Cal-Adapt logo
Visit our new website at beta.cal-adapt.org
Banner Image (a California landscape)
Search

Advanced
Title
Authors
Publication Type
Abstract
Journal

Publication Type

Year Published

Browse publications gathered by the California Energy Commission that focus on climate change issues relevant to the State of California. Find both PIER research papers as well as relevant articles published in peer reviewed journals.

Publications Published in 2014


  1. Effects of California’s Climate Policy in Facilitating CCUS . Elizabeth Burton.
    Energy Procedia: 2014
    Notes
    <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;"> <p>reduction goals, but CCUS commercialization lags in California as it does elsewhere. It is unclear why this is the case given the</p> </span></span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; font-size: xx-small;"> <p>state&rsquo;s forefront position in aggressive climate change policy. The intent of this paper is to examine the factors that may e</p> </span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;"></span> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; font-size: xx-small;"> <p>CCUS commercialization may be advanced in the context of California&rsquo;s future energy infrastructure.</p> </span></span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;"> <p>CCUS has application to reduce GHG emissions from the power, industrial and transportation sectors in the state. Efficiency, use</p> <p>of renewable energy or nuclear generation to replace fossil fuels, use of lower or no-net-carbon feedstocks (such as biomass), and</p> <span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;"> <p>use of CCUS on fossil fuel generation are the main options, but California has fewer options for making the deep cuts in CO</p> </span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;"></span> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;"> <p>emissions within the electricity sector to meet 2050 goals. California is already the most efficient of all 50 states as measured by</p> <p>electricity use per capita, and, while further efficiency measures can reduce per capita consumption, increasing population is still</p> <p>driving electricity demand upwards. A 1976 law prevents building any new nuclear plants until a federal high-level nuclear waste</p> <p>repository is approved. Most all in-state electricity generation already comes from natural gas; although California does plan to</p> <p>eliminate electricity imports from out-of-state coal-fired generation. Thus, the two options with greatest potential to reduce in-state</p> <span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;"> <p>power sector CO</p> </span></span></span></p> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;">2 </span></span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;"></span> <p>&nbsp;</p> </p> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;">emissions are replacing fossil with renewable generation or employing CCUS on natural gas power plants. </span> <p>&nbsp;</p> </p> <p>Although some scenarios call on California to transition its electricity sector to 100 percent renewables, it is unclear how practical</p> <p>this approach is given the intermittency of renewable generation, mismatches between peak generation times and demand times,</p> <p>and the rate of progress in developing technologies for large-scale power storage.</p> <p>Vehicles must be electrified or move to biofuels or zero-carbon fuels in order to decarbonize the transportation sector. These options</p> <p>transfer the carbon footprint of transportation to other sectors: the power sector in the case of electric vehicles and the industrial</p> <p>and agricultural sectors in the case of biofuels or zero-carbon fuels. Thus, the underlying presumption to achieve overall carbon</p> <p>reductions is that the electricity used by vehicles does not raise the carbon emissions of the power sector: biofuel feedstock growth,<span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;"> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;"> <p>harvest, and processing uses low carbon energy or production of fuels from fossil feedstocks employs CCUS. This results in future</p> <p>transportation sector energy derived solely from renewables, biomass, or fossil fuel point sources utilizing CCUS.</p> <p>In the industrial sector, the largest contributors to GHG emissions are transportation fuel refineries and cement plants. Emissions</p> <p>from refineries come from on-site power generation and hydrogen plants; while fuel mixes can be changed to reduce the GHG</p> <p>emissions from processing and renewable sources can be used to generate power, total decarbonization requires use of CCUS.</p> <font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT" size="1"> <p>Similarly, for cement plants, power generation may use carbon-free feedstocks instead of fossil fuels, but CO</p> </font></span></p> </span></p> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;">2 </span></span><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;"> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;">emissions associated <p>with the manufacture of cement products must be dealt with through CCUS. Of course, another option for these facilities is the</p> <p>purchase of offsets to create a zero-emissions plant.</p> </span></p> </span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; font-size: xx-small;"><font face="TimesNewRoman" size="1"> <p>In spite of the conclusion that CCUS is vital to decarbonization of three of the state&rsquo;s key economic sectors, incorporating</p> </font></span></span> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;"> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;">CCUS</span></p> </span></p> <span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; font-size: xx-small;"><font face="TimesNewRoman" size="1"> <p>technology into California&rsquo;s energy future has significant challenges. A diverse set of questions m</p> </font></span></span> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;"> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;">ust be addressed before state <p>planners, policymakers, and regulators will be able to justify pursuing CCUS as a part of the solution to meet 2050 goals:</p> </span></p> </span></p> <span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; font-size: xx-small;"><font face="TimesNewRoman" size="1"> <p>&bull;</p> </font></span></span> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;"> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;">In what sector applications does CCUS have the most potential to assist the state in reducing its CO2 emissions?</span></p> </span></p> <span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; font-size: xx-small;"><font face="TimesNewRoman" size="1"> <p>&bull;</p> </font></span></span> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;"> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;">Do policies to facilitate CCUS enable continued use of fossil fuels even where there may be other viable options for energy <p>generation?</p> </span></p> </span></p> <span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; font-size: xx-small;"><font face="TimesNewRoman" size="1"> <p>&bull;</p> </font></span></span> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;"> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;">Are CCUS technologies, specifically subsurface storage elements, safe and effective over the long term?</span></p> </span></p> <span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; font-size: xx-small;"><font face="TimesNewRoman" size="1"> <p>&bull;</p> </font></span></span> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;"> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;">How can California agencies and lawmakers assure that CCUS projects are appropriately permitted, regulated, monitored, and <p>verified?</p> </span></p> </span></p> <span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; font-size: xx-small;"> <p>&bull; Can the state&rsquo;s industrial and energy infrastructure accommodate the changes necessary to integrate CCUS?</p> <font face="TimesNewRoman" size="1"> <p>&bull;</p> </font></span></span> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;"> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;">In state planning for future energy infrastructure, should CCUS be included as a component? What is the risk in not doing so?</span></p> </span></p> <span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; font-size: xx-small;"><font face="TimesNewRoman" size="1"> <p>&bull; If CCUS is to be relied on to reduce significant fractions of California&rsquo;s future emissions, at what rate should CCUS project</p> </font></span></span> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;"> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;">s <p>be coming on line, and what pathways to commercialization can accommodate this rate?</p> <p>CCUS projects worldwide and analog projects provide some data and experience to answer these questions. Worldwide experience,</p> <font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT" size="1"> <p>for example, supports the assertion that CO</p> </font></span></p> </span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;">2 </span></span> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;"> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;">can be stored safely in the subsurface; these projects have tested a number of tools, <p>including monitoring technologies, simulations, well completion methods and well and cap rock integrity testing to give regulators</p> <p>confidence that risks are measureable and verifiable. For California, areas of particular concern are assuring safety of groundwater</p> <p>resources from contamination and seismic hazards. California has plentiful geologic storage resource to accommodate captured</p> <p>emissions, according to studies by WESTCARB and the California Geological Survey.</p> <font face="TimesNewRomanPSMT" size="1"> <p>Infrastructure requirements include capture facilities at CO</p> </font></span></p> </span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;">2 </span></span> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;"> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;">emission sources, pipelines, and injection and monitoring wells at <p>storage sites. It is a policy decision as to whether these costs should be passed on to consumers or taxpayers. California will require</p> <p>substantial investment in pipeline infrastructure in order for CCUS to become widespread. Because a readily available supply of</p> </span></p> </span></p> <span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; font-size: xx-small;"><font face="TimesNewRoman" size="1"> <p>low cost CO2 would benefit California&rsquo;s oil industry, that industry and federal</p> </font></span></span> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;"> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;">subsidies for oil production may be sources of</span></p> </span></p> <span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; font-size: xx-small;"><font face="TimesNewRoman" size="1"> <p>capital for pipeline development. California&rsquo;s CCUS project developers may be able to repurpose or co</p> </font></span></span> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;"> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;">-utilize some existing</span></p> </span></p> <span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; font-size: xx-small;"><font face="TimesNewRoman" size="1"> <p>infrastructure at California&rsquo;s numerous oil and natural gas fields if storage is done</p> </font></span></span> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;"> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;">in conjunction with CO2-EOR or by conversion <p>of depleted reservoirs to storage sites. Storage in saline formations will require new infrastructure and development to assure safe</p> <p>and effective long term storage.</p> <p>Rates of CCUS technology adoption must be sufficient to create a declining trend in GHG emissions with the right slope to intersect</p> <p>80 MT or less total emissions by 2050. It is an oversimplification to assume that technology adoptions between now and 2050 will</p> <p>result in a linear reduction of emissions with time, but it serves to give a first-order approximation of the size of the task. With</p> <p>every year of delay in implementation of GHG reduction technologies, the slope becomes steeper. If the 2020 cap on new emissions</p> <p>is maintained after 2020, about 10 Mt per year must still be removed every year to reach the 2050 goal. This is equivalent to</p> </span></p> </span></p> <span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: TimesNewRoman; font-size: xx-small;"> <p>removing several of California&rsquo;s largest point sources from the emissions inventory every year.</p> </span></span></p> </p> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;">2</span></p> </p> <p><span style="font-family: TimesNewRomanPSMT; font-size: xx-small;">xplain </span> <p>&nbsp;</p> </p> <p>why CCUS has not advanced as rapidly as other GHG emissions mitigation technologies in California and identify ways by which</p>


  2. Exploring local adaptation and the ocean acidification seascape &ndash; studies in the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem. G. E. Hofmann, T. G. Evans, M. W. Kelly, J. L. Padilla-Gamiño, C. A. Blanchette, L. Washburn, F. Chan, M. A. McManus, B. A. Menge, B. Gaylord, T. M. Hill, E. Sanford, M. LaVigne, J. M. Rose, L. Kapsenberg, and J. M. Dutton.
    Copernicus Publications 1: 2014
    http://www.biogeosciences.net/11/1053/2014/
    DOI: 10.5194/bg-11-1053-2014
    Notes
    <p>The California Current Large Marine Ecosystem (CCLME), a temperate marine region dominated by episodic upwelling, is predicted to experience rapid environmental change in the future due to ocean acidification. The aragonite saturation state within the California Current System is predicted to decrease in the future with near-permanent undersaturation conditions expected by the year 2050. Thus, the CCLME is a critical region to study due to the rapid rate of environmental change that resident organisms will experience and because of the economic and societal value of this coastal region. Recent efforts by a research consortium &ndash; the Ocean Margin Ecosystems Group for Acidification Studies (OMEGAS) &ndash; has begun to characterize a portion of the CCLME; both describing the spatial mosaic of pH in coastal waters and examining the responses of key calcification-dependent benthic marine organisms to natural variation in pH and to changes in carbonate chemistry that are expected in the coming decades. In this review, we present the OMEGAS strategy of co-locating sensors and oceanographic observations with biological studies on benthic marine invertebrates, specifically measurements of functional traits such as calcification-related processes and genetic variation in populations that are locally adapted to conditions in a particular region of the coast. Highlighted in this contribution are (1) the OMEGAS sensor network that spans the west coast of the US from central Oregon to southern California, (2) initial findings of the carbonate chemistry amongst the OMEGAS study sites, and (3) an overview of the biological data that describes the acclimatization and the adaptation capacity of key benthic marine invertebrates within the CCLME.<span class="pb_toc_link"><br /><br /></span></p>


  3. Exploring local adaptation and the ocean acidification seascape studies in the California Current Large Marine Ecosystem. G. E. Hofmann, T. G. Evans, M.W. Kelly, J. L. Padilla-Gamiño, C. A. Blanchette, L.Washburn, F. Chan, M. A. McManu, B. A. Menge, B. Gaylord, T. M. Hill, E. Sanford, M. LaVigne, J. M. Rose, L. Kapsenberg, and J. M. Dutton.
    Biogeosciences: 2014
    DOI: 10.5194/bg-11-1053-2014
    Notes
    <p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: x-small;"> <p>The California Current Large Marine Ecosystem</p> <p>(CCLME), a temperate marine region dominated by episodic</p> <p>upwelling, is predicted to experience rapid environmental</p> <p>change in the future due to ocean acidification. The aragonite</p> <p>saturation state within the California Current System is</p> <p>predicted to decrease in the future with near-permanent undersaturation</p> <p>conditions expected by the year 2050. Thus,</p> <p>the CCLME is a critical region to study due to the rapid</p> <p>rate of environmental change that resident organisms will</p> <p>experience and because of the economic and societal value</p> <p>of this coastal region. Recent efforts by a research consortium</p> <p>&ndash; the Ocean Margin Ecosystems Group for Acidification</p> <p>Studies (OMEGAS) &ndash; has begun to characterize a portion</p> <p>of the CCLME; both describing the spatial mosaic of</p> <p>pH in coastal waters and examining the responses of key</p> <p>calcification-dependent benthic marine organisms to natural</p> <p>variation in pH and to changes in carbonate chemistry</p> <p>that are expected in the coming decades. In this review, we</p> <p>present the OMEGAS strategy of co-locating sensors and</p> <p>oceanographic observations with biological studies on benthic</p> <p>marine invertebrates, specifically measurements of functional</p> <p>traits such as calcification-related processes and genetic</p> <p>variation in populations that are locally adapted to conditions</p> <p>in a particular region of the coast. Highlighted in</p> <p>this contribution are (1) the OMEGAS sensor network that</p> <p>spans the west coast of the US from central Oregon to southern</p> <p>California, (2) initial findings of the carbonate chemistry</p> <p>amongst the OMEGAS study sites, and (3) an overview</p> <p>of the biological data that describes the acclimatization and</p> <p>the adaptation capacity of key benthic marine invertebrates</p> <p>within the CCLME.</p> </span></span></p>


  4. Exploring the Interaction Between California’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cap-and-Trade Program and Complementary Emissions Reduction Policies . .
    ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE : 2014
    Notes
    <p><span style="font-size: small;"> <p>California enacted Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) to address climate change in 2006. It required the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop a plan to reduce the State&rsquo;s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. ARB developed a plan (i.e., the "Scoping Plan") made up of a GHG emissions cap-and-trade program and regulatory measures known as "complementary policies" (CPs) to achieve the 2020 target. The CPs, which were designed to achieve climate policy and other important policy objectives, targeted emissions from sectors covered by the GHG cap-and-trade program and those not covered by the program. ARB estimated that the CPs would achieve approximately 80% of the emissions reductions required to achieve the 2020 emissions target. Other jurisdictions, including the European Union, Australia, and the states that make up the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, have developed a similar hybrid policy approach to achieve climate policy objectives.</p> <span style="font-size: small;"> <p>Although this approach has been widely used to address climate change, little analysis has been undertaken on the interactions between CPs and GHG cap-and-trade programs and their impacts on program costs and covered entities. The report concludes that the performance of CPs in achieving emission reductions will have a significant impact on the level of abatement that covered sources will need to achieve to meet the fixed emissions cap in the GHG cap-and-trade program and on expected GHG emission allowance prices. In addition, the potential variance in the performance of CPs and other variables, and recent regulatory decisions that have been made regarding program implementation, will complicate the efforts of electric companies to develop an effective risk management strategy to comply with the program. Conclusions regarding t</p> </span><span style="color: #212121; font-size: small;"><span style="color: #212121; font-size: small;">he directional impacts of varying levels of CP performance on emission reduction requirements and allowance prices in California&rsquo;s cap-and-trade program likely will be applicable to other jurisdictions employing the same policy model to address climate change. </span></span></span></p>


  5. Fine-grain modeling of species' response to climate change: holdouts, stepping-stones, and microrefugia.. Lee Hannah, Lorraine Flint, Alexandra D. Syphard, Max A. Moritz, Lauren B. Buckley, and Ian M. McCullough .
    : 2014
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2014.04.006
    Notes
    <p><span style="text-align: left; text-transform: none; background-color: #ffffff; text-indent: 0px; display: inline !important; font: 13px/17px arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; white-space: normal; float: none; letter-spacing: normal; color: #000000; word-spacing: 0px;">Microclimates have played a critical role in past species range shifts, suggesting that they could be important in biological response to future change. Terms are needed to discuss these future effects. We propose that populations occupying microclimates be referred to as holdouts, stepping stones and microrefugia. A holdout is a population that persists in a microclimate for a limited period of time under deteriorating climatic conditions. Stepping stones successively occupy microclimates in a way that facilitates species' range shifts. Microrefugia refer to populations that persist in microclimates through a period of unfavorable climate. Because climate projections show that return to present climate is highly unlikely, conservation strategies need to be built around holdouts and stepping stones, rather than low-probability microrefugia.</span></p>


  6. Five millennia of paleotemperature from tree-rings in the Great Basin, USA. Matthew W. Salzer, Andrew G. Bunn, Nicholas E. Graham, Malcolm K. Hughes.
    Climate Dynamics: 2014
    DOI: 10.1007/s00382-013-1911-9

  7. How unusual is the 2012–2014 California drought? . Griffin, D., and K. J. Anchukaitis.
    Geophysical Research Letters: 2014
    DOI: 10.1002/2014GL062433
    Notes
    <p><span style="font-family: MyriadPro-Regular; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: MyriadPro-Regular; font-size: xx-small;"> <p>For the past three years (2012&ndash;2014), California has experienced the most severe drought</p> <p>conditions in its last century. But how unusual is this event? Here we use two paleoclimate reconstructions</p> <p>of drought and precipitation for Central and Southern California to place this current event in the context</p> <p>of the last millennium. We demonstrate that while 3 year periods of persistent below-average soil</p> <p>moisture are not uncommon, the current event is the most severe drought in the last 1200 years, with single</p> <p>year (2014) and accumulated moisture deficits worse than any previous continuous span of dry years. Tree</p> <p>ring chronologies extended through the 2014 growing season reveal that precipitation during the drought</p> <p>has been anomalously low but not outside the range of natural variability. The current California drought</p> <p>is exceptionally severe in the context of at least the last millennium and is driven by reduced though not</p> <p>unprecedented precipitation and record high temperatures.</p> </span></span></p>


  8. Impact of pine chip biochar on trace greenhouse gas emissions andsoil nutrient dynamics in an annual ryegrass system in California. Teri E. Angsta, Johan Sixb, Dave S. Reayd, Saran P. Sohi.
    Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment : 2014
    Notes
    <p><span style="font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;"> <p>&nbsp;</p> </span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">Manure generated by dairy cattle is a useful soil amendment but contributes to greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions and water pollution from nutrient leaching. In order to assess the impact of pine chip biocharproduced at a peak temperature of 550</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFNB K+ MTSY,MTSY; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFNB K+ MTSY,MTSY; font-size: xx-small;">◦</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">C when added to a dairy grassland system, a one-year field studywas conducted on a sandy loam soil under annual ryegrass (</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFND K+ Gulliver IT,Gulliver IT; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFND K+ Gulliver IT,Gulliver IT; font-size: xx-small;">Lolium multiflorum Lam.</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">) grown for silage inPetaluma, California. Manure was applied to all plots at a rate of ca. 150 m</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">3</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">ha</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFNB K+ MTSY,MTSY; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFNB K+ MTSY,MTSY; font-size: xx-small;">&minus;</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">1</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">(410 kg N ha</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFNB K+ MTSY,MTSY; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFNB K+ MTSY,MTSY; font-size: xx-small;">&minus;</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">1</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">). Controlplots received no biochar, high application biochar plots (HB) received biochar (with a 17% ash content)at a rate of 18.8 t ha</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFNB K+ MTSY,MTSY; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFNB K+ MTSY,MTSY; font-size: xx-small;">&minus;</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">1</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">, and low application biochar plots (LB) received the same biochar at 5.7 t ha</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFNB K+ MTSY,MTSY; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFNB K+ MTSY,MTSY; font-size: xx-small;">&minus;</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">1</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">.Although the HB plots demonstrated the lowest cumulative nitrous oxide (N</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">2</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">O) and methane (CH</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">4</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">) emis-sions, there was no significant difference between treatments (</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFND K+ Gulliver IT,Gulliver IT; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFND K+ Gulliver IT,Gulliver IT; font-size: xx-small;">p </span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">= 0.152 and </span></span><span style="font-family: LHFND K+ Gulliver IT,Gulliver IT; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFND K+ Gulliver IT,Gulliver IT; font-size: xx-small;">p </span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">= 0.496, respectively). SoilpH results from samples collected throughout the year indicated a significant treatment effect (</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFND K+ Gulliver IT,Gulliver IT; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFND K+ Gulliver IT,Gulliver IT; font-size: xx-small;">p </span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">= 0.046),though Tukey test results indicated that there was no difference between mean values. Soil total carbonwas significantly higher in HB plots at the end of the experiment (</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFND K+ Gulliver IT,Gulliver IT; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFND K+ Gulliver IT,Gulliver IT; font-size: xx-small;">p </span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">= 0.025) and nitrate (NO</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">3</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFNB K+ MTSY,MTSY; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFNB K+ MTSY,MTSY; font-size: xx-small;">&minus;</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">) inten-sity throughout the year (which expresses potential exposure of NO</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">3</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFNB K+ MTSY,MTSY; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFNB K+ MTSY,MTSY; font-size: xx-small;">&minus;</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">to the soil microbial community)was significantly lower in HB plots compared to the control (</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFND K+ Gulliver IT,Gulliver IT; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFND K+ Gulliver IT,Gulliver IT; font-size: xx-small;">p </span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">= 0.001). Annual cumulative potassium(K</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">+</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">) loss from HB plots was significantly higher than from the other treatments (</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFND K+ Gulliver IT,Gulliver IT; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFND K+ Gulliver IT,Gulliver IT; font-size: xx-small;">p </span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">= 0.018). HB plots alsodemonstrated a short-term increase in phosphorus (P) and ammonium (NH</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">4+</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">) in leachate during thefirst rainfall event following manure and biochar application (</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFND K+ Gulliver IT,Gulliver IT; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFND K+ Gulliver IT,Gulliver IT; font-size: xx-small;">p </span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">&lt; 0.0001 and </span></span><span style="font-family: LHFND K+ Gulliver IT,Gulliver IT; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFND K+ Gulliver IT,Gulliver IT; font-size: xx-small;">p </span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">= 0.0002, respectively) aswell as a short-term decrease of NO</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">3</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFNB K+ MTSY,MTSY; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFNB K+ MTSY,MTSY; font-size: xx-small;">&minus;</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">in leachate during a heavy rainfall event following a long dry spell(</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFND K+ Gulliver IT,Gulliver IT; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFND K+ Gulliver IT,Gulliver IT; font-size: xx-small;">p </span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">= 0.036), though differences between treatments for cumulative nutrient losses were not significant(</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFND K+ Gulliver IT,Gulliver IT; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFND K+ Gulliver IT,Gulliver IT; font-size: xx-small;">p </span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">= 0.210, </span></span><span style="font-family: LHFND K+ Gulliver IT,Gulliver IT; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFND K+ Gulliver IT,Gulliver IT; font-size: xx-small;">p </span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">= 0.061, and </span></span><span style="font-family: LHFND K+ Gulliver IT,Gulliver IT; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFND K+ Gulliver IT,Gulliver IT; font-size: xx-small;">p </span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">= 0.295, respectively for P, NH</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">4+</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">, and NO</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">3</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFNB K+ MTSY,MTSY; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFNB K+ MTSY,MTSY; font-size: xx-small;">&minus;</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">). These data indicate that biocharproduced from pine wood chips at 550</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFNB K+ MTSY,MTSY; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFNB K+ MTSY,MTSY; font-size: xx-small;">◦</span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">C having high ash content (17%) is not likely to impact GHGemissions in systems with high manure application rates. Further research should be conducted in orderto investigate the impact of biochar amendment on the dynamics and mobility of nutrients applied insubsequent repeated applications of dairy manure.</span></span></span><span style="font-family: LHFLN N+ Gulliver RM,Gulliver RM; font-size: xx-small;">&nbsp;</span></p>


  9. Impacts of climate change on dairy production. Mauger, G.S., Bauman, Y., T. Nennich, and E.P. Salathé.
    of climate change on dairy production Professional Geographer: 2014
    DOI: 10.1080/00330124.2014.921017
    Notes
    <p>Climate change is likely to affect milk production because of the sensitivity of dairy cows to excessive temperature and humidity. We use downscaled climate data and county-level dairy industry data to estimate milk production losses for Holstein dairy cows in the conterminous United States. On a national level, we estimate present-day production losses of 1.9 percent relative to baseline production and project that climate impacts could increase these losses to 6.3 percent by the end of the twenty-first century. Using present-day prices, this corresponds to annual losses of $670 million per year today, rising to $2.2 billion per year by the end of the century. We also find that there is significant geographic variation in production losses and that regions currently experiencing the greatest heat-related impacts are also projected to experience the greatest additional losses with climate change. Specifically, statewide average estimates of end-of-century losses range from 0.4 percent in Washington to a 25 percent loss in annual milk production in Florida. Given that the majority of these losses occur in the summer months, this has the potential to significantly impact operations in hotter climates.</p>


  10. Incorporating Cold-Air Pooling into Downscaled Climate Models Increases Potential Refugia for Snow-Dependent Species within the Sierra Nevada Ecoregion, CA.. Curtis JA, Flint LE, Flint AL, Lundquist JD, Hudgens B, et al..
    : 2014
    DOI: doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0106984
    Notes
    <p><span style="text-transform: none; background-color: #ffffff; text-indent: 0px; display: inline !important; font: 13px/18px arial, sans-serif; white-space: normal; float: none; letter-spacing: normal; color: #333333; word-spacing: 0px;">We present a unique water-balance approach for modeling snowpack under historic, current and future climates throughout the Sierra Nevada Ecoregion. Our methodology uses a finer scale (270 m) than previous regional studies and incorporates cold-air pooling, an atmospheric process that sustains cooler temperatures in topographic depressions thereby mitigating snowmelt. Our results are intended to support management and conservation of snow-dependent species, which requires characterization of suitable habitat under current and future climates. We use the wolverine (</span><em style="line-height: 18px; text-transform: none; background-color: #ffffff; font-variant: normal; text-indent: 0px; font-family: arial, sans-serif; white-space: normal; letter-spacing: normal; color: #333333; font-size: 13px; font-weight: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">Gulo gulo</em><span style="text-transform: none; background-color: #ffffff; text-indent: 0px; display: inline !important; font: 13px/18px arial, sans-serif; white-space: normal; float: none; letter-spacing: normal; color: #333333; word-spacing: 0px;">) as an example species and investigate potential habitat based on the depth and extent of spring snowpack within four National Park units with proposed wolverine reintroduction programs. Our estimates of change in spring snowpack conditions under current and future climates are consistent with recent studies that generally predict declining snowpack. However, model development at a finer scale and incorporation of cold-air pooling increased the persistence of April 1</span><sup style="position: relative; text-transform: none; background-color: #ffffff; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; text-indent: 0px; bottom: 1ex; font-family: arial, sans-serif; white-space: normal; letter-spacing: normal; color: #333333; vertical-align: 0px; font-weight: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">st</sup><span style="text-transform: none; background-color: #ffffff; text-indent: 0px; display: inline !important; font: 13px/18px arial, sans-serif; white-space: normal; float: none; letter-spacing: normal; color: #333333; word-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple">&nbsp;</span>snowpack. More specifically, incorporation of cold-air pooling into future climate projections increased April 1</span><sup style="position: relative; text-transform: none; background-color: #ffffff; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; text-indent: 0px; bottom: 1ex; font-family: arial, sans-serif; white-space: normal; letter-spacing: normal; color: #333333; vertical-align: 0px; font-weight: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">st</sup><span style="text-transform: none; background-color: #ffffff; text-indent: 0px; display: inline !important; font: 13px/18px arial, sans-serif; white-space: normal; float: none; letter-spacing: normal; color: #333333; word-spacing: 0px;"><span class="Apple">&nbsp;</span>snowpack by 6.5% when spatially averaged over the study region and the trajectory of declining April 1</span><sup style="position: relative; text-transform: none; background-color: #ffffff; font-variant: normal; font-style: normal; text-indent: 0px; bottom: 1ex; font-family: arial, sans-serif; white-space: normal; letter-spacing: normal; color: #333333; vertical-align: 0px; font-weight: normal; word-spacing: 0px;">st</sup><span style="text-transform: none; background-color: #ffffff; text-indent: 0px; display: inline !important; font: 13px/18px arial, sans-serif; white-space: normal; float: none; letter-spacing: normal; color: #333333; word-spacing: 0px;">snowpack reverses at mid-elevations where snow pack losses are mitigated by topographic shading and cold-air pooling. Under future climates with sustained or increased precipitation, our results indicate a high likelihood for the persistence of late spring snowpack at elevations above approximately 2,800 m and identify potential climate refugia sites for snow-dependent species at mid-elevations, where significant topographic shading and cold-air pooling potential exist.</span></p>


Resources

Climate Tools

Data Access

Community

Contributors

Copyright © 2017 California Energy Commission, All Rights Reserved
State of California, Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor