• Energy Research
• Open Access close
• Restricted close
• 7. Clean energy close
• AT close
• UA close

Three data files are provided for Case Study 1 in the openENTRANCE project: Full_potential.V9.csv, metaData.Full_Potential.csv, and acheivable_NUTS2_summary.csv. The data covers 10 residential devices on the NUTS2 level for the EU27 + UK +TR + NO + CH from 2020-2050. The devices included are storage heater, water heater with storage capabilitites, air conditiong, heat circulation pump, air-to-air heat pump, refreigeration (includes refrigerators and freezers), dish washer, washing machine, and tumble drier. Full_potential.V9.csv shows the NUTS2 level unadjusted loads for residential storage heater, water heater, air conditiong, circulation pump, air-to-air heat pump, refreigeration (includes refrigerators and freezers), dish washer, washing machine, and tumble drier using representative hours from 2020-2050. The loads provided here have not been adjusted with the direct load participation rates (see paper for more details). More details on the dataset can be found in the metaData.Full_Potential.csv file. The acheivable_NUTS2_summary.csv shows the NUTS2 level acheivable direct load control potentials for the average hour in the respective year (years - 2020, 2022,2030,2040, 2050).

The dataset includes 90 global food system and land use scenarios developed with the model BioBaM-GHG 2.0. The scenarios have been developed for assessing the global potential of forest regeneration for climate mitigation to 2050 under various food system pathways, i.e. diets, crop yield developments, land requirements for energy crops, and two variants of grassland use. The scenarios include the following data on country level: Land use and land-use change, cropland area by crop group, grazing area by quality classes, crop production by crop groups, crop consumption by crop groups and use types, crop wastes (losses), net imports/exports, production and consumption of animal products, grass supply and demand, GHG emissions from land-use change, GHG emissions from agricultural activities, and total cumulated GHG emissions. The main model result in this context, cumulative carbon sequestration from forest regeneration until 2050, is calculated as difference between the parameters "GHG emissions from land use change (cumulative) (Mt CO2e)" and "GHG emissions from land use change excluding C stock changes from natural succession (cumulative) (Mt CO2e)". Please refer to the related publication "Exploring the option space for land system futures at regional to global scales: The diagnostic agro-food, land use and greenhouse gas emission model BioBaM-GHG 2.0" (Kalt et al., 2021 - currently under review at Ecological Modelling) for further information. This work was funded by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) within project P29130-G27 GELUC.

Abstract. Reliable quantification of the sources and sinks of greenhouse gases, together with trends and uncertainties, is essential to monitoring the progress in mitigating anthropogenic emissions under the Paris Agreement. This study provides a consolidated synthesis of CH4 and N2O emissions with consistently derived state-of-the-art bottom-up (BU) and top-down (TD) data sources for the European Union and UK (EU27+UK). We integrate recent emission inventory data, ecosystem process-based model results, and inverse modelling estimates over the period 1990–2018. BU and TD products are compared with European National GHG Inventories (NGHGI) reported to the UN climate convention secretariat UNFCCC in 2019. For uncertainties, we used for NGHGI the standard deviation obtained by varying parameters of inventory calculations, reported by the Member States following the IPCC guidelines recommendations. For atmospheric inversion models (TD) or other inventory datasets (BU), we defined uncertainties from the spread between different model estimates or model specific uncertainties when reported. In comparing NGHGI with other approaches, a key source of bias is the activities included, e.g. anthropogenic versus anthropogenic plus natural fluxes. In inversions, the separation between anthropogenic and natural emissions is sensitive to the geospatial prior distribution of emissions. Over the 2011–2015 period, which is the common denominator of data availability between all sources, the anthropogenic BU approaches are directly comparable, reporting mean emissions of 20.8 Tg CH4 yr−1 (EDGAR v5.0) and 19.0 Tg CH4 yr−1 (GAINS), consistent with the NGHGI estimates of 18.9 ± 1.7 Tg CH4 yr−1. TD total inversions estimates give higher emission estimates, as they also include natural emissions. Over the same period regional TD inversions with higher resolution atmospheric transport models give a mean emission of 28.8 Tg CH4 yr−1. Coarser resolution global TD inversions are consistent with regional TD inversions, for global inversions with GOSAT satellite data (23.3 Tg CH4yr−1) and surface network (24.4 Tg CH4 yr−1). The magnitude of natural peatland emissions from the JSBACH-HIMMELI model, natural rivers and lakes emissions and geological sources together account for the gap between NGHGI and inversions and account for 5.2 Tg CH4 yr−1. For N2O emissions, over the 2011–2015 period, both BU approaches (EDGAR v5.0 and GAINS) give a mean value of anthropogenic emissions of 0.8 and 0.9 Tg N2O yr−1 respectively, agreeing with the NGHGI data (0.9 ± 0.6 Tg N2O yr−1). Over the same period, the average of the three total TD global and regional inversions was 1.3 ± 0.4 and 1.3 ± 0.1 Tg N2O yr−1 respectively, compared to 0.9 Tg N2O yr−1 from the BU data. The TU and BU comparison method defined in this study can be operationalized for future yearly updates for the calculation of CH4 and N2O budgets both at EU+UK scale and at national scale. The referenced datasets related to figures are visualized at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4288969 (Petrescu et al., 2020).

Project: GCOS Earth Heat Inventory - A study under the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) concerted international effort to update the Earth heat inventory (EHI), and presents an updated international assessment of ocean warming estimates, and new and updated estimates of heat gain in the atmosphere, cryosphere and land over the period from 1960 to present. Summary: The file “GCOS_EHI_1960-2020_Earth_Heat_Inventory_Ocean_Heat_Content_data.nc” contains a consistent long-term Earth system heat inventory over the period 1960-2020. Human-induced atmospheric composition changes cause a radiative imbalance at the top-of-atmosphere which is driving global warming. Understanding the heat gain of the Earth system from this accumulated heat – and particularly how much and where the heat is distributed in the Earth system - is fundamental to understanding how this affects warming oceans, atmosphere and land, rising temperatures and sea level, and loss of grounded and floating ice, which are fundamental concerns for society. This dataset is based on a study under the Global Climate Observing System (GCOS) concerted international effort to update the Earth heat inventory published in von Schuckmann et al. (2020), and presents an updated international assessment of ocean warming estimates, and new and updated estimates of heat gain in the atmosphere, cryosphere and land over the period 1960-2020. The dataset also contains estimates for global ocean heat content over 1960-2020 for different depth layers, i.e., 0-300m, 0-700m, 700-2000m, 0-2000m, 2000-bottom, which are described in von Schuckmann et al. (2022). This version includes an update of heat storage of global ocean heat content, where one additional product (Li et al., 2022) had been included to the initial estimate. The Earth heat inventory had been updated accordingly, considering also the update for continental heat content (Cuesta-Valero et al., 2023).

Dynamics of societal material stocks such as buildings and infrastructures and their spatial patterns drive surging resource use and emissions. Building up and maintaining stocks requires large amounts of resources; currently stock-building materials amount to almost 60% of all materials used by humanity. Buildings, infrastructures and machinery shape social practices of production and consumption, thereby creating path dependencies for future resource use. They constitute the physical basis of the spatial organization of most socio-economic activities, for example as mobility networks, urbanization and settlement patterns and various other infrastructures. This dataset features a detailed map of material stocks for the whole of Germany on a 10m grid based on high resolution Earth Observation data (Sentinel-1 + Sentinel-2), crowd-sourced geodata (OSM) and material intensity factors. Temporal extent The map is representative for ca. 2018. Data format Per federal state, the data come in tiles of 30x30km (see shapefile). The projection is EPSG:3035. The images are compressed GeoTiff files (*.tif). There is a mosaic in GDAL Virtual format (*.vrt), which can readily be opened in most Geographic Information Systems. The dataset features area and mass for different street types area and mass for different rail types area and mass for other infrastructure area, volume and mass for different building types Masses are reported as total values, and per material category. Units area in m² height in m volume in m³ mass in t for infrastructure and buildings Further information For further information, please see the publication or contact Helmut Haberl (helmut.haberl@boku.ac.at). A web-visualization of this dataset is available here. Visit our website to learn more about our project MAT_STOCKS - Understanding the Role of Material Stock Patterns for the Transformation to a Sustainable Society. Publication Haberl, H., Wiedenhofer, D., Schug, F., Frantz, D., Virág, D., Plutzar, C., Gruhler, K., Lederer, J., Schiller, G. , Fishman, T., Lanau, M., Gattringer, A., Kemper, T., Liu, G., Tanikawa, H., van der Linden, S., Hostert, P. (accepted): High-resolution maps of material stocks in buildings and infrastructures in Austria and Germany. Environmental Science & Technology Funding This research was primarly funded by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (MAT_STOCKS, grant agreement No 741950). ML and GL acknowledge funding by the Independent Research Fund Denmark (CityWeight, 6111-00555B), ML thanks the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC; project Multi-Scale, Circular Economic Potential of Non-Residential Building Scale, EP/S029273/1), JL acknowledges funding by the Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF), project ESR17-067, TF acknowledges the Israel Science Foundation grant no. 2706/19.

The assessment of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and air pollutants emitted to and removed from the atmosphere ranks high on international political and scientific agendas. Growing international concern and cooperation regarding the climate change problem have increased the need to consider the uncertainty in inventories of GHG emissions. The approaches to address uncertainty discussed in this special issue reflect attempts to improve national inventories, not only for their own sake but also from a wider, system analytic perspective. They seek to strengthen the usefulness of national emission inventories under a compliance and/or global monitoring and reporting framework. The papers in this special issue demonstrate the benefits of including inventory uncertainty in policy analyses. The issues raised by the authors and featured in their papers, along with the role that uncertainty analysis plays in many of their arguments, highlight the challenges and the importance of dealing with uncertainty. While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) clearly stresses the value of conducting uncertainty analyses and offers guidance on executing them, the arguments made here in favor of performing these studies go well beyond any suggestions made by the IPCC to date. Improving and conducting uncertainty analyses are needed to develop a clear understanding and informed policy. Uncertainty matters and is key to many issues related to inventorying and reducing emissions. Considering uncertainty helps to avoid situations that can create a false sense of certainty or lead to invalid views of subsystems. Dealing proactively with uncertainty allows for the generation of useful knowledge that the international community should have to hand while strengthening the 2015 Paris Agreement, which had been agreed at the 21st Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). However, considering uncertainty does not come free. Proper treatment of uncertainty is demanding because it forces us to take the step from “simple to complex” and to grasp a holistic system view. Only, thereafter, can we consider potential simplifications. That is, comprehensive treatment of uncertainty does not necessarily offer quick or easy solutions for policymakers. This special issue brings together 13 papers that resulted from the 2015 (4th) International Workshop on Uncertainty in Atmospheric Emissions, in Cracow, Poland. While they deal with many different aspects of the uncertainty in emission estimates, they are guided by the same principal question: “What GHGs shall be verified at what spatio-temporal scale to support conducive legislation at local and national scales, while ensuring effective governance at the global scale?” This question is at the heart of mitigation and adaptation. It requires an understanding of the entire system of GHG sources and sinks, their spatial characteristics and the temporal scales at which they react and interact, the uncertainty (accuracy and/or precision) with which fluxes can be measured, and last but not least, the consequences that follow from all of the aforementioned aspects, for policy actors to frame compliance and/or global monitoring and reporting agreements. This bigger system context serves as a reference for the papers in the special issue, irrespective of their spatio-temporal focus, and is used as a guide for the reader.

Global mitigation pathways play a critical role in informing climate policies and targets that are in line with international climate goals. However, it is not possible to directly compare modelled results with national inventories used to assess progress under the UNFCCC due to differences in how land-based fluxes are accounted for.National inventories consider carbon flux on managed land using an area-based approach with managed land-areas determined by nations. Emissions scenarios consider a different managed land area and are calibrated against data from detailed global carbon cycle models that account for natural (indirect) and anthropogenic (direct) fluxes separately by design. To disentangle the direct and indirect components of land-based carbon fluxes, we use a reduced complexity climate model with explicit treatment of the land-use sector, OSCAR, one of the models used by the Global Carbon Project. We find the discrepancy between model and NGHGI-based accounting methods globally to be 4.4 ± 1.0 Gt CO2 yr-1 averaged over the 2000-2020 time period, which is in line with existing estimates. We then apply OSCAR to the set of pathways assessed by the IPCC to quantify how this gap evolves over time and estimate how key mitigation benchmarks change.Across both 1.5°C and 2°C scenarios, LULUCF emissions pathways aligned with NGHGI accounting practices show a strong increase in the total land sink until around mid-century. However, the ‘NGHGI alignment gap’  decreases over this period, converging in the 2050-2060s for 1.5°C scenarios and 2070s-2080s for 2°C scenarios. The convergence is primarily a result of the simulated stabilization and then decrease of the CO2-fertilization effect as well as background climate warming reducing the overall effectiveness of the land sink, which in turn reduces the indirect removals considered by NGHGIs. These dynamics lead to land-based emissions reversing their downward trend in most NGHGI-aligned scenarios by mid-century, and result in the LULUCF sector becoming a net-source of emissions by 2100 in about 25% of both 1.5°C and 2°C scenarios.Assessing emission pathways using LULUCF definitions from national inventory accounting results in downward revisions to emissions benchmarks derived from scenarios. NGHGI-aligned pathways result in earlier net-zero CO2 emissions by around 2-5 years for both 1.5°C and 2°C scenarios, and 2030 emission reductions relative to 2020 are enhanced by about 5 percentage points for both pathway categories. When incorporating the additional land removals considered by NGHGIs, the assessed cumulative net CO2 emissions to global net-zero CO2 also decreases systematically by 15-18% for both 1.5°C and 2°C scenarios.We find that increasing removals from direct fluxes in 1.5C scenarios overtake estimated removals using NGHGI conventions in the near term. However, by midcentury, the strengthening of direct removals is balanced by weakening of indirect removals, meaning that, on average, carbon removal on land accounted for using NGHGI conventions in 1.5C scenarios results in about half of the LULUCF removals in current policy scenarios. We discuss the implications of our results for future Global Stocktakes and market mechanisms under the Paris Agreement.

Ambitious international targets are being developed to protect and restore biodiversity under the Convention on Biological Diversity's post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework and the European Union's Green Deal. Yet, the land system consequences of meeting such targets are unclear, as multiple pathways may be able to deliver on the set targets. This paper introduces a novel scenario approach assessing the plural implementations of these targets. The Nature Futures Framework (NFF) developed by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services aims to illustrate the different, positive ways in which society can value nature. It therefore offers a lens through which the spatial implementation of sustainability targets may be envisioned. We used CLUMondo, a spatially explicit model, to simulate plural land system scenarios for Europe for 2050. The model builds on current land system representations of Europe and explores how and where sustainability targets can be implemented under projected population trends and commodity demands. We created three different scenarios in which the sustainability targets are met, each representing an alternative, normative view on nature as represented by the NFF, favoring land systems providing strong climate regulation (Nature for Society), species conservation (Nature for Nature), or agricultural heritage features (Nature as Culture). Our results show that, irrespective of the NFF view, meeting sustainability targets will require European land systems to drastically change, as natural grasslands and forests are forecast to expand while productive areas are projected to undergo a dual intensification and diversification trajectory. Despite each NFF perspective showcasing a similar direction of change, 20% of Europe's land area will differ based on the adopted NFF perspective, with hotspots of disagreement identified in eastern and western Europe. These simulations go beyond existing scenario approaches by not only depicting broad societal developments for Europe, but also by quantifying the land system synergies and trade-offs associated with alternative, archetypal, interpretations and values of how nature may be managed for sustainability. This quantification exemplifies a means towards constructive dialogue, on the one hand by acknowledging areas of contention, and bringing such issues to the fore, and on the other by highlighting points of convergence in a vision for a sustainable Europe.