Integrating albedo into integrated assessment

Integrating albedo into integrated assessment

Andrew D Jones, Katherine Calvin,William Collins, Jae Edmonds

LBNL - UC Berkeley - PNNL - JGCRI

Terrestrial Carbon Management

2

Reforestation & Afforestation

Avoided Deforestation

Biomass Harvest

Biofuels Long Term Sequestration

Land Use in Climate Mitigation Policy

• REDD/ REDD+ (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation)

• Forestry and Ag Offset Programs

• GHG Inventories

• Biofuel (or Food) Life Cycle Assessment

3

4

Source - Bonan et al. AGU Fall 2010

Future Projections of Land Use Differ Widely

Lawrence, P. J., J. J. Feddema, G. B. Bonan, G. A. Meehl, B. C. O’Neill, S. Levis, D. M. Lawrence, K. W. Oleson, E. Kluzek, K. Lindsay, and P. E. Thornton (2011), Simulating the Biogeochemical and Biogeophysical Impacts of Transient Land Cover Change and Wood Harvest in the Community Climate System Model (CCSM4) from 1850 to 2100, Journal of Climate, in review.

Source - Jackson et al. Environ. Res. Lett.3 (2008) 044006

5

Direct Biophysical Effects of Land Use Change

6

Bonan, G. B. (2008), Forests and Climate Change: Forcings, Feedbacks, and the Climate Benefits of Forests, Science 320, 1444, doi:10.1126/science.1155121

Radiative Forcing (W/m2)

7

Source - IPCC AR4 Synthesis Report

Source - Jackson et al. Environ. Res. Lett.3 (2008) 044006

8

Only albedo changes are counted in radiative forcing

How important is land-use change for future climate?

• How much and what kind of change will occur?

• What is the C cycle effect of land-use change?

• What is the biophysical effect of land-use change?

• How to understand both regional and global effects?

9

What’s in store

• Potential scale of albedo change (iESM)

• Account for albedo in GCAM

• Feedbacks when albedo included in targets

• Implications for assessment

10

How does treatment of land use change in

policy affect climate?

11

Jones, A. D. et al. (2013), Greenhouse gas policies influence climate via direct effects of land use change, J of Climate, 26(11), 3657–3670, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00377.1.

12

Universal Carbon Tax (UCT)

Fossil Fuel and Industrial Carbon Tax (FFICT)

13

The Community Earth System Model (CESM)

14

The Integrated Earth System Model (iESM)GCAM and GLM

EconomicsDemographicsEnergy SystemAg System

The Community Land Model

15

Energy Water Carbon and Nitrogen

Do all RCP4.5 policies lead to same climate?

16

Two Scenarios: 2005-2100

Universal Carbon Tax (UCT)Fossil Fuel and Industrial

Carbon Tax (FFICT)

!"

#!!"

$!!"

%!!"

&!!"

'!!"

(!!"

$!!!" $!$!" $!&!" $!(!" $!)!" $#!!"!"

#!!"

$!!"

%!!"

&!!"

'!!"

(!!"

$!!!" $!$!" $!&!" $!(!" $!)!" $#!!"

CO

2 C

once

ntra

tion

(ppm

)

Time Time

Identical forcing from greenhouse gases and aerosols

17

Two Scenarios: 2005-2100

Fossil Fuel and Industrial Carbon Tax (FFICT)

Very different patterns of land use change

Universal Carbon Tax (UCT)

Change in Forest Cover from 2005 to 2100

Do all RCP4.5 policies lead to same climate?

18

Temperature change from first (2005-2015) to last (2091-2100) decadeRCP4.5 UCT RCP4.5 FFICT

Global Mean Temp Change

NH Summer NH Winter

Temperature difference FFICT-UCT(decadal mean, 2090-2100 )

Annual Mean 50% Forest loss

Surface Albedo difference FFICT-UCT(decadal mean, 2090-2100 )

20

21

Temperature change from first (2005-2015) to last (2091-2100) decadeRCP4.5 UCT RCP4.5 FFICT

Global Mean Temp Change

Actually RCP 3.9 !

22

The IPCC “Parallel” Process

RCP’s

SSP’s

Climate Projections

Impacts &

Adaptationmatch based on RF

23

A Problem

• Land-use is not accounted for in the forcing targets used to match RCP’s and SSP’s

• Thus, if SSP land-use diverges from the RCP’s, their climates no longer match

• Yet, land-use is an important socio-economic variable to be explored

Accounting for land-use forcing within GCAM

Forcing is determined by both surface and atmosphere

Compare worlds with all woody vegetation and all non-woody vegetation

Albedo forcing from removal of woody vegetation

Next Step: MODIS surface albedos

• More landcover types• Snow and snow-free conditions

Forcing from Land-Use Change

-0.30

-0.25

-0.20

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

2005 2020 2035 2050 2065

W/m

2

Old Model

Ref

UCT

FFICT

Why is the forcing smaller?

!"

#!"

$!"

%!"

&!"

'!"

(!"

$!!!"

$!!'"

$!#!"

$!#'"

$!$!"

$!$'"

$!%!"

$!%'"

$!&!"

$!&'"

$!'!"

$!''"

$!(!"

$!('"

$!)!"

$!)'"

$!*!"

$!*'"

$!+!"

$!+'"

!"#$%!&'()*!+',-(!./!'01!2/1!/-3!,-().'/)!'&!4#5!2/1!667#5!)+-/2(.')!!

,,-./"0122345"

,,-./"678"

9./"0122345"

9./"678"

Fore

st C

over

(M

km

^2)

Why is the forcing smaller?

latitude

land

con

vert

ed

(km

^2)

Effect of including albedo in policy targets

Carbon Price

Fossil Fuel Emissions

Land-Use Change Emissions

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2005 2020 2035 2050 2065

$/tC

Ref

Ref, w/ Endo Albedo

UCT

UCT, w/ Endo Albedo

FFICT

FFICT, w/ Endo Albedo 0

5

10

15

20

25

2005 2020 2035 2050 2065

GtC

/yr

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

2005 2020 2035 2050 2065

GtC

/yr

Albedo Forcing

Forest and Shrub Cover

Bioenergy Crop Area

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005 2020 2035 2050 2065

mill

ion

km2

Ref

Ref, w/ Endo Albedo

UCT

UCT, w/ Endo Albedo

FFICT

FFICT, w/ Endo Albedo

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2005 2020 2035 2050 2065

mill

ion

km2

Ref

Ref, w/ Endo Albedo

UCT

UCT, w/ Endo Albedo

FFICT

FFICT, w/ Endo Albedo

-0.30

-0.25

-0.20

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

2005 2020 2035 2050 2065

W/m

2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

SS

P1_

AFF

OR

ES

T

SS

P3_

AFF

OR

ES

T

SS

P3_

DE

LAY

SS

P3_

RE

DD

SS

P3_

DE

FOR

ES

T

mill

ion

km2

forest

shrubs

grass

pasture

biomass

crops

-0.35

-0.30

-0.25

-0.20

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

2005 2020 2035 2050 2065 2080 2095

W/m

2 SSP1_AFFOREST SSP3_AFFOREST SSP3_DELAY SSP3_REDD SSP3_DEFOREST

Albedo in the SSP’s

2095 Land Cover Albedo

Some conclusions

• Albedo forcing (and climate effect) of land-use change can be quite significant

• Newer GCAM estimates lower rates of deforestation

• We can now diagnose albedo change within GCAM

• even more refined approach is coming

• Including albedo in forcing targets feeds back onto energy and land-use systems

• Less deforestation in FFICT despite forcing “bonus”

36

Photographer: Roman Makhmutov

Should we include albedo effects in policy?

37

Photographer: Roman Makhmutov

• non-radiative (e.g. hydro) effects• spatially concentrated effects

To what extent is land-use forcing equivalent

to GHG forcing ?

Have we solved the issue with the parallel process?

RCP’s

SSP’s

Climate Projections

Impacts &

Adaptationmatch based on RF

Toward a better assessment process

• Land-use change and GHG’s affect the climate in fundamentally different ways

• Same is true of aerosols

• Would we really consider a policy in which we reward aerosol emissions for cooling the planet?

• Then why do we consider RCP scenarios based on global RF targets?

• Maybe we should focus on the effect of individual forcings on regions of interest

39

Thank You!

40

41

Human

Activity

Climate

Forcing

Climate

OutcomesImpacts

Feedbacks

Ideally, forcing is a good proxy for impacts

Three Simulations

42

land forcing

CO2

forcingnet

forcing

Land Use Change Only

Equivalent CO2 Only

Land Use Change and Equivalent CO2

W/m2 W/m2 W/m2

-1 -1

+1 +1

-1 +1 0

Equilibrium response relative to pre-industrial

Three Simulations

43

+57 ppm

land forcing

CO2

forcingnet

forcing

Land Use Change Only

Equivalent CO2 Only

Land Use Change and Equivalent CO2

W/m2 W/m2 W/m2

-0.92 -0.92

+0.90 +0.90

-0.92 +0.90 -0.02

Equilibrium response relative to pre-industrial

44

Global Scale Temperature Results

45

Equivalent CO2 Warming

Land Use Change Cooling

Combined Effect With Trading

46

global tempchange

% globe affected

mean abschange

LUC

CO2

TRADE

C % C

-0.57 62 0.60

0.74 99 0.76

0.17 76 0.55

Global Scale Temperature Results

47

Latitudinal Precipitation Response

48

global precipchange

% globe affected

mean abschange

LUC

CO2

TRADE

mm/y % mm/y

-12.7 36 58.9

14.8 30 36.8

2.5 36 55.0

Global Scale Precipitation Results

49

control

LUC

CO2

Differential Timing Effects

50

Forcing additivity does not hold

C(fLUC + fCO2) ≠ C(fLUC) + C(fCO2)

51

But, response additvity does seem to hold

C(fLUC + fCO2) ≠ C(fLUC) + C(fCO2)

C(fLUC , fCO2) ≅ CLUC(fLUC) + CCO2(fCO2)

but...

+≅

52

Temperature Effects Revisited

53

Precipitation Effects Revisited