ICRC CORDEX Stockholm May 2016 EURO-CORDEX-LUC: A new initiative on coordinated regional land use change experiments Diana Rechid, Nathalie de Noblet-Ducoudré, Oliver Branch, Rita M Cardoso, Erika Coppola, Edouard Davin, Rowan Fealy, Borbála Gálos, Filippo Giorgi, Miguel Angel Gaertner, Klaus Goergen, Andreas Haensler, Nils Hempelmann, Daniela Jacob, Eleni Katragkou, Klaus Keuler, Enrique Sánchez, Sebastian Knist, Juliane Otto, Andrew Pitman, Swantje Preuschmann, Pedro MM Soares, Gustav Strandberg, Claas Teichmann, Robert Vautard & Partners from the FPS LUCAS consortium: Marcus Breil, Calum Brown, Xuefeng Cui, Richard Fuchs, Irena Hajnsek, Tomas Halenka, Jan Erik Haugen, Martin Herold, Andreas Huth, Hans-Jürgen Panitz, Kai Radtke, Gerd Schädler, Clemens Simmer, Merja Tölle www.euro-cordex.net www.lucidproject.org.au www.cordex.org
41
Embed
EURO-CORDEX-LUC: A new initiative on coordinated regional ... · evaporative effects: available energy and soil moisture strong variation during ... Biophysical impacts Change of
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
ICRC CORDEX Stockholm May 2016
EURO-CORDEX-LUC: A new initiative on coordinated regional
land use change experiments
Diana Rechid, Nathalie de Noblet-Ducoudré, Oliver Branch, Rita M Cardoso, Erika Coppola, Edouard Davin, Rowan Fealy, Borbála Gálos, Filippo Giorgi, Miguel Angel Gaertner,
Klaus Goergen, Andreas Haensler, Nils Hempelmann, Daniela Jacob, Eleni Katragkou, Klaus Keuler, Enrique Sánchez, Sebastian Knist, Juliane Otto, Andrew Pitman, Swantje Preuschmann,
Pedro MM Soares, Gustav Strandberg, Claas Teichmann, Robert Vautard
& Partners from the FPS LUCAS consortium:Marcus Breil, Calum Brown, Xuefeng Cui, Richard Fuchs, Irena Hajnsek, Tomas Halenka,
Jan Erik Haugen, Martin Herold, Andreas Huth, Hans-Jürgen Panitz, Kai Radtke, Gerd Schädler, Clemens Simmer, Merja Tölle
Part I: Land Use Change in the Regional Earth System Schematic overview Land use change and climate interactions in Europe: status of knowledge Some major challenges for modelling
Part II: LUCAS - Land Use & Climate Across Scales - a EURO-CORDEX & LUCID initiative LUCAS Framework: Integration of models and data across scales Towards Regional Climate System Models Science questions and coordinated experiments
Large fragmentation of land use and small-scale land use changes Direct physical impacts of land use change also depend on conditions in atmosphere and soil radiative effects: e.g. clouds evaporative effects: available energy and soil moisture strong variation during seasons and across Europe Source: Pixabay, CC0 Public Domain
Example study Land Mangement Change:Impact of cropland albedo management (by Davin et al., 2014)
Source: Davin, E. L., S. I. Seneviratne, P. Ciais, A. Olioso, and T. Wang (2014), Preferential cooling of hot extremes from cropland albedo management, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., doi:10.1073/pnas.1317323111.
Crop fraction Change in 99th percentile of Tmax
Direct biophysical effects of "no tillage" vs "tillage" increases surface albedo of croplands in summer: the resulting cooling effect is amplified during hot extremes
LUCID Land-Use and Climate, IDentification of robust impacts: First coordinated LUC experiments with an ensemble of seven global models
Statistically significant changes of near surface temperature in regions with land cover changes
In most temperate regions with similar magnitude as changes due to increased GHG/SST, generally of opposite sign
Source: de Noblet-Ducoudré, N., et al. (2012) : Determining robust impacts of land-use induced land-cover changes on surface climate over North America and Eurasia; Results from the first set of LUCID experiments. Journal of Climate, 25 : 3261-3281, DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00338.1.
Change in 2m-temperature due to historical land cover change / due to GHG increasepresent day vs pre-industrial LCC
Summary: some challengesWhat is the magnitude of direct biophysical impacts of land use changes on climate at regional to local scales in Europe?
• consistent LUC implementation in the models is important base land use distribution in the RCMs on a common reference and impose
consistent LUC
• large spatial fragmentation of land use in Europe and LUC impacts are dominant on local to regional scale
need for very high resolution modelling and observations
• In contrast to GHG forcing: LUC radiative forcing can also be negative, and spread in GCM response to LUC forcing is larger - so far only single RCM LUC studies
Fill the scientific gap of missing robust information on biophysical feedbacks of LUC on regional climate
Consider land use changes in coordinated regional multi-model simulations from continental to local scale
Summary: some challengesWhat is the magnitude of direct biophysical impacts of land use changes on climate at regional to local scales in Europe?
• consistent LUC implementation in the models is important base land use distribution in the RCMs on a common reference and impose
consistent LUC
• large spatial fragmentation of land use in Europe and LUC impacts are dominant on local to regional scale
need for very high resolution modelling and observations
• In contrast to GHG forcing: LUC radiative forcing can also be negative, and spread in GCM response to LUC forcing is larger - so far only single RCM LUC studies
Fill the scientific gap of missing robust information on biophysical feedbacks of LUC on regional climate
How large is the contribution of LUC to detected past climate trends and changes in variability in Europe?
How strongly can local LUC attenuate negative impacts of climate change, e.g. increased amplitude of extreme events in Europe?
What is the relative contribution of selected LUC to regional climate changes in Europe under two different level of global warming?
What is the effect of spatial resolution on the magnitude and robustness of LUC-induced climate changes?
How sensitive are the regional climate models to LUC and how is this interrelated to the land-atmosphere coupling in different regions among the suite of models?
Source: Simmer, C. et al. (2015), Monitoring and Modeling the Terrestrial System from Pores to Catchments: The Transregional Collaborative Research Center on Patterns in the Soil–Vegetation–Atmosphere System, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 96(10), 1765–1787, doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00134.1.
Eifel/Lower Rhine Valley ObservatoryRur catchment site Distinct land use gradientCatchment-based measurements that include: • flux towers • gauging stations • weather stations • meteorological X- and C-band radars • cosmic ray soil moisture probes
multi-compartment & multi-scale
see also: http://teodoor.icg.kfa-juelich.de/overview/observatories/ELRV_Observatory
MONITORING OF THE RUR CATCHMENT. The development of techniques to map and under-stand patterns, and to use this to model and predict
the terrestrial system, requires a real counterpart for analysis and testing. TR32 identified the Rur catch-ment (Fig. 1) as its central observation site because
FIG. 1A. Map depicts the Rur catchment including the position of monitoring devices like weather, river gauging, EC, and cosmic-ray stations, as well as a polarimetric weather radar coverage inset for TR32 [X-band radar BoXPol at Meteorological Institute of the University of Bonn (MIUB)]; TERENO [X-band radar JuXPol at Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH (FZJ)]; and the surrounding C-band radars of DWD, including the nonpolarimetric Rainscanner at Wüstebach and other instrumentation. Active and remnants of open-pit mines are delineated by dashed red lines. The wind rose inset at the top is based on hourly observations of DWD at the weather station Aachen (about 200 m MSL) at the western edge of the catchment for the years 2008–13. The mean wind speed is printed at the end of the eight directional lines. Each circle represents the percentage of time the wind comes from that direction, while the colors indicate the respective discretization into wind speed intervals.
EURO-CORDEX-LUC workshop on Thursday, 5 to 7 pm, U28
Next steps
Consistent integration of land use change into the RCMs:
• learn from LUMIP protocol (global Land Use Model Intercomparison Project) • use a common reference vegetation distribution in the regional models • consistent translation of land use forcing: clear allocation methods of new land use
on existing land use types clear land use implementation protocol
Detailed definition of idealised experiments on continental scale (phase I) concrete simulation protocol
High-resolution reconstructions of historic land use for Europe between 1900-2010
Source: Fuchs R., M. Herold, P.H. Verburg, J.G.P.W. Clevers (2013): A high-resolution and harmonized model approach for reconstructing and analysing historic land changes in Europe, Biogeosciences, 10(3), 1543–1559, doi:10.5194/bg-10-1543-2013
HILDA: HIstoric Land Dynamics Assessment
EU27 + Switzerland 1 km resolution(1950-2010 15,46 % of land area affected by land use changes)
Areas of major urbanisation and afforestation/reforestation for 1950-2010
Agent-based land use modellingExplore the development of European land system under different climatic and socio-economic scenarios (e.g. SSP-RCP combinations), defining:
• Climate impacts (land productivity)• Societal demand levels for range of ecosystem goods
and services• Institutional & political interventions• Adaptation options and individual/social behaviour
Model based on decision-making of individual land managers and institutional actors; includes economic and non-economic factors & cross-sectoral competition
Starting from 2010 baseline land cover, simulate changes in:• Broad land use categories based on production type
and intensity– tailored to requirements of climate models
• Ecosystem service supply• Institutional/political strategies
CRAFTY – EU Competition for Resources between Agent Functional TYpes (here: baseline simulation of some broad land use categories) Outputs available at flexible spatial and temporal scales; default annual, 1km2
Calum Brown; University of Edinburgh, personal communication