Search Results
Risks for the global freshwater system at 1.5 °c and 2 °c global warming
2018, Döll, Petra, Trautmann, Tim, Gerten, Dieter, Müller Schmied, Hannes, Ostberg, Sebastian, Saaed, Fahad, Schleussner, Carl-Friedrich
To support implementation of the Paris Agreement, the new HAPPI ensemble of 20 bias-corrected simulations of four climate models was used to drive two global hydrological models, WaterGAP and LPJmL, for assessing freshwater-related hazards and risks in worlds approximately 1.5 °C and 2 °C warmer than pre-industrial. Quasi-stationary HAPPI simulations are better suited than transient CMIP-like simulations for assessing hazards at the two targeted long-term global warming (GW) levels. We analyzed seven hydrological hazard indicators that characterize freshwater-related hazards for humans, freshwater biota and vegetation. Using a strict definition for significant differences, we identified for all but one indicator that areas with either significantly wetter or drier conditions (calculated as percent changes from 2006–2015) are smaller in the 1.5 °C world. For example, 7 day high flow is projected to increase significantly on 11% and 21% of the global land area at 1.5 °C and 2 °C, respectively. However, differences between hydrological hazards at the two GW levels are significant on less than 12% of the area. GW affects a larger area and more people by increases—rather than by decreases—of mean annual and 1-in-10 dry year streamflow, 7 day high flow, and groundwater recharge. The opposite is true for 7 day low flow, maximum snow storage, and soil moisture in the driest month of the growing period. Mean annual streamflow shows the lowest projected percent changes of all indicators. Among country groups, low income countries and lower middle income countries are most affected by decreased low flows and increased high flows, respectively, while high income countries are least affected by such changes. The incremental impact between 1.5 °C and 2 °C on high flows would be felt most by low income and lower middle income countries, the effect on soil moisture and low flows most by high income countries.
Impacts of 1.5 versus 2.0 °c on cereal yields in the West African Sudan Savanna
2018, Faye, Babacar, Webber, Heidi, Naab, Jesse B., MacCarthy, Dilys S., Adam, Myriam, Ewert, Frank, Lamers, John P.A., Schleussner, Carl-Friedrich, Ruane, Alex, Gessner, Ursula, Hoogenboom, Gerrit, Boote, Ken, Shelia, Vakhtang, Saeed, Fahad, Wisser, Dominik, Hadir, Sofia, Laux, Patrick, Gaiser, Thomas
To reduce the risks of climate change, governments agreed in the Paris Agreement to limit global temperature rise to less than 2.0 °C above pre-industrial levels, with the ambition to keep warming to 1.5 °C. Charting appropriate mitigation responses requires information on the costs of mitigating versus associated damages for the two levels of warming. In this assessment, a critical consideration is the impact on crop yields and yield variability in regions currently challenged by food insecurity. The current study assessed impacts of 1.5 °C versus 2.0 °C on yields of maize, pearl millet and sorghum in the West African Sudan Savanna using two crop models that were calibrated with common varieties from experiments in the region with management reflecting a range of typical sowing windows. As sustainable intensification is promoted in the region for improving food security, simulations were conducted for both current fertilizer use and for an intensification case (fertility not limiting). With current fertilizer use, results indicated 2% units higher losses for maize and sorghum with 2.0 °C compared to 1.5 °C warming, with no change in millet yields for either scenario. In the intensification case, yield losses due to climate change were larger than with current fertilizer levels. However, despite the larger losses, yields were always two to three times higher with intensification, irrespective of the warming scenario. Though yield variability increased with intensification, there was no interaction with warming scenario. Risk and market analysis are needed to extend these results to understand implications for food security.