skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Are the impacts of land use on warming underestimated in climate policy?

; ; ; ;
Publication Date:
Sponsoring Org.:
OSTI Identifier:
Resource Type:
Journal Article: Published Article
Journal Name:
Environmental Research Letters
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 12; Journal Issue: 9; Related Information: CHORUS Timestamp: 2017-09-18 11:31:18; Journal ID: ISSN 1748-9326
IOP Publishing
Country of Publication:
United Kingdom

Citation Formats

Mahowald, Natalie M., Ward, Daniel S., Doney, Scott C., Hess, Peter G., and Randerson, James T.. Are the impacts of land use on warming underestimated in climate policy?. United Kingdom: N. p., 2017. Web. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa836d.
Mahowald, Natalie M., Ward, Daniel S., Doney, Scott C., Hess, Peter G., & Randerson, James T.. Are the impacts of land use on warming underestimated in climate policy?. United Kingdom. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa836d.
Mahowald, Natalie M., Ward, Daniel S., Doney, Scott C., Hess, Peter G., and Randerson, James T.. 2017. "Are the impacts of land use on warming underestimated in climate policy?". United Kingdom. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa836d.
title = {Are the impacts of land use on warming underestimated in climate policy?},
author = {Mahowald, Natalie M. and Ward, Daniel S. and Doney, Scott C. and Hess, Peter G. and Randerson, James T.},
abstractNote = {},
doi = {10.1088/1748-9326/aa836d},
journal = {Environmental Research Letters},
number = 9,
volume = 12,
place = {United Kingdom},
year = 2017,
month = 9

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
Publisher's Version of Record at 10.1088/1748-9326/aa836d

Save / Share:
  • This study is a model comparison assessing the drivers and impacts of bioenergy production on the global land system and the interaction with other land use based mitigation options in the context of the EMF 27 project. We compare and evaluate results from three integrated assessment models (GCAM, IMAGE, and ReMIND/MAgPIE). All three models project that dedicated bioenergy crops and biomass residues are a potentially important and cost-effective component of the energy system. But bioenergy deployment levels and feedstock composition vary notably across models as do the implications for land-use and greenhouse gas emissions and the interaction with other landmore » use based mitigation measures. Despite numerous model differences, we identify a few that are likely contributing to differences in land-use and emissions attributable to energy crop deployment.« less
  • It is time to acknowledge that global average temperatures will likely rise above the 2 C policy target and consider how that deeply troubling prospect should affect priorities for communicating and managing the risks of a dangerously warming climate.
  • PNNL's Agriculture and Land Use (AgLU) model is used to demonstrate the impact of potential changes in climate on agricultural production and land use in the United States. AgLU simulates production of four crop types in several world regions, in 15-year time steps from 1990 to 2095. Changes in yield of major field crops in the United States, for 12 climate scenarios, are obtained from simulations of the EPIC crop growth model. Results from the HUMUS model are used to constrain crop irrigation, and the BIOME3 model is used to simulate productivity of unmanaged ecosystems. Assumptions about changes in agriculturalmore » productivity outside the United States are treated on a scenario basis, either responding in the same way as in the United States, or not responding to climate.« less
  • Regional climate change impact (CCI) studies have widely involved downscaling and bias-correcting (BC) Global Climate Model (GCM)-projected climate for driving land surface models. However, BC may cause uncertainties in projecting hydrologic and biogeochemical responses to future climate due to the impaired spatiotemporal covariance of climate variables and a breakdown of physical conservation principles. Here we quantify the impact of BC on simulated climate-driven changes in water variables(evapotranspiration, ET; runoff; snow water equivalent, SWE; and water demand for irrigation), crop yield, biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOC), nitric oxide (NO) emissions, and dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) export over the Pacific Northwest (PNW)more » Region. We also quantify the impacts on net primary production (NPP) over a small watershed in the region (HJ Andrews). Simulation results from the coupled ECHAM5/MPI-OM model with A1B emission scenario were firstly dynamically downscaled to 12 km resolutions with WRF model. Then a quantile mapping based statistical downscaling model was used to downscale them into 1/16th degree resolution daily climate data over historical and future periods. Two series climate data were generated according to the option of bias-correction (i.e. with bias-correction (BC) and without bias-correction, NBC). Impact models were then applied to estimate hydrologic and biogeochemical responses to both BC and NBC meteorological datasets. These im20 pact models include a macro-scale hydrologic model (VIC), a coupled cropping system model (VIC-CropSyst), an ecohydrologic model (RHESSys), a biogenic emissions model (MEGAN), and a nutrient export model (Global-NEWS). Results demonstrate that the BC and NBC climate data provide consistent estimates of the climate-driven changes in water fluxes (ET, runoff, and water demand), VOCs (isoprene and monoterpenes) and NO emissions, mean crop yield, and river DIN export over the PNW domain. However, significant differences rise from projected SWE, crop yield from dry lands, and HJ Andrews’s ET between BC and NBC data. Even though BC post-processing has no significant impacts on most of the studied variables when taking PNW as a whole, their effects have large spatial variations and some local areas are substantially influenced. In addition, there are months during which BC and NBC post-processing produces significant differences in projected changes, such as summer runoff. Factor-controlled simulations indicate that BC post-processing of precipitation and temperature both substantially contribute to these differences at region scales. We conclude that there are trade-offs between using BC climate data for offline CCI studies vs. direct modeled climate data. These trade-offs should be considered when designing integrated modeling frameworks for specific applications; e.g., BC may be more important when considering impacts on reservoir operations in mountainous watersheds than when investigating impacts on biogenic emissions and air quality (where VOCs are a primary indicator).« less
  • The impacts of historical droughts and heat-waves on ecosystems are often considered indicative of future global warming impacts, under the assumption that water stress sets in above a fixed high temperature threshold. Historical and future (RCP8.5) Earth system model (ESM) climate projections were analyzed in this study to illustrate changes in the temperatures for onset of water stress under global warming. The ESMs examined here predict sharp declines in gross primary production (GPP) at warm temperature extremes in historical climates, similar to the observed correlations between GPP and temperature during historical heat-waves and droughts. However, soil moisture increases at themore » warm end of the temperature range, and the temperature at which soil moisture declines with temperature shifts to a higher temperature. The temperature for onset of water stress thus increases under global warming and is associated with a shift in the temperature for maximum GPP to warmer temperatures. Despite the shift in this local temperature optimum, the impacts of warm extremes on GPP are approximately invariant when extremes are defined relative to the optimal temperature within each climate period. The GPP sensitivity to these relative temperature extremes therefore remains similar between future and present climates, suggesting that the heat- and drought-induced GPP reductions seen recently can be expected to be similar in the future, and may be underestimates of future impacts given model projections of increased frequency and persistence of heat-waves and droughts. The local temperature optimum can be understood as the temperature at which the combination of water stress and light limitations is minimized, and this concept gives insights into how GPP responds to climate extremes in both historical and future climate periods. Both cold (temperature and light-limited) and warm (water-limited) relative temperature extremes become more persistent in future climate projections, and the time taken to return to locally optimal climates for GPP following climate extremes increases by more than 25% over many land regions.« less