains uncertain. Here, we quantify this contribution for wheat and maize at global scale by developing a Bayesian framework integrating empirical estimates and gridded global crop models on new maps of the relative difference between attainable rainfed and irrigated yield (ΔY). At global scale, ΔY is 34 ± 9% for wheat and 22 ± 13% for maize, with large spatial differences driven more by patterns of precipitation than that of evaporative demand. Comparing irrigation demands with renewable water supply, we find 30–47% of contemporary rainfed agriculture of wheat and maize cannot achieve yield gap closure utilizing current river discharge, unless more water diversion projects are set in place, putting into question the potential of irrigation to mitigate climate change impacts.
Regional contribution to variability and trends of global gross primary productivity
2017, Chen, Min, Rafique, Rashid, Asrar, Ghassem R., Bond-Lamberty, Ben, Ciais, Philippe, Zhao, Fang, Reyer, Christopher P.O., Ostberg, Sebastian, Chang, Jinfeng, Ito, Akihiko, Yang, Jia, Zeng, Ning, Kalnay, Eugenia, West, Tristram, Leng, Guoyong, Francois, Louis, Munhoven, Guy, Henrot, Alexandra, Tian, Hanqin, Pan, Shufen, Nishina, Kazuya, Viovy, Nicolas, Morfopoulos, Catherine, Betts, Richard, Schaphoff, Sibyll, Steinkamp, Jörg
Terrestrial gross primary productivity (GPP) is the largest component of the global carbon cycle and a key process for understanding land ecosystems dynamics. In this study, we used GPP estimates from a combination of eight global biome models participating in the Inter-Sectoral Impact-Model Intercomparison Project phase 2a (ISIMIP2a), the Moderate Resolution Spectroradiometer (MODIS) GPP product, and a data-driven product (Model Tree Ensemble, MTE) to study the spatiotemporal variability of GPP at the regional and global levels. We found the 2000–2010 total global GPP estimated from the model ensemble to be 117 ± 13 Pg C yr−1 (mean ± 1 standard deviation), which was higher than MODIS (112 Pg C yr−1), and close to the MTE (120 Pg C yr−1). The spatial patterns of MODIS, MTE and ISIMIP2a GPP generally agree well, but their temporal trends are different, and the seasonality and inter-annual variability of GPP at the regional and global levels are not completely consistent. For the model ensemble, Tropical Latin America contributes the most to global GPP, Asian regions contribute the most to the global GPP trend, the Northern Hemisphere regions dominate the global GPP seasonal variations, and Oceania is likely the largest contributor to inter-annual variability of global GPP. However, we observed large uncertainties across the eight ISIMIP2a models, which are probably due to the differences in the formulation of underlying photosynthetic processes. The results of this study are useful in understanding the contributions of different regions to global GPP and its spatiotemporal variability, how the model- and observational-based GPP estimates differ from each other in time and space, and the relative strength of the eight models. Our results also highlight the models' ability to capture the seasonality of GPP that are essential for understanding the inter-annual and seasonal variability of GPP as a major component of the carbon cycle.
The critical role of the routing scheme in simulating peak river discharge in global hydrological models
2017, Zhao, Fang, Veldkamp, Ted I.E., Frieler, Katja, Schewe, Jacob, Ostberg, Sebastian, Willner, Sven, Schauberger, Bernhard, Gosling, Simon N., Müller Schmied, Hannes, Portmann, Felix T., Leng, Guoyong, Huang, Maoyi, Liu, Xingcai, Tang, Qiuhong, Hanasaki, Naota, Biemans, Hester, Gerten, Dieter, Satoh, Yusuke, Pokhrel, Yadu, Stacke, Tobias, Ciais, Philippe, Chang, Jinfeng, Ducharne, Agnes, Guimberteau, Matthieu, Wada, Yoshihide, Kim, Hyungjun, Yamazaki, Dai
Global hydrological models (GHMs) have been applied to assess global flood hazards, but their capacity to capture the timing and amplitude of peak river discharge—which is crucial in flood simulations—has traditionally not been the focus of examination. Here we evaluate to what degree the choice of river routing scheme affects simulations of peak discharge and may help to provide better agreement with observations. To this end we use runoff and discharge simulations of nine GHMs forced by observational climate data (1971–2010) within the ISIMIP2a project. The runoff simulations were used as input for the global river routing model CaMa-Flood. The simulated daily discharge was compared to the discharge generated by each GHM using its native river routing scheme. For each GHM both versions of simulated discharge were compared to monthly and daily discharge observations from 1701 GRDC stations as a benchmark. CaMa-Flood routing shows a general reduction of peak river discharge and a delay of about two to three weeks in its occurrence, likely induced by the buffering capacity of floodplain reservoirs. For a majority of river basins, discharge produced by CaMa-Flood resulted in a better agreement with observations. In particular, maximum daily discharge was adjusted, with a multi-model averaged reduction in bias over about 2/3 of the analysed basin area. The increase in agreement was obtained in both managed and near-natural basins. Overall, this study demonstrates the importance of routing scheme choice in peak discharge simulation, where CaMa-Flood routing accounts for floodplain storage and backwater effects that are not represented in most GHMs. Our study provides important hints that an explicit parameterisation of these processes may be essential in future impact studies.
Near-real-time monitoring of global CO2 emissions reveals the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic
2020, Liu, Zhu, Ciais, Philippe, Deng, Zhu, Lei, Ruixue, Davis, Steven J., Feng, Sha, Zheng, Bo, Cui, Duo, Dou, Xinyu, Zhu, Biqing, Guo, Rui, Ke, Piyu, Sun, Taochun, Lu, Chenxi, He, Pan, Wang, Yuan, Yue, Xu, Wang, Yilong, Lei, Yadong, Zhou, Hao, Cai, Zhaonan, Wu, Yuhui, Guo, Runtao, Han, Tingxuan, Xue, Jinjun, Boucher, Olivier, Boucher, Eulalie, Chevallier, Frédéric, Tanaka, Katsumasa, Wei, Yiming, Zhong, Haiwang, Kang, Chongqing, Zhang, Ning, Chen, Bin, Xi, Fengming, Liu, Miaomiao, Bréon, François-Marie, Lu, Yonglong, Zhang, Qiang, Guan, Dabo, Gong, Peng, Kammen, Daniel M., He, Kebin, Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim
The COVID-19 pandemic is impacting human activities, and in turn energy use and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Here we present daily estimates of country-level CO2 emissions for different sectors based on near-real-time activity data. The key result is an abrupt 8.8% decrease in global CO2 emissions (−1551 Mt CO2) in the first half of 2020 compared to the same period in 2019. The magnitude of this decrease is larger than during previous economic downturns or World War II. The timing of emissions decreases corresponds to lockdown measures in each country. By July 1st, the pandemic’s effects on global emissions diminished as lockdown restrictions relaxed and some economic activities restarted, especially in China and several European countries, but substantial differences persist between countries, with continuing emission declines in the U.S. where coronavirus cases are still increasing substantially.
Photosynthetic productivity and its efficiencies in ISIMIP2a biome models: Benchmarking for impact assessment studies
2017, Ito, Akihiko, Nishina, Kazuya, Reyer, Christopher P.O., François, Louis, Henrot, Alexandra-Jane, Munhoven, Guy, Jacquemin, Ingrid, Tian, Hanqin, Yang, Jia, Pan, Shufen, Morfopoulos, Catherine, Betts, Richard, Hickler, Thomas, Steinkamp, Jörg, Ostberg, Sebastian, Schaphoff, Sibyll, Ciais, Philippe, Chang, Jinfeng, Rafique, Rashid, Zeng, Ning, Zhao, Fang
Simulating vegetation photosynthetic productivity (or gross primary production, GPP) is a critical feature of the biome models used for impact assessments of climate change. We conducted a benchmarking of global GPP simulated by eight biome models participating in the second phase of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP2a) with four meteorological forcing datasets (30 simulations), using independent GPP estimates and recent satellite data of solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence as a proxy of GPP. The simulated global terrestrial GPP ranged from 98 to 141 Pg C yr−1 (1981–2000 mean); considerable inter-model and inter-data differences were found. Major features of spatial distribution and seasonal change of GPP were captured by each model, showing good agreement with the benchmarking data. All simulations showed incremental trends of annual GPP, seasonal-cycle amplitude, radiation-use efficiency, and water-use efficiency, mainly caused by the CO2 fertilization effect. The incremental slopes were higher than those obtained by remote sensing studies, but comparable with those by recent atmospheric observation. Apparent differences were found in the relationship between GPP and incoming solar radiation, for which forcing data differed considerably. The simulated GPP trends co-varied with a vegetation structural parameter, leaf area index, at model-dependent strengths, implying the importance of constraining canopy properties. In terms of extreme events, GPP anomalies associated with a historical El Niño event and large volcanic eruption were not consistently simulated in the model experiments due to deficiencies in both forcing data and parameterized environmental responsiveness. Although the benchmarking demonstrated the overall advancement of contemporary biome models, further refinements are required, for example, for solar radiation data and vegetation canopy schemes.
Assessing the impacts of 1.5 °C global warming – simulation protocol of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP2b)
2017, Frieler, Katja, Lange, Stefan, Piontek, Franziska, Reyer, Christopher P.O., Schewe, Jacob, Warszawski, Lila, Zhao, Fang, Chini, Louise, Denvil, Sebastien, Emanuel, Kerry, Geiger, Tobias, Halladay, Kate, Hurtt, George, Mengel, Matthias, Murakami, Daisuke, Ostberg, Sebastian, Popp, Alexander, Riva, Riccardo, Stevanovic, Miodrag, Suzuki, Tatsuo, Volkholz, Jan, Burke, Eleanor, Ciais, Philippe, Ebi, Kristie, Eddy, Tyler D., Elliott, Joshua, Galbraith, Eric, Gosling, Simon N., Hattermann, Fred, Hickler, Thomas, Hinkel, Jochen, Hof, Christian, Huber, Veronika, Jägermeyr, Jonas, Krysanova, Valentina, Marcé, Rafael, Müller Schmied, Hannes, Mouratiadou, Ioanna, Pierson, Don, Tittensor, Derek P., Vautard, Robert, van Vliet, Michelle, Biber, Matthias F., Betts, Richard A., Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon, Deryng, Delphine, Frolking, Steve, Jones, Chris D., Lotze, Heike K., Lotze-Campen, Hermann, Sahajpal, Ritvik, Thonicke, Kirsten, Tian, Hanqin, Yamagata, Yoshiki
In Paris, France, December 2015, the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) invited the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide a "special report in 2018 on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways". In Nairobi, Kenya, April 2016, the IPCC panel accepted the invitation. Here we describe the response devised within the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP) to provide tailored, cross-sectorally consistent impact projections to broaden the scientific basis for the report. The simulation protocol is designed to allow for (1) separation of the impacts of historical warming starting from pre-industrial conditions from impacts of other drivers such as historical land-use changes (based on pre-industrial and historical impact model simulations); (2) quantification of the impacts of additional warming up to 1.5°C, including a potential overshoot and long-term impacts up to 2299, and comparison to higher levels of global mean temperature change (based on the low-emissions Representative Concentration Pathway RCP2.6 and a no-mitigation pathway RCP6.0) with socio-economic conditions fixed at 2005 levels; and (3) assessment of the climate effects based on the same climate scenarios while accounting for simultaneous changes in socio-economic conditions following the middle-of-the-road Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP2, Fricko et al., 2016) and in particular differential bioenergy requirements associated with the transformation of the energy system to comply with RCP2.6 compared to RCP6.0. With the aim of providing the scientific basis for an aggregation of impacts across sectors and analysis of cross-sectoral interactions that may dampen or amplify sectoral impacts, the protocol is designed to facilitate consistent impact projections from a range of impact models across different sectors (global and regional hydrology, lakes, global crops, global vegetation, regional forests, global and regional marine ecosystems and fisheries, global and regional coastal infrastructure, energy supply and demand, temperature-related mortality, and global terrestrial biodiversity).
State-of-the-art global models underestimate impacts from climate extremes
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.
Benchmarking carbon fluxes of the ISIMIP2a biome models
2017, Chang, Jinfeng, Ciais, Philippe, Wang, Xuhui, Piao, Shilong, Asrar, Ghassem, Betts, Richard, Chevallier, Frédéric, Dury, Marie, François, Louis, Frieler, Katja, Ros, Anselmo GarcÃa Cantú, Henrot, Alexandra-Jane, Hickler, Thomas, Ito, Akihiko, Morfopoulos, Catherine, Munhoven, Guy, Nishina, Kazuya, Ostberg, Sebastian, Pan, Shufen, Peng, Shushi, Rafique, Rashid, Reyer, Christopher, Rödenbeck, Christian, Schaphoff, Sibyll, Steinkamp, Jörg, Tian, Hanqin, Viovy, Nicolas, Yang, Jia, Zeng, Ning, Zhao, Fang
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the eight ISIMIP2a biome models against independent estimates of long-term net carbon fluxes (i.e. Net Biome Productivity, NBP) over terrestrial ecosystems for the recent four decades (1971–2010). We evaluate modeled global NBP against 1) the updated global residual land sink (RLS) plus land use emissions (E LUC) from the Global Carbon Project (GCP), presented as R + L in this study by Le Quéré et al (2015), and 2) the land CO2 fluxes from two atmospheric inversion systems: Jena CarboScope s81_v3.8 and CAMS v15r2, referred to as F Jena and F CAMS respectively. The model ensemble-mean NBP (that includes seven models with land-use change) is higher than but within the uncertainty of R + L, while the simulated positive NBP trend over the last 30 yr is lower than that from R + L and from the two inversion systems. ISIMIP2a biome models well capture the interannual variation of global net terrestrial ecosystem carbon fluxes. Tropical NBP represents 31 ± 17% of global total NBP during the past decades, and the year-to-year variation of tropical NBP contributes most of the interannual variation of global NBP. According to the models, increasing Net Primary Productivity (NPP) was the main cause for the generally increasing NBP. Significant global NBP anomalies from the long-term mean between the two phases of El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events are simulated by all models (p < 0.05), which is consistent with the R + L estimate (p = 0.06), also mainly attributed to NPP anomalies, rather than to changes in heterotrophic respiration (Rh). The global NPP and NBP anomalies during ENSO events are dominated by their anomalies in tropical regions impacted by tropical climate variability. Multiple regressions between R + L, F Jena and F CAMS interannual variations and tropical climate variations reveal a significant negative response of global net terrestrial ecosystem carbon fluxes to tropical mean annual temperature variation, and a non-significant response to tropical annual precipitation variation. According to the models, tropical precipitation is a more important driver, suggesting that some models do not capture the roles of precipitation and temperature changes adequately.
Global gridded crop model evaluation: Benchmarking, skills, deficiencies and implications
2017, Müller, Christoph, Elliott, Joshua, Chryssanthacopoulos, James, Arneth, Almut, Balkovic, Juraj, Ciais, Philippe, Deryng, Delphine, Folberth, Christian, Glotter, Michael, Hoek, Steven, Iizumi, Toshichika, Izaurralde, Roberto C., Jones, Curtis, Khabarov, Nikolay, Lawrence, Peter, Liu, Wenfeng, Olin, Stefan, Pugh, Thomas A.M., Ray, Deepak K., Reddy, Ashwan, Rosenzweig, Cynthia, Ruane, Alex C., Sakurai, Gen, Schmid, Erwin, Skalsky, Rastislav, Song, Carol X., Wang, Xuhui, de Wit, Allard, Yang, Hong
Crop models are increasingly used to simulate crop yields at the global scale, but so far there is no general framework on how to assess model performance. Here we evaluate the simulation results of 14 global gridded crop modeling groups that have contributed historic crop yield simulations for maize, wheat, rice and soybean to the Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP). Simulation results are compared to reference data at global, national and grid cell scales and we evaluate model performance with respect to time series correlation, spatial correlation and mean bias. We find that global gridded crop models (GGCMs) show mixed skill in reproducing time series correlations or spatial patterns at the different spatial scales. Generally, maize, wheat and soybean simulations of many GGCMs are capable of reproducing larger parts of observed temporal variability (time series correlation coefficients (r) of up to 0.888 for maize, 0.673 for wheat and 0.643 for soybean at the global scale) but rice yield variability cannot be well reproduced by most models. Yield variability can be well reproduced for most major producing countries by many GGCMs and for all countries by at least some. A comparison with gridded yield data and a statistical analysis of the effects of weather variability on yield variability shows that the ensemble of GGCMs can explain more of the yield variability than an ensemble of regression models for maize and soybean, but not for wheat and rice. We identify future research needs in global gridded crop modeling and for all individual crop modeling groups. In the absence of a purely observation-based benchmark for model evaluation, we propose that the best performing crop model per crop and region establishes the benchmark for all others, and modelers are encouraged to investigate how crop model performance can be increased. We make our evaluation system accessible to all crop modelers so that other modeling groups can also test their model performance against the reference data and the GGCMI benchmark.