Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 131, Issue 4, pp 691–703 | Cite as

Accounting for radiative forcing from albedo change in future global land-use scenarios

  • Andrew D. Jones
  • Katherine V. Calvin
  • William D. Collins
  • James Edmonds
Article

Abstract

We demonstrate the effectiveness of a new method for quantifying radiative forcing from land use and land cover change (LULCC) within an integrated assessment model, the Global Change Assessment Model (GCAM). The method relies on geographically differentiated estimates of radiative forcing from albedo change associated with major land cover transitions derived from the Community Earth System Model. We find that conversion of 1 km2 of woody vegetation (forest and shrublands) to non-woody vegetation (crops and grassland) yields between 0 and −0.71 nW/m2 of globally averaged radiative forcing determined by the vegetation characteristics, snow dynamics, and atmospheric radiation environment characteristic within each of 151 regions we consider globally. Across a set of scenarios designed to span a range of potential future LULCC, we find LULCC forcing ranging from −0.06 to −0.29 W/m2 by 2070 depending on assumptions regarding future crop yield growth and whether climate policy favors afforestation or bioenergy crops. Inclusion of this previously uncounted forcing in the policy targets driving future climate mitigation efforts leads to changes in fossil fuel emissions on the order of 1.5 PgC/yr by 2070 for a climate forcing limit of 4.5 Wm−2, corresponding to a 12–67 % change in fossil fuel emissions depending on the scenario. Scenarios with significant afforestation must compensate for albedo-induced warming through additional emissions reductions, and scenarios with significant deforestation need not mitigate as aggressively due to albedo-induced cooling. In all scenarios considered, inclusion of albedo forcing in policy targets increases forest and shrub cover globally.

Keywords

Land Cover Change Woody Vegetation Carbon Price Earth System Model Bioenergy Crop 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy as part of the Improving the Representations of Human-Earth System Interactions Project. This work used the Community Earth System Model, CESM and the Global Change Assessment Model, GCAM. The National Science Foundation and the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy support the CESM project. The authors acknowledge long-term support for GCAM development from the Integrated Assessment Research Program in the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy. This research used resources of the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, which is supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-0 5CH11231. Battelle Memorial Institute operates the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for DOE under contract DE-AC06-76RLO 1830. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-0 5CH11231.

References

  1. Anon (2005) Radiative forcing of climate change: expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. National Acad Sciences. [online] Available from: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11175
  2. Arora VK, Montenegro A (2011) Small temperature benefits provided by realistic afforestation efforts. Nat Geosci 4:514–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bala G, Caldeira K, Wickett M et al (2007) Combined climate and carbon-cycle effects of large-scale deforestation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:6550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ban-Weiss GA, Cao L, Bala G, Caldeira K (2011) Dependence of climate forcing and response on the altitude of black carbon aerosols. Climate Dynam 38:897–911. doi: 10.1007/s00382-011-1052-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Betts R (2000) Offset of the potential carbon sink from boreal forestation by decreases in surface albedo. Nature 408:187–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonan G (2008) Forests and climate change: forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests. Science 320:1444–1449. doi: 10.1126/science.1155121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brovkin V, Boysen L, Arora VK et al (2013) Effect of anthropogenic land-use and land-cover changes on climate and land carbon storage in CMIP5 projections for the twenty-first century. J Climate 26:6859–6881. doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00623.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caiazzo F, Malina R, Staples MD et al (2014) Quantifying the climate impacts of albedo changes due to biofuel production: a comparison with biogeochemical effects. Environ Res Lett 9:024015. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/9/2/024015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Calvin K, Clarke L, Edmonds J, Eom J, Hejazi M, Kim S, Kyle P, Link R, Luckow P and Patel P (2011) “GCAM Wiki Documentation.” from https://wiki.umd.edu/gcam/
  10. Calvin K, Wise M, Clarke L et al (2014) Near-term limits to mitigation: challenges arising from contrary mitigation effects from indirect land-use change and sulfur emissions. Energy Econ 42:233–239. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2013.09.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conley AJ, Lamarque JF, Vitt F et al (2013) PORT, a CESM tool for the diagnosis of radiative forcing. Geosci Model Dev 6:469–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davies-Barnard T, Valdes PJ, Singarayer JS, Jones CD (2014) Climatic impacts of land-use change due to crop yield increases and a universal carbon Tax from a scenario model. J Climate 27:1413–1424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Edmonds J, Wise M (1999) Exploring A Technology Strategy for Stabilizing Atmospheric CO2. International Environmental Agreements on Climate Change, Kluwer Academic Publishers 131–154Google Scholar
  14. Feddema JJ, Oleson KW, Bonan GB et al (2005) The importance of land-cover change in simulating future climates. Science 310:1674–1678. doi: 10.1126/science.1118160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Foley J, DeFries R, Asner G, Barford C (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309:570–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hallgren W, Schlosser CA, Monier E et al (2013) Climate impacts of a large-scale biofuels expansion. Geophys Res Lett 40:1624–1630. doi: 10.1002/grl.50352 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hurrell JW, Hack JJ, Shea D et al (2008) A new sea surface temperature and sea ice boundary dataset for the community atmosphere model. J Climate 21:5145–5153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hurrell JW, Holland MM, Gent PR et al (2013) The community earth system model: a framework for collaborative research. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 94:1339–1360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Iacono MJ, Delamere JS, Mlawer EJ et al (2008) Radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases: calculations with the AER radiative transfer models. J Geophys Res 113:D13103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones AD, Collins W, Edmonds J et al (2013a) Greenhouse gas policies influence climate via direct effects of land use change. J Climate 26:3657–3670. doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00377.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones AD, Collins WD, Torn MS (2013b) On the additivity of radiative forcing between land use change and greenhouse gases. Geophys Res Lett 40:4036–4041. doi: 10.1002/grl.50754 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. PJ, Chase TN (2007) Representing a new MODIS consistent land surface in the Community Land Model (CLM 3.0). J Geophys Res 112:G01023. doi: 10.1029/2006JG000168
  23. Lawrence DM, Oleson KW, Flanner MG et al. (2011) Parameterization improvements and functional and structural advances in Version 4 of the Community Land Model. J Adv Model Earth Syst. 3:1–27. doi:  10.1029/2011MS000045
  24. Lee H-L, Hertel T, Sohngen B, Ramankutty N (2005) Towards an integrated land use data base for assessing the potential for greenhouse gas mitigation. GTAP Technical Papers 25. 1–83. https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/res_display.asp?RecordID=1900
  25. Meinshausen M, Raper S, Wigley T (2011) Emulating coupled atmosphere–ocean and carbon cycle models with a simpler model, MAGICC6–Part 1: Model description and calibration. Atmos Chem Phys 11:1417–1456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mitchell TD (2003) Pattern scaling: an examination of the accuracy of the technique for describing future climates. Clim Change 60:217–242. doi: 10.1023/A:1026035305597 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Monfreda C, Ramankutty N, Hertel TW (2009) Global agricultural land use data for climate change analysis. In: Hertel T, Rose S, Tol R (eds) Economic analysis of land use in global climate change policy. Routledge, UKGoogle Scholar
  28. Park S, Bretherton CS, Rasch PJ (2014) Integrating cloud processes in the community atmosphere model, version 5. J Climate 27:6821–6856. doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00087.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pielke R Sr, Marland G, Betts R et al (2002) The influence of land-use change and landscape dynamics on the climate system: relevance to climate-change policy beyond the radiative effect of greenhouse gases. Philos Trans R Soc 360:1705–1719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pongratz J, Reick CH, Raddatz T, Claussen M (2010) Biogeophysical versus biogeochemical climate response to historical anthropogenic land cover change. Geophys Res Lett. doi: 10.1029/2010GL043010 Google Scholar
  31. Pongratz J, Reick CH, Raddatz T et al (2011) Past land use decisions have increased mitigation potential of reforestation. Geophys Res Lett 38:L15701Google Scholar
  32. Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner GK et al (2013) IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate. Cambridge University Press, ChangeGoogle Scholar
  33. Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA (2012) An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93:485–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tebaldi C, Arblaster JM (2014) Pattern scaling: its strengths and limitations, and an update on the latest model simulations. Clim Change 122:459–471. doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-1032-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thomson AM, Calvin KV, Smith SJ et al (2011) RCP4. 5: a pathway for stabilization of radiative forcing by 2100. Clim Change 109:77–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van Vuuren DP, Edmonds J, Kainuma M et al (2011) The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Clim Change 109:5–31. doi: 10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wise M, Calvin K, Thomson A et al (2009) Implications of Limiting CO2 Concentrations for Land Use and Energy. Science 324:1183–1186. doi: 10.1126/science.1168475 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wise M, Calvin KV, Kyle P et al (2014) Economic and physical modeling of land Use in GCAM 3.0 and an application to agricultural productivity, land, and terrestrial carbon. Clim Change Econ 05:1450003. doi: 10.1142/S2010007814500031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht (outside the USA) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew D. Jones
    • 1
  • Katherine V. Calvin
    • 2
  • William D. Collins
    • 1
    • 3
  • James Edmonds
    • 2
  1. 1.Lawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s Joint Global Change Research InstituteCollege ParkUSA
  3. 3.University of California Department of Earth and Planetary Science, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations