• Energy Research
• 11. Sustainability close
• 2. Zero hunger close
• DE close
• FR close
• Aurora Universities Network close

Project: Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) datasets - These data have been generated as part of the internationally-coordinated Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6; see also GMD Special Issue: http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/special_issue590.html). The simulation data provides a basis for climate research designed to answer fundamental science questions and serves as resource for authors of the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC-AR6). CMIP6 is a project coordinated by the Working Group on Coupled Modelling (WGCM) as part of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). Phase 6 builds on previous phases executed under the leadership of the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI) and relies on the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) and the Centre for Environmental Data Analysis (CEDA) along with numerous related activities for implementation. The original data is hosted and partially replicated on a federated collection of data nodes, and most of the data relied on by the IPCC is being archived for long-term preservation at the IPCC Data Distribution Centre (IPCC DDC) hosted by the German Climate Computing Center (DKRZ). The project includes simulations from about 120 global climate models and around 45 institutions and organizations worldwide. Summary: These data include the subset used by IPCC AR6 WGI authors of the datasets originally published in ESGF for 'CMIP6.AerChemMIP.HAMMOZ-Consortium.MPI-ESM-1-2-HAM' with the full Data Reference Syntax following the template 'mip_era.activity_id.institution_id.source_id.experiment_id.member_id.table_id.variable_id.grid_label.version'. The MPI-ESM1.2-HAM climate model, released in 2017, includes the following components: aerosol: HAM2.3, atmos: ECHAM6.3 (spectral T63; 192 x 96 longitude/latitude; 47 levels; top level 0.01 hPa), atmosChem: sulfur chemistry (unnamed), land: JSBACH 3.20, ocean: MPIOM1.63 (bipolar GR1.5, approximately 1.5deg; 256 x 220 longitude/latitude; 40 levels; top grid cell 0-12 m), ocnBgchem: HAMOCC6, seaIce: unnamed (thermodynamic (Semtner zero-layer) dynamic (Hibler 79) sea ice model). The model was run by the ETH Zurich, Switzerland; Max Planck Institut fur Meteorologie, Germany; Forschungszentrum Julich, Germany; University of Oxford, UK; Finnish Meteorological Institute, Finland; Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research, Germany; Center for Climate Systems Modeling (C2SM) at ETH Zurich, Switzerland (HAMMOZ-Consortium) in native nominal resolutions: aerosol: 250 km, atmos: 250 km, atmosChem: 250 km, land: 250 km, ocean: 250 km, ocnBgchem: 250 km, seaIce: 250 km.

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).

Abstract. Regional land carbon budgets provide insights on the spatial distribution of the land uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and can be used to evaluate carbon cycle models and to define baselines for land-based additional mitigation efforts. The scientific community has been involved in providing observation-based estimates of regional carbon budgets either by downscaling atmospheric CO2 observations into surface fluxes with atmospheric inversions, by using inventories of carbon stock changes in terrestrial ecosystems, by upscaling local field observations such as flux towers with gridded climate and remote sensing fields or by integrating data-driven or process-oriented terrestrial carbon cycle models. The first coordinated attempt to collect regional carbon budgets for nine regions covering the entire globe in the RECCAP-1 project has delivered estimates for the decade 2000–2009, but these budgets were not comparable between regions, due to different definitions and component fluxes reported or omitted. The recent recognition of lateral fluxes of carbon by human activities and rivers, that connect CO2 uptake in one area with its release in another also requires better definition and protocols to reach harmonized regional budgets that can be summed up to the globe and compared with the atmospheric CO2 growth rate and inversion results. In this study, for the international initiative RECCAP-2 coordinated by the Global Carbon Project, which aims as an update of regional carbon budgets over the last two decades based on observations, for 10 regions covering the globe, with a better harmonization that the precursor project, we provide recommendations for using atmospheric inversions results to match bottom-up carbon accounting and models, and we define the different component fluxes of the net land atmosphere carbon exchange that should be reported by each research group in charge of each region. Special attention is given to lateral fluxes, inland water fluxes and land use fluxes.

Project: Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) datasets - These data have been generated as part of the internationally-coordinated Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6; see also GMD Special Issue: http://www.geosci-model-dev.net/special_issue590.html). The simulation data provides a basis for climate research designed to answer fundamental science questions and serves as resource for authors of the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC-AR6). CMIP6 is a project coordinated by the Working Group on Coupled Modelling (WGCM) as part of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). Phase 6 builds on previous phases executed under the leadership of the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI) and relies on the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) and the Centre for Environmental Data Analysis (CEDA) along with numerous related activities for implementation. The original data is hosted and partially replicated on a federated collection of data nodes, and most of the data relied on by the IPCC is being archived for long-term preservation at the IPCC Data Distribution Centre (IPCC DDC) hosted by the German Climate Computing Center (DKRZ). The project includes simulations from about 120 global climate models and around 45 institutions and organizations worldwide. Summary: These data include the subset used by IPCC AR6 WGI authors of the datasets originally published in ESGF for 'CMIP6.CMIP.HAMMOZ-Consortium.MPI-ESM-1-2-HAM.historical' with the full Data Reference Syntax following the template 'mip_era.activity_id.institution_id.source_id.experiment_id.member_id.table_id.variable_id.grid_label.version'. The MPI-ESM1.2-HAM climate model, released in 2017, includes the following components: aerosol: HAM2.3, atmos: ECHAM6.3 (spectral T63; 192 x 96 longitude/latitude; 47 levels; top level 0.01 hPa), atmosChem: sulfur chemistry (unnamed), land: JSBACH 3.20, ocean: MPIOM1.63 (bipolar GR1.5, approximately 1.5deg; 256 x 220 longitude/latitude; 40 levels; top grid cell 0-12 m), ocnBgchem: HAMOCC6, seaIce: unnamed (thermodynamic (Semtner zero-layer) dynamic (Hibler 79) sea ice model). The model was run by the ETH Zurich, Switzerland; Max Planck Institut fur Meteorologie, Germany; Forschungszentrum Julich, Germany; University of Oxford, UK; Finnish Meteorological Institute, Finland; Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research, Germany; Center for Climate Systems Modeling (C2SM) at ETH Zurich, Switzerland (HAMMOZ-Consortium) in native nominal resolutions: aerosol: 250 km, atmos: 250 km, atmosChem: 250 km, land: 250 km, ocean: 250 km, ocnBgchem: 250 km, seaIce: 250 km.

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.

Abstract An assessment of the human impact on the global water cycle requires estimating the volume of water withdrawn for irrigated agriculture. A key parameter in this calculation is the irrigation efficiency, which corrects for the fraction of water lost between irrigation withdrawals and the crop due to management, distribution or conveyance losses. Here we show that the irrigation efficiency used in global irrigation models is flawed for it overlooks key ambiguities in partial efficiencies, irrigation technologies, the definition of ‘large-scale’ irrigated areas or managerial factors. Once accounted for, these uncertainties can make irrigation withdrawal estimates fluctuate by more than one order of magnitude at the country level. Such variability is larger and leads to more extreme values than that caused by the uncertainties related with climate change. Our results highlight the need to embrace deep uncertainties in irrigation efficiency to prevent the design of shortsighted policies at the river basin-water-agricultural interface.

The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement have ushered in a new era of policymaking to deliver on the formulated goals. Energy policies are key to ensuring universal access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy (SDG7). Yet they can also have considerable impact on other goals. To successfully achieve multiple goals concurrently, policies need to balance different objectives and manage their interactions. Refining previously contemplated design principles, we identify three key principles - complementary, transparency and adaptability - as highly pertinent for multiple-objective energy policies based on a synthesis of seventeen coordinated policy case studies. First, policies should entail complementary measures and design provisions that specifically target non-energy objectives (complementarity). Second, policy impacts should be tracked comprehensively in both energy and non-energy domains to uncover diminishing returns and facilitate policy learning (transparency). Third, policies should be capable of adapting to changing objectives over time (adaptability). These principles are rarely considered in current policies, implying the need to mainstream them into the next generation of policymaking by pointing to best practices and new tools.