Earth Surface Processes Team - Central Region

Exploring Future Flora, Environments, and Climates Through Simulations (EFFECTS)

Ecosystem Responses to Climate Change

Future Climate Change Scenarios

The models we use to simulate ecosystem responses to future climate change require estimates of future climates. To create input climate datasets for our models, we use coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation model (OAGCM) data from the World Climate Research Programme's (WCRP's) Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3 (CMIP3) multi-model dataset (http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/about_ipcc.php). This dataset contains OAGCM future climate simulations produced under three different greenhouse gas emissions scenarios (SRES B1, A1B, and A2). Each of these emissions scenarios represents different assumptions about future world population growth, technological advances, energy use, etc. (Nakicenovic et al. 2000).

OAGCMs are typically run at very coarse spatial resolutions with model grid cells spanning hundreds of kilometers in latitude and longitude. To create input climate data at finer spatial resolutions we downscale the climate data using various interpolation techniques. The figure below displays downscaled annual temperature anomalies as simulated by ten different OAGCMs for the period 2071-2100 (30-year mean). Although the models simulate different regional patterns of future temperature changes, they all simulate warmer future conditions. By using climate data from multiple OAGCMs produced under multiple emissions scenarios we are able to evaluate simulated ecosystem responses to the range of potential future climate changes these models currently forecast.

Figure displaying downscaled annual temperature anomalies as simulated by ten different OAGCMs for the period 2071-2100.


Simulated Vegetation Change

Vegetation will be significantly affected by future climate change. In addition to responding to changes in temperature and precipitation, plants will respond to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations. To simulate vegetation responses to future climate change we use mechanistic vegetation models, such as BIOME4 (Kaplan et al. 2003) and LPJ (Lund-Potsdam-Jena, Sitch et al. 2003). These models simulate the distribution of plant functional types (e.g., grass, evergreen needle-leaved trees), which can be combined to represent biomes and habitat types. These same vegetation models that we use to explore future climate change are also used to investigate paleovegetation change as part of the USGS Climate Change and Land Use Sensitivity (CLUES) Project.

Future vegetation simulations for the western United States (see figure below) reveal the effects of changes in temperature, precipitation, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations on the distribution of simplified habitat types. These simulations were created using a modified version of the equilibrium vegetation model BIOME4, run with simulated climate data for 2071-2100 (30-year mean) and a future atmospheric CO2 concentration of 540 ppm. Under all three future simulations, woody vegetation (e.g., forest, shrubland) is simulated to expand and areas of subalpine forest, tundra, and grassland are simulated to contract.

Figure displaying future vegetation simulations for the western United States.

These simulated future vegetation changes are relatively large, and there are important caveats that must be considered when interpreting these results. BIOME4 is an equilibrium vegetation model, which means that it simulates the vegetation that would occur if the 30-year mean climate for, in this case, 2071-2100, was the long-term mean climate. Future climate change, however, is projected to change throughout the coming century. These vegetation simulations also do not include the potential effects of many ecological processes that will be important in determining plant responses to climate change, including changes in disturbance regimes (e.g., fire frequency, insect outbreaks), plant migration rates, changing human land use activities, etc. Thus, the future vegetation simulations displayed in the figure above should not be interpreted as predictions of future vegetation change at any particular location in the western United States, but instead as experimental results that provide us with information about the potential magnitude, rate and spatial pattern of future changes.

References

Collins, W. D., C. M. Bitz, M. L. Blackmon, et al. 2006a. The community climate system model version 3 (CCSM3). Journal of Climate 19:2122-2143.

Collins, W. D., P. J. Rasch, B. A. Boville, et al. 2006b. The formulation and atmospheric simulation of the Community Atmosphere Model Version 3 (CAM3). Journal of Climate 19:2144-2161.

Delworth, T. L., A. J. Broccoli, A. Rosati, et al. 2006. GFDL's CM2 global coupled climate models Part 1: Formulation and simulation characteristics. Journal of Climate 19:643-674.

Déqué, M., C. Dreveton, A. Braun, and D. Cariolle. 1994. The ARPEGE/IFS atmosphere model: A contribution to the French community climate modeling. Climate Dynamics 10:249-266.

Diansky, N. A., and E. M. Volodin. 2002. Simulation of the present-day climate with a coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation model. Izvestia, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics 38:732-747.

Flato, G. M. 2005. The Third Generation Coupled Global Climate Model (CGCM3) (and included links to the description of the AGCM3 atmospheric model). http://www.cccma.bc.ec.gc.ca/models/cgcm2.shtml. Last viewed September 24, 2007.

Galin, V. Y., E. M. Volodin, and S. P. Smyshliaev. 2003. Atmospheric general circulation model of INM RAS with ozone dynamics. Russian Meteorology and Hydrology 5:13-22.

Gordon, C., C. Cooper, C. A. Senior, et al. 2000. The simulation of SST, sea ice extents and ocean heat transports in a version of the Hadley Centre coupled model without flux adjustments. Climate Dynamics 16:147-168.

K-1 Developers. 2004. K-1 coupled model (MIROC) description. K-1 Technical Report 1. Center for Climate System Research, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.

Kaplan, J. O., N. H. Bigelow, I. C. Prentice, S. P. Harrison, P. J. Bartlein, T. R. Christensen, W. Cramer, N. V. Matveyeva, A. D. McGuire, D. F. Murray, V. Y. Razzhivin, B. Smith, D. A. Walker, P. M. Anderson, A. A. Andreev, L. B. Brubaker, M. E. Edwards, and A. V. Lozhkin. 2003. Climate change and Arctic ecosystems: 2. Modeling, paleodata-model comparisons, and future projections. Journal of Geophysical Research 108: D19, 8171, doi:10.1029/2002JD002559.

McFarlane, N. A., G. J. Boer, J.-P. Blanchet, and M. Lazare. 1992. The Canadian Climate Centre second-generation general circulation model and its equilibrium climate. Journal of Climate 5:1013-1044.

Miller, D. A., and R. A. White. 1998. A conterminous United States multilayer soil characteristics dataset for regional climate and hydrology modeling. Earth Interactions 2: 2-002. [Available online at http://EarthInteractions.org.]

Mitchell, T. D., and P. D. Jones. 2005. An improved method of constructing a database of monthly climate observations and associated high-resolution grids. International Journal of Climatology 25:693-712.

Nakicenovic, N. et al., 2000. Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. A Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

New, M., Lister, D., Hulme, M., & Makin, I. 2002. A high-resolution data set of surface climate over global land areas. Climate Research 21:1-25.

Pope, V. D., M. L. Gallani, P. R. Rowntree, and R. A. Stratton. 2000. The impact of new physical parametrizations in the Hadley Centre climate model -- HadAM3. Climate Dynamics 16:123-146.

Schmidt, G. A., R. Ruedy, J. E. Hansen, et al. 2006. Present day atmospheric simulations using GISS ModelE: Comparison to in-situ, satellite and reanalysis data. Journal of Climate 19:153-192.

Shibata, K., H. Yoshimura, M. Ohizumi, M. Hosaka, and M. Sugi. 1999. A simulation of troposphere, stratosphere and mesosphere with an MRI/JMA98 GCM. Papers in Meteorology and Geophysics 50:15-53.

Sitch, S., B. Smith, I. C. Prentice, A. Arneth, A. Bondeau, W. Cramer, J. O. Kaplan, S. Levis, W. Lucht, M. T. Sykes, K. Thonicke and S. Venevsky. 2003. Evaluation of ecosystem dynamics, plant geography and terrestrial carbon cycling in the LPJ dynamic global vegetation model. Global Change Biology 9:161-185.

Terray, L., S. Valcke, and A. Piacentini. 1998. OASIS 2.2 Guide and Reference Manual. TR/CMGC/98-05, CERFACS, Toulouse, France.

Yukimoto, S., and A. Noda. 2003. Improvements of the Meteorological Research Institute global ocean-atmosphere coupled GCM (MRI-GCM2) and its climate sensitivity. CGER's Supercomputing Activity Report. National Institute for Environmental Studies, Ibaraki, 305-0053 Japan.


ESP Team Research Activities | ESP Team home page

Accessibility FOIA Privacy Policies and Notices

Take Pride in America home page. USA.gov logo U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey
URL: http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/info/effects/responses.html
Page Contact Information: ESP Web Team
Page Last Modified: Wed 26-Sep-2007 9:20:37 MDT