2 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- ItemLinking sea level rise and socioeconomic indicators under the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways(Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2017) Nauels, Alexander; Rogelj, Joeri; Schleussner, Carl-Friedrich; Meinshausen, Malte; Mengel, MatthiasIn order to assess future sea level rise and its societal impacts, we need to study climate change pathways combined with different scenarios of socioeconomic development. Here, we present sea level rise (SLR) projections for the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) storylines and different year-2100 radiative forcing targets (FTs). Future SLR is estimated with a comprehensive SLR emulator that accounts for Antarctic rapid discharge from hydrofracturing and ice cliff instability. Across all baseline scenario realizations (no dedicated climate mitigation), we find 2100 median SLR relative to 1986–2005 of 89 cm (likely range: 57–130 cm) for SSP1, 105 cm (73–150 cm) for SSP2, 105 cm (75–147 cm) for SSP3, 93 cm (63–133 cm) for SSP4, and 132 cm (95–189 cm) for SSP5. The 2100 sea level responses for combined SSP-FT scenarios are dominated by the mitigation targets and yield median estimates of 52 cm (34–75 cm) for FT 2.6 Wm−2, 62 cm (40–96 cm) for FT 3.4 Wm−2, 75 cm (47–113 cm) for FT 4.5 Wm−2, and 91 cm (61–132 cm) for FT 6.0 Wm−2. Average 2081–2100 annual SLR rates are 5 mm yr−1 and 19 mm yr−1 for FT 2.6 Wm−2 and the baseline scenarios, respectively. Our model setup allows linking scenario-specific emission and socioeconomic indicators to projected SLR. We find that 2100 median SSP SLR projections could be limited to around 50 cm if 2050 cumulative CO2 emissions since pre-industrial stay below 850 GtC, with a global coal phase-out nearly completed by that time. For SSP mitigation scenarios, a 2050 carbon price of 100 US$2005 tCO2 −1 would correspond to a median 2100 SLR of around 65 cm. Our results confirm that rapid and early emission reductions are essential for limiting 2100 SLR.
- ItemImplications of climate mitigation for future agricultural production(Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2015) Müller, Christoph; Elliott, Joshua; Chryssanthacopoulos, James; Deryng, Delphine; Folberth, Christian; Pugh, Thomas A.M.; Schmid, ErwinClimate change is projected to negatively impact biophysical agricultural productivity in much of the world. Actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate future climate changes, are thus of central importance for agricultural production. Climate impacts are, however, not unidirectional; some crops in some regions (primarily higher latitudes) are projected to benefit, particularly if increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is assumed to strongly increase crop productivity at large spatial and temporal scales. Climate mitigation measures that are implemented by reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations lead to reductions both in the strength of climate change and in the benefits of carbon dioxide fertilization. Consequently, analysis of the effects of climate mitigation on agricultural productivity must address not only regions for which mitigation is likely to reduce or even reverse climate damages. There are also regions that are likely to see increased crop yields due to climate change, which may lose these added potentials under mitigation action. Comparing data from the most comprehensive archive of crop yield projections publicly available, we find that climate mitigation leads to overall benefits from avoided damages at the global scale and especially in many regions that are already at risk of food insecurity today. Ignoring controversial carbon dioxide fertilization effects on crop productivity, we find that for the median projection aggressive mitigation could eliminate ~81% of the negative impacts of climate change on biophysical agricultural productivity globally by the end of the century. In this case, the benefits of mitigation typically extend well into temperate regions, but vary by crop and underlying climate model projections. Should large benefits to crop yields from carbon dioxide fertilization be realized, the effects of mitigation become much more mixed, though still positive globally and beneficial in many food insecure countries.