2 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- ItemClimate extremes, land–climate feedbacks and land-use forcing at 1.5°C(London : The Royal Society, 2018) Seneviratne, Sonia I.; Wartenburger, Richard; Guillod, Benoit P.; Hirsch, Annette L.; Vogel, Martha M.; Brovkin, Victor; van Vuuren, Detlef P.; Schaller, Nathalie; Boysen, Lena; Calvin, Katherine V.; Doelman, Jonathan; Greve, Peter; Havlik, Petr; Humpenöder, Florian; Krisztin, Tamas; Mitchell, Daniel; Popp, Alexander; Riahi, Keywan; Rogelj, Joeri; Schleussner, Carl-Friedrich; Sillmann, Jana; Stehfest, ElkeThis article investigates projected changes in temperature and water cycle extremes at 1.5°C of global warming, and highlights the role of land processes and land-use changes (LUCs) for these projections. We provide new comparisons of changes in climate at 1.5°C versus 2°C based on empirical sampling analyses of transient simulations versus simulations from the ‘Half a degree Additional warming, Prognosis and Projected Impacts’ (HAPPI) multi-model experiment. The two approaches yield similar overall results regarding changes in climate extremes on land, and reveal a substantial difference in the occurrence of regional extremes at 1.5°C versus 2°C. Land processes mediated through soil moisture feedbacks and land-use forcing play a major role for projected changes in extremes at 1.5°C in most mid-latitude regions, including densely populated areas in North America, Europe and Asia. This has important implications for low-emissions scenarios derived from integrated assessment models (IAMs), which include major LUCs in ambitious mitigation pathways (e.g. associated with increased bioenergy use), but are also shown to differ in the simulated LUC patterns. Biogeophysical effects from LUCs are not considered in the development of IAM scenarios, but play an important role for projected regional changes in climate extremes, and are thus of high relevance for sustainable development pathways.
- ItemComparing impacts of climate change and mitigation on global agriculture by 2050(Bristol : IOP Publ., 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-JanSystematic 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.