C.5. Future Climate Scenarios
Estimation of the potential impacts of global warming should utilize several
future climate scenarios, since the magnitude, timing and spatial details of
global warming vary among climate models. Most published impacts studies were
based on atmospheric General Circulation Model (GCM) doubled CO2 radiative forcing
equilibrium experiments with simple mixed-layer oceans. Doubled CO2 radiative
forcing (2 x CO2) includes only about 50% actual CO2 forcing with the balance
arising from other greenhouse gases. More recent, transient experiments with
coupled atmosphere-ocean GCMs have suggested a global average increase in temperature
of about 1.0-3.5°C by the time of CO2 doubling, estimated as 60-70 years from
now (described in the IPCC Second Assessment Report, SAR; IPCC 1996, WG I, Section
6; Annex B). The most recent GCMs include sulfate aerosols in some experiments,
which can cool the climate. The analysis presented here will rely both on the
older 2 x CO2 equilibrium GCM scenarios (described in the IPCC First Assessment
Report, FAR; IPCC 1990, WG I, Section 3; Annex B), since most published analyses
have relied on them, and on three new simulations, two from the Hadley Center
(HADCM2GHG and HADCM2SUL; Johns et al., submitted; Mitchell et al., 1995; IPCC
1996, WG I, Sections 5, 6), and one from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology
(MPI-T106; Bengtsson, et al. 1995; Bengtsson, et al., 1996; IPCC 1996, WG I,
Section 6), which have been made using coupled atmosphere-ocean GCMs and considering
sulfate aerosol forcing.
To allow direct comparison with the previously completed VEMAP simulations
over the conterminous U.S. (VEMAP Members, 1995), the same three equilibrium
GCM scenarios were utilized for the global simulations: UKMO (Mitchell and Warrilow,
1987); GFDL-R30 (IPCC 1990, WG I, Section 3; IPCC 1990, WG I, Section 5); and
OSU (Schlesinger and Zhao, 1989). The coarse grid from each model was interpolated
to a 0.5° x 0.5°, lat.-long. grid. Scenarios were constructed by applying ratios
((2 x CO2)/(1 x CO2)) of all climate variables (except temperature) back to
a baseline longterm average monthly climate dataset (Leemans and Cramer, 1991).
Ratios were used to avoid negative numbers (e.g., negative precipitation), but
were not allowed to exceed 5, to prevent unrealistic changes in regions with
normally low rainfall. Temperature scenarios were calculated as a difference
((2 x CO2) - (1 x CO2)) and applied to the baseline dataset.
The newer GCM scenarios are extracted from transient GCM simulations wherein
trace gases were allowed to increase gradually over a long period of years,
allowing the climate to adjust while incorporating inherent lags in the ocean-atmosphere
systems. In order to run the equilibrium vegetation models under the newer transient
GCMs, a control climate is extracted as an average of either 30 years (Hadley
Center) or 10 years (Max Planck Institute) of model output associated with present
climate (e.g. 1961-1990). Likewise, a 30 or 10 year average is extracted from
the time period approximating 2 x CO2 forcing (e.g. 2070- 2099). These average
climates are then used to drive the vegetation models. Note that because the
vegetation models are equilibrium models, the results must be interpreted as
indicating the potential vegetation, i.e., the climatically suitable vegetation.
Time lags and transient responses of the vegetation to climate change are not
considered here.
C.6. Interpretation of Biogeographic Model Simulations
Each of the ten IPCC regions was supplied with a set of MAPSS and BIOME3 output.
Included were figures of vegetation distribution under current and future climate,
vegetation density change (indexed by leaf area change), and runoff change.
Also included were summary tables of the areas of the different biomes within
each region under current and future climate, a change matrix indicating the
area shifts from current biome type to other types, the areas within each biome
expected to undergo an increase or decrease in vegetation density (change in
LAI) and the areas within each biome expected to undergo an increase or decrease
in annual runoff. These results were supplied for each vegetation model and
for each GCM scenario. MAPSS and BIOME3 were both run under the Hadley Center
scenarios; BIOME3 alone was run under the Max Planck Institute scenario; and,
MAPSS alone was run under the older OSU, GFDL-R30 and UKMO scenarios. The Hadley
and MPI simulations were run both with and without a direct CO2 effect (applied
in the ecological models); while, the OSU, GFDL-R30 and UKMO scenarios were
only run with the direct CO2 effects incorporated, in keeping with the VEMAP
analyses.
Since the regional maps are of a much smaller extent and include quantitative
information, the detailed interpretation will be left to the regions and the
following discussion will only address general features of the simulations,
particularly the differences between the older and newer GCMs and the MAPSS
and BIOME3 intercomparisons. Although each region received the full set of figures,
only a subset will be presented here. The MAPSS and BIOME3 results are sufficiently
similar that the ranges presented in Tables C-1, C-2,
C-3, C-4 and C-5
encompass the output from both models to indicate the full range of uncertainties
within the scope of these experiments and models.
Table C-1: Potential future
biome area (percentage of current) simulated by the MAPSS and BIOME3 biogeography
models under three older (IPCC 1990, WG I), equilibrium 2 x CO2 GCM scenarios
and under three newer (IPCC 1996, WG I), transient simulations from which
2 x CO2 scenarios were extracted. The reported ranges include both ecological
models under several GCM scenarios. The baseline areas estimates are outputs
from each model. Since BIOME3 does not differentiate Taiga/Tundra from Boreal
Forest, two different aggregations are presented. The Taiga/Tundra summaries
are MAPSS data only; while the "Boreal + Taiga/Tundra" and "Total Forest
+ Taiga/Tundra" summaries are from both models. The ranges of percent change
for Boreal Conifer are from both models (except FAR scenarios, which are
MAPSS output). The Taiga/Tundra under the MAPSS simulations decreases in
area in all scenarios; while, Boreal conifer increases in area. Were these
two vegetation zones aggregated in MAPSS, they would exhibit either increases
or decreases, as in the BIOME3 simulations. The decreases in Boreal Conifer,
shown in the table, are BIOME3 simulations. |
|
|
Baseline Area (Mha)
|
With CO2 Effect
|
Without CO2 Effect
|
Biome Type |
MAPSS
|
BIOME3
|
FAR Scenarios
|
SAR Scenarios
|
SAR Scenarios
|
|
Tundra |
792
|
950
|
33-59%
|
43-60%
|
43-60%
|
Taiga/Tundra |
999
|
|
35-62%
|
56-64%
|
56-64%
|
Boreal Conifer Forest |
1,024
|
1,992
|
109-133%
|
64-116%
|
68-111%
|
Boreal + Taiga/Tundra
|
2,023
|
1,992
|
72-95%
|
64-90%
|
68-87%
|
Temperate Evergreen Forest |
1,142
|
816
|
104-121%
|
104-137%
|
84-109%
|
Temperate Mixed Forest |
744
|
1,192
|
125-161%
|
139-199%
|
104-162%
|
Total Temperate Forest
|
1,886
|
2,008
|
116-125%
|
137-158%
|
107-131%
|
Tropical Broadleaf Forest |
1,406
|
1,582
|
71-151%
|
120-138%
|
70-108%
|
Savanna/Woodland |
2,698
|
2,942
|
90-130%
|
78-89%
|
100-115%
|
Shrub-Steppe |
994
|
1,954
|
61-70%
|
70-136%
|
81-123%
|
Grassland |
2,082
|
554
|
109-126%
|
45-123%
|
120-136%
|
Total Shrub/Grassland
|
3,076
|
2,508
|
96-108%
|
105-127%
|
111-126%
|
Arid Lands |
1,470
|
1,351
|
71-72%
|
59-78%
|
83-120%
|
Total Vegetation |
13,351
|
13,333
|
100-101%
|
100-101%
|
100-101%
|
|
Note: FAR = First Assessment Report (IPCC 1990, WG I); SAR
= Second Assessment Report (IPCC 1996, WG I). |
Table C-2: Percentage area of
current biomes which could undergo a loss of leaf area (i.e., biomass decrease)
due to global warming under various older (FAR) and newer (SAR) GCM scenarios,
and with or without a direct CO2 effect (see Table
C-1 for details), as simulated by the MAPSS and BIOME3 biogeography
models (ranges include both models). The losses in leaf area generally indicate
a less favorable water balance (drought). |
|
|
With CO2 Effect
|
Without CO2 Effect
|
Biome Type |
FAR Scenarios
|
SAR Scenarios
|
SAR Scenarios
|
|
Tundra |
1-3%
|
0-1%
|
0-2%
|
Taiga/Tundra |
1-5%
|
1%
|
2%
|
Boreal Conifer Forests |
39-67%
|
0-20%
|
3-69%
|
Temperate Evergreen Forests |
24-57%
|
1-18%
|
28-51%
|
Temperate Mixed Forests |
54-86%
|
1-29%
|
15-75%
|
Tropical Broadleaf Forests |
5-63%
|
1-42%
|
26-33%
|
Savanna/Woodlands |
10-21%
|
7-17%
|
38-75%
|
Shrub-Steppe |
26-45%
|
1-24%
|
20-59%
|
Grasslands |
33-37%
|
5-46%
|
43-75%
|
Arid Lands |
8-12%
|
0-13%
|
0-29%
|
Table C-3: Percentage area of
current biomes which could undergo a gain of leaf area (i.e., biomass increase)
due to global warming under various older (FAR) and newer (SAR) GCM scenarios,
and with or without a direct CO2 effect (see Table C-1
for details), as simulated by the MAPSS and BIOME3 biogeography models (ranges
include both models). The gains in leaf area generally indicate a more favorable
water balance. |
|
|
With CO2 Effect
|
Without CO2 Effect
|
Biome Type |
FAR Scenarios
|
SAR Scenarios
|
SAR Scenarios
|
|
Tundra |
20-74%
|
20-58%
|
49-82%
|
Taiga/Tundra |
91-98%
|
92-95%
|
91-94%
|
Boreal Conifer Forests |
13-21%
|
36-93%
|
3-58%
|
Temperate Evergreen Forests |
20-41%
|
46-67%
|
7-18%
|
Temperate Mixed Forests |
4-26%
|
50-91%
|
9-21%
|
Tropical Broadleaf Forests |
7-40%
|
16-87%
|
0-7%
|
Savanna/Woodlands |
74-88%
|
46-84%
|
4-31%
|
Shrub-Steppe |
46-64%
|
64-80%
|
16-42%
|
Grasslands |
56-60%
|
45-78%
|
3-28%
|
Arid Lands |
51-57%
|
53-80%
|
23-66%
|
Table C-4: Percentage area of
current biomes which could undergo a loss of annual runoff due to global
warming under various older (FAR) and newer (SAR) GCM scenarios, and with
or without a direct CO2 effect (see Table C-1 for
details), as simulated by the MAPSS and BIOME3 biogeography models (ranges
include both models). |
|
|
With CO2 Effect
|
Without CO2 Effect
|
Biome Type |
FAR Scenarios
|
SAR Scenarios
|
SAR Scenarios
|
|
Tundra |
19-32%
|
16-45%
|
28-46%
|
Taiga/Tundra |
79-90%
|
71-79%
|
76-82%
|
Boreal Conifer Forests |
1-25%
|
3-53%
|
33-81%
|
Temperate Evergreen Forests |
12-21%
|
25-37%
|
33-67%
|
Temperate Mixed Forests |
59-77%
|
51-66%
|
62-68%
|
Tropical Broadleaf Forests |
11-40%
|
15-54%
|
23-68%
|
Savanna/Woodlands |
14-19%
|
37-60%
|
31-46%
|
Shrub-Steppe |
43-61%
|
23-44%
|
18-42%
|
Grasslands |
34-38%
|
41-60%
|
33-56%
|
Arid Lands |
24-26%
|
1-20%
|
2-20%
|
Table C-5: Percentage area of
current biomes which could undergo a gain of annual runoff due to global
warming under various older (FAR) and newer (SAR) GCM scenarios, and with
or without a direct CO2 effect (see Table
C-1 for details), as simulated by the MAPSS and BIOME3 biogeography
models (ranges include both models). |
|
|
With CO2 Effect
|
Without CO2 Effect
|
Biome Type |
FAR Scenarios
|
SAR Scenarios
|
SAR Scenarios
|
|
Tundra |
67-80%
|
36-82%
|
32-70%
|
Taiga/Tundra |
10-20%
|
20-28%
|
18-23%
|
Boreal Conifer Forests |
74-98%
|
41-95%
|
14-63%
|
Temperate Evergreen Forests |
78-87%
|
58-73%
|
29-66%
|
Temperate Mixed Forests |
23-41%
|
33-47%
|
11-37%
|
Tropical Broadleaf Forests |
60-89%
|
46-85%
|
32-76%
|
Savanna/Woodlands |
80-84%
|
31-60%
|
51-59%
|
Shrub-Steppe |
23-44%
|
15-45%
|
23-48%
|
Grasslands |
38-41%
|
19-32%
|
17-40%
|
Arid Lands |
7-24%
|
4-15%
|
3-15%
|
|