GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

feed icon rss

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    Publication Date: 2020-01-10
    Repository Name: EPIC Alfred Wegener Institut
    Type: Article , isiRev
    Format: application/pdf
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    Publication Date: 2018-10-08
    Repository Name: EPIC Alfred Wegener Institut
    Type: Article , notRev
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    Publication Date: 2018-12-07
    Repository Name: EPIC Alfred Wegener Institut
    Type: Article , isiRev
    Format: application/pdf
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    Publication Date: 2022-03-31
    Description: Compound weather and climate events are combinations of climate drivers and/or hazards that contribute to societal or environmental risk. Studying compound events often requires a multidisciplinary approach combining domain knowledge of the underlying processes with, for example, statistical methods and climate model outputs. Recently, to aid the development of research on compound events, four compound event types were introduced, namely (a) preconditioned, (b) multivariate, (c) temporally compounding, and (d) spatially compounding events. However, guidelines on how to study these types of events are still lacking. Here, we consider four case studies, each associated with a specific event type and a research question, to illustrate how the key elements of compound events (e.g., analytical tools and relevant physical effects) can be identified. These case studies show that (a) impacts on crops from hot and dry summers can be exacerbated by preconditioning effects of dry and bright springs. (b) Assessing compound coastal flooding in Perth (Australia) requires considering the dynamics of a non‐stationary multivariate process. For instance, future mean sea‐level rise will lead to the emergence of concurrent coastal and fluvial extremes, enhancing compound flooding risk. (c) In Portugal, deep‐landslides are often caused by temporal clusters of moderate precipitation events. Finally, (d) crop yield failures in France and Germany are strongly correlated, threatening European food security through spatially compounding effects. These analyses allow for identifying general recommendations for studying compound events. Overall, our insights can serve as a blueprint for compound event analysis across disciplines and sectors.
    Description: Plain Language Summary: Many societal and environmental impacts from events such as droughts and storms arise from a combination of weather and climate factors referred to as a compound event. Considering the complex nature of these high‐impact events is crucial for an accurate assessment of climate‐related risk, for example to develop adaptation and emergency preparedness strategies. However, compound event research has emerged only recently, therefore our ability to analyze these events is still limited. In practice, studying compound events is a challenging task, which often requires interaction between experts across multiple disciplines. Recently, compound events were divided into four types to aid the framing of research on this topic, but guidelines on how to study these four types are missing. Here, we take a pragmatic approach and—focusing on case studies of different compound event types—illustrate how to address specific research questions that could be of interest to users. The results allow identifying recommendations for compound event analyses. Furthermore, through the case studies, we highlight the relevance that compounding effects have for the occurrence of landslides, flooding, vegetation impacts, and crop failures. The guidelines emerged from this work will assist the development of compound event analysis across disciplines and sectors.
    Description: Key Points: Using case studies representative of four main compound event types we show how compound event‐related research questions can be tackled. We present user‐friendly guidelines for compound event analysis applicable to different compound event types. We demonstrate that compound events cause vegetation impacts, coastal flooding, landslides, and continental‐scale crop yield failures.
    Description: European COST action DAMOCLES
    Description: NERC
    Description: Swiss National Science Foundation
    Description: Helmholtz Initiative and Networking Fund
    Description: Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO)
    Description: Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
    Description: Scientific Employment Stimulus 2017
    Description: Italian Ministry of University and Research
    Description: European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme
    Description: AXA Research Fund for support
    Description: Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology
    Keywords: ddc:551.6
    Language: English
    Type: doc-type:article
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 5
    Publication Date: 2022-05-09
    Repository Name: EPIC Alfred Wegener Institut
    Type: Article , isiRev
    Format: application/pdf
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 6
    Publication Date: 2022-07-04
    Repository Name: EPIC Alfred Wegener Institut
    Type: Article , NonPeerReviewed
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 7
    Publication Date: 2022-07-04
    Repository Name: EPIC Alfred Wegener Institut
    Type: Article , NonPeerReviewed
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 8
    Publication Date: 2022-06-17
    Repository Name: EPIC Alfred Wegener Institut
    Type: Article , notRev
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 9
    Publication Date: 2021-02-08
    Description: Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere – the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFF) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land use and land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade available (2008–2017), EFF was 9.4±0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.7±0.02 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN 2.4±0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.2±0.8 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of 0.5 GtC yr−1 indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2017 alone, the growth in EFF was about 1.6 % and emissions increased to 9.9±0.5 GtC yr−1. Also for 2017, ELUC was 1.4±0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM was 4.6±0.2 GtC yr−1, SOCEAN was 2.5±0.5 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.8±0.8 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 405.0±0.1 ppm averaged over 2017. For 2018, preliminary data for the first 6–9 months indicate a renewed growth in EFF of +2.7 % (range of 1.8 % to 3.7 %) based on national emission projections for China, the US, the EU, and India and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. The analysis presented here shows that the mean and trend in the five components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period of 1959–2017, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. A detailed comparison among individual estimates and the introduction of a broad range of observations show (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land-use change emissions, (2) a persistent low agreement among the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO2 variability by ocean models, originating outside the tropics. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quéré et al., 2018, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013)
    Type: Article , PeerReviewed
    Format: text
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 10
    Publication Date: 2022-01-31
    Description: Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere – the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFF) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade available (2009–2018), EFF was 9.5±0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.9±0.02 GtC yr−1 (2.3±0.01 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN 2.5±0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.2±0.6 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of 0.4 GtC yr−1 indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2018 alone, the growth in EFF was about 2.1 % and fossil emissions increased to 10.0±0.5 GtC yr−1, reaching 10 GtC yr−1 for the first time in history, ELUC was 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, for total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 11.5±0.9 GtC yr−1 (42.5±3.3 GtCO2). Also for 2018, GATM was 5.1±0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.4±0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 2.6±0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 407.38±0.1 ppm averaged over 2018. For 2019, preliminary data for the first 6–10 months indicate a reduced growth in EFF of +0.6 % (range of −0.2 % to 1.5 %) based on national emissions projections for China, the USA, the EU, and India and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. Overall, the mean and trend in the five components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2018, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. A detailed comparison among individual estimates and the introduction of a broad range of observations shows (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land use change emissions over the last decade, (2) a persistent low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO2 variability by ocean models outside the tropics. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quéré et al., 2018a, b, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013). The data generated by this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2019 (Friedlingstein et al., 2019).
    Type: Article , PeerReviewed , info:eu-repo/semantics/article
    Format: text
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...