• Energy Research
• Open Access close
• Embargo close
• 11. Sustainability close
• 12. Responsible consumption close
• 15. Life on land close
• GB close
• IT close

Input files for the ForClim model (version 4.0.1) used in the associated paper. They can be used to to reproduce results of the simulation study. The ForClim model, including the source code, executable and documentation, is freely available under an Open Access license from the website of the original developers at https://ites-fe.ethz.ch/openaccess/. The original climatic dataset used to generate the ForClim input climate files at each site in South Tyrol is freely available at https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.924502 while the CHELSA climate data for future scenarios are available at https://www.chelsa-climate.org. If interested in using this dataset for a research study or a project, please contact Marco Mina ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Hillebrand L, Marzini S, Crespi A, Hiltner U & Mina M (2023) Contrasting impacts of climate change on protection forests of the Italian Alps. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 6, 2023 https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2023.1240235 ABSTRACT. Protection forests play a key role in protecting settlements, people, and infrastructures from gravitational hazards such as rockfalls and avalanches in mountain areas. Rapid climate change is challenging the role of protection forests by altering their dynamics, structure, and composition. Information on local- and regional-scale impacts of climate change on protection forests is critical for planning adaptations in forest management. We used a model of forest dynamics (ForClim) to assess the succession of mountain forests in the Eastern Alps and their protective effects under future climate change scenarios. We investigated eleven representative forest sites along an elevational gradient across multiple locations within an administrative region, covering wide differences in tree species structure, composition, altitude, and exposition. We evaluated protective performance against rockfall and avalanches using numerical indices (i.e., linker functions) quantifying the degree of protection from metrics of simulated forest structure and composition. Our findings reveal that climate warming has a contrasting impact on protective effects in mountain forests of the Eastern Alps. Climate change is likely to not affect negatively all protection forest stands but its impact depends on site and stand conditions. Impacts were highly contingent to the magnitude of climate warming, with increasing criticality under the most severe climate projections. Forests in lower-montane elevations and those located in dry continental valleys showed drastic changes in forest structure and composition due to drought-induced mortality while subalpine forests mostly profited from rising temperatures and a longer vegetation period. Overall, avalanche protection will likely be negatively affected by climate change, while the ability of forests to maintain rockfall protection depends on the severity of expected climate change and their vulnerability due to elevation and topography, with most subalpine forests less prone to loosing protective effects. Proactive measures in management should be taken in the near future to avoid losses of protective effects in the case of severe climate change in the Alps. Given the heterogeneous impact of climate warming, such adaptations can be aided by model-based projections and high local resolution studies to identify forest stand types that might require management priority for maintaining protective effects in the future.

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.MOHC.HadGEM3-GC31-MM.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 HadGEM3-GC3.1-N216ORCA025 climate model, released in 2016, includes the following components: aerosol: UKCA-GLOMAP-mode, atmos: MetUM-HadGEM3-GA7.1 (N216; 432 x 324 longitude/latitude; 85 levels; top level 85 km), land: JULES-HadGEM3-GL7.1, ocean: NEMO-HadGEM3-GO6.0 (eORCA025 tripolar primarily 0.25 deg; 1440 x 1205 longitude/latitude; 75 levels; top grid cell 0-1 m), seaIce: CICE-HadGEM3-GSI8 (eORCA025 tripolar primarily 0.25 deg; 1440 x 1205 longitude/latitude). The model was run by the Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Road, Exeter, Devon, EX1 3PB, UK (MOHC) in native nominal resolutions: aerosol: 100 km, atmos: 100 km, land: 100 km, ocean: 25 km, seaIce: 25 km.

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.

Variable list for files: SW wind - Section table on Skomer (Standardised).csv / NW wind - Section table on Skomer (Standardised).csv / SE wind - Section table on Skomer (Standardised).csv /NE wind - Section table on Skomer (Standardised).csv and SW wind - Sections on Skokholm (Standardised).csv FID: Row ID (for use in ArcGIs) Count: Number of guillemots per section Area: Total area of each section () Density: Density of guillemots per section (number of birds/ Area) X_Centre: X coordinate of the central point of each section Y_Centre: Y coordinate of the central point of each section Sector: Section ID MeanUMedian; MeanUIQR, MeanUSkewness, MeanUCV: Median, interquartile range,skewness and coefficient of variation of mean wind speed per section HorizontalMedian;HorizontalIQR,HorizontalSkewness,HorizontalCV: Median, interquartile range,skewness and coefficient of variation of horizontal wind speed per section PMedian;PIQR,PSkewness,PCV: Median, interquartile range,skewness and coefficient of variation of preessure per section TKEMedian;TKEIQR,TKESkewness,TKECV: Median, interquartile range,skewness and coefficient of variation of turbulent kinetic energy per section TIMedian;TIIQR,TISkewness,TICV: Median, interquartile range,skewness and coefficient of variation of turbulence intensity per section U_2Median;lU_2IQR;U_2Skewness;U_2CV: Median, interquartile range,skewness and coefficient of variation of vertical wind speed per section EpsilonMedian;EpsilonIQR,EpsilonSkewness,EpsilonCV: Median, interquartile range,skewness and coefficient of variation of turbulent dissipation rate per section NutMedian;NutIQR,NutSkewness,NutCV: Median, interquartile range,skewness and coefficient of variation of kinematic viscosity per section GustsMedian;GustsIQR,GustsSkewness,GustsCV: Median, interquartile range,skewness and coefficient of variation of instataneous gusts per section MeanSectorSlope: Mean slope per section ColPresence: Binomial variable, indicating whether a section has birds or not. This variable varies with classification, based on either the count of birds or the density per section Variable list for file: Section table on Skomer - with Mean cliff orientation and Slope (NOT-Standardised).csv FID: Row ID (for use in ArcGIs) Count: Number of guillemots per section Area: Total area of each section () Density: Density of guillemots per section (number of birds/ Area) X_Centre: X coordinate of the central point of each section Y_Centre: Y coordinate of the central point of each section Sector: Section ID MeanSectorSlope: Mean slope per section MeanSectorAspectCircular: Mean cliff orientation per section ApsectClass: Factor indicating whether the mean cliff orientation is lee- or windward to the SW wind ColPresence: Binomial variable, indicating whether a section has birds or not. This variable varies with classification, based on either the count of birds or the density per section Variable list for file: SW wind - Sections on Skokholm to predict colonies using cliff orientation and slope model from Skomer (NON - Standardised).csv FID: Row ID (for use in ArcGIs) Count: Number of guillemots per section Area: Total area of each section () Density: Density of guillemots per section (number of birds/ Area) Sector: Section ID MeanSectorSlope: Mean slope per section MeanSectorAspectCircular: Mean cliff orientation per section Wind is fundamentally related to shelter and flight performance: two factors that are critical for birds at their nest sites. Despite this, airflows have never been fully integrated into models of breeding habitat selection, even for well-studied seabirds. Here we use computational fluid dynamics to provide the first assessment of whether flow characteristics (including wind speed and turbulence) predict the distribution of seabird colonies, taking common guillemots (Uria aalge) breeding on Skomer island as our study system. This demonstrates that occupancy is driven by the need to shelter from both wind and rain/ wave action, rather than airflow characteristics alone. Models of airflows and cliff orientation both performed well in predicting high quality habitat in our study site, identifying 80% of colonies and 93% of avoided sites, as well as 73% of the largest colonies on a neighbouring island. This suggests generality in the mechanisms driving breeding distributions, and provides an approach for identifying habitat for seabird reintroductions considering current and projected wind speeds and directions. Methods detailed in manuscript: https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.05733.

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.ScenarioMIP.MOHC.HadGEM3-GC31-MM.ssp126' 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 HadGEM3-GC3.1-N216ORCA025 climate model, released in 2016, includes the following components: aerosol: UKCA-GLOMAP-mode, atmos: MetUM-HadGEM3-GA7.1 (N216; 432 x 324 longitude/latitude; 85 levels; top level 85 km), land: JULES-HadGEM3-GL7.1, ocean: NEMO-HadGEM3-GO6.0 (eORCA025 tripolar primarily 0.25 deg; 1440 x 1205 longitude/latitude; 75 levels; top grid cell 0-1 m), seaIce: CICE-HadGEM3-GSI8 (eORCA025 tripolar primarily 0.25 deg; 1440 x 1205 longitude/latitude). The model was run by the Met Office Hadley Centre, Fitzroy Road, Exeter, Devon, EX1 3PB, UK (MOHC) in native nominal resolutions: aerosol: 100 km, atmos: 100 km, land: 100 km, ocean: 25 km, seaIce: 25 km.

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.

Aim: Climate warming and biodiversity loss both alter plant productivity, yet we lack an understanding of how biodiversity regulates the responses of ecosystems to warming. In this study, we examine how plant diversity regulates the responses of grassland productivity to experimental warming using meta-analytic techniques. Location: Global Major taxa studied: Grassland ecosystems Methods: Our meta-analysis is based on warming responses of 40 different plant communities obtained from 20 independent studies on grasslands across five continents. Results: Our results show that plant diversity and its responses to warming were the most important factors regulating the warming effects on plant productivity, among all the factors considered (plant diversity, climate and experimental settings). Specifically, warming increased plant productivity when plant diversity (indicated by effective number of species) in grasslands was lesser than 10, whereas warming decreased plant productivity when plant diversity was greater than 10. Moreover, the structural equation modelling showed that the magnitude of warming enhanced plant productivity by increasing the performance of dominant plant species in grasslands of diversity lesser than 10. The negative effects of warming on productivity in grasslands with plant diversity greater than 10 were partly explained by diversity-induced decline in plant dominance. Main Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the positive or negative effect of warming on grassland productivity depends on how biodiverse a grassland is. This could mainly owe to differences in how warming may affect plant dominance and subsequent shifts in interspecific interactions in grasslands of different plant diversity levels.