View
218
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Assessing the Impacts of Climate Change on U.S. Agriculture by Combining
Agroecosystem and Economic Models
Robert Beach, RTI International; Allison Thomson, JGCRI; Bruce McCarl, Texas A&M University
Presented atNorth American Carbon Project 4th All-Investigators Meeting
Albuquerque, NM, February 4-7, 2013
RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute
3040 Cornwallis Road ■ P.O. Box 12194 ■ Research Triangle Park, NC 27709Phone 919-485-5579 e-mail rbeach@rti.orgFax 919-541-6683
2
Introduction
Agricultural production is inherently risky, dependent upon weather and other factors
Climate change may lead to more rapid changes in mean yields as well as yield and price variability than in the past, making adjustment more difficult Extreme events Historical experience less informative Faster depreciation of research/knowledge stock
Complex set of interactions between impacts with heterogeneity across time and space Need for detailed characterization of potential effects on
yields for future scenarios as inputs for decision support tools
3
IPCC Scenario and GCMs Used
IPCC Scenario A1B was the scenario selected for all global circulation models Actual emissions have been above the A1B scenario so we felt it
was reasonable to focus on that scenario vs. B1 and B2 scenarios with lower emissions given that there has also been interest in non-fossil fuel energy (vs. A1FI or A2)
GCMs (daily simulation data available for 2045-2054 and 1991-2000) GFDL-CM2.0 and GFDL-CM2.1 models developed by the
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), USA Both GFDL-CM2.0 and GFDL-CM2.1 are being included
because they have substantially different seasonal precipitation patterns
Coupled Global Climate Model (CGCM) 3.1 developed by the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Canada
Meteorological Research Institute (MRI) Coupled atmosphere-ocean General Circulation Model (CGCM) 2.2 developed by the Meteorological Research Institute, Japan Meteorological Agency, Japan
4
Comparison of Average Changes in U.S. Temperature and Precipitation Across GCMs
Model Season Change Max
Temp (°C) Change Min Temp (°C)
Change in Precipitation (%)
GFDL-CM2.0 MAM 2.78 2.41 -7.4
GFDL-CM2.0 JJA 4.34 3.44 -8.5
GFDL-CM2.1 MAM 1.66 1.72 0.6
GFDL-CM2.1 JJA 4.03 3.45 -16.5
CGCM3.1 MAM 2.45 2.41 2.1
CGCM3.1 JJA 2.27 2.17 0.7
MRI-CGCM2.2 MAM 1.23 1.37 9.5
MRI-CGCM2.2 JJA 1.28 1.57 8.7
5
EPIC Model
Process-level agro-ecosystem model originally developed at USDA, currently used by multiple research groups
Has been used previously to simulate regional productivity of corn, soybeans, wheat (winter and spring), cotton, hay, and switchgrass for the U.S. at the 8-digit hydrologic unit scale
Multiple soil types are represented within each of the 1,450 hydrologic units, resulting in 7,540 total runs
Modeling system modified to use 1991-2000 baseline climatology simulations and future climate change projections for daily simulations from IPCC SRES scenario A1B
Projections for this study incorporate GCM results from four different models for the time period 2045-2054
Additional cropping systems were added: sorghum, rice, barley, and potatoes for the appropriate regions
6
Change in Average Spring and Summer Temperature and Precipitation: GFDL-CM2.0, 2045-2054
Summer
Spring
7
Change in Average Spring and Summer Temperature and Precipitation: GFDL-CM2.1, 2045-2054
Summer
Spring
8
Change in Average Spring and Summer Temperature and Precipitation: CGCM3.1, 2045-2054
Summer
Spring
9
Change in Average Spring and Summer Temperature and Precipitation: MRI-CGCM2.2, 2045-2054
Summer
Spring
10
Examining Potential Shifts in Production Regions
Changes in yield distributions may alter production regions
Areas where crops were modeled in EPIC were expanded outside recent historical rangeFocused on suitable cropland areas in proximity to
historical rangeEPIC simulations of mean and variance of yield
Equilibrium production is being simulated based on stochastic version of FASOM
11
Current and Expanded Crop Production Ranges Modeled in EPIC
Barley Corn Cotton Potatoes
Rice WheatSoybeansSorghum
12
Percentage Change in Dryland and Irrigated Corn Yields Simulated Using EPIC, 2045-2054
Irrigated Yields
Dryland Yields
13
Percentage Change in Dryland and Irrigated Soybean Yields Simulated Using EPIC, 2045-2054
Irrigated Yields
Dryland Yields
14
Percentage Change in Dryland and Irrigated Wheat Yields Simulated Using EPIC, 2045-2054
Irrigated Yields
Dryland Yields
15
Sample Comparison of Simulated Corn Yield Distributions Across Climate Scenarios
16
FASOM Model Structure
Objective: Welfare Maximization Land is allocated between activities (and combined with other inputs) based on
relative rents (including GHG payments) and suitability to maximize intertemporal welfare
Sectoral and Land Coverage Forest – approximately 80 products from private timberland Agriculture – crops and pasture
Over 70 primary and about 60 processed commodities, 20 processed feeds Developed – Tracks conversion of forest, crop, and pastureland for development
3 GHGs — CO2, N2O, CH4
Stocks and flows of GHGs for more than 50 sources and sinks 63 US regions (11 market regions) and international trade with 37 major trading
partners Detailed Bioenergy Market
Forestry & agricultural dedicated and residue feedstocks Tracks production of starch- and sugar-based ethanol, cellulosic ethanol,
biodiesel, and bioelectricity
17
FASOM Regions
South Central
Northeast
Southeast
Lake States
PacificSouthwest
GreatPlains
Rocky Mountains
PacificNorthwest
West East
Corn Belt
SouthWest
18
Simulated Changes in Regional Acreage Relative to Baseline, Corn (Acres)
Note: CB=Corn Belt, GP=Great Plains, LS=Lake States, NE=New England, RM=Rocky Mountains, PSW=Pacific Southwest, PNWE=Pacific Northwest East Side, SC=Southcentral, SE=Southeast, SW=Southwest
19
Simulated Changes in Regional Acreage Relative to Baseline, Soybeans (Acres)
Note: CB=Corn Belt, GP=Great Plains, LS=Lake States, NE=New England, RM=Rocky Mountains, PSW=Pacific Southwest, PNWE=Pacific Northwest East Side, SC=Southcentral, SE=Southeast, SW=Southwest
20
Simulated Changes in Regional Acreage Relative to Baseline, Wheat (Acres)
Note: CB=Corn Belt, GP=Great Plains, LS=Lake States, NE=New England, RM=Rocky Mountains, PSW=Pacific Southwest, PNWE=Pacific Northwest East Side, SC=Southcentral, SE=Southeast, SW=Southwest
21
Equilibrium Changes in National Average Yield Relative to Baseline
22
Simulated Changes in Average Market Price Relative to the Baseline
23
Annual Welfare Change in US Agricultural Sector (2011$)
CGCM-3.1 MRICGCM-2.2 GFDL-2.0 GFDL-2.1
(5.0)
(4.0)
(3.0)
(2.0)
(1.0)
-
1.0
2.0
Producer SurplusConsumer Surplus
(bill
ion
$)
24
Summary
Crop yields are affected by changes in temperature, precipitation, and other aspects of climate in a very heterogeneous way
Important to consider changes in both mean and variance of yields
Combined results from EPIC crop process model with FASOM model of forest and agricultural production and markets
Potentially substantial shifts in crop production and commodity markets, though considerable uncertainty
25
Ongoing Research/Extensions
Updated climate scenarios and new EPIC runs
Incorporation of impacts on U.S. forest productivity
International climate impacts on forests and agriculture
Improved incorporation of variability and uncertainty
Integration of insurance/risk management into market modeling
Integration of climate impacts and adaptation with mitigation Energy prices Renewable fuels assumptions Technological progress assumptions Carbon price paths
Recommended