Abstract: Highlights • The SSP5 scenarios mark the upper end of the scenario literature in fossil fuel use, food demand, energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. • The SSP5 marker scenario results in a radiative forcing pathway close to the highest Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP8.5). • An investigation of mitigation policies in SSP5 confirms high socio-economic challenges to mitigation in SSP5. • In SSP5, ambitious climate targets require land based carbon management options such as avoided deforestation and bioenergy production with CCS. • The SSP5 scenarios provide useful reference points for future climate change, impact, adaption, mitigation and sustainable development analysis. Abstract This paper presents a set of energy and resource intensive scenarios based on the concept of Shared Socio-Economic Pathways (SSPs). The scenario family is characterized by rapid and fossil-fueled development with high socio-economic challenges to mitigation and low socio-economic challenges to adaptation (SSP5). A special focus is placed on the SSP5 marker scenario developed by the REMIND-MAgPIE integrated assessment modeling framework. The SSP5 baseline scenarios exhibit very high levels of fossil fuel use, up to a doubling of global food demand, and up to a tripling of energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions over the course of the century, marking the upper end of the scenario literature in several dimensions. These scenarios are currently the only SSP scenarios that result in a radiative forcing pathway as high as the highest Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP8.5). This paper further investigates the direct impact of mitigation policies on the SSP5 energy, land and emissions dynamics confirming high socio-economic challenges to mitigation in SSP5. Nonetheless, mitigation policies reaching climate forcing levels as low as in the lowest Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP2.6) are accessible in SSP5. The SSP5 scenarios presented in this paper aim to provide useful reference points for future climate change, climate impact, adaption and mitigation analysis, and broader questions of sustainable development.

Abstract: Two independently developed simulation models – the grassland-specific PaSim and the biome-generic Biome-BGC MuSo (BBGC MuSo) – linking climate, soil, vegetation and management to ecosystem biogeochemical cycles were compared in a simulation of carbon (C) and water fluxes. The results were assessed against eddy-covariance flux data from five observational grassland sites representing a range of conditions in Europe: Grillenburg in Germany, Laqueuille in France with both extensive and intensive management, Monte Bondone in Italy and Oensingen in Switzerland. Model comparison (after calibration) gave substantial agreement, the performances being marginal to acceptable for weekly-aggregated gross primary production and ecosystem respiration (R-2 similar to 0.66 – 0.91), weekly evapotranspiration (R-2 similar to 0.78 – 0.94), soil water content in the topsoil (R-2 similar to 0.1 -0.7) and soil temperature (R-2 similar to 0.88 – 0.96). The bias was limited to the range -13 to 9 g C m(-2) week(-1) for C fluxes (-11 to 8 g C m(-2) week(-1) in case of BBGC MuSo, and -13 to 9 g C m(-2) week(-1) in case of PaSim) and -4 to 6 mm week for water fluxes (with BBGC MuSo providing somewhat higher estimates than PaSim), but some higher relative root mean square errors indicate low accuracy for prediction, especially for net ecosystem exchange The sensitivity of simulated outputs to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]), temperature and precipitation indicate, with certain agreement between the two models, that C outcomes are dominated by [CO2] and temperature gradients, and are less due to precipitation. ET rates decrease with increasing [CO2] in PaSim (consistent with experimental knowledge), while lack of appropriate stomatal response could be a limit in BBGC MuSo responsiveness. Results of the study indicate that some of the errors might be related to the improper representation of soil water content and soil temperature. Improvement is needed in the model representations of soil processes (especially soil water balance) that strongly influence the biogeochemical cycles of managed and unmanaged grasslands. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Abstract: Since 1970, global agricultural production has more than doubled with agriculture and land-use change now responsible for similar to 1/4 of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Yet, while greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per unit of agricultural product have been reduced at a global level, trends in world regions have been quantified less thoroughly. The KPI (Kaya-Porter Identity) is a novel framework for analysing trends in agricultural production and land-use change and related GHG emissions. We apply this to assess trends and differences in nine world regions over the period 1970-2007. We use a deconstructed analysis of emissions from the mix of multiple sources, and show how each is changing in terms of absolute emissions on a per area and per produced unit basis, and how the change of emissions from each source contributes to the change in total emissions over time. The doubling of global agricultural production has mainly been delivered by developing and transitional countries, and this has been mirrored by increased GHG emissions. The decoupling of emissions from production shows vast regional differences. Our estimates show that emissions per unit crop (as kg CO2-equivalents per Giga Joule crop product), in Oceania, have been reduced by 94% from 1093 to 69; in Central & South America by 57% from 849 to 362; in sub-Saharan Africa by 27% from 421 to 309, and in Europe by 56% from 86 to 38. Emissions per unit livestock (as kg CO2-eq. GJ(-1) livestock product) have reduced; in sub-Saharan Africa by 24% from 6001 to 4580; in Central & South America by 61% from 3742 to 1448; in Central & Eastern Asia by 82% from 3,205 to 591, and; in North America by 28% from 878 to 632. In general, intensive and industrialised systems show the lowest emissions per unit of agricultural production. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.