Search

Greenhouse gas emissions urgently need to be reduced. Even with a step up in mitigation, the goal of limiting global temperature rise to well below 2 °C remains challenging. Consequences of missing these goals are substantial, especially on regional scales. Because progress in the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions has been slow, climate engineering schemes are increasingly being discussed. But global schemes remain controversial and have important shortcomings. A reduction of global mean temperature through global-scale management of solar radiation could lead to strong regional disparities and affect rainfall patterns. On the other hand, active management of land radiative effects on a regional scale represents an alternative option of climate engineering that has been little discussed. Regional land radiative management could help to counteract warming, in particular hot extremes in densely populated and important agricultural regions. Regional land radiative management also raises some ethical issues, and its efficacy would be limited in time and space, depending on crop growing periods and constraints on agricultural management. But through its more regional focus and reliance on tested techniques, regional land radiative management avoids some of the main shortcomings associated with global radiation management. We argue that albedo-related climate benefits of land management should be considered more prominently when assessing regional-scale climate adaptation and mitigation as well as ecosystem services.

Actual land evapotranspiration (ET) is a key component of the global hydrological cycle and an essential variable determining the evolution of hydrological extreme events under different climate change scenarios. However, recently available ET products show persistent uncertainties that are impeding a precise attribution of human-induced climate change. Here, we aim at comparing a range of independent global monthly land ET estimates with historical model simulations from the global water, agriculture, and biomes sectors participating in the second phase of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP2a). Among the independent estimates, we use the EartH2Observe Tier-1 dataset (E2O), two commonly used reanalyses, a pre-compiled ensemble product (LandFlux-EVAL), and an updated collection of recently published datasets that algorithmically derive ET from observations or observations-based estimates (diagnostic datasets). A cluster analysis is applied in order to identify spatio-temporal differences among all datasets and to thus identify factors that dominate overall uncertainties. The clustering is controlled by several factors including the model choice, the meteorological forcing used to drive the assessed models, the data category (models participating in the different sectors of ISIMIP2a, E2O models, diagnostic estimates, reanalysis-based estimates or composite products), the ET scheme, and the number of soil layers in the models. By using these factors to explain spatial and spatio-temporal variabilities in ET, we find that the model choice mostly dominates (24%–40% of variance explained), except for spatio-temporal patterns of total ET, where the forcing explains the largest fraction of the variance (29%). The most dominant clusters of datasets are further compared with individual diagnostic and reanalysis-based estimates to assess their representation of selected heat waves and droughts in the Great Plains, Central Europe and western Russia. Although most of the ET estimates capture these extreme events, the generally large spread among the entire ensemble indicates substantial uncertainties.