| |
Records |
Links |
|
Author |
Riahi, K.; van Vuuren, D.P.; Kriegler, E.; Edmonds, J.; O’Neill, B.C.; Fujimori, S.; Bauer, N.; Calvin, K.; Dellink, R.; Fricko, O.; Lutz, W.; Popp, A.; Cuaresma, J.C.; KC, S.; Leimbach, M.; Jiang, L.; Kram, T.; Rao, S.; Emmerling, J.; Ebi, K.; Hasegawa, T.; Havlik, P.; Humpenöder, F.; Da Silva, L.A.; Smith, S.; Stehfest, E.; Bosetti, V.; Eom, J.; Gernaat, D.; Masui, T.; Rogelj, J.; Strefler, J.; Drouet, L.; Krey, V.; Luderer, G.; Harmsen, M.; Takahashi, K.; Baumstark, L.; Doelman, J.C.; Kainuma, M.; Klimont, Z.; Marangoni, G.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Obersteiner, M.; Tabeau, A.; Tavoni, M. |
|
| |
Title |
The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2017 |
Publication |
Global Environmental Change |
Abbreviated Journal |
Glob. Environ. Change |
|
| |
Volume |
42 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
153-168 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Shared Socioeconomic Pathways; SSP; Climate change; RCP; Community scenarios; Mitigation; Adaptation |
|
| |
Abstract |
Abstract This paper presents the overview of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and their energy, land use, and emissions implications. The SSPs are part of a new scenario framework, established by the climate change research community in order to facilitate the integrated analysis of future climate impacts, vulnerabilities, adaptation, and mitigation. The pathways were developed over the last years as a joint community effort and describe plausible major global developments that together would lead in the future to different challenges for mitigation and adaptation to climate change. The SSPs are based on five narratives describing alternative socio-economic developments, including sustainable development, regional rivalry, inequality, fossil-fueled development, and middle-of-the-road development. The long-term demographic and economic projections of the SSPs depict a wide uncertainty range consistent with the scenario literature. A multi-model approach was used for the elaboration of the energy, land-use and the emissions trajectories of SSP-based scenarios. The baseline scenarios lead to global energy consumption of 400–1200 EJ in 2100, and feature vastly different land-use dynamics, ranging from a possible reduction in cropland area up to a massive expansion by more than 700 million hectares by 2100. The associated annual CO2 emissions of the baseline scenarios range from about 25 GtCO2 to more than 120 GtCO2 per year by 2100. With respect to mitigation, we find that associated costs strongly depend on three factors: (1) the policy assumptions, (2) the socio-economic narrative, and (3) the stringency of the target. The carbon price for reaching the target of 2.6 W/m2 that is consistent with a temperature change limit of 2 °C, differs in our analysis thus by about a factor of three across the SSP marker scenarios. Moreover, many models could not reach this target from the SSPs with high mitigation challenges. While the SSPs were designed to represent different mitigation and adaptation challenges, the resulting narratives and quantifications span a wide range of different futures broadly representative of the current literature. This allows their subsequent use and development in new assessments and research projects. Critical next steps for the community scenario process will, among others, involve regional and sectoral extensions, further elaboration of the adaptation and impacts dimension, as well as employing the SSP scenarios with the new generation of earth system models as part of the 6th climate model intercomparison project (CMIP6). |
|
| |
Address |
2017-06-13 |
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language  |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
0959-3780 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
TradeM, ftnotmacsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5008 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Mitter, H.; Schmid, E.; Sinabell, F. |
|
| |
Title |
Integrated modelling of protein crop production responses to climate change and agricultural policy scenarios in Austria |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2015 |
Publication |
Climate Research |
Abbreviated Journal |
Clim. Res. |
|
| |
Volume |
65 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
205-220 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Climate change impact; Adaptation; Soybean; EPIC; Common Agricultural Policy; Land use |
|
| |
Abstract |
Climate and policy changes are likely to affect protein crop production and thus trade balances in Europe, which is highly dependent on imports. Exemplified for Austrian cropland, we developed an integrated modelling framework to analyze climate change and policy scenario impacts on protein crop production and environmental outcomes. The integrated modelling framework consists of a statistical climate change model, a crop rotation model, the bio-physical process model EPIC, and the economic bottom-up land use optimization model BiomAT. EPIC is applied to simulate annual dry matter crop yields for different crop management practices including crop rotations, fertilization intensities, and irrigation, as well as for 3 regional climate change scenarios until 2040 at a 1 km grid resolution. BiomAT maximizes total gross margins by optimizing land use choices and crop management practices subject to spatially explicit cropland endowments. The model results indicate that changes in agricultural policy conditions, cropland use, and higher flexibility in crop management practices may reduce protein import dependence under changing climatic conditions. Expanding protein crop production is most attractive in south-eastern Austria with its Central European continental climate where maize is most often replaced in crop rotations. However, the acreage of protein crops is limited by agronomically suitable cropland. An intended side effect is the reduction of nitrogen fertilizer inputs by about 0.1% if total protein crop production increases by 1%. |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
0936-577x |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
TradeM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5012 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Özkan Gülzari, Ş.; Åby, B.A.; Persson, T.; Höglind, M.; Mittenzwei, K. |
|
| |
Title |
Combining models to estimate the impacts of future climate scenarios on feed supply, greenhouse gas emissions and economic performance on dairy farms in Norway |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2017 |
Publication |
Agricultural Systems |
Abbreviated Journal |
Agric. Syst. |
|
| |
Volume |
157 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
157-169 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Climate change; Dairy farming; Dry matter yield; Economics; Greenhouse gas emission; Modelling |
|
| |
Abstract |
• This study combines crop, livestock and economic models.
• Models interaction is through use of relevant input and output variables.
• Future climate change will result in increased grass and wheat dry matter yields.
• Changes in grass, wheat and milk yields in future reduce farm emissions intensity.
• Changes in future dry matter yields and emissions lead to increased profitability.
There is a scientific consensus that the future climate change will affect grass and crop dry matter (DM) yields. Such yield changes may entail alterations to farm management practices to fulfill the feed requirements and reduce the farm greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from dairy farms. While a large number of studies have focused on the impacts of projected climate change on a single farm output (e.g. GHG emissions or economic performance), several attempts have been made to combine bio-economic systems models with GHG accounting frameworks. In this study, we aimed to determine the physical impacts of future climate scenarios on grass and wheat DM yields, and demonstrate the effects such changes in future feed supply may have on farm GHG emissions and decision-making processes. For this purpose, we combined four models: BASGRA and CSM-CERES-Wheat models for simulating forage grass DM and wheat DM grain yields respectively; HolosNor for estimating the farm GHG emissions; and JORDMOD for calculating the impacts of changes in the climate and management on land use and farm economics. Four locations, with varying climate and soil conditions were included in the study: south-east Norway, south-west Norway, central Norway and northern Norway. Simulations were carried out for baseline (1961–1990) and future (2046–2065) climate conditions (projections based on two global climate models and the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) A1B GHG emission scenario), and for production conditions with and without a milk quota. The GHG emissions intensities (kilogram carbon dioxide equivalent: kgCO2e emissions per kg fat and protein corrected milk: FPCM) varied between 0.8 kg and 1.23 kg CO2e (kg FPCM)− 1, with the lowest and highest emissions found in central Norway and south-east Norway, respectively. Emission intensities were generally lower under future compared to baseline conditions due mainly to higher future milk yields and to some extent to higher crop yields. The median seasonal above-ground timothy grass yield varied between 11,000 kg and 16,000 kg DM ha− 1 and was higher in all projected future climate conditions than in the baseline. The spring wheat grain DM yields simulated for the same weather conditions within each climate projection varied between 2200 kg and 6800 kg DM ha− 1. Similarly, the farm profitability as expressed by total national land rents varied between 1900 million Norwegian krone (NOK) for median yields under baseline climate conditions up to 3900 million NOK for median yield under future projected climate conditions. |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
|
Summary Language |
phase 2 |
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, LiveM, TradeM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5172 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Challinor, A.J.; Müller, C.; Asseng, S.; Deva, C.; Nicklin, K.J.; Wallach, D.; Vanuytrecht, E.; Whitfield, S.; Ramirez-Villegas, J.; Koehler, A.-K. |
|
| |
Title |
Improving the use of crop models for risk assessment and climate change adaptation |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2017 |
Publication |
Agricultural Systems |
Abbreviated Journal |
Agric. Syst. |
|
| |
Volume |
159 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
296-306 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Crop model; Risk assessment; Climate change impacts; Adaptation; Climate models; Uncertainty |
|
| |
Abstract |
Highlights
• 14 criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk • Working with stakeholders to identify timing of risks is key to risk assessments. • Multiple methods needed to critically assess the use of climate model output • Increasing transparency and inter-comparability needed in risk assessments
Abstract
Crop models are used for an increasingly broad range of applications, with a commensurate proliferation of methods. Careful framing of research questions and development of targeted and appropriate methods are therefore increasingly important. In conjunction with the other authors in this special issue, we have developed a set of criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk. Our analysis drew on the other papers in this special issue, and on our experience in the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017 and the MACSUR, AgMIP and ISIMIP projects. The criteria were used to assess how improvements could be made to the framing of climate change risks, and to outline the good practice and new developments that are needed to improve risk assessment. Key areas of good practice include: i. the development, running and documentation of crop models, with attention given to issues of spatial scale and complexity; ii. the methods used to form crop-climate ensembles, which can be based on model skill and/or spread; iii. the methods used to assess adaptation, which need broadening to account for technological development and to reflect the full range options available. The analysis highlights the limitations of focussing only on projections of future impacts and adaptation options using pre-determined time slices. Whilst this long-standing approach may remain an essential component of risk assessments, we identify three further key components: 1. Working with stakeholders to identify the timing of risks. What are the key vulnerabilities of food systems and what does crop-climate modelling tell us about when those systems are at risk? 2. Use of multiple methods that critically assess the use of climate model output and avoid any presumption that analyses should begin and end with gridded output. 3. Increasing transparency and inter-comparability in risk assessments. Whilst studies frequently produce ranges that quantify uncertainty, the assumptions underlying these ranges are not always clear. We suggest that the contingency of results upon assumptions is made explicit via a common uncertainty reporting format; and/or that studies are assessed against a set of criteria, such as those presented in this paper. |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
|
Summary Language |
phase 2+ |
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
0308521x |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
CropM |
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5175 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Faye, B.; Webber, H.; Naab, J.B.; MacCarthy, D.S.; Adam, M.; Ewert, F.; Lamers, J.P.A.; Schleussner, C.-F.; Ruane, A.; Gessner, U.; Hoogenboom, G.; Boote, K.; Shelia, V.; Saeed, F.; Wisser, D.; Hadir, S.; Laux, P.; Gaiser, T. |
|
| |
Title |
Impacts of 1.5 versus 2.0 degrees C on cereal yields in the West African Sudan Savanna |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2018 |
Publication |
Environmental Research Letters |
Abbreviated Journal |
Environ. Res. Lett. |
|
| |
Volume |
13 |
Issue |
3 |
Pages |
034014 |
|
| |
Keywords |
1.5 degrees C; West Africa; food security; climate change; DSSAT; SIMPLACE; Climate-Change Impacts; Sub-Saharan Africa; Food Security; Heat-Stress; Canopy Temperature; Paris Agreement; Pearl-Millet; Maize Yield; Crop; Yields; Model; MACSUR or FACCE acknowledged. |
|
| |
Abstract |
To reduce the risks of climate change, governments agreed in the Paris Agreement to limit global temperature rise to less than 2.0 degrees C above pre-industrial levels, with the ambition to keep warming to 1.5 degrees 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 degrees C versus 2.0 degrees 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 degrees C compared to 1.5 degrees 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. |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
1748-9326 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5196 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
