| Home | [31–40] << 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 >> [51–60] |
|
Dass, P., Müller, C., Brovkin, V., & Cramer, W. (2013). Can bioenergy cropping compensate high carbon emissions from large-scale deforestation of high latitudes. Earth System Dynamics, 4(2), 409–424.
Abstract: Numerous studies have concluded that deforestation of the high latitudes result in a global cooling. This is mainly because of the increased albedo of deforested land which dominates over other biogeophysical and biogeochemical mechanisms in the energy balance. This dominance, however, may be due to an underestimation of the biogeochemical response, as carbon emissions are typically at or below the lower end of estimates. Here, we use the dynamic global vegetation model LPJmL for a better estimate of the carbon cycle under such large-scale deforestation. These studies are purely theoretical in order to understand the role of vegetation in the energy balance and the earth system. They must not be mistaken as possible mitigation options, because of the devastating effects on pristine ecosystems. For realistic assumptions of land suitability, the total emissions computed in this study are higher than that of previous studies assessing the effects of boreal deforestation. The warming due to biogeochemical effects ranges from 0.12 to 0.32 degrees C, depending on the climate sensitivity. Using LPJmL to assess the mitigation potential of bioenergy plantations in the suitable areas of the deforested region, we find that the global biophysical bioenergy potential is 68.1 +/- 5.6 EJ yr(-1) of primary energy at the end of the 21st century in the most plausible scenario. The avoided combustion of fossil fuels over the time frame of this experiment would lead to further cooling. However, since the carbon debt caused by the cumulative emissions is not repaid by the end of the 21st century, the global temperatures would increase by 0.04 to 0.11 degrees C. The carbon dynamics in the high latitudes especially with respect to permafrost dynamics and long-term carbon losses, require additional attention in the role for the Earth’s carbon and energy budget.
|
|
Sinabell, F., Sommer, M., Kappert, R., & Kaul, H. P. (2015). Ist Mais unentbehrlich? Der Pflanzenarzt, 68, 19–21.
|
|
Wallach, D., Mearns, L. O., Ruane, A. C., Rötter, R. P., & Asseng, S. (2016). Lessons from climate modeling on the design and use of ensembles for crop modeling. Clim. Change, .
Abstract: Working with ensembles of crop models is a recent but important development in crop modeling which promises to lead to better uncertainty estimates for model projections and predictions, better predictions using the ensemble mean or median, and closer collaboration within the modeling community. There are numerous open questions about the best way to create and analyze such ensembles. Much can be learned from the field of climate modeling, given its much longer experience with ensembles. We draw on that experience to identify questions and make propositions that should help make ensemble modeling with crop models more rigorous and informative. The propositions include defining criteria for acceptance of models in a crop MME, exploring criteria for evaluating the degree of relatedness of models in a MME, studying the effect of number of models in the ensemble, development of a statistical model of model sampling, creation of a repository for MME results, studies of possible differential weighting of models in an ensemble, creation of single model ensembles based on sampling from the uncertainty distribution of parameter values or inputs specifically oriented toward uncertainty estimation, the creation of super ensembles that sample more than one source of uncertainty, the analysis of super ensemble results to obtain information on total uncertainty and the separate contributions of different sources of uncertainty and finally further investigation of the use of the multi-model mean or median as a predictor.
Keywords: Model ensembles; Crop models; Climate models; Model weighting; Super ensembles
Area: CropM
|
|
Watson, J., Challinor, A. J., Fricker, T. E., & Ferro, C. A. T. (2015). Comparing the effects of calibration and climate errors on a statistical crop model and a process-based crop model. Clim. Change, 132(1), 93–109.
Abstract: Understanding the relationship between climate and crop productivity is a key component of projections of future food production, and hence assessments of food security. Climate models and crop yield datasets have errors, but the effects of these errors on regional scale crop models is not well categorized and understood. In this study we compare the effect of synthetic errors in temperature and precipitation observations on the hindcast skill of a process-based crop model and a statistical crop model. We find that errors in temperature data have a significantly stronger influence on both models than errors in precipitation. We also identify key differences in the responses of these models to different types of input data error. Statistical and process-based model responses differ depending on whether synthetic errors are overestimates or underestimates. We also investigate the impact of crop yield calibration data on model skill for both models, using datasets of yield at three different spatial scales. Whilst important for both models, the statistical model is more strongly influenced by crop yield scale than the process-based crop model. However, our results question the value of high resolution yield data for improving the skill of crop models; we find a focus on accuracy to be more likely to be valuable. For both crop models, and for all three spatial scales of yield calibration data, we found that model skill is greatest where growing area is above 10-15 %. Thus information on area harvested would appear to be a priority for data collection efforts. These results are important for three reasons. First, understanding how different crop models rely on different characteristics of temperature, precipitation and crop yield data allows us to match the model type to the available data. Second, we can prioritize where improvements in climate and crop yield data should be directed. Third, as better climate and crop yield data becomes available, we can predict how crop model skill should improve.
|
|
Klein, D., Luderer, G., Kriegler, E., Strefler, J., Bauer, N., Leimbach, M., et al. (2014). The value of bioenergy in low stabilization scenarios: an assessment using REMIND-MAgPIE. Clim. Change, 123(3-4), 705–718.
Abstract: This study investigates the use of bioenergy for achieving stringent climate stabilization targets and it analyzes the economic drivers behind the choice of bioenergy technologies. We apply the integrated assessment framework REMIND-MAgPIE to show that bioenergy, particularly if combined with carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a crucial mitigation option with high deployment levels and high technology value. If CCS is available, bioenergy is exclusively used with CCS. We find that the ability of bioenergy to provide negative emissions gives rise to a strong nexus between biomass prices and carbon prices. Ambitious climate policy could result in bioenergy prices of 70 $/GJ (or even 430 $/GJ if bioenergy potential is limited to 100 EJ/year), which indicates a strong demand for bioenergy. For low stabilization scenarios with BECCS availability, we find that the carbon value of biomass tends to exceed its pure energy value. Therefore, the driving factor behind investments into bioenergy conversion capacities for electricity and hydrogen production are the revenues generated from negative emissions, rather than from energy production. However, in REMIND modern bioenergy is predominantly used to produce low-carbon fuels, since the transport sector has significantly fewer low-carbon alternatives to biofuels than the power sector. Since negative emissions increase the amount of permissible emissions from fossil fuels, given a climate target, bioenergy acts as a complement to fossils rather than a substitute. This makes the short-term and long-term deployment of fossil fuels dependent on the long-term availability of BECCS.
Keywords: land-use change; bio-energy; greenhouse gases; carbon-dioxide; climate-change; constraints; emissions; economics; storage; costs
|