| 1. |
- Frieler, K, et al.
(author)
-
Assessing the impacts of 1.5° C global warming - simulation protocol of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP2b)
- 2017
-
In: Geoscientific Model Development. - : Copernicus GmbH. - 1991-959X .- 1991-9603. ; 10, s. 4321-4345
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In Paris, France, December 2015, the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Con- vention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) invited the Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide a “special report in 2018 on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 â—ŠC above pre-industrial levels and related global green- house gas emission pathwaysâ€. In Nairobi, Kenya, April 2016, the IPCC panel accepted the invitation. Here we de- scribe the response devised within the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP) to provide tailored, cross-sectorally consistent impact projections to broaden the scientific basis for the report. The simulation protocol is de- signed to allow for (1) separation of the impacts of histori- cal warming starting from pre-industrial conditions from im- pacts of other drivers such as historical land-use changes (based on pre-industrial and historical impact model simula- tions); (2) quantification of the impacts of additional warm- ing up to 1.5 â—ŠC, including a potential overshoot and long- term impacts up to 2299, and comparison to higher lev- els of global mean temperature change (based on the low- emissions Representative Concentration Pathway RCP2.6 and a no-mitigation pathway RCP6.0) with socio-economic conditions fixed at 2005 levels; and (3) assessment of the cli- mate effects based on the same climate scenarios while ac- counting for simultaneous changes in socio-economic con- ditions following the middle-of-the-road Shared Socioeco- nomic Pathway (SSP2, Fricko et al., 2016) and in particu- lar differential bioenergy requirements associated with the transformation of the energy system to comply with RCP2.6 compared to RCP6.0.With the aim of providing the scientific basis for an aggregation of impacts across sectors and anal- ysis of cross-sectoral interactions that may dampen or am- plify sectoral impacts, the protocol is designed to facilitate consistent impact projections from a range of impact mod- els across different sectors (global and regional hydrology, lakes, global crops, global vegetation, regional forests, global and regional marine ecosystems and fisheries, global and regional coastal infrastructure, energy supply and demand, temperature-related mortality, and global terrestrial biodiver- sity).
|
|
| 2. |
- Frieler, Katja, et al.
(author)
-
Understanding the weather signal in national crop-yield variability
- 2017
-
In: Earth's Future. - 2328-4277. ; 5:6, s. 605-616
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Year-to-year variations in crop yields can have major impacts on the livelihoods of subsistence farmers and may trigger significant global price fluctuations, with severe consequences for people in developing countries. Fluctuations can be induced by weather conditions, management decisions, weeds, diseases, and pests. Although an explicit quantification and deeper understanding of weather-induced crop-yield variability is essential for adaptation strategies, so far it has only been addressed by empirical models. Here, we provide conservative estimates of the fraction of reported national yield variabilities that can be attributed to weather by state-of-the-art, process-based crop model simulations. We find that observed weather variations can explain more than 50% of the variability in wheat yields in Australia, Canada, Spain, Hungary, and Romania. For maize, weather sensitivities exceed 50% in seven countries, including the United States. The explained variance exceeds 50% for rice in Japan and South Korea and for soy in Argentina. Avoiding water stress by simulating yields assuming full irrigation shows that water limitation is a major driver of the observed variations in most of these countries. Identifying the mechanisms leading to crop-yield fluctuations is not only fundamental for dampening fluctuations, but is also important in the context of the debate on the attribution of loss and damage to climate change. Since process-based crop models not only account for weather influences on crop yields, but also provide options to represent human-management measures, they could become essential tools for differentiating these drivers, and for exploring options to reduce future yield fluctuations.
|
|
| 3. |
- Rockström, Johan, et al.
(author)
-
Shaping a resilient future in response to COVID-19
- 2023
-
In: Nature Sustainability. - 2398-9629. ; :6, s. 897-907
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Science today defines resilience as the capacity to live and develop with change and uncertainty, which is well beyond just the ability to ‘bounce back’ to the status quo. It involves the capacity to absorb shocks, avoid tipping points, navigate surprise and keep options alive, and the ability to innovate and transform in the face of crises and traps. Five attributes underlie this capacity: diversity, redundancy, connectivity, inclusivity and equity, and adaptive learning. There is a mismatch between the talk of resilience recovery after COVID-19 and the latest science, which calls for major efforts to align resilience thinking with sustainable development action.
|
|
| 4. |
- Schewe, Jacob, et al.
(author)
-
State-of-the-art global models underestimate impacts from climate extremes
- 2019
-
In: Nature Communications. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2041-1723. ; 10
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Global impact models represent process-level understanding of how natural and human systems may be affected by climate change. Their projections are used in integrated assessments of climate change. Here we test, for the first time, systematically across many important systems, how well such impact models capture the impacts of extreme climate conditions. Using the 2003 European heat wave and drought as a historical analogue for comparable events in the future, we find that a majority of models underestimate the extremeness of impacts in important sectors such as agriculture, terrestrial ecosystems, and heat-related human mortality, while impacts on water resources and hydropower are overestimated in some river basins; and the spread across models is often large. This has important implications for economic assessments of climate change impacts that rely on these models. It also means that societal risks from future extreme events may be greater than previously thought.
|
|
| 5. |
- Warszawski, Lila, et al.
(author)
-
All options, not silver bullets, needed to limit global warming to 1.5 °C : a scenario appraisal
- 2021
-
In: Environmental Research Letters. - : IOP Publishing. - 1748-9326. ; 16:6
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Climate science provides strong evidence of the necessity of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C, in line with the Paris Climate Agreement. The IPCC 1.5 °C special report (SR1.5) presents 414 emissions scenarios modelled for the report, of which around 50 are classified as '1.5 °C scenarios', with no or low temperature overshoot. These emission scenarios differ in their reliance on individual mitigation levers, including reduction of global energy demand, decarbonisation of energy production, development of land-management systems, and the pace and scale of deploying carbon dioxide removal (CDR) technologies. The reliance of 1.5 °C scenarios on these levers needs to be critically assessed in light of the potentials of the relevant technologies and roll-out plans. We use a set of five parameters to bundle and characterise the mitigation levers employed in the SR1.5 1.5 °C scenarios. For each of these levers, we draw on the literature to define 'medium' and 'high' upper bounds that delineate between their 'reasonable', 'challenging' and 'speculative' use by mid century. We do not find any 1.5 °C scenarios that stay within all medium upper bounds on the five mitigation levers. Scenarios most frequently 'over use' CDR with geological storage as a mitigation lever, whilst reductions of energy demand and carbon intensity of energy production are 'over used' less frequently. If we allow mitigation levers to be employed up to our high upper bounds, we are left with 22 of the SR1.5 1.5 °C scenarios with no or low overshoot. The scenarios that fulfil these criteria are characterised by greater coverage of the available mitigation levers than those scenarios that exceed at least one of the high upper bounds. When excluding the two scenarios that exceed the SR1.5 carbon budget for limiting global warming to 1.5 °C, this subset of 1.5 °C scenarios shows a range of 15–22 Gt CO2 (16–22 Gt CO2 interquartile range) for emissions in 2030. For the year of reaching net zero CO2 emissions the range is 2039–2061 (2049–2057 interquartile range).
|
|
