Climate impacts: ongoing work withIMAGE 2.2
Tom Kram et al.
Workshop on GHG Stabilization Scenarios, NIES, Tsukuba, 22-23 January 2004

(5IMAGE• Integrated Model to Assess the Global Environment– Combine different themes, investigate interrelations andfeedbacks (human and natural), give “complete” picture• For specific tasks: scanner models, based onIMAGE– FAIR: cost analyses and exploration of different burden
sharing regimes• For impacts: IMAGE in conjunction with dedicatedmodules and separate models– WaterGAP, Euromove, Nutrient-model, etc.

Climate impacts from IMAGE 2.2| Tom Kram et al.

2Structure of IMAGE 2.2
Population

World Economy(Phoenix)(WorldScan)

Change in GDP, population & others(i.e. scenario assumptions)

Terrestrial
Vegetation

AgriculturalEconomy

Land CoverLand Use
EmissionsFeedbacks

Energy demand& supply (TIMER)
Energy & industry
emissions

Emissions & land-use changes

Terrestrial
C cycleOceanic
C CycleAtmosphericchemistry

Concentration changes

ClimateGeographical Pattern Scaling
Climatic changes

Impacts

Naturalsystems

AgriculturalImpacts

Landdegradation

Climate impacts from IMAGE 2.2| Tom Kram et al.

Sea levelrise

3The land-use system• Rule-based allocation mechanism combining
physical and human factors• Output: Land use change geographically explicit

Climate impacts from IMAGE 2.2| Tom Kram et al.

4Income, Population, Other parameters

Food & Feed demand
Crops &Animalproducts

Wood demand

TIMER
Traditional& Modern
Biofuels

TimberLand cover & land use change (0.50 x 0.50)
Potential
vegetation

Potential
yield

Crop
model
Soil
characteristics

Terrestrial
Vegetation
Model

Climate, Precipitation, CO2 conc.
Climate impacts from IMAGE 2.2| Tom Kram et al.

5

Information used in land use model••••Population density
FAO data for arable area in each country
FAO data for land productivity
Potential productivity maps for each cropClimate impacts from IMAGE 2.2| Tom Kram et al.

6

Climate impacts from IMAGE 2.2| Tom Kram et al.

7

Agricultural land requirements• Regional demand for animal products (beef, milk,pork, mutton, eggs and poultry) and crops (cereals,maize, rice, pulses, oil crops and roots & tubers)• Trade flows between regions (agro-economicmodels)• Yield increase due to technological development• Shifts in livestock production systems

Climate impacts from IMAGE 2.2| Tom Kram et al.

8Historical trends in land-use

Climate impacts from IMAGE 2.2| Tom Kram et al.

9Results for FAO scenario (Agriculture towards 2030)

Climate impacts from IMAGE 2.2| Tom Kram et al.

10Model results• Nutrient input due to change in arable land andfertilizer use• Productivity per hectare due to climate change(temperature, precipitation and CO2)
• Land-use emissions from deforestation, fertilizeruse and cattle (diet and size)Climate impacts from IMAGE 2.2| Tom Kram et al.

12Integrated Assessment:
tackling the interrelations between
environmental issues• Increased pressure on the land use system affects
ecosystems and LU emissions• Compounded effects from simultaneous (multiple)
environmental stress on ecosystems

Climate impacts from IMAGE 2.2| Tom Kram et al.

13

Climate impacts from IMAGE 2.2| Tom Kram et al.

14

Source: Eickhout et al., 2004 (in prep.)

Natural Capital Index

Integrated Assessment: Nitrogen• Nitrogen cycle issues: nutrients and emissions

Climate impacts from IMAGE 2.2| Tom Kram et al.

15

Nitrogen loading of coastal water
Arctic Ocean 1.6 Tg yr-1

Pacific Ocean
13.6 Tg yr-1

Indian Ocean
7.3 Tg yr-1-1
0-1 (Tg(Gg yr -1)
1-10
10-100100-1000>1000Mediterranean Sea and Black Sea 1.7 Tg yr-1
Endoreic systems 3.1 Tg yr-1

Climate impacts from IMAGE 2.2| Tom Kram et al.

16

Source: Van Drecht, Bouwman et al., 2003

Pacific Ocean
13.6 Tg yr-1

Atlantic Ocean
24.6 Tg yr-1

Nutrient consequences of FAO scenario:
global N-fluxes

Climate impacts from IMAGE 2.2| Tom Kram et al.

17Integrated Assessment: Water• Consequences for water availability (co-operationwith University of Kassel - WaterGAP model)• Growing demand and (regional) water stress• Water induced soil degradation

Climate impacts from IMAGE 2.2| Tom Kram et al.

18

Climate impacts from IMAGE 2.2| Tom Kram et al.

19

Source: Eickhout et al., 2004 (in prep.)

Change in precipitation surplus between
2000 and 2030

Not only change in supply...
• The growth of water demand by households andindustries (% aagr 2000-2040)
StrongTransatlantic

Regional

GlobalEurope

MarketCommunities

Economy

EU-15

-1.6

0.3

-1.0

-1.2

OECD-1.3

0.5-0.5-1.1

non Annex I

0.7

2.6

1.4

2.0

World-0.3

1.6

0.5

0.6



Climate impacts from IMAGE 2.2| Tom Kram et al.

20

Climate impacts from IMAGE 2.2| Tom Kram et al.

21

Source: GEO-3, 2002

High risk of water-induced soil degradation

Integrated Assessment:• Linking climate and air quality: IMAGE + RAINSClimate impacts from IMAGE 2.2| Tom Kram et al.

22Air quality gains from climate policy

2030 - Baseline

1995
2030 - S550e



TIMER-RAINS/Asia
Climate impacts from IMAGE 2.2| Tom Kram et al.

23

Integrated Assessment: Biodiversity• Biodiversity impacts from LU change, climate andother environmental factors• loss of vegetation by type (IMAGE)• loss of species (IMAGE + species-area curves)• climate effect on European ecosystems (IMAGE +EUROMOVE)

Climate impacts from IMAGE 2.2| Tom Kram et al.

24Consequences for natural vegetation

Total

tropical forest

tropical woodlandsavannascrubland

hot desert

grassland/steppe

warm mixedtemp.deciduous forest

temp. mixed forest

cool conifer

boreal forest

wooded tundra

tundraice

Decrease of vegetation types

0%-25%
Baseline
Stabilisation at 550 ppmv

-50%

Stabilisation at 650 ppmv

-75%-100%

Climate impacts from IMAGE 2.2| Tom Kram et al.

25Millennium Ecosystem Assessment:
species - area curves
S = C x Az (irreversible)

No. of species

3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
00

200

400

600

800

Area
Climate impacts from IMAGE 2.2| Tom Kram et al.

26

MA: loss of species by stress factor
Boreal Forest

1.00

Desert

1.00

0.75

0.75
Boreal forest OS
Boreal forest GO

0.50

Desert OS
Desert GO

0.50

Boreal forest TG
Boreal forest AM

0.25

0.00

Desert TG
Desert AM

0.25

0.00
Habitat loss

ClimateHabitat ClimatechangeLoss
ChangeDeposition

Habitat loss

NDeposition

Tropical Forest

1.00

ClimateHabitat ClimatechangeLoss
Change1.00

Deposition

NDeposition

World total

0.75

0.75

World OS

Tropical forest OS
Tropical forest GO

0.50

World MF

0.50

World TG

Tropical forest TG
Tropical forest AM

0.25

0.00

World AM

0.25

0.00
Habitat loss

ClimateHabitat ClimatechangeLoss
ChangeDeposition

NDeposition

Habitat loss
ClimateHabitat
ClimatechangeLossChange

Climate impacts from IMAGE 2.2| Tom Kram et al.

Deposition
NDeposition

27

Biodiversity: EUROMOVE/IMAGE(Note: RIVM contribution to Nature article)• EUROMOVE estimates presence of 1400 vascularplant species in gridcells from 6 climate variables• Calibration with Atlas Flora Europaeae (1989)• Aggregated to 20 European regions• Climate variables from IMAGE + GCM patterns• Baseline (CPI) and stab.scenarios (S550, S450)• Sensitivity to different GCM patterns

Climate impacts from IMAGE 2.2| Tom Kram et al.

28

Biodiversity indicators from EUROMOVE
1. Stable area:
percentage of grid cells in which a species occurs both in1995 and in the future

2. Disappearance fraction:
fraction of species present today in region, that are nolonger there in the future

3. Species flux:
difference between the number of appearing anddisappearing species as fraction of the number ofspecies in 1995

Climate impacts from IMAGE 2.2| Tom Kram et al.

29

Stable Area in Europe

80%

83%

2100
82%
73%

75%

78%

64%

50%
25%
0%
CPI



S550

S450

CPI

Climate impacts from IMAGE 2.2| Tom Kram et al.

S550

S450

30

Source: Bakkenes & Eickhout, 2004 (in prep.)

2050

100%

25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Region•Lowest: Norway&Sweden•Highest: Germany, Ukraine, GreeceClimate impacts from IMAGE 2.2| Tom Kram et al.

31

Source: Bakkenes & Eickhout, 2004 (in prep.)% of number in 1995

Species disappearing (CPI-2100)

CPI

LowestAverage
Highest

HADCM2CGCM1CSIRO-MK2

ECHAM439%
Ukraine64%
89%
Baltics

55%
Spain
72%
94%
Iceland

61%
Russia72%
87%
Benelux

44%
Spain
65%
89%
Iceland55%
Ukraine73%93%
Baltics

65%
Spain
79%
95%
Iceland70%
Russia79%
92%
Benelux

55%
Spain
74%
92%
Iceland

62%
Ukraine78%
94%
Baltics

70%
Spain
82%
95%
Iceland

74%
Spain
82%
93%
Benelux

74%
Spain
78%
93%
Benelux

S550
LowestAverage
HighestS450
LowestAverage
Highest

Climate impacts from IMAGE 2.2| Tom Kram et al.

32

Source: Bakkenes & Eickhout, 2004 (in prep.)

Sensitivity of stable area in 2100 to GCMs

For more informationwww.rivm.nl/ieweb
orwww.rivm.nl/image

Climate impacts from IMAGE 2.2| Tom Kram et al.

33