• Energy Research
• 7. Clean energy close
• DE close
• GB close
• FI close
• English close

This climate change impact data (future scenarios on temperature-induced GDP losses) and climate change mitigation cost data (REMIND model scenarios) is published under doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3541809 and used in this paper: Ueckerdt F, Frieler K, Lange S, Wenz L, Luderer G, Levermann A (2018) The economically optimal warming limit of the planet. Earth System Dynamics. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-741-2019 Below the individual file contents are explained. For further questions feel free to write to Falko Ueckerdt (ueckerdt@pik-potsdam.de). Climate change impact data File 1: Data_rel-GDPpercapita-changes_withCC_per-country_all-RCP_all-SSP_4GCM.csv Content: Data of relative change in absolute GDP/CAP levels (compared to the baseline path of the respective SSP in the SSP database) for each country, RCP (and a zero-emissions scenario), SSP and 4 GCMs (spanning a broad range of climate sensitivity). Negative (positive) values indicate losses (gains) due to climate change. For figure 1a of the paper, this data was aggregated for all countries. File 2: Data_rel-GDPpercapita-changes_withCC_per-country_all-SSP_4GCM_interpolated-for-REMIND-scenarios.csv Content: Data of relative change in absolute GDP/CAP levels (compared to the baseline path of the respective SSP in the SSP database) for each country, SSP and 4 GCMs (spanning a broad range of climate sensitivity). The RCP (and a zero-emissions scenario) are interpolated to the temperature pathways of the ten REMIND model scenarios used for climate change mitigation costs. Hereby the set of scenarios for climate impacts and climate change mitigation are consistent and can be combined to total costs of climate change (for a broad range of mitigation action). File 3: Data_rel-GDPpercapita-changes_withCC_per-country_SSP2_12GCM_interpolated-for-REMIND-scenarios.csv Content: Same as file 2, but only for the SSP2 (chosen default scenario for the study) and for all 12 GCMs. Data of relative change in absolute GDP/CAP levels (compared to the baseline path of the respective SSP in the SSP database) for each country, SSP-2 and 12 GCMs (spanning a broad range of climate sensitivity). The RCP (and a zero-emissions scenario) are interpolated to the temperature pathways of the ten REMIND model scenarios used for climate change mitigation costs. Hereby the set of scenarios for climate impacts and climate change mitigation are consistent and can be combined to total costs of climate change (for a broad range of mitigation action). In addition, reference GDP and population data (without climate change) for each country until 2100 was downloaded from the SSP database, release Version 1.0 (March 2013, https://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at/SspDb/, last accessed 15Nov 2019). Climate change mitigation cost data The scenario design and runs used in this paper have first been conducted in [1] and later also used in [2]. File 4: REMIND_scenario_results_economic_data.csv File 5: REMIND_scenarios_climate_data.csv Content: A broad range of climate change mitigation scenarios of the REMIND model. File 4 contains the economic data of e.g. GDP and macro-economic consumption for each of the countries and world regions, as well as GHG emissions from various economic sectors. File 5 contains the global climate-related data, e.g. forcing, concentration, temperature. In the scenario description “FFrunxxx” (column 2), the code “xxx” specifies the scenario as follows. See [1] for a detailed discussion of the scenarios. The first dimension specifies the climate policy regime (delayed action, baseline scenarios): 1xx: climate action from 2010 5xx: climate action from 2015 2xx climate action from 2020 (used in this study) 3xx climate action from 2030 4x1 weak policy baseline (before Paris agreement) The second dimension specifies the technology portfolio and assumptions: x1x Full technology portfolio (used in this study) x2x noCCS: unavailability of CCS x3x lowEI: lower energy intensity, with final energy demand per economic output decreasing faster than historically observed x4x NucPO: phase out of investments into nuclear energy x5x Limited SW: penetration of solar and wind power limited x6x Limited Bio: reduced bioenergy potential p.a. (100 EJ compared to 300 EJ in all other cases) x6x noBECCS: unavailability of CCS in combination with bioenergy The third dimension specifies the climate change mitigation ambition level, i.e. the height of a global CO2 tax in 2020 (which increases with 5% p.a.). xx1 0$/tCO2 (baseline) xx2 10$/tCO2 xx3 30$/tCO2 xx4 50$/tCO2 xx5 100$/tCO2 xx6 200$/tCO2 xx7 500$/tCO2 xx8 40$/tCO2 xx9 20$/tCO2 xx0 5$/tCO2 For figure 1b of the paper, this data was aggregated for all countries and regions. Relative changes of GDP are calculated relative to the baseline (4x1 with zero carbon price). [1] Luderer, G., Pietzcker, R. C., Bertram, C., Kriegler, E., Meinshausen, M. and Edenhofer, O.: Economic mitigation challenges: how further delay closes the door for achieving climate targets, Environmental Research Letters, 8(3), 034033, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034033, 2013a. [2] Rogelj, J., Luderer, G., Pietzcker, R. C., Kriegler, E., Schaeffer, M., Krey, V. and Riahi, K.: Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5 °C, Nature Climate Change, 5(6), 519–527, doi:10.1038/nclimate2572, 2015.

Dataset for the journal paper "Towards Active Buildings: rating grid-servicing buildings", which describes the simulations for the 20 case study buildings. The simulation inputs describe the intended characteristics as part of the early design stage process, and the outputs the performance metrics under the rating system introduced in the journal paper, called the ABCode1. Such outputs rate the relative merits of each case study in terms of embodied carbon, energy requirements, energy generation and energy flexibility. The simulation outputs have been generated using the inputs included in the dataset, which were then simulated in David Coley’s ZEBRA and then evaluated with the rating system proposed in the journal publication as part of ABCode1. The files are in the original Excel xlsx file (Microsoft Office 365), but it may be viewed by any other spread sheet tools such as LibreOffice's Calc.

As part of global efforts to reduce dependence on carbon-based energy sources there has been a rapid increase in the installation of renewable energy devices. The installation and operation of these devices can result in conflicts with wildlife. In the marine environment, mammals may avoid wind farms that are under construction or operating. Such avoidance may lead to more time spent travelling or displacement from key habitats. A paucity of data on at-sea movements of marine mammals around wind farms limits our understanding of the nature of their potential impacts. Here, we present the results of a telemetry study on harbour seals Phoca vitulina in The Wash, south-east England, an area where wind farms are being constructed using impact pile driving. We investigated whether seals avoid wind farms during operation, construction in its entirety, or during piling activity. The study was carried out using historical telemetry data collected prior to any wind farm development and telemetry data collected in 2012 during the construction of one wind farm and the operation of another. Within an operational wind farm, there was a close-to-significant increase in seal usage compared to prior to wind farm development. However, the wind farm was at the edge of a large area of increased usage, so the presence of the wind farm was unlikely to be the cause. There was no significant displacement during construction as a whole. However, during piling, seal usage (abundance) was significantly reduced up to 25 km from the piling activity; within 25 km of the centre of the wind farm, there was a 19 to 83% (95% confidence intervals) decrease in usage compared to during breaks in piling, equating to a mean estimated displacement of 440 individuals. This amounts to significant displacement starting from predicted received levels of between 166 and 178 dB re 1 μPa(p-p). Displacement was limited to piling activity; within 2 h of cessation of pile driving, seals were distributed as per the non-piling scenario. Synthesis and applications. Our spatial and temporal quantification of avoidance of wind farms by harbour seals is critical to reduce uncertainty and increase robustness in environmental impact assessments of future developments. Specifically, the results will allow policymakers to produce industry guidance on the likelihood of displacement of seals in response to pile driving; the relationship between sound levels and avoidance rates; and the duration of any avoidance, thus allowing far more accurate environmental assessments to be carried out during the consenting process. Further, our results can be used to inform mitigation strategies in terms of both the sound levels likely to cause displacement and what temporal patterns of piling would minimize the magnitude of the energetic impacts of displacement. Wash_diagWash_diag.xlsx is the historic location data (pre windfarm construction) for the 19 individuals used in the analysis described in Russell et al.

Comprehensive and reliable information on anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gas emissions is required to track progress towards keeping warming well below 2°C as agreed upon in the Paris Agreement. Here we provide a dataset on anthropogenic GHG emissions 1970-2019 with a broad country and sector coverage. We build the dataset from recent releases from the “Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research” (EDGAR) for CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and industry (FFI), CH4 emissions, N2O emissions, and fluorinated gases and use a well-established fast-track method to extend this dataset from 2018 to 2019. We complement this with information on net CO2 emissions from land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) from three available bookkeeping models.

This dataset consists of hourly internal and daily external temperature data from 82 certified Passivhaus dwellings in the UK. The data can be used for calculating overheating risk and guaging how comfortable a home would be in the summer. This data come from 16 different sites and includes houses and flats. Some of the data is from the living room only, for other dwellings there were sensors in muitple rooms and these are indicated. As this data was compared to CIBSE TM59 "Design methodology for the assessment of overheating risk in homes", there is a calculation of the running mean temperature and maximum temperature. The variables are Timestamp = time and date SiteID = Site number (1-16) DWType = dwelling type (House or Flat) HouseID = unique reference number for each dwelling in dataset Room = room type LR = living room , BR= bedroom, KI= Kitchen, BT= bathroom T.int = internal temperature (mean hourly) T.ext.daily = external temperature (mean daily) T.rm = running mean temperature calculated using the method described in CIBSE TM59 T.max = maximum daily intenral temperature calculated using the method described in CIBSE TM59 This data was provided by the Technology Stratergy Board Building Performance Evaluation Program, and is available from the digital catapault. Other data was provided by WARM low energy Consultancy and indidiual home owners. All data has been anonymised

This dataset contains data and codes required to replicate the results in the article "Joint assessment of generation adequacy with intermittent renewables and hydro storage: A case study in Finland" to be published in Electric Power Systems Research. See the enclosed Readme for further instructions.

QTDIAN - Quantification of Technological DIffusion and sociAl constraiNts - is a toolbox of qualitative and quantitative descriptions of socio-technical and political aspects of the energy transition that influence the overall potential, the rate of energy-related technology and service diffusion and the design of the future energy system. The output of QTIDIAN is empirically founded datasets of social and political drivers and barriers of the transition, both in the form of raw data describing past and current developments and manipulated to constitute consistent quantifications of the storylines. Here you can download the data for six QTDIAN themes: Socially feasible scaling of energy technologies Policy preferences & dynamics Barriers to infrastructural development (wind energy, grid development) Citizen energy Private energy demand Further information on the QTDIAN modelling toolbox and the data can be found in the SENTINEL Deliverable 2.3 and Deliverable 2.4: S��sser, D., al Rakouki, H., & Lilliestam, J.(2021). The QTDIAN modelling toolbox���Quantification of social drivers and constraints of the diffusion of energy technologies. Deliverable 2.3. Sustainable Energy Transitions Laboratory (SENTINEL) project. Potsdam: Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS). S��sser, D., Pickering, B., Chatterjee, S., Oreggioni, G., Stavrakas, V., & Lilliestam, J.(2021). Integration of socio-technological transition constraints into energy demand and systems models. Deliverable 2.5. Sustainable Energy Transitions Laboratory (SENTINEL) project. Potsdam: Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS).

# Data from: Blue Carbon Benefits from Global Saltmarsh Restoration [https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.pc866t1vp](https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.pc866t1vp) This README file was generated on 12th September 2023 by Victoria Mason. **Title of Dataset:** Blue carbon benefits from global saltmarsh restoration. **Author information:** * Victoria G. Mason, Bangor University/Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research (NIOZ), victoria.mason@nioz.nl (*Corresponding author*) * Annette Burden, UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology * Graham Epstein, University of Exeter/University of Victoria * Lucy L. Jupe, Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust * Kevin A. Wood, Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust * Martin W. Skov, Bangor University **Summary of dataset:** These data include all data which were extracted or derived from relevant studies on global saltmarsh carbon storage and greenhouse gas flux. Data were obtained following screening of 29,182 peer reviewed published studies for relevant data, which were then extracted from 431 studies via text, tables and figures. We then used a meta-analysis to assess drivers of variation in global saltmarsh and greenhouse gas flux. * Date of literature search: 21st January 2022. * Date of data extraction: February - March 2022 * Literature search conducted via: Scopus + Web of Science ## Description of the data and file structure The contents of these data include: * **Full dataset (Aug2023\_GlobalCarbonReview\_FullDataset.xls):** All data extracted from 431 relevant studies and used in analysis. This includes a title page, metadata (with descriptions of column headers) and the full dataset. Response variables included: * Carbon stock * Percentage organic carbon * Bulk density * Sediment accretion rate * Carbon accumulation rate * Carbon dioxide flux * Methane flux * Nitrous oxide flux **\- Data on each included study \(Aug2023\_GlobalCarbonReview\_IncludedStudies\.xls\):** List of each study included in the final analysis, and its metadata. This includes a title page, metadata (with descriptions of column headers) and the dataset. All data include standard deviation (SD) and n (number of replicates) where provided by the original study, which were used to calculate Hedge's *g* effect sizes reported in the subsequent study. | Frequently used abbreviations: | | | ------------------------------ | --- | | C | carbon | | OC | organic carbon | | GHG | greenhouse gas | | bd | bulk density (g cm-3 dry sediment) | | Y/N | yes/no | | ref | reference | | lat | latitude | | long | longitude | | rest | restoration | | prec | precipitation | | sal | salinity | | acc | accretion | | resp | respiration | | SR | soil respiration (appears for CO2 flux) | | ER | ecosystem respiration (appears for CO2 flux) | | n | number of samples included in mean/standard deviation | | sd | standard deviation | All abbreviations used are outlined in the ‘Metadata’ worksheet of .xls files. **Data specific information for Aug2023\_GlobalCarbonReview\_FullDataset.xls:** Number of variables: 88 Number of cases/rows: 2055 Variables included: See 'Metadata' sheet **Data specific information for** **Aug2023\_GlobalCarbonReview\_IncludedStudies.xls:** Number of variables: 47 Number of cases/rows: 431 Variables included: See 'Metadata' sheet **Empty cells:** Cells are empty where data on that variable were not provided by the original study from which they were extracted. For example, where a study provided data on carbon stock variables, but not greenhouse gas flux. For further details, see the 'Metadata' sheets of each file. ## Sharing/Access information These data are available via Dryad, and described in ‘Blue Carbon Benefits from Global Saltmarsh Restoration’, in Global Change Biology. **DOI:** 10.1111/gcb.16943 Data were extracted from 431 published peer reviewed articles, the details of which can be found in the attached datasheets. Coastal saltmarshes are found globally, yet are 25–50% reduced compared to their historical cover. Restoration is incentivised by the promise that marshes are efficient storers of ‘blue’ carbon, although the claim lacks substantiation across global contexts. We synthesised data from 431 studies to quantify the benefits of saltmarsh restoration to carbon accumulation and greenhouse gas uptake. The results showed global marshes store approximately 1.41–2.44 Pg carbon. Restored marshes had very low greenhouse gas (GHG) fluxes and rapid carbon accumulation, resulting in a mean net accumulation rate of 64.70 t CO2e ha-1 y-1. Using this estimate and potential restoration rates, we find saltmarsh regeneration could result in 12.93–207.03 Mt CO2e accumulation per year, offsetting the equivalent of up to 0.51% global-energy-related CO2 emissions – a substantial amount, considering marshes represent <1% of Earth’s surface. Carbon accumulation rates and GHG fluxes varied contextually with temperature, rainfall and dominant vegetation, with the eastern costs of the USA and Australia being particular hotspots for carbon storage. Whilst the study reveals paucity of data for some variables and continents, suggesting a need for further research, the potential for saltmarsh restoration to offset carbon emissions is clear. The ability to facilitate natural carbon accumulation by saltmarshes now rests principally on the action of the management-policy community and on financial opportunities for supporting restoration.