4 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
- ItemA multi-model analysis of risk of ecosystem shifts under climate change(Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2013) Warszawski, Lila; Friend, Andrew; Ostberg, Sebastian; Frieler, Katja; Lucht, Wolfgang; Schaphoff, Sibyll; Beerling, David; Cadule, Patricia; Ciais, Philippe; Clark, Douglas B.; Kahana, Ron; Ito, Akihiko; Keribin, Rozenn; Kleidon, Axel; Lomas, Mark; Nishina, Kazuya; Pavlick, Ryan; Rademacher, Tim Tito; Buechner, Matthias; Piontek, Franziska; Schewe, Jacob; Serdeczny, Olivia; Schellnhuber, Hans JoachimClimate change may pose a high risk of change to Earth's ecosystems: shifting climatic boundaries may induce changes in the biogeochemical functioning and structures of ecosystems that render it difficult for endemic plant and animal species to survive in their current habitats. Here we aggregate changes in the biogeochemical ecosystem state as a proxy for the risk of these shifts at different levels of global warming. Estimates are based on simulations from seven global vegetation models (GVMs) driven by future climate scenarios, allowing for a quantification of the related uncertainties. 5–19% of the naturally vegetated land surface is projected to be at risk of severe ecosystem change at 2 ° C of global warming (ΔGMT) above 1980–2010 levels. However, there is limited agreement across the models about which geographical regions face the highest risk of change. The extent of regions at risk of severe ecosystem change is projected to rise with ΔGMT, approximately doubling between ΔGMT = 2 and 3 ° C, and reaching a median value of 35% of the naturally vegetated land surface for ΔGMT = 4 °C. The regions projected to face the highest risk of severe ecosystem changes above ΔGMT = 4 °C or earlier include the tundra and shrublands of the Tibetan Plateau, grasslands of eastern India, the boreal forests of northern Canada and Russia, the savanna region in the Horn of Africa, and the Amazon rainforest.
- ItemUnderstanding the weather signal in national crop‐yield variability(Hoboken, NJ : Wiley, 2017) Frieler, Katja; Schauberger, Bernhard; Arneth, Almut; Balkovič, Juraj; Chryssanthacopoulos, James; Deryng, Delphine; Elliott, Joshua; Folberth, Christian; Khabarov, Nikolay; Müller, Christoph; Olin, Stefan; Smith, Steven J.; Pugh, Thomas A.M.; Schaphoff, Sibyll; Schewe, Jacob; Schmid, Erwin; Warszawski, Lila; Levermann, AndersYear‐to‐year variations in crop yields can have major impacts on the livelihoods of subsistence farmers and may trigger significant global price fluctuations, with severe consequences for people in developing countries. Fluctuations can be induced by weather conditions, management decisions, weeds, diseases, and pests. Although an explicit quantification and deeper understanding of weather‐induced crop‐yield variability is essential for adaptation strategies, so far it has only been addressed by empirical models. Here, we provide conservative estimates of the fraction of reported national yield variabilities that can be attributed to weather by state‐of‐the‐art, process‐based crop model simulations. We find that observed weather variations can explain more than 50% of the variability in wheat yields in Australia, Canada, Spain, Hungary, and Romania. For maize, weather sensitivities exceed 50% in seven countries, including the United States. The explained variance exceeds 50% for rice in Japan and South Korea and for soy in Argentina. Avoiding water stress by simulating yields assuming full irrigation shows that water limitation is a major driver of the observed variations in most of these countries. Identifying the mechanisms leading to crop‐yield fluctuations is not only fundamental for dampening fluctuations, but is also important in the context of the debate on the attribution of loss and damage to climate change. Since process‐based crop models not only account for weather influences on crop yields, but also provide options to represent human‐management measures, they could become essential tools for differentiating these drivers, and for exploring options to reduce future yield fluctuations.
- ItemAssessing inter-sectoral climate change risks: The role of ISIMIP(Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2017) Rosenzweig, Cynthia; Arnell, Nigel W.; Ebi, Kristie L.; Lotze-Campen, Hermann; Raes, Frank; Rapley, Chris; Smith, Mark Stafford; Cramer, Wolfgang; Frieler, Katja; Reyer, Christopher P.O.; Schewe, Jacob; van Vuuren, Detlef; Warszawski, LilaThe aims of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP) are to provide a framework for the intercomparison of global and regional-scale risk models within and across multiple sectors and to enable coordinated multi-sectoral assessments of different risks and their aggregated effects. The overarching goal is to use the knowledge gained to support adaptation and mitigation decisions that require regional or global perspectives within the context of facilitating transformations to enable sustainable development, despite inevitable climate shifts and disruptions. ISIMIP uses community-agreed sets of scenarios with standardized climate variables and socio-economic projections as inputs for projecting future risks and associated uncertainties, within and across sectors. The results are consistent multi-model assessments of sectoral risks and opportunities that enable studies that integrate across sectors, providing support for implementation of the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
- ItemAssessing the impacts of 1.5 °C global warming – simulation protocol of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP2b)(München : European Geopyhsical Union, 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, YoshikiIn 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).