| |
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 |
Siebert, S.; Webber, H.; Zhao, G.; Ewert, F.; Siebert, S.; Webber, H.; Zhao, G.; Ewert, F. |
|
| |
Title |
Heat stress is overestimated in climate impact studies for irrigated agriculture |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2017 |
Publication |
Environmental Research Letters |
Abbreviated Journal |
Environ. Res. Lett. |
|
| |
Volume |
12 |
Issue |
5 |
Pages |
054023 |
|
| |
Keywords |
heat stress; climate change impact assessment; irrigation; canopy temperature; CANOPY TEMPERATURE; WINTER-WHEAT; WATER-STRESS; CROP YIELDS; GROWTH; MAIZE; DROUGHT; UNCERTAINTY; ENVIRONMENT; PHENOLOGY |
|
| |
Abstract |
Climate change will increase the number and severity of heat waves, and is expected to negatively affect crop yields. Here we show for wheat and maize across Europe that heat stress is considerably reduced by irrigation due to surface cooling for both current and projected future climate. We demonstrate that crop heat stress impact assessments should be based on canopy temperature because simulations with air temperatures measured at standard weather stations cannot reproduce differences in crop heat stress between irrigated and rainfed conditions. Crop heat stress was overestimated on irrigated land when air temperature was used with errors becoming larger with projected climate change. Corresponding errors in mean crop yield calculated across Europe for baseline climate 1984-2013 of 0.2 Mg yr(-1) (2%) and 0.6 Mg yr(-1) (5%) for irrigated winter wheat and irrigated grain maize, respectively, would increase to up to 1.5 Mg yr (1) (16%) for irrigated winter wheat and 4.1 Mg yr (1) (39%) for irrigated grain maize, depending on the climate change projection/GCM combination considered. We conclude that climate change impact assessments for crop heat stress need to account explicitly for the impact of irrigation. |
|
| |
Address |
2017-06-22 |
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
English |
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 |
5035 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Makowski, D. |
|
| |
Title |
A simple Bayesian method for adjusting ensemble of crop model outputs to yield observations |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2017 |
Publication |
European Journal of Agronomy |
Abbreviated Journal |
Europ. J. Agron. |
|
| |
Volume |
88 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
76-83 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Bayesian method; Climate change; Ensemble modelling; Uncertainty; Yield; Linear-Approach; Climate-Change; CO2 |
|
| |
Abstract |
Multi-model forecasting has drawn some attention in crop science for evaluating effect of climate change on crop yields. The principle is to run several individual process-based crop models under several climate scenarios in order to generate ensembles of output values. This paper describes a simple Bayesian method – called Bayes linear method- for updating ensemble of crop model outputs using yield observations. The principle is to summarize the ensemble of crop model outputs by its mean and variance, and then to adjust these two quantities to yield observations in order to reduce uncertainty. The adjusted mean and variance combine two sources of information, i.e., the ensemble of crop model outputs and the observations. Interestingly, with this method, observations collected under a given climate scenario can be used to adjust mean and variance of the model ensemble under a different scenario. Another advantage of the proposed method is that it does not rely on a separate calibration of each individual crop model. The uncertainty reduction resulting from the adjustment of an ensemble of crop models to observations was assessed in a numerical application. The implementation of the Bayes linear method systematically reduced uncertainty, but the results showed the effectiveness of this method varied in function of several factors, especially the accuracy of the yield observation, and the covariance between the crop model output and the observation. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. |
|
| |
Address |
2017-08-07 |
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
1161-0301 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5171 |
|
| 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 |
