Co‑Directors: Ronald G. Prinn John M. Reilly

Co‑Directors: Ronald G. Prinn & John M. Reilly2016 ANNUAL REPORTMIT JOINT PROGRAM ON THE SCIENCE AND POLICY OF GLOBAL CHANGE

M A S S A C H U S E T T S I N S T I T U T E O F T E C H N O L O G Y

2016 AN

NU

AL R

EPOR

T

CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

Overview1. INTRODUCTION 6

1.1 Scope and Purpose of Report 61.2 The Joint Program’s Mission, Vision and Impact 61.3 Recent Developments in Global Change and Implications for Research 7

2. RESEARCH OVERVIEW 102.1 Focus Areas: Summary 102.2 Tools: Summary 13

2016 Progress & 2017 Plans3. FOCUS AREAS 17

3.1 Food, Water & Forestry 173.2 Infrastructure & Air Pollution 193.3 Natural Ecosystems 213.4 Energy 223.5 Earth System Science 243.6 Climate Policy 253.7 Regional Analysis 27

4. TOOLS 304.1 MIT Earth System Model (MESM) 304.2 Human System Model (EPPA) 324.3 Global Framework (IGSM) 334.4 Risk Analysis 34

Advancing Our Mission5. INFORMATION SYSTEMS 356. COLLABORATIONS AND INITIATIVES 36

6.1 Collaborations 366.2 Initiatives 39

7. COMMUNICATIONS 407.1 Global Change Forum 427.2 Webinars and Sponsors‑Only Website Portal 437.3 Publications 447.4 Outreach and Education 447.5 Individual Professional and Policy Contributions 47

8. ADMINISTRATION 568.1 Membership and Finances 568.2 Personnel 598.3 Students 60

Publications9. REFERENCES 62

Appendix

2 Executive Summary MIT JOINT PROGRAM • 2016 ANNUAL REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYAs you review the Joint Program’s many accomplishments for 2016 highlighted in these pages, you may notice that our research output did not always adhere to the plans we presented last January in our 2015 Annual Report—and that’s a good thing. When new, more urgent topics arose, our staff creatively redirected efforts toward more promising areas, took up topics we didn’t expect to pursue, responded to new developments in the science of global change, and used the tools and knowledge at our disposal to provide a more solid scientific foundation on new issues relevant to private and public decision‑making.

The versatility of our program stems from having a talented research team, robust computational resources, solid administrative support and ample opportunities to explore emerging developments in the field—all made possible by our sponsors’ ongoing support.

Most of our work in 2016 falls within four domains, each with a dozen or more major publications: (1) the challenges of global change for agriculture and water; (2) the complex impacts of air pollution and climate on human well‑being; (3) the intricacies of energy and natural resource policies as they vary across the world; and (4) modeling advances that improve the representation of key Earth system processes and test them against Earth system data.

(1) Agriculture and waterThe global change challenge for agriculture and water is how to respond to the continuing rise in demand for food, water, bioenergy and forestry products, driven by population and economic growth. This growth places added pressure on finite natural resources whose supply is changing in uncertain and hard‑to‑predict ways.

A case in point is the water risk faced by billions of people in Asia. The Joint Program’s signature approach is to quantify risks and analyze ways to lower them. The work by Fant and colleagues (Fant et al., 2016) that appeared in the online journal PLOS ONE did so by quantifying, among other things, the population likely to be exposed to water stress. For their median projections, they found that by 2050, on the order of one billion additional people will be living under water stress in Asia. Two striking aspects of the results are: (a) the major driver of water stress was population and economic growth, with climate change a smaller but still influential factor, and (b) the much greater uncertainty in outcomes in the future, highlighting the challenge of adapting to changing conditions where even the direction of change can be hard to pin down.

A study by Winchester and colleagues (Winchester et al., 2016) that appeared in a new Joint Program Report linked the water issue to food and energy, asking: “Would constraints on the ability to expand irrigation due to water resource limits affect food prices and the ability to expand bioenergy production?” The study’s findings included some good news, as the food price impacts were quite small, and water constraints did not squeeze bioenergy out of the picture. However, not surprisingly, there were land‑use implications. About two hectares of additional dry cropland was needed for every hectare of land that could not be irrigated, reflecting the relative productivity of irrigated land over dry land.

Other research focused on methods that could help farmers adapt or react to severe weather. For example, Xu together with colleagues at the University of California, Davis (Chang et al., 2016) created a normalized ecosystem drought index (NEDI) they believe can be more accurate than the widely used Palmer index because it accounts for the water demands of the vegetation on land subject to drought. Focusing on another climate extreme, Blanc and Strobl (2016) developed a statistical approach that can rapidly


identify those rice areas hit hardest by a typhoon in the Philippines and other storm‑prone countries, and thereby help direct aid to those croplands more quickly. Other studies developed crop model emulators to efficiently simulate potential effects of climate change on global crop yields; assessed vulnerability of U.S. irrigated crops to climate change; examined agriculture, forestry and land‑use emissions in Latin America; and explored the impact of climate extremes and ozone on crop‑yield trends in China.

(2) Air pollution, climate and human well‑beingAnother hallmark of the Joint Program has been a focus on atmospheric chemistry to illuminate complex interactions between emissions of a variety of substances and human well‑being. These include direct effects on the health of populations exposed to air pollution, and indirect effects, such as those of ozone on crop production, and of other pollutants, especially aerosols, on climate.

For example, Wang focused his work on the influence of aerosols, evaluating their role in large‑scale historical changes in the pattern of precipitation (Wang, 2016), and with other colleagues studied the effects of aerosol emissions from Asia on climate trends (Grandey et al., 2016a). Prinn and Sokolov participated in a multi‑model assessment of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative (ACCRI) (Brasseur et al., 2016). Selin and colleagues applied their atmospheric chemistry expertise to understanding human health effects of conventional pollutants such as mercury, lead, particulate matter and ozone. They found air pollution co‑benefits in the U.S. from proposed climate policy (Thompson et al., 2016), identified factors influencing the transport of toxic polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) to the Arctic (Friedman and Selin, 2016), and in several articles examined the sources, transport and health impacts of mercury.

(3) Energy and natural resource policyThe simple idea that policymakers would focus on developing a policy instrument targeting a single problem such as greenhouse gas reduction was probably naïve from the start. We do continue to support the idea of broad carbon pricing as an efficient mechanism for controlling greenhouse gases at lowest cost, a recommendation that the MIT Plan for Action on Climate1 also upholds. However, from China and Europe to the U.S. and elsewhere, policies that can generate political support need to promise multiple benefits: jobs, innovation, air pollution reduction and energy security. But do they always deliver on these promises, and at what cost?

In this vein, Paltsev led an evaluation of the European Union’s carbon dioxide (CO2) targets for automobiles (Paltsev et al., 2016a), finding them to multiply policy costs by several‑fold while having no effect on emissions in comparison to a strategy of including vehicle fuels in Europe’s emissions trading system. The major justification for vehicle policies is to force transformational technological change. But there are important questions: are such policies worth the cost, are they needed, and are they the best place to put one’s dollars today if we need to reduce emissions now?

Addressing such questions in another part of the world, Karplus led extensive work on China’s energy policies in 2016. In one of several Joint Program studies on energy policies in China, Karplus and colleagues were credited with helping to point the way to a set of policies that China could adopt to “bend the curve” of carbon emissions (Zhang et al., 2016), with emissions eventually peaking and declining. Meanwhile, Morris and colleagues focused on risk with uncertain future technology costs, learning and

1 https://climateaction.mit.edu/

https://climateaction.mit.edu/


policy (Morris et al., 2016a), finding benefits from earlier investment in low‑carbon technologies in the U.S. if one considers potential cost reductions from learning. Other work on this theme included studies of energy and climate policy in Mexico, Brazil and other countries.

(4) Modeling advancesFinally, a number of our publications focus primarily on model development and documentation. While this work may not have immediate science or policy implications, without attention to data and model testing, the credibility and usefulness of conclusions using our Integrated Global System Modeling (IGSM) framework would be suspect.

In 2016, Chen led our economics team in debuting an updated version of our economic model, the Economic Projection and Policy Analysis (EPPA) model, including a slight but notable name change that recognized the focus of the model is now much broader than just emissions (Chen et al., 2016c). An important component of his work was to run the model for the past (“hindcasting”) to compare its projections to historical data in key energy and agriculture sectors. It performed reasonably well, but one notable exception concerned energy use in China, where the current model structure would under‑predict the rapid increase in coal use over the past decade or so. Here, there is evidence that a policy that set high goals for growth set off a competition among provinces that led to much overcapacity. One lesson is that our economic model can evaluate the effects and costs of policies but cannot predict what policies will actually be adopted. In collaboration with Gurgel of Fundação Getulio Vargas in Brazil, we also completed companion documentation of our approach to modeling land‑use change.

Last year we also identified the need for more careful research on modeling the ocean, given its role in the 1998–2013 temperature “hiatus”, which is now better understood, and since 2013 is now demonstrably over. Scott collaborated with a team of MIT oceanographers to evaluate possible dynamical causes for slower‑than‑projected warming of the southern ocean (Armour et al., 2016). The ocean also plays a major role as a net CO2 sink driven by ocean biology (phytoplankton), chemistry and circulation. Dutkiewicz was part of a large team of scientists evaluating ocean biogeochemistry models (Tagliabue et al., 2016).

On the atmospheric chemistry components of our model, Selin participated in an effort to constrain model projections of atmosphere‑surface exchange of mercury in eastern North America (Song et al., 2016). In addition, we made significant progress on development of a computationally efficient three‑dimensional global atmospheric chemistry model that will improve our capability to link air pollution and climate within the IGSM framework.

Other Joint Program newsWhat else is new in the Program? Thanks to supplemental funding under our DOE cooperative agreement, we were able to greatly expand and update our computational capacity. We more than doubled the number of computer cores in our in‑house distributed supercomputer to nearly 2000, and the new nodes run considerably faster. Our communications team oversaw the production of 17 Joint Program Reports and 36 journal article Reprints, and got the word out about these products in accessible press releases. Finally, we initiated an important and visible refreshing of the public face of the Program through our new website design, which we completed in December and debuted in January 2017.

The new website is not only easier to use and maintain due to a more robust content management system, but also more representative of the breadth and depth of research in the Joint Program. From its inception


in 1991, we have long emphasized that the Program is about global change, but we perceived that many looked at the Program as focusing more narrowly on climate change. Our new website highlights our broad research focus on topics such as Food, Water and Forestry; Infrastructure and Air Pollution; Natural Ecosystems; Energy; Earth System Science; and yes—Climate Policy—as well as our focus on Regional Analysis for North America, Asia, Europe, Africa and South America. We also provide links to our key research tools: our Earth System Model, Human System Model, Global Framework that links these human and natural system models, and finally our focus on Risk Analysis and the tools we use to quantify risk.

We believe this new public face will allow our research sponsors and the public to find what they are looking for more quickly, and to better recognize the variety of studies undertaken by our researchers. We also highlighted this broader focus in the 2016 Outlook, now with the formal title of Food, Water, Energy and Climate Outlook.

Plans for 2017Looking forward to the coming year and beyond, we intend to: (1) double down on food, water and forestry issues; (2) accelerate our work on scaling up alternative clean energy technologies; (3) debut a new, more efficient atmospheric chemistry package that will allow better coupling of changes in climate with atmospheric transport of pollutants, and the impacts of these changes on ecosystems, agriculture and human health; and (4) complete a major update of our global climate uncertainty work that is central to understanding the risks of global environmental change and communicating them to the public (most notably through our “greenhouse gamble” wheels).

We are also working closely with others at MIT, especially the MIT Climate CoLab, to kick off a “National Climate Plan Accelerator” that will enable institutions from around the world, including the Joint Program, to help countries achieve their Paris commitments and accelerate beyond them to eventually stabilize or even lower greenhouse gas concentrations.

We look forward to another productive year of research and outreach, made possible by your continued support.

Sincerely,

John Reilly and Ronald Prinn

Co‑Directors, MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change

6 Introduction MIT JOINT PROGRAM • 2016 ANNUAL REPORT

1. INTRODUCTION1.1 Scope and Purpose of ReportThis report covers calendar year 2016 and is prepared for members of the consortium of government agencies, private companies and foundations supporting the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. Activities of the Joint Program, which is supported through both general funding and targeted sponsored research, are reported without separately identifying components of the work that receive targeted support. Organized around seven research focus areas and four modeling tools, the report contains brief summaries of progress over the past year and plans for future work based on ongoing efforts or new areas of interest. In addition, it describes how we are advancing our mission through an evolving information systems infrastructure, collaborations and initiatives, communications efforts and administrative activities.

Throughout the report we refer to items in the Joint Program’s Report Series, journal articles, student theses, book chapters and other publications. Citations of publications that have appeared during the report period are highlighted in bold. Publications referenced in the report are listed in Section 9, with a more complete list of publications from the past three years provided in the Appendix. Further information on our research, accomplishments, structure and participants—along with publications that describe results of the research and analysis efforts—is available on the Joint Program’s website.2

1.2 TheJointProgram’sMission,VisionandImpactThe Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change is MIT’s response to the research, analysis and communication challenges of global environmental change. We combine scientific research with policy analysis to provide independent, integrative assessments of the impacts of global change and how best to respond.

MissionAt the Joint Program, our integrated team of natural and social scientists studies the interactions among human and Earth systems to provide a sound foundation of scientific knowledge to aid decision‑makers in confronting future food, energy, water, climate, air pollution and other interwoven challenges.

VisionWe accomplish this mission through:

• Quantitative analyses of global changes and their social and environmental implications, achieved by employing and constantly improving an Integrated Global System Modeling (IGSM) framework

• Independent assessments of potential responses to global risks through mitigation and adaptation measures

2 http://globalchange.mit.edu

OVERVIEW

http://globalchange.mit.edu/research/research-tools/integrated-global-system-modeling-igsm-framework

http://globalchange.mit.edu


• Outreach efforts to analysis groups, policymaking communities and the public• Cultivating a new generation of researchers with the skills to tackle complex global challenges

in the future.

ImpactOur continuing goal is to provide decision‑makers, both public and private, with information about the risks associated with the impacts of global change. We communicate this information through publications, workshops, congressional testimony, invited talks and conference presentations around the world. We also frequently interact with media outlets, museums, schools, government organizations and our local community.

1.3 Recent Developments in Global Change and Implications for ResearchA changing political landscapeFrom within the United States, it’s hard to look back on the year and not focus on the result of the presidential election, which few anticipated. The new administration is expected to take a very different approach to many issues, including climate change. The well‑respected U.S. Council on Foreign Relations summarized the president’s position on climate as follows:

Donald J. Trump has denied the science of climate change many times in recent years, calling it a “con job” and a “myth,” and even suggesting the concept was “created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non‑competitive.” As a presidential candidate, Trump said he did not believe climate change is a significant threat, and that he doubted humans contributed to it. “I consider climate change to be not one of our big problems,” he said in 2015.

In a May 2016 speech outlining his energy reform plan, the Republican pledged to lead the country toward total energy independence while accounting for “rational environmental concerns” like clean air and water. His proposal called for, among other things, expanding domestic production of oil and gas, permitting the construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, voiding the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan, and walking away from the Paris climate accord. After winning the election, Trump said that on his first day in office he will redirect the billions of dollars the Obama administration pledged to UN climate change programs toward fixing U.S. infrastructure. He says the United States should pursue all forms of energy, including renewables, without privileging one source over another.3

While a number of post‑election reports suggest the President may be reconsidering some of these positions, admitting to some connection between human activity and climate,4 his appointment of Scott Pruitt to head the EPA indicates an intent to carry through with dismantling of the Obama administration’s climate policy efforts, in particular the centerpiece Clean Power Plan (CPP). Pruitt was a leading force behind the court challenge of the CPP.

There is much room for improving or replacing measures developed by the Obama administration with ones that work more efficiently. Virtually no one believed that the existing Clean Air Act

3 http://www.cfr.org/campaign2016/?gclid=CM_uoNrp9tACFRZMDQodo8AKAQ#

4 http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/donald‑trump‑climate‑change‑new‑york‑times/

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9f61f5a9f8b242bc8eb12a9b36449b54/trumps-denial-climate-science-odds-world-leaders

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-climate-change-not-one-our-big-problems

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/an-america-first-energy-plan

http://www.cfr.org/campaign2016/energy-and-climate

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days

http://www.cfr.org/campaign2016/?gclid=CM_uoNrp9tACFRZMDQodo8AKAQ#

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/donald-trump-climate-change-new-york-times/


provided an effective approach for tackling climate change. Stuck between a Supreme Court decision that carbon dioxide was a pollutant (followed by an endangerment finding) and a Congress that failed to pass climate legislation, the Obama administration proceeded, sector‑by‑sector, to create regulations under existing authority. In reality the CPP was a rather timid effort, as its goals were likely to be met by substitution of gas for coal, based largely on reduced natural gas prices linked to the fracking boom and state initiatives on renewable electricity.

At this point, it appears that the new administration’s goal is to dismantle its predecessor’s climate policies without replacing them. Whether something is put in their place will likely depend on the business case for climate policy and, perhaps, whether the new administration will heed the call from nearly 400 U.S. companies5 for adhering to a low‑carbon path and the Paris Agreement.

The Joint Program has continued to abide by the premise that one’s position on the climate issue is not a matter of “belief ” as often is indicated in popular reports such as “97% of scientists believe climate change is manmade,” but rather a conclusion drawn from an evaluation of science. Science and observation now provide compelling evidence of the overwhelming human contribution to the warming we have observed. There remain large uncertainties in just how climate change will manifest itself for specific regions and sectors. The existence of those uncertainties indicates substantial risks, and it is prudent to make considerable effort to lower those risks by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and taking proactive measures to build resilience to climate change. Denying that it is happening or will continue to happen is not a prudent approach.

The surprising U.S. presidential election result came on the heels of another political earthquake: the British vote to exit the European Union. Just how “Brexit” will affect the British economy and the broader European and world economy remains to be seen. A guess is that it will have a larger negative effect on Britain than on the E.U. or the world, and could undermine the role of London as a financial center. The recent rejection by voters of the Italian government’s proposal for reform looks like part of the same wave that drove Brexit and the U.S. presidential election. With economies failing to deliver income growth and jobs to middle and lower‑income households, a call for radical change and rejection of proposals of the ruling elite are siren songs for voters wishing to express dissatisfaction with the status quo. Driving some of the angst is change happening quickly and disrupting lives and deeply held views, and with it a retreat to nationalism and rejection of international institutions and mechanisms. The Joint Program is based on the idea that systems of the world, both natural and human, are inexorably linked, and as a result, collaboration among countries is needed to manage risks and to take advantage of opportunities.

Climate and economic trendsClimate change operates at a pace and with inertia that is unaffected by short‑term political twists and turns. The year 2016 unseated 2015 as the warmest year in the modern record. NOAA data6 had the global mean temperature at 0.94°C above the 20th century average, beating the 2015 record by a full 0.04°C. As most climate experts expected, the so‑called warming hiatus was nothing more than inter‑decadal natural variability, which has now largely been explained as a lack of a strong El Niño in

5 http://www.lowcarbonusa.org/

6 https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201613

http://www.lowcarbonusa.org/

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201613


combination with other sources of short‑term variability in climate. Of course, temperatures in 2015 and a significant portion of 2016 were high due to a strong El Niño, which has now turned back toward the La Niña cooling phase. Hence it is unlikely that 2017 will be a record warm year. So, we would be foolish to use the sharp, nearly exponential rise in temperature from 2006 through 2016 to project warming for the next decade or hundred years. So, too, it was foolish to cherry‑pick the decade of 1998–2008 and claim that global warming had stopped. In the figure from NOAA above that now includes the recent record warm years, the so‑called “hiatus period” is not unlike other inter‑decadal variations.

On the economic front, commodity prices were up nearly 10 percent in 2016 as of late December. Energy commodity prices were up slightly, and an index of food and agricultural materials were up similar to the overall commodity price increase, but prices for cereals (maize, wheat, rice) continued to drift down. After some of the turmoil in commodity markets over the past decade, the variation over the last year might be called a period of stability, or at least normalcy.

An expanded Joint Program research agenda

What do the political, climate and economic trends of 2016 mean for research in the Joint Program? We are following through with changes we have been making over the past few years, underscored by our new website, which presents the broad scope of what we mean by “Global Change.” We highlight areas including: Food, Water & Forestry; Infrastructure & Air Pollution; Natural Ecosystems; Energy; Earth System Science; and Climate Policy. Of course, a hallmark of our Program is to investigate issues from a risk management perspective and to emphasize the interconnected nature of sectors, resource issues and the Earth system and global economy. Those emphases will continue. However, we believe that the research agenda and solution space is different if we come in through one or another of the new topics we are highlighting.

For example, what are the challenges facing food, water and forests as demands for these renewable resources grow with population and economic growth? That question leads to connections in

Figure 1. Global and hemispheric anomalies are with respect to the 20th century average. (Source: NOAA)

10 Research Overview MIT JOINT PROGRAM • 2016 ANNUAL REPORT

multiple topic areas—will air pollution and climate affect these resources, what energy sources will be available and at what price, will bioenergy compete for land and water, and how do we produce food and forest products, or use water while maintain healthy land and freshwater natural ecosystems? Similarly, a focus on energy might ask: what are our energy needs and what are the available resources and the technologies to utilize them? But that too would then immediately lead to other questions—are there impacts on food prices or water resources, threats to the environment, and the potential impact of climate policy on commercial viability?

Defining the Infrastructure & Air Pollution area created the most difficulty for us—was it health, population, coasts, cities, demography, development? The core elements in the Program we have put under this topic consist of our work on air pollution effects on human health, and our studies of how environmental change impacts infrastructure risks, including coastal infrastructure, roads, dams and other large investments. There may not be an obvious connection between air pollution and infrastructure, except that both stem from concentrated urban and industrial development. We chose not to include cities explicitly in this topic area because our air pollution experts highlighted the misnomer of “urban air pollution” when we know that air pollution extends well beyond the boundaries of a city, even though the concentrated industrial development around cities may be major pollution sources.

Our seventh research topic area, Regional Analysis, also focuses on global connections, the Earth as a system, and economic interdependence through trade. That said, the world is made of nations with different customs, laws and environments. To understand global change issues at levels that matter to decision‑makers requires a detailed focus on regions and nations as well as on subnational concerns. Through the Regional Analysis heading, one can get quicker access to our studies focusing on North America, Europe, Asia, Latin America or Africa.

It was a challenge to define these seven topics from the all‑encompassing heading of “Global Change” and to stop with seven rather than twenty‑seven. Most of our work will fall in more than one of these broad categories, and likely several of them. We have no intent of stovepiping the issues we study so they necessarily fit exactly these topic areas. This move seems a natural progression: as we accept the reality of global environmental change and the Earth as a system that’s continuously impacted by human activity, our research must become more granular. This granularity is intended to enable decision‑makers to more easily develop effective strategies to limit our impact on the environment and adapt to unavoidable changes.

With that goal in mind, we invite you to take a tour of our new website7 and let us know what you think.

2. RESEARCH OVERVIEW

2.1 Focus Areas: SummaryThe Joint Program combines scientific research with policy analysis to assess the impacts of global change and how best to respond. Our independent, integrative assessments aid decision‑makers in confronting multiple, interwoven challenges. Here we summarize our seven core research focus areas; highlights of progress and plans in each focus area are provided in Section 3.

7 http://globalchange.mit.edu



Food, Water & ForestryFood security is necessary for a population to thrive, forest products provide important raw materials, and availability of land and water are vital to maintain food security and other ecosystem services. Over the last several decades, management of these resources has dramatically increased agricultural productivity, allowing rapidly rising food demand to be met. However, populations continue to grow, environments continue to change, and in some regions, pressures on food, forests and freshwater resources are intensifying.

Although current estimates indicate adequate land resources to meet future food and forest demands, the global food system struggles with distribution; while more than enough food is produced each year to feed everyone, nearly one billion people suffer from hunger and malnutrition. Additionally, while human activity taps only a small share of the world’s available freshwater, supply and management is a serious concern; despite adequate global freshwater supplies, large, heavily populated areas in the subtropics already suffer from acute water stress and unsustainable use of groundwater. Food and water availability may be further compromised by the effects of environmental change (climate, tropospheric ozone, soil degradation, deforestation and urbanization) and competition from new land uses (e.g. large‑scale biofuel cultivation or use of forests to sequester carbon).

As population/economic growth and environmental/land‑use change puts increasing pressure on our land and water resources, the study of how to moderate or alleviate this pressure will become increasingly important to decision‑makers. In the interest of maintaining the availability of these vital resources, we examine policies to promote biodiversity, store carbon, limit degradation of soil and water, and provide other critical ecosystem services while best meeting conventional demand for agriculture and forest products. We also examine the effects of continued technological improvements, adaptations to make more efficient use of both resources, and more equitable resource allocation.

Our Integrated Global System Modeling (IGSM) framework allows us to model effects of changing environment on crops, forests, water and land resources; the effects of increasing population and income on demand for these resources; how new resource demands such as for biomass energy may affect global food and forest supply; and how technology and markets may ameliorate these effects.

Infrastructure & Air PollutionPopulation growth and infrastructure development will undoubtedly affect the course of global environmental change. Concentrated industrial and transportation activities contribute to conventional air pollution and other threats to public health, but with the increasing scale of human activity and transport of pollutants through air and water, both urban and rural areas are affected.

Where and how people locate and design the built environment will affect their exposure and vulnerability to these kinds of global changes. For example, coastal cities and infrastructure are vulnerable to sea‑level rise and changing intensity of tropical storms. In some regions, changes in extra‑tropical precipitation patterns may increase flooding, or water shortages, both necessitating investment in flood control, water resources, and roads and drainage.



With an ever‑greater share of the population residing in urban areas, cities are becoming more of a focus in global change discussions. Urbanization is a major force in developing regions—where megacities have emerged and will continue to rise—and city development paths may be the key to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, conventional air pollutants and vulnerability to environmental change. Thus, cities find themselves on the front line of developing strategies that jointly mitigate GHG and pollutant emissions while adapting to unavoidable climate change.

Our IGSM framework allows us to simulate the affect of population growth on the demand for natural resources, energy and GHG emissions. It includes models of urban and regional air pollutants and their impacts on human health. Methods developed within the Joint Program also allow investigation of urban development patterns, transportation alternatives and the impact of environmental change and extreme events, such as tropical storms or extreme heat on infrastructure. A key focus is to characterize risks and formulate adaptation as a problem of decision‑making under uncertainty.

Natural Ecosystems

Living organisms—plants, microbes, fungi, animals and people—form the basis of a multitude of ecosystems, and these ecosystems considerably influence the exchanges of energy, water, carbon, nitrogen and other elements within and between the Earth’s atmosphere, hydrosphere (e.g. oceans, rivers and lakes), cryosphere (e.g. permafrost, snow and ice) and lithosphere (e.g. soils, mountains and seabed). Our ability to deliver credible, model‑based predictions and insights is supported by our research that advances the collection, analyses and application of observations. As new sources of information from satellites, field campaigns and next‑generation observational networks become available, we develop our models with greater detail and conduct more extensive evaluations to improve their fidelity. Through numerical experimentation with these ecosystem models, we can provide more reliable predictions of the natural system’s response (e.g. trace‑gas sink or source) and resiliency (e.g. in response to shifts in extreme events) to a changing world.

EnergyThe world’s energy appetite is growing, leading more nations to seek a technology mix that simultaneously lowers greenhouse gas emissions and enables economic growth. Meanwhile, new energy investments are expected to continue to provide affordable and reliable energy services and expand them to populations that currently lack access to these services. The search for efficient, low‑carbon energy sources involves a realistic assessment of the benefits and constraints of existing and new technologies, as well as their socioeconomic implications. Our studies inform decision‑makers, enabling them to make sound, forward‑looking choices from an expansive menu of technology and policy options aimed at lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

Earth System ScienceUnderstanding and predicting the complexity of Earth’s natural changes and variations as well as its responses to human interference, management and alteration requires many disciplines of science



working together. We approach our research as a system of sciences, where the Earth system is one of several organized groups of components that interact with one another. Our key components within the Earth system are the atmosphere, cryosphere, land and ocean, and each of these components contain many interactive processes. Each process is a series of actions—governed by fundamental laws of physics, chemistry, fluid dynamics, geology and biology—that occur to produce a condition (e.g. temperature), movement (e.g. wind or river flow), and/or exchange (e.g. evaporation). It is only through the cooperation and collaboration of our researchers and expertise in all areas of these scientific disciplines that our Earth System Model (see Section 2.2) can provide credible and reliable insights into the future.

Climate Policy

Today’s climate challenge requires policies designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution, and to prepare populations and infrastructure for the impacts of climate change through adaptation. The goal of our studies in this area is to ensure that any proposed policy is realistic and without unintended consequences. Toward that end, our research aims to delineate the economic and climatic impacts of different policy decisions. In an effort to inform decision‑makers about the benefits and costs of different approaches, we are continuing to study carbon taxes, regulations and cap‑and‑trade systems in the U.S., Europe and China, and expanding our coverage to other regions such as Africa, South America and Asia.

Regional Analysis

Understanding local energy, economic, political and geographic conditions is crucial for any realistic analysis of viable policy options that relate to global change. However, local development plans are often affected by the performance of global markets. For example, domestic food and energy prices are influenced by actions taken in global markets, as in Saudi Arabia’s decision to boost oil production, which lowered the global oil price, resulting in lower, domestic prices for oil products. Our analytic tools allow us to produce regional analyses while ensuring that impacts from global markets and local development in other regions are adequately represented. A case in point is our highly successful China Energy and Climate Project (CECP), a collaborative effort with Tsinghua University to analyze the impact of existing and proposed energy and climate policies in China on technology, energy use, the environment and economic welfare. We are now extending this assessment capability to other world regions.

2.2 Tools: SummaryThe Joint Program’s state‑of‑the‑art models and analytical methods project global changes and potential risks under different policy, technology and economic scenarios. Our core models and methods are summarized here; highlights of progress and plans for each modeling tool are provided in Section 4.

Earth System Model (MESM)The MIT Earth System Model (MESM) comprises coupled sub‑models of physical, dynamical and chemical processes in the atmosphere, land and freshwater systems, ocean and cryosphere. It is used to calculate global and regional environmental responses to human activity and natural processes. The MESM draws on scientific knowledge combined with land, air, water and space‑based measurements, and accounts for uncertainties about how the Earth system functions.

http://globalchange.mit.edu/research/research-projects/china-energy-and-climate-project-cecp

http://globalchange.mit.edu/node/17


The model consists of three main components—land, ocean and atmosphere—and represents the processes that shape each component’s evolution and the interactions among these components, essentially serving as an Earth simulator. This allows researchers to calculate the likely environmental impacts of human activities simulated in our Human System Model (EPPA—see below), and feed those impacts back into EPPA in order to assess their economic and other implications.

Each MESM process is a series of actions that occur to produce a condition, movement and/or exchange. Three components each represent multiple processes:

• Land: Physics, chemistry, soil hydrology and biology, plants and ecosystems; physics of lakes, rivers and glaciers

• Ocean: Equator to pole and overturning circulation, carbon and heat uptake, marine chemistry and ecosystems, thermal expansion, sea ice, sea level rise

• Atmosphere: Climate change forcers, global air circulation, climate change, weather events, climate feedbacks to forcing, air chemistry and quality, cloud and dust interactions

The MESM is highly flexible, modular and computationally efficient, so we can run large ensembles of multi‑century runs (varying uncertain climate model properties as identified by our research), and include different levels of model detail within MESM components as appropriate for specific studies.

Human System Model (EPPA)

The MIT Economic Projection and Policy Analysis (EPPA) model simulates the evolution of economic, demographic, trade and technological processes involved in activities that affect the environment. The model provides projections of world economic development at a regional and sectoral level, including the economic implications of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, conventional air pollution, land‑use change, food demand and natural resource use. The core model includes 18 global regions, but its framework has been applied with greater spatial, economic sector and household resolution for detailed studies. The model can be used to investigate the economic implications of a wide range of phenomena, including:

• climate and environmental impacts (e.g. changes in crop yields and human health)• resource depletion and new technologies • policies aimed at reducing emissions of GHGs and other pollutants • policies aimed at limiting trade or land‑use change• deployment of specific technologies (e.g. wind or solar power; carbon capture and storage; crop

yield‑enhancing technology)• simulations of future emissions of GHGs and other pollutants and land‑use change and cover as

inputs for the MESM. The general framework is a multi‑sector, multi‑region, computable general equilibrium (CGE) model of the world economy. It utilizes the GTAP dataset (maintained at Purdue University) that includes input‑output relationships among sectors within a broader social accounting matrix that includes exports, imports, government, investment and household demand for final goods, and the ownership and supply to each sector of labor, capital and natural resources.

http://globalchange.mit.edu/research/research-tools/human-system-model

http://globalchange.mit.edu/research/research-tools/earth-system-model


The standard economic specification of the model in billions of dollars of inputs (capital rents, labor, resource rents) and outputs (gross output of each sector and output supplied to each final demand sector) is augmented with accounts in physical terms on energy (exajoules), emissions (tons), land use (hectares), population (billions of people), natural resource endowments (exajoules, hectares) and efficiencies (energy produced/energy used) of advanced technology.

These supplemental physical accounts translate economic accounts (in billions of dollars) to corresponding estimates of physical depletion and use of natural resources, technical efficiencies of energy conversion processes and against limits of annual availability of renewable resources such as land availability, and the number of people affected to consider health effects.

Global Framework (IGSM)At the heart of the Joint Program’s work lies the MIT Integrated Global System Modeling (IGSM) framework. Designed to analyze interactions between humans and the Earth system, this comprehensive set of models is used to study the causes, consequences and solutions to problems that arise from global change. We define global change broadly and consider the unintended impacts of global economic and population growth on natural resource availability, the climate, and air and water quality.

The IGSM framework consists primarily of two interacting components—EPPA and MESM. The EPPA model simulates the evolution of economic, demographic, trade and technological processes involved in activities that affect the environment at multiple scales, from regional to global. The result of these anthropogenic activities in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, conventional air and water pollutants, and land‑use/land‑cover change are input into the MESM, which comprises coupled sub‑models of physical, dynamical and chemical processes in the atmosphere, land and freshwater systems, ocean and cryosphere.

Risk Analysis

To quantify risks at the global scale requires large ensembles of model simulations, and thus a numerically efficient model. For this purpose we use a version of the IGSM framework with a two‑dimensional atmosphere and ocean. For regional and other high‑resolution studies, the ocean, atmosphere and land systems are resolved in three dimensions. The IGSM framework is designed to address a wide range of quantifiable, policy‑relevant questions that involve the integration of natural and social sciences, such as:

• What methods can be used to quantify global and regional risks of environmental change?• What are the advantages and risks of waiting for better scientific understanding of such change?• How does uncertainty about future climate change or climate policy affect near‑term

investment decision?


http://globalchange.mit.edu/research/research-tools/economic-projection-policy-analysis

http://globalchange.mit.edu/research/research-tools/earth-system-model



Figure 2. The schematic depicts the MIT Integrated Global System Modeling framework.

17 Focus Areas MIT JOINT PROGRAM • 2016 ANNUAL REPORT

2016 PROGRESS & 2017 PLANS

3. FOCUS AREASSummarized in Section 2.1, the Joint Program’s seven core research focus areas center on projected global changes and potential risks under different policy, economic and technology scenarios. Here we present 2016 progress and 2017 plans for each research focus area.

3.1 Food, Water & Forestry

2016 Progress

An example of the Program’s signature approach to quantifying risks appeared in the online journal PLOS ONE (Fant et al., 2016), where our researchers examined the risk in Asia for populations likely to be exposed to water stress. They found on order of one billion additional people under water stress in the region at median projections. Two striking aspects of the results: (1) the major driver of water stress was population and economic growth, with climate change a smaller factor but often aggravating the situation; and (2) the research indicated much greater uncertainty in outcomes in the future, highlighting the challenge of adapting to changing conditions where even the direction of change can be hard to pin down.

Another signature approach of the Program is to examine the interaction among sectors. A new Joint Program Report (Winchester et al., 2016) linked the water issue to food, energy and forests, asking: would constraints on the ability to expand irrigation because of water resource limits affect food prices and the ability to expand bioenergy production? The study’s findings were nominally good news as the food price impacts were quite small, and water constraints did not squeeze bioenergy out of the picture. Not surprisingly, however, there were land‑use implications. About two hectares of additional dry cropland was needed for every hectare of land that could not be irrigated due to water constraints—reflecting the relative productivity of irrigated to dry land—and putting greater pressure on natural forests.

The Program made significant advances in developing tools and approaches that could aid in adapting to extreme weather such as tropical storms and drought, expected to increase with global

2016 Summary: Our research highlighted the water risk faced by billions of people in Asia, developed tools to assist in agricultural adaptation to extreme weather, and examined the interaction of water availability, deforestation and bioenergy development. For example, work appearing in the online journal PLOS ONE quantified, among other things, the population likely to be exposed to water stress, finding on order of one billion additional people at risk at median outcomes. In another study, applying simple algorithms to publicly available satellite data with a

focus on the Philippines, researchers developed a statistical approach that can rapidly identify those rice areas hit hardest by a typhoon, and thus make it easier to get aid to those areas more

quickly. Another contribution was the development of a normalized ecosystem drought index (NEDI) that’s more accurate than the widely used Palmer index because it takes into account the water demands of the vegetation on land subject to drought. The Program not only quantified risk to multiple sectors, but also examined interactions among them. For instance, research published in a new Joint Program Report linked the water issue to food, energy and forests, finding limited impacts on food prices of existing water constraints, but about a two‑for‑one increase in land conversion for every hectare of land that could not be irrigated, adding pressure to deforestation.

2016 PROGRESS & 2017 PLANS


warming. In one study, researchers created a normalized ecosystem drought index (NEDI) they believe can be more accurate than the widely used Palmer index because it takes into account the water demands of the vegetation on land subject to drought (Xu et al., 2016a). By accounting for the actual vegetation on land, and resulting evapotranspiration demands of that vegetation, the index is more accurate than measures using only climate data. In another study focused on climate extremes, a statistical approach based on easily available satellite data was developed that can rapidly identify those rice areas hit hardest by a typhoon (Blanc and Strobl, 2016). Developed using data for the Philippines, this approach could be expanded to other regions and help direct assistance more quickly to those areas hardest hit. The methods developed in these studies do not rely on uncertain predictions of global climate models, using actual observations to evaluate these extreme conditions as they develop. With global warming, the strength and duration of tropical storms is expected to increase, as is the likelihood of drought. These tools could help people adapt to current climate variability but would automatically reflect changes in climate as they are keyed to observations.

In other work, we developed crop model emulators to efficiently simulate potential global crop‑yield effects of climate change (Blanc, 2016); examined the implications of corn ethanol expansion for land use in the U.S. (Ejaz et al., 2016); evaluated the effect of low oil prices on potential bioenergy demand, land use and emissions (Winchester and Ledvina, 2016); assessed vulnerability of U.S. irrigated crops to climate change (Blanc et al., 2016a); evaluated the uncertainty in future agro‑climate projections in the U.S. (Monier et al., 2016a); participated in a multimodel comparison of agriculture, forestry and land‑use emissions in Latin America (Calvin et al., 2016); summarized the tradeoffs and opportunities in modeling land use and climate change (Reilly and Melillo, 2016); and examined the role of climate extremes and ozone in understanding recent crop‑yield trends in China (Tian et al., 2016). We expanded coverage in our annual Outlook to include projections of yields in major breadbasket regions, and global water stress under the assumption that the Paris commitment is achieved but no further progress in controlling greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is made (Chen et al., 2016a).

2017 PlansWe will follow up on the Asia water‑risk study by focusing on how adaptation can reduce the number of people at risk of experiencing severe water stress, and by applying a similar method in the U.S., where we have greater resolution on water basins and the U.S. economy. Progress on water risk in the U.S. may depend, in part, on efforts to reevaluate uncertainty in global projections for climate, GHG mitigation and economic development, which create boundary conditions for regional analysis.

We continue to focus on generating better approaches for estimating crop yields. In our emulator work, we will focus on expanding the statistical approach to irrigated crops—importantly paddy rice—and documenting more fully the crop yield results presented in the 2016 Outlook. We are providing greater resolution on crops, livestock and alternative building materials (e.g. forest products, cement and steel) to better understand the role of these sectors in mitigation of GHGs, and their vulnerability to climate change. A long‑term goal is to develop a process‑based, globally‑gridded crop model that improves on those currently available, both in terms of better calibrating projections to observations and representing more fully the processes that lead to yield changes and feedbacks to the climate system through biogeochemistry, hydrology and changing land cover.


We will also continue to work to link more fully the economics of agriculture and forestry to water supply and changes in land cover and land use as they feed back to the climate system.

3.2 Infrastructure & Air Pollution

2016 ProgressWe examined, for the first time, the climate responses to anthropogenic aerosols with prognostic aerosol‑cloud interaction in combination with greenhouse gas forcing, using results from long transient simulations projected by an ensemble of models instead of a single model (Wang, 2016). The study concluded that the change in the distribution of precipitation was largely driven by aerosol forcing, while GHG forcing was responsible for overall trends in global precipitation. These results showed a stronger effect of aerosols than previous work with overly simplified representations of aerosol and climate interactions. In addition, the study showed that precipitation changes occurred away from the aerosol‑laden regions, highlighting the aerosol effect on large‑scale atmospheric dynamics, beyond the microphysical modification that occurs in places where aerosols are present. In other related work, we examined modeling of droplet activation in climate models (Rothenberg and Wang, 2016), impacts of coal and gas use in Asia on aerosols (Grandey et al., 2016a) and the effect of interannual variation of aerosol emissions from wildfires (Grandey et al., 2016b).

We also participated in a large multi‑model assessment of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative (ACCRI). Preliminary results for selected components of radiative forcing for year‑2050 scenarios indicate that a two percent increase in fuel efficiency and a decrease in nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions due to advanced aircraft technologies and operational procedures, as well as the introduction of renewable alternative fuels, will significantly decrease future aviation climate impacts. While the study improved understanding of aviation’s impact on climate, it identified many remaining uncertainties, so more research is needed.

There is broad scientific agreement that measures aimed at reducing GHGs would likely have ancillary benefits, especially in reducing air pollution. A detailed assessment of proposed climate policy in the U.S. found the magnitude of these benefits in dollar terms to be substantial. The study compared different cap‑and‑trade strategies and a clean energy standard as GHG mitigation

2016 Summary: In the air pollution area, our research documented the role of aerosols in large‑scale historical changes in the pattern of precipitation, and the effects of aerosol emissions from Asia on climate trends. Joint Program researchers also participated in a multi‑model assessment of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative (ACCRI). In addition, we found significant co‑benefits in the U.S. from proposed climate policy, and contributed to understanding human health effects of

conventional pollutants such as mercury and lead. In the infrastructure area, we completed major work examining the resilience of African power and water infrastructure resilience to

climate change, and a follow‑on, collaborative project on Africa’s Energy Futures with UNU‑WIDER produced a set of studies ranging from grid integration across the continent, to climate risk on dam development on the Inga River, to broader integration issues in the South African power pool. We also focused on power sector infrastructure in the U.S., developing methods for making optimal investment given uncertainty in climate policy and technology advance, and conducting an unprecedented study of possible risks for large‑scale transformers in the Northeast sector to extreme heat.


policies. Both approaches showed significant air pollution health benefits, but cap‑and‑trade was much less costly, leading to a higher benefit‑to‑cost ratio (Thompson et al., 2016). In other air pollution and health research, studies alerted us to the transport of PCBs to the Arctic, and examined the sources, transport and health effects of mercury, lead and other pollutants (Shah et al., 2016; Wolf et al., 2016; Kwon & Selin, 2016; Song et al., 2016).

The Program has collaborated with major international development agencies to investigate the climate resilience of power and water infrastructure in Africa (Cervigni et al., 2015). Following up on this initial work with the World Bank and others, the Program collaborated with United Nations University‑World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU‑WIDER) on an Africa Energy Futures (Arndt et al., 2016) project. This project has produced 18 reports on various aspects of future energy development across the continent from hydropower development on the Inga and Zambezi rivers, to wind power development, to grid expansion and integration.

Highlighting climate vulnerabilities heretofore unexplored, Program researchers collaborated with MIT’s Lincoln Laboratory to investigate the potential vulnerability of large‑scale power transformers on the Northeast U.S. grid to high temperatures that are likely to become more frequent with climate change (Gao et al., 2016a). The vulnerability is exacerbated by the old age of the existing stock of transformers.

A challenge for investment in infrastructure in all of these cases is the uncertainty stemming from different sources. New Joint Program research developed and demonstrated numerical methods to evaluate optimal investment decisions in the face of policy and technology uncertainties. The research showed that taking a shortcut and calculating the optimal response to median expected outcomes leads to a different investment decision than considering that the future is uncertain.

2017 Plans

A major goal of the Program is to develop a faster atmospheric chemistry component of the Integrated Global System Modeling (IGSM) framework that can be embedded in a three‑dimensional atmospheric model. This will allow us to more efficiently simulate global air pollution and its transport, using large ensembles to better identify real trends and changes from artifacts of varying initial conditions. With this capability we will be in a better position to undertake global studies of impacts of air pollution on crops, ecosystems and human health.

We will continue to use more detailed and computationally intensive atmospheric chemistry and transport models, to get the needed resolution for detailed studies of smaller regions such as North America and Asia down to the city level and lower. These models will help us to understand some of the very complex interactions as they affect clouds and precipitation patterns, disentangled from the effect of long‑lived GHGs. Agriculture, forests, ecosystems and human health will be affected by many aspects of global environmental change—both in terms of climate and atmospheric composition. Failing to consider all the factors affecting the future climate can lead to misguided adaptation. For example, preparation for significant warming may be unwarranted if cooling aerosols may offset much of the near‑term warming in some regions. As our research has demonstrated, aerosols can strongly affect precipitation patterns, which can have greater effects on regional precipitation than the more gradual effect of increasing GHGs. Our plans are to bring this full suite of climate forcers into our modeling system with a focus on improving regional projections for better guidance for adaptation.


3.3 Natural Ecosystems

2016 ProgressSong et al. (2016) used observations from passive (i.e. non‑reactive) aquatic species to identify three source waters: waters local to the Patagonian shelf, coastal waters near the Chilean coast, and the subsurface waters in the southeast Pacific. A series of simulations with an ocean biogeochemical model investigated the impact of nutrient perturbations in these source regions to productivity on the Patagonian shelf. They found that positive nutrient perturbations in subsurface waters in the southeast Pacific result in the largest boost of productivity over the shelf. These source waters are rich in nutrients and upwelled from the depth where light levels are so low that they cannot be consumed. Positive nitrate perturbations from local waters also have an immediate impact elevating productivity. Iron perturbations local to the shelf, however, do not change productivity because the shelf region is limited by nitrate. Additional nutrient supply from the other source regions leads to increases in productivity. The study identified wintertime intense vertical mixing as the key process which draws nutrients from below 300–500 meters to the surface before being delivered to the shelf.

Chang et al. (2016) recognized several drought indices that have been developed for drought monitoring, yet most of them are based on large‑scale environmental conditions rather than ecosystem transitional patterns to drought. They developed and proposed a novel ecosystem‑function oriented Normalized Ecosystem Drought Index (NEDI) to quantify drought severity that is loosely related to Sprengel’s and Liebig’s Law of the Minimum for plant nutrition. Extensive measurements of carbon flux and evaporation from 60 AmeriFlux sites across eight vegetation types were used to validate the use of NEDI. The study demonstrates that NEDI can reasonably capture ecosystem transitional responses to limited water availability, suggesting that drought conditions detected by NEDI are ecosystem‑function oriented. The widely used Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), on the other hand, does clearly reflect ecosystem responses to drought conditions because ecosystem adaptation ability is not considered in PDSI calculation.

In other work, Xu et al. (2016b) performed an evaluation of carbon fluxes from a coupled regional ecosystem‑climate model that will be used extensively in the coming year to assemble a suite of high‑resolution simulations over the U.S. to study future threats to ecosystems. In other model evaluation studies, Tagliabue et al. (2016) studied 13 global ocean biogeochemistry models for the ability to capture observed dissolved iron distributions, and they pointed to a number of deficiencies that require further model refinement.

2016 Summary: Analyses of the ocean and terrestrial ecosystems have resulted in improved understanding and quantification of resiliency, productivity and structure. Through the use of empirical data, we have developed a novel metric that quantifies the severity of drought from the perspective of ecosystem productivity—and therefore more accurately identifies the extent to which ecosystems are resilient to dry conditions. In other work, our ocean modeling efforts have brought about new understanding of the relative control of source waters that feed the

Patagonian shelf, one of the most productive regions of the world’s oceans.


2017 Plans In the coming year, we will undertake a multi‑model effort that diagnoses ecosystem response to varying degrees and duration of drought conditions. Also, we will complete an ensemble of regional ecosystem‑climate simulations, covering the contiguous U.S., in order to diagnose the impact of mitigation on ecosystem resiliency from shifts in weather and climate extremes. In addition, results from a suite of ecosystem simulations within the Integrated Global System Modeling (IGSM) framework will focus on the fate of the northern Eurasian natural landscape—and the role that mitigation would play in reducing threats to ecosystem productivity.

3.4 Energy

2016 ProgressDavidson et al. (2016) focused on the opportunity for China to massively increase its use of wind power. The study forecasts that wind power could provide 26 percent of China’s projected electricity demand by 2030, up from 3 percent in 2015. Such a change would be a substantial gain in the global transition to renewable energy, since China produces the most total greenhouse gas emissions of any country in the world. The study finds that China should not necessarily build more wind power in its windiest areas; instead, it should build more wind turbines in areas where they can be more easily integrated into the operations of its existing electricity grid.

Winchester & Ledvina (2016) evaluated how alternative future oil prices will influence the penetration of biofuels, energy production, greenhouse gas emissions, land use and other outcomes. Their analysis employs the EPPA model and simulates alternative oil prices out to 2050 with and without a price on GHG emissions. In the simulations, higher oil prices lead to more biofuel production, more land being used for bioenergy crops, and fewer GHG emissions. Reducing oil resources to simulate higher oil prices has a strong income effect, so decreased food demand under higher oil prices results in an increase in land allocated to natural forests. The authors also find that introducing a carbon price reduces the differences in oil use and GHG emissions across oil price cases.

The 2015 Paris Agreement has the potential to shift global energy consumption from a mix dominated by fossil fuels to one driven by low‑carbon technologies. It is clear that if this happens, fossil‑fuel‑producing countries will have to adjust their economies to reflect lower export earnings from oil, coal and natural gas. The rise of renewable energy may also create new centers of

2016 Summary: We continued to assess the impacts of the large‑scale introduction of low‑carbon energy in different parts of the world. One study published in Nature Energy demonstrated that by creating a more flexible generating schedule for coal, about a quarter of China’s electricity demand in 2030 can be provided by wind power. In another study published in a new Joint Program Report that applied the EPPA model to evaluate the impacts of different oil prices on biofuel production and resulting greenhouse gas emissions,

we found, among other things, that under a low oil‑price scenario, biofuels become less competitive and their production is substantially reduced. In addition to many technical and

economic issues involved in the deployment of renewable electricity—especially intermittent wind and solar—geopolitical considerations play an important role in determining the future energy mix. In a study published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, we provided a detailed consideration of how energy geopolitics is shifting power from fossil‑fuel‑rich countries to those developing low‑carbon solutions. In other work, we enhanced the EPPA model representation of the electricity and natural gas sectors in China and transportation sector in the E.U.


geopolitical power. Paltsev (2016a) analyzed the geopolitics of renewable energy. As renewable resources become widely distributed, supply‑side geopolitics are expected to be less influential than in the fossil‑fuel era. Instead of focusing on just two major resources, oil and natural gas, low‑carbon energy geopolitics may depend on many additional factors, such as access to technology, power lines, rare earth materials, patents, storage and dispatch, not to mention unpredictable government policies.

Other studies related to energy include Abrell and Rausch (2016) that analyzed a cross‑country electricity trade, renewable energy and European infrastructure policy; Karplus et al. (2016a) on energy caps as an alternative policy instrument for China; Lucena et al. (2016) on climate policy scenarios in Brazil; Chen et al. (2016c) on long‑term economic modeling for climate change studies; Luo et al. (2016) on the interprovincial migration and stringency of energy policy in China; Veysey et al. (2016) on the pathways to Mexico’s climate change targets; Zhang and Paltsev (2016) on the future of natural gas in China; Zhang et al. (2016a) on equity and emissions trading in China; Octaviano et al. (2016) that applied the EPPA model to analyze climate change policy in Brazil and Mexico; van Ruijven et al. (2016) on the baseline energy and economic projections for Latin America; Paltsev (2016b) on the value and limits of the energy scenario analysis; Bernstein et al. (2016) that analyzed if the regulators should limit U.S. LNG exports; Gavard et al. (2016) on limited trading of emission permits as a climate cooperation mechanism; Morris et al. (2016a) on a representation of advanced technologies in energy‑economy models; Zhang et al. (2016b) on natural resource dynamics in top‑down energy economic models; Kleinberg et al. (2016) on the tight oil development economics; Chen (2016) on the importance of non‑homothetic preferences in economic projections; Chen et al. (2016b) on energy and cost implications of the climate mitigation policies; Karplus et al. (2016b) on the firm‑level performance in China’s industrial energy conservation program; and Morris et al. (2016b) on electricity sector investments under technology cost uncertainty and stochastic technological learning.

2017 PlansPlans for the upcoming year include enhancement of representation of the different energy technologies and the impacts of energy transformation on economic welfare of different countries. Special attention will be given to studies of renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar, and the issues related to their integration into the electric grid. We will also continue to explore the future for nuclear energy and carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology applied to coal, natural gas and biofuels. The Economic Projection and Policy Analysis (EPPA) model will be enhanced for the MIT Mobility of the Future study to better represent choices in personal transportation, including car‑sharing and electric cars. We will assess the role of fossil fuels that are used as a feedstock in industrial processes, as well as the prospects for industrial CCS. Finally, we will investigate the energy choices affected by political and geopolitical decisions, and study the impacts of uncertainty on energy investment decisions.


3.5 Earth System Science

2016 ProgressGrandey et al. (2016a) studied the transient climate impacts of two scenarios of aerosol emissions over Asia within representative concentration pathway 4.5 (RCP4.5). In one scenario, a decrease in anthropogenic aerosol emissions is prescribed, and in the other, an enhancement in anthropogenic aerosol emissions. Using a coupled atmosphere–ocean configuration of the Community Earth System Model (CESM), the researchers found that enhanced Asian aerosol emissions exert a large cooling effect across the Northern Hemisphere, partially offsetting greenhouse gas–induced warming. In addition, aerosol‑induced suppression of the East Asian and South Asian summer monsoon precipitation occurs and also remotely impacts precipitation in other parts of the world. Over Australia, austral summer monsoon precipitation is enhanced, an effect associated with a southward shift of the intertropical convergence zone. Over the Sahel, West African monsoon precipitation is suppressed, likely via a weakening of the West African westerly jet. The results imply that fuel usage in Asia, through the consequent aerosol emissions and associated radiative effects, might significantly influence future climate both locally and globally.

Armour et al. (2016) diagnosed the mechanisms surrounding the delayed warming of the Southern Ocean (as compared to the rapid warming of the Arctic Ocean). They analyzed observations and general circulation model simulations to find that this phenomenon is fundamentally shaped by the Southern Ocean’s meridional overturning circulation—wind‑driven upwelling of unmodified deep water damps warming around Antarctica. In this way, greenhouse gas‑induced surface heat uptake is largely balanced by the anomalous northward heat transport associated with the equatorward flow of surface waters. The heat is then preferentially stored by surface waters sinking at the northern, descending flank of this overturning gyre. Further, these processes are primarily a manifestation of climatological ocean currents, and changes in ocean circulation are secondary. These findings suggest the Southern Ocean responds to greenhouse gas forcing on the centennial, or longer, timescale over which the deep ocean waters that are upwelled to the surface are warmed themselves.

In other studies, the MESM was employed to assess the relative impacts of aggressive and intermediate climate‑mitigation policies (Paltsev et al., 2016b; Sokolov et al., 2016); to evaluate the impact and sustainability of irrigation over the U.S. (Blanc et al., 2016a); and to estimate other indicators of agricultural productivity and damage (Monier et al., 2016a). Our computationally efficient version of MESM was also used in a similar fashion to drive a large‑ensemble numerical experiment with our water‑resource model to assess risks to water availability over a large portion of southern and eastern Asia (Fant et al., 2016). Many of our risk, impact and adaptation assessments would not be possible without the continual development

2016 Summary: We completed updates to the MIT Earth System Model (MESM) that will allow for a new and comprehensive sampling of climate change projections to be undertaken, and these simulations will form the basis of our cutting‑edge, probabilistic forecasts and risk‑based assessments. Experimentation with our ocean model component along with complementary analysis with observations uncovered the causes behind the delayed warming of the Southern Ocean as compared to rapid warming seen over the Arctic Ocean. We also refined

the range of projections to human‑forced changes in extreme precipitation over the U.S. due to climate change. Other work identified the dominant role that aerosols have played in shaping the

geographic distribution of precipitation in the tropics and northern hemisphere.


and improvements made to our Earth‑system modeling. Advances such as these are also made possible through complementary modeling and analyses by our research staff, and include studies on the extent that aerosols can explain historical changes and variations of precipitation (Wang, 2016) as well as the variations and changes to historical and future occurrence of extreme precipitation events (Gao et al., 2016b).

2017 PlansOur detailed modeling and analyses of the role of aerosols on climate will continue steadfast. We will also construct a suite of high‑resolution regional climate simulations with the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model—to explore the benefit of increased resolution on impact and adaptation assessments—with a particular focus on extreme events. In other work, we will formulate an analytically‑based treatment of uncertainty in runoff response as well as groundwater storage. This will allow for detailed assessments on the impact of freshwater supplies on risks in ecosystem productivity, irrigation supply, wet cooling for electricity generation, as well as domestic and industrial (e.g. supply‑chain) requirements. Further work will aim to reveal the resiliency, response and fate of our most productive ocean regions as well as coastal regions.

3.6 Climate Policy

2016 ProgressIf all pledges made at the Paris Agreement to curb greenhouse gas emissions are carried out to the end of the century, then risks still remain for staple crops in major “breadbasket” regions and water supplies upon which most of the world’s population depend. That’s the conclusion of Chen et al. (2016a) in the Joint Program’s signature publication, the 2016 Food, Water, Energy and Climate Outlook, now expanded to address global agricultural and water resource challenges. Recognizing that national commitments made in Paris to reduce greenhouse gas emissions fall far short of COP21’s overarching climate target—to limit the rise, since preindustrial times, in the Earth’s mean surface temperature to two degrees Celsius by 2100—the report advances a set of emissions scenarios that are consistent with achieving that goal. Meeting the 2°C target will require drastic changes in the global energy mix. To explore what those changes might entail, MIT Joint Program researchers and contributors from the MIT Energy Initiative and the Energy Innovation Reform Project identify current roadblocks to commercializing key energy technologies and systems, and the breakthroughs needed to make them technically and economically viable.

International agreements have set broad climate goals. At issue is how to achieve these goals in the most efficient manner. Gavard et al. (2016) investigated how carbon markets that include both

2016 Summary: To study the range of impacts from unconstrained global change and the benefits that may result from myriad mitigation, adaptation and sustainable pathways, we refined our techniques to represent different climate policy instruments and apply them to analyze past, present and anticipated policies in different parts of the world. Our study in the journal Transportation assessed the European Union’s CO2 targets for cars, finding them to multiply policy costs several‑fold while having no effect on emissions, compared to a

strategy of including vehicle fuels in Europe’s emissions trading system. In another study, published in the journal Energy Economics, we assessed a set of policies that China could

adopt to “bend the curve” of carbon emissions, with emissions eventually peaking and declining. In several publications we also refined our analysis of emission trading systems in the U.S., Europe and China.


developed and developing countries might support all parties’ transition to lower‑carbon economies. To that end, the researchers assessed the economic and environmental impacts of linking emissions trading systems that put a cap on carbon and limit permit volumes in possible China‑U.S. and China‑E.U. carbon markets. They estimated the carbon‑price and emissions‑reduction impacts of a range of permit volume limits on emissions trading in each scenario in the year 2030. The limit was defined as a percentage of the total amount of emissions allowed in the developed country. In one example, the researchers projected that meeting recently‑pledged national emissions targets at the Paris climate talks through unlimited emissions trading between the U.S. and electricity and energy‑intensive sectors in China would result in a common carbon price of $24 per metric ton of carbon dioxide, a 70 percent price decrease in the U.S. (down from $80/ton, the estimated U.S. carbon price without international trading of emissions permits). When imported emissions were limited to 10 percent of the U.S. emissions cap, the U.S. carbon price fell to $51/ton, a 37 percent decrease, and the carbon price in China rose from $17/ton to $19/ton. The opportunity to buy permits in a developing nation (e.g. China) at lower prices and sell them at higher prices to a developed nation (e.g. U.S.) would present a strong financial incentive for the developing nation to link emissions trading markets with the developed nation, which would also gain by taking advantage of low‑cost emissions reductions elsewhere while still maintaining incentives to reduce emissions domestically.

Karplus et al. (2016a) compared the economic impacts of imposing coal, energy and carbon caps at regional and national levels in China. The source of about 70 percent of China’s energy supply, coal has long been the main engine of its economy. But the nation’s overreliance on coal, which has the highest carbon content of all fossil fuels, has resulted in unintended consequences, from local air pollution to global climate change. While China is currently advancing a national carbon market covering large emitters, an ongoing question remains whether and how the country might also directly restrict coal use. One option under discussion involves imposing limits on the use of coal or on all fossil fuels at the national or regional levels. Using the China Regional Energy Model (C‑REM), a multi‑commodity, multi‑regional computable general equilibrium model of the Chinese economy that represents 30 of its provinces, the researchers found that a cap on coal‑only would cost about twice as much as a cap on all fossil fuels while cutting fossil energy use to the same level, and exact economic hardship on regions where demand for coal is high and availability of low‑carbon substitutes is low. They concluded that the most cost‑effective energy cap strategy would combine a cap on downstream fossil fuel use with a national energy saving allowance trading system among provinces. This system closely approximates a cap on carbon because coal has the highest carbon content among the fuels targeted, and is nearly as effective in reducing CO2 emissions as the national CO2 emissions trading system adopted by China.

Other climate policy‑related studies include Thompson et al. (2016) that analyzed the air quality co‑benefits of sub‑national carbon policies; Stokes et al. (2016) on China and India’s divergence in international environmental negotiations; Lanz & Rausch (2016) on the cap‑and‑trade climate policy with price‑regulated industries; Paltsev et al. (2016a) on different policy options for reducing CO2 from private cars in Europe; Kishimoto et al. (2016) on the impact of coordinated policies on air pollution emissions from road transportation in China; Sokolov et al. (2016) on the climate impacts of the Paris Agreement; Ejaz et al. (2016) that looked at corn ethanol mandates in the U.S. to assess the scalability of related land‑use emissions, and Paltsev et al. (2016b) that provided an integrated assessment of climate impacts of different global climate policies.


2017 PlansOur plans for 2017 include continued assessment of current climate policies and their impacts. We will provide a detailed look at the regional impacts of different potential policy options on tax revenue, energy generation and welfare in different regions of the U.S. We will also continue to update our analysis of the nationally determined contributions of the Paris Agreement. Finally, we’ll explore impacts of emission trading systems and fuel standards in China and Korea, and investigate the role of the Paris Agreement on energy and economic development of Russia and Brazil.

3.7 Regional Analysis

2016 Progress

To fulfill its commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent (relative to 1990 levels) by 2030, as specified in the Paris Agreement on climate change, the European Union is considering different strategies. One option is to continue to implement its automotive fuel economy standard (the E.U. recently adopted carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions mandates for new passenger cars that target 95 grams of CO2 per kilometer in 2021), following the lead of the U.S., which for several years has imposed CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) standards. But a study by Paltsev et al. (2016a) indicated that another strategy would allow the E.U. to cut the same amount of CO2 emissions for far less cost to the economy. Under that strategy, the E.U. would extend its existing emissions‑trading system to include transportation along with electricity generation and energy‑intensive industry. Using the EPPA model that simulates all sectors of the economy, including the private transportation sector, the study found that by switching from its fuel economy standards to this approach, the E.U. could save up to 63 billion Euros in 2025. Comparing the impact of the E.U.’s fuel economy mandates on economic growth with an emissions‑trading scenario that achieves the same exact emissions reductions, the authors concluded that the latter approach was far more cost‑effective. They maintain that adding the private transportation sector to the E.U.’s emissions trading system could significantly improve its efficiency in reducing greenhouse gases while cutting costs to the E.U. economy.

Zhang and Paltsev (2016) analyzed the future for natural gas in China. In an effort to improve its air quality and reduce its impact on the global climate, China is working to increasingly replace coal with cleaner‑burning natural gas. As a first step, the government aims to boost the share of natural gas in its primary energy supply from 6 to 10 percent by 2020. However, to effect a large‑scale transition

2016 Summary: Our study published in Climate Change Economics analyzed the future of natural gas development in China under different pricing schemes and climate policy settings, and provided practical solutions to advance climate, air pollution and natural gas promotion goals. In another analysis published in a Joint Program Report, we found out that the majority of CO2 emissions attributable to households in the U.S. are not due to direct energy use, but rather embodied in all other goods consumed by those households. Because energy use

embodied in goods varies considerably from state to state, uniform carbon policy may have adverse impacts. We were also involved in a project on Africa energy futures, where we

assessed various aspects of future energy development across the continent from hydropower development on the Inga and Zambezi rivers, to wind power development, to grid expansion and integration. In addition, we expanded our understanding of the private transportation sector in the E.U. and China, power sector in the U.S. and China, and energy and land use in Brazil and Mexico. We continued to advance our investigations of the impact of air pollution on human health and the economy at different regional scales. Analyses of regional projections underscored the importance of detailed representation of local conditions.


from coal to natural gas in China will be far more difficult than it has been in the U.S., where the cost of generating electricity using natural gas is comparable to that of coal. In China, natural gas prices are much higher than coal prices. One approach that’s likely to considerably reduce coal use is China’s upcoming national carbon emission cap‑and‑trade system, a key enabler of its pledge at the Paris climate talks to peak CO2 emissions by 2030 and decrease carbon intensity (CO2 emissions per unit of GDP) by 60–65 percent below 2005 levels by the same year. But because it penalizes carbon emissions, which result from the combustion of natural gas (albeit about half as much as coal per unit of energy output), this strategy would have the effect of decreasing natural gas consumption as well. And at the current relative prices of fuels, it would not result in a switch from coal to natural gas. That’s what researchers found while assessing different scenarios of natural gas development in China through the year 2050. Using the Economic Projection and Policy Analysis (EPPA) model that includes a representation of China’s latest energy and climate objectives and the technology costs in its power generation sector, they determined that China’s cap‑and‑trade system will reduce GHG emissions enough to meet its climate mitigation commitments, but lower the share of natural gas in the primary energy supply to 4.2 percent, far below the 10 percent target. They also found, however, that an integrated strategy combining the cap‑and‑trade system with a natural gas subsidy (an estimated $5 billion paid for through the sale of emissions permits under the system) would enable China to reach its 10 percent natural gas target in 2020 and further reduce coal use, keeping the nation on track to meet both its climate and natural gas promotion goals.

How much will your cost of living rise if a price is put on carbon? According to Caron et al. (2016), the answer may depend on where you live—and on what basis carbon is priced. Using a data‑driven carbon emissions accounting strategy that’s far more comprehensive than earlier analyses, the authors found that attributing CO2 emissions to states based on consumption rather than production vastly changes the total emissions for which they are responsible. They also determined that the CO2 emissions embodied in the goods consumed by households vary widely among U.S. states and regions. The study indicates that the majority of CO2 emissions attributable to households are not due to direct energy use but rather are embodied in all other goods consumed by those households. Because the energy use of producers of imported goods varies considerably from state to state, some states are ultimately responsible for much more CO2 emissions than others, and would be more adversely impacted under a uniform carbon pricing strategy. The study’s state‑by‑state estimates of CO2 emissions production and consumption could inform efforts to ensure that national and regional carbon‑pricing strategies don’t result in excessive economic hardship for particular states and regions.

Other regional analyses include:

Africa

Following up on initial work with the World Bank and others, the Program collaborated with United Nations University‑World Institute for Development Economics Research (UNU‑WIDER) on an Africa Energy Futures (Arndt et al., 2016) project. This project has produced 18 reports on various aspects of future energy development across the continent from hydropower development on the Inga and Zambezi rivers, to wind power development, to grid expansion and integration.


China

Davidson et al. (2016) modeled the potential for wind energy integration on China’s coal‑heavy electricity grid; Karplus et al. (2016a) on energy caps as an alternative policy instrument for China; Zhang et al. (2016b) on equity and emissions trading in China; Luo et al. (2016) on the interprovincial migration and stringency of energy policy in China; Kishimoto et al. (2016) on the impact of coordinated policies on air pollution emissions from road transportation in China; and Karplus et al. (2016b) on the firm‑level performance in China’s industrial energy conservation program

United States

Thompson et al. (2016) on air quality co‑benefits of sub‑national carbon policies; Lanz & Rausch (2016) on cap‑and‑trade climate policy with price‑regulated industries; Gavard et al. (2016) on limited trading of emission permits as a climate cooperation mechanism; Ejaz et al. (2016) that looked at corn ethanol mandates in the U.S. to assess the scalability of related land‑use emissions; Bernstein et al. (2016) that analyzed if the regulators should limit U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports; and Kleinberg et al. (2016) on tight oil‑development economics

European Union

Paltsev et al. (2016a) on policy options for reducing CO2 from private cars in Europe; Abrell & Rausch (2016) on a cross‑country electricity trade, renewable energy and European infrastructure policy; and Gavard et al. (2016) on limited trading of emission permits as a climate cooperation mechanism

India

Stokes et al. (2016) on China and India’s divergence in international environmental negotiations

Brazil

Lucena et al. (2016) on climate policy scenarios in Brazil; and van Ruijven et al. (2016) on the baseline energy and economic projections for Latin America

Mexico

Veysey et al. (2016) on the pathways to Mexico’s climate change targets; and Octaviano et al. (2016) that applied the EPPA model to analyze climate change policy in Brazil and Mexico

Northern Eurasia

Monier et al. (2016b) on past, ongoing and future efforts of the integrated modeling of global change

Senegal

Blanc et al. (2016b) on the determinants of family farms’ efficiency

Philippines

Blanc and Strobl (2016) on the impacts of typhoons on rice production

30 Tools MIT JOINT PROGRAM • 2016 ANNUAL REPORT

2017 PlansOur plans for 2017 include assessments of past, present and anticipated climate policies in different countries and their impacts. We will provide a detailed look at the regional impacts of different potential policy options on tax revenue, energy generation and welfare in different regions of the U.S; explore impacts of emission trading systems and fuel standards in China and Korea; investigate the role of the Paris Agreement on energy and economic development of the E.U., Russia and Brazil; and take a closer look at options for climate policy in several African countries.

4. TOOLSSummarized in Section 2.2, the Joint Program’s four primary state‑of‑the‑art models and analytical methods enable our researchers to project global changes and potential risks under different policy, technology and economic scenarios. Here we present 2016 progress and 2017 plans for each modeling tool.

4.1 MIT Earth System Model (MESM)

2017 PlansIn the coming year, our anticipated model development activities will include ongoing efforts (described above) as well as new projects involving several component and process‑level updates within the MESM. We will evaluate and document an up‑to‑date version of MESM, and place the latest version of MESM’s computer software within our version‑control protocol, and thus make it available to the scientific community upon request. This version of MESM will be linked to the latest version of the MIT Economic Projection and Policy Analysis (EPPA) model to perform our Integrated Global System Modeling (IGSM) framework probabilistic projections of mitigation and adaptation scenarios.

Land: In the coming year, we will improve upon the representation of runoff processes in order to represent the range of functional and behavioral uncertainty seen across the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) in support of the IPCC assessments. In other work, we will use remote‑sensing from NASA’s Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) mission to improve our simulations of soil physics and how these impact our estimates of nitrous oxide emissions. We will also continue work on the representation of biogeochemical processes across northern Eurasia and their response under anthropogenic forced climate change.

Ocean: Our three‑dimensional ocean dynamics model has undergone a number of refinements that include: an updated global grid structure; improved sea‑ice treatment, new algorithms for air‑sea

2016 Summary: In the past year, much of our development efforts for the MIT Earth System Model (MESM) have sought to improve upon methods that enable our model system to operate across the full range of uncertain—yet plausible—global temperature responses to human and natural forces. Specifically, we’ve refined our diagnostic approach that assesses the full climate‑response range that result from interactions between climate sensitivity, ocean heat uptake and aerosol forcing. These developments include: up‑to‑date observations that have taken into account the more recent global temperature trends; a more comprehensive treatment of natural climate variability that is then used as a marker for trend significance; a sensitivity assessment on the choice and number of metrics to evaluate model performance; as well as stronger coupling within the land‑system component that links biogeophysical and biogeochemical processes. In other areas, we continued to make progress on the development and implementation of a MESM configuration that employs a global, three‑dimensional atmosphere with a computationally efficient, yet sufficiently detailed, model of atmospheric chemistry.


fluxes within grids that cross ice and ice‑free boundaries; and coupling to our atmospheric model component. The evaluation of these updates will be completed and documented in the coming year. In other work, we will continue the representation of ocean biological processes and include additional refinements and details in phytoplankton species and their functionality—as well as the linkage of these processes to our ocean dynamics model.

Atmosphere: Our three‑dimensional configuration of the Community Atmosphere Model (CAM) will be updated and evaluated with an improved and computationally efficient treatment of atmospheric chemistry. This ongoing activity has considered the full range of complexity in chemical processes used in Earth system models across the scientific community—and evaluated their impacts on computational expense and modeled accuracy within MESM. In other work, we will complete a new configuration of the CAM model’s coupling to the computationally efficient version of our ocean model component (currently coupled to our two‑dimensional atmospheric model). This new atmosphere‑ocean model configuration will be used to evaluate the importance of this coupling to the modeled climate sensitivity, the response to radiative forcing, and the extent that ocean dynamics control heat storage and transport at the global scale.

Figure 3. Conceptual schematic of the MIT Earth System Model that describes the global system as an organized group of components—Land, Atmosphere, Ocean and Cryosphere—that each consist of processes that interact and are represented at varying degrees of complexity appropriate to a particular research objective and/or computational demands of the numerical experimentation. A “process” is any series of actions that occur to produce a condition, movement and/or exchange and these processes span the disciplines of fluid dynamics, physics, chemistry, geology and biology. Our MESM efforts continually strive to improve upon the resolution, detail and accuracy of processes that are critical to the IGSM research applications.


Cryosphere: In conjunction with our land component development activities, the use of the SMAP remote‑sensing products will also allow for an inspection of the soil freeze‑thaw processes we model. We will evaluate our land model components with SMAP observations of the extent and variations in frozen soil‑water conditions. Where necessary, we will refine our model solutions to match observations and evaluate their impact on soil heat content as well as fluxes that control the balance of energy, carbon and other biogeochemical cycles (such as methane and nitrous oxide). In other work, our ocean model efforts will also include an evaluation of sea‑ice simulations and the extent to which our updated ocean model provides greater accuracy and confidence in future projections.

4.2 Human System Model (EPPA)

2016 Progress

Documentation of our new version of the Economic Projection and Policy Analysis model (EPPA6) appeared in the journal Economic Modeling (Chen et al., 2016c). A major contribution of the paper was to produce “hindcasts” for energy and agricultural consumption, allowing comparison of simulated outcomes to observation. EPPA6 also upgrades the agricultural sector, incorporating a more flexible response of demand to income growth that more closely replicates econometric estimates of this relationship. In addition, the new version incorporates a revised capital vintaging to allow longer‑lived capital stock to better match observation. In addition, it better represents housing services as a separate activity in the household sector.

The entire model code was rewritten and streamlined to make it easier to modify. Development of the model now utilizes GitHub version control to enable multiple model developers to work more effectively. A version of EPPA6 was publicly released.

We continue to bring forward into EPPA6 components developed in previous versions of EPPA. An important accomplishment was to incorporate the land‑use component into the current EPPA version and calibrate land‑use change to projections of the U.N. Food and Agriculture forecasts. That was accomplished and extensively documented (Gurgel et al., 2016).

2017 Plans

We will continue to bring forward into EPPA6 features developed in earlier model versions. This includes incorporating multiple vehicle powertrain options and more detailed biofuel options. A goal is to include more technological detail in energy demand to better characterize low‑carbon options under near‑term stabilization scenarios. One key option is broader use of bioenergy for heat in the industrial sector, and inclusion of carbon capture and storage (CCS) with bioenergy. Another option for a very low‑carbon economy is broad electrification. Here we need to identify and improve our modeling of electricity options in households and industry, and of their cost. We are also developing a model version with greater disaggregation of crops, livestock and the building materials sector. The latter will allow study of the role of forest products in mitigation. Greater detail in crops and livestock in our human systems

2016 Summary: We published two key papers documenting a new updated version of the Economic Projection and Policy Analysis (EPPA) model. Our researchers mounted a major effort to improve calibration of the models, using “hindcasting” to compare projections for energy and agriculture to observation and more detailed projection efforts.


model will allow us to link it to crop models and more detailed estimates of yield projections. We will also pursue incorporating water resource limits into EPPA6, based on approaches used in EPPA5.

Another important ongoing effort is to provide greater regional detail. This includes modeling of China, development of a model version with greater detail in Africa, and linking our U.S. Regional Energy Policy (USREP) model to a Canadian Provincial model with a detailed hourly electricity model developed in collaboration with the MIT Energy Initiative. With a focus on country‑level policies and measures, and evaluation of progress toward meeting Paris commitments, we are building a capability to rapidly develop a country model with energy detail. The initial focus is to allow one to quickly develop a static, single‑country model for any country in the GTAP data set. While this would lack dynamics and trade effects, it would provide a great improvement over existing methods used in many countries to estimate policy effectiveness.

4.3 Global Framework (IGSM)

2016 ProgressModel development efforts soft‑linked our Water Resource Systems (WRS) component to EPPA by provide irrigable land supply functions for a version of EPPA with land use that included irrigated and dry land (Winchester et al., 2016). We also drove our water resource model with USREP‑Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS), to allow us to consider vulnerability of irrigated agriculture in the U.S. in the face of changing climate and changing demands for water (Blanc et al., 2016a). We linked air pollution modeling to USREP to study feedbacks of air pollution health effects on the economy (Thompson et al. 2016). Development of crop model emulators provided an efficient way to simulate multiple scenarios of climate impacts on crop yields, and the capability to eventually simulate these into a more disaggregated version of EPPA (Blanc, 2016). Establishing these key links at consistent levels of aggregation is key to developing a fully coupled Earth System model with climate feedbacks on the economy and human systems. Our growing capability to consider climate impacts was reflected in our broadening the scope of our annual Outlook to include food, water, energy and climate.

2017 PlansResearch has identified that important feedbacks and interactions occur among water, energy, land, human health and air pollution systems. These have two‑way feedbacks: emissions and land‑cover affect climate and the atmosphere; and changes in climate and atmosphere affect land‑use and cover with feedbacks to the climate system. Hence our focus is on developing computationally efficient versions of components (atmospheric chemistry, crop models, land use, water resources, population dynamics) so that we can represent these important two‑way feedbacks.

2016 Summary: We continued to make progress in linking our Human System (EPPA) model with our Earth System model (MESM), developing efficient ways to connect them. A key advance was to incorporate water resource constraints on irrigation in the EPPA model. Our growing capability to consider climate impacts was reflected in our broadening the scope of our annual Outlook to include food, water, energy and climate.


4.4 Risk Analysis

2016 ProgressAs part of our effort to re‑evaluate climate and economic uncertainty, work is underway to test and document updated versions of both the MIT Earth System Model (MESM) and Economic Projection and Policy Analysis (EPPA) model (see sections 4.1 and 4.2). Earth system uncertainties were evaluated in collaboration with Pennsylvania State University (Libardoni, 2016; Libardoni et al., 2016). Preliminary results were presented at the European Geophysical Union conference (Sokolov et al., 2016).

Literature review and statistical estimation provided updated estimates of the uncertainty in economic growth, technology costs and other economic uncertainties. We began examining implications of technology‑cost uncertainty by testing the sensitivity of energy sector results under a stabilization target of 2°C in our 2016 Outlook (Chen et al., 2016a) using cost ranges from a recent study by the International Energy Agency (IEA/NEA, 2015).

An accurate estimate of future uncertainty is a first step toward understanding what that uncertainty means for today’s investment decisions. We are testing stochastic decision methods that are able to simulate multiple states of the world and multiple uncertain variables using dynamic programming methods (Morris et al., 2016a). Computational resources can be quickly exhausted, as these problems can easily expand to evaluating 103–106 or more different possibilities. To overcome this constraint, we are exploring approximate dynamic programming methods that sample from the possibilities instead of exhaustively evaluating each of them.

2017 PlansWe will complete our uncertainty analysis using the full Integrated Global System Modeling (IGSM) framework based on newly estimated Earth system responses and updated economic uncertainties. We will also complete a review of decision‑making uncertainty methods, and look to apply a stochastic decision‑making framework for hydropower investment in Africa, where we have data from our collaboration with UNU‑WIDER (See Section 3.2). This will allow us to incorporate both climate and economic uncertainties in our evaluation of investment risks. A goal of this effort is to develop simpler rules‑of‑thumb or to better communicate the complex results, so that decision‑makers can better understand the implications for investments. We also plan to replicate the Asia water‑risk work (see Section 3.1) for the U.S./North America, and investigate some of the more fundamental contributions to uncertainty in the hydrological system.

2016 Summary: We (1) directed significant effort toward evaluating uncertainty in underlying parameters of both our Human System model and Earth System model, with the goal of undertaking a full uncertainty analysis through 2100 including both Earth System and Human System uncertainties; (2) pioneered methods to integrate our ensemble projections with climate patterns drawn from the world’s leading 3‑D climate models to evaluate water risks in Asia; and (3) focused on developing and testing methods to efficiently simulate decision‑making under uncertainty, to find optimal investment given policy and technology risks.

35 Information Systems MIT JOINT PROGRAM • 2016 ANNUAL REPORT

5. INFORMATION SYSTEMSThe MIT Joint Program has ongoing access to a networked computer cluster that serves our computational, analytical and data‑storage needs. In 2016 we completed a major upgrade to our in‑house compute and fileserver cluster. In its current configuration, it consists of a 124 compute‑node compute cluster, linked via a low‑latency EDR infiniband network (a mix of dual quad‑core, dual hex‑core and dual octo‑core Intel Nehalem and Sandy Bridge‑based units). This represents approximately 1900 total physical cores. Built for model simulations, data analyses and storage of large data sets, this Linux‑based computing system will be a significant resource for the Program. The cluster also operates a cross‑mounted, EDR infiniband‑networked suite of fileserver units with a present capacity of approximately 1300 terabytes (TB) RAID6 disk storage. The cluster has 20 TB of total “home space” for general usage, source code, plots and figures, model builds, etc., with quotas of 300 gigabytes (GB) per user, in addition to disk storage on fileservers. Storage is backed up automatically with up‑to‑daily frequency (offsite) and protected from disk failure via a RAID array.

All computational resources for the cluster are housed in the Massachusetts Green High‑Performance Computing Center (MGHPCC)8, a data center dedicated to research computing. The MGHPCC is operated by MIT in collaboration with Boston University, Harvard University, Northeastern University and the University of Massachusetts. Based in Holyoke, Massachusetts, this facility is connected by high‑speed bandwidth to the MIT campus in Cambridge. The MIT Joint Program, together with the MGHPCC, provides hardware and maintenance support for the computational cluster.

As mentioned in last year’s Annual Report, we have made use of NSF‑funded projects’ access to the very large (10,000s of compute cores) “Yellowstone” NSF cluster facility in Wyoming. We will continue to use this facility for some of our most computationally demanding projects (e.g. high‑resolution ecosystem‑climate model), to the extent and scope that our compute/storage allocation awards allow. Specifically, we have completed a number of simulations with a high‑resolution (10‑kilometer grids for certain focus regions) regional climate model to evaluate the impacts of urban surfaces’ reflectivity on local climate conditions, and the results will be published in the coming year. We are also planning a large suite of ensemble simulations with a regional ecosystem‑climate model linked into the IGSM framework. These experiments will continue with the goal of assessing future trends in extreme weather and their impacts on ecosystems (natural and managed).

Numerical model simulations are central to our overall research mission and objectives, such as large ensembles for uncertainty, risk and impact assessments, as well as higher‑resolution, complex

8 http://www.mghpcc.org

ADVANCING OUR MISSION

http://www.mghpcc.org

36 Collaborations and Initiatives MIT JOINT PROGRAM • 2016 ANNUAL REPORT

models that more explicitly resolve process‑level details and therefore explore the responses of the natural, managed and built environmental systems. In this vein, efforts continue to update and integrate the IGSM sub‑model codes to modern software standards. Building on the version control system implemented for all software components, we continue to enhance our automated “build” technology and user‑specified configurations of the IGSM framework, which help facilitate increased coordination among the various internal groups implementing improvements in model components, and minimize the learning curve for students and other new users working with the model.

6. COLLABORATIONS AND INITIATIVESWe continue to forge research collaborations and working relationships with organizations and individuals around the world to strengthen our efforts, develop networks to disseminate study results more widely, and encourage cooperation among scholars and the free exchange of ideas. The Joint Program’s research is augmented by cooperative efforts, involvement in multi‑institute endeavors and multi‑model comparisons, participation by visiting researchers, and collaborative projects with a network of colleagues.

6.1 CollaborationsThe Integrated Global System Modeling (IGSM) framework has been developed mainly with Joint Program resources, and through collaboration with the Ecosystems Center of the Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) and other groups. Our Earth system modeling development continues to draw heavily on our collaboration with the MIT Climate Modeling Initiative (CMI), which heads ongoing development of the MIT General Circulation Model.9 We also draw from the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research’s Community Earth System Model (CESM) effort, including participation in the CESM land, biogeochemistry, societal dimensions and atmospheric model working groups.

Other cooperative efforts that contribute significantly to the Joint Program’s efforts include:

Interactions with colleagues and complementary projects at MIT. Notable examples include significant contributions from the MIT Energy Initiative, as well as the Darwin Project that models marine‑ecosystem dynamics. As participants in the Singapore‑MIT Alliance for Research and Technology, we are using the Joint Program’s aerosol‑climate model linked with regional climate and ocean models to study climate feedbacks and responses to forcings occurring outside the regional domain. In addition, we have launched a new cooperative effort with the MIT Climate CoLab to develop a National Climate Plan Accelerator. Led by a core group of universities around the world and other partner organizations, we envision the NCPA as a global online network to help countries create detailed, expert‑validated plans to meet or exceed their Paris climate agreement commitments.

Cooperation among the broader global change research community. The MIT Economic Projection and Policy Analysis (EPPA) model utilizes the economic database maintained by the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP). We also rely on measurements of the chemical composition of the atmosphere as observed by the Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE)

9 http://mitgcm.org

http://mitgcm.org


network, which enables us to validate and improve the accuracy of our model estimations. At the same time, the Joint Program is engaged in: the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) organized by the World Climate Research Program; the Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium (IAMC); the Agricultural Model Intercomparison Project (AgMIP); and the Program on Integrated Assessment Model Development, Diagnostics and Inter‑Model Comparisons (PIAMDDI) organized by the Energy Modeling Forum.

Energy model comparisons. We continue to engage in several Energy Modeling Forum exercises, applying the U.S. Regional Energy Policy (USREP) model to explore implications of different technology policies in the U.S. for cost and environmental effectiveness, and applying the EPPA model to estimate the cost of emissions mitigation in Latin America as part of the Latin America Modeling Project (LAMP).

Continued cooperation with the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) as well as with Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc), to further develop and enable model components on water management and quality.

Ongoing collaboration with the Agence Française de Développement and the United Nations University World Institute for Development Economics Research. AFD and UNU‑WIDER have partnered with the Joint Program in our work on energy, water and climate change and their effects on development prospects in developing countries. Our efforts to date have focused on assessing climate and other risks for a number of developing African countries.

A new collaboration with Canadian partners. The Joint Program has launched a new effort with two Montreal‑based research institutions—the business school HEC‑Montreal and Ouranos, a climate‑change think tank—that aims to equip decision‑makers in the New England/Québec region with the knowledge needed to evaluate cross‑border, low‑carbon energy and climate policy options.

Cooperation with other universities and research institutions:

• Continued collaboration with colleagues at the University of California, Davis; MBL; and Lehigh University in a study of ecosystems and climate change that aims to identify regions where resiliency under extreme weather events is at risk.

• Collaborative studies of the atmospheric and oceanic transport of various pollutants (e.g. mercury, PCBs, PFCs) and their impacts on human health, involving researchers at the University of Rhode Island, Harvard School of Public Health, Michigan Technological University and the University of Washington. Our efforts to model pollution transport are bolstered by collaboration with the GEOS‑Chem modeling community.

• Investigating the climate effects of anthropogenic aerosols with colleagues at NASA Goddard Spaceflight Center, NCAR, the University of Maryland Baltimore County, University of Wyoming, University of Stockholm and Cornell University.

• Working with colleagues at Emory University on efforts to model the terrestrial and atmospheric nitrogen cycle, as well as an integrated assessment of emissions, air quality and economic and health impacts of transportation policies in China.


• Investigating the vulnerabilities and response of ocean ecosystems to environmental change with colleagues at the University of Rhode Island to produce vulnerability metrics that are linked to satellite measurement, in order to better inform monitoring, management and policymakers.

Collaboration with energy analysts at the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to expand our energy and electricity modeling capabilities. Joint Program Co‑Director John Reilly serves on the Program Committee of NREL’s Joint Institute for Strategic Energy Analysis.

Cultivating other key connections through participation in national and international bodies, such as committees of the U.S. National Academies, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Geosphere‑Biosphere Program, and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).

The Joint Program has also developed a network of scholars at other institutions who continue to work in close collaboration on current research objectives. This network consists of former students who have taken faculty positions in other universities, former research staff members, and visitors who have returned to their home institutions. Included are researchers and faculty now at U.S. universities (Penn State, Emory, Lehigh, Auburn, Boston, Purdue, Tufts, N.C. State.), European universities (Cambridge U., Stockholm U., European U. Institute), a Brazilian university (Univ. Federal de Viçosa), and the University of Hong Kong. These colleagues substantially add to the capacity and richness of Joint Program efforts.

Finally, the Joint Program benefits from the participation of visiting scholars who spend time working with the research team. In 2016 seven visiting researchers collaborated with the Joint Program and contributed to its output. Among them were three former staff members who returned for short‑term visits. Angelo Gurgel, a professor of economics at University Federal de Viçosa in Brazil, continues to work to extend the analysis of biofuels and land‑use change; Mustafa Babiker, an independent scholar, contributes to EPPA model development; and Kyung‑Min Nam, a professor of urban planning at the University of Hong Kong, focuses on air pollution health impacts.

Longer‑term stays by visiting researchers included Wei‑Hong Hong and Hui‑Chih Chai, two experts from the Institute of Nuclear Energy Research in Taiwan, who spent a few months working with the EPPA model to add explicit identification of Taiwan. Bora Kat, a Fulbright Scholar from the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey, began a nine‑month visit to work with the EPPA model and its application to regional studies of interest to Turkey. And Xueqin Zhu, a professor of agricultural economics at Wageningen University, visited for three months to collaborate on integrated assessment modeling of food, water and energy issues.

In addition, six visiting graduate students resided at the Joint Program during 2016, three of whom participated as part of the MIT‑Tsinghua collaborative China Energy and Climate Project. Danwei Zhang focused on the representation of renewable electricity in EPPA; Xiaohan Zhang from Tsinghua University studied economic modeling and policy analysis for coal use in China; and Thomas Geissman from ETH Zurich studied the levelized cost of electricity. Claire Nicolas from the University of Nanterre‑Paris Ouest studied uncertainty modeling in integrated assessment models and energy system models. Cicero Zanetti de Lima, a visiting a doctoral student from the Federal University of Vicosa, Brazil, is applying the EPPA model to studies of land‑use change in Brazil. And Christoph Tries, a visiting master’s student from Technical University Darmstadt, is contributing to the effort to disaggregate the representation of Africa in the EPPA model.


6.2 InitiativesAs interest arises, the Joint Program focuses initiatives on particular areas—with the work receiving targeted support from smaller groups of sponsors. Ultimately, the advances from work organized under these initiatives feed into our broader effort in the form of model development or associated insights gained, and thereby contribute to the overall IGSM framework activities. For example, the China Energy and Climate Project was a five‑year initiative launched in 2011 in collaboration with Tsinghua University, to analyze the impact of existing and proposed energy and climate policies in China on technology, inter‑fuel competition, the environment and the economy. In addition, the U.S. Regional Energy Policy (USREP) general equilibrium model was developed and incorporated into the IGSM framework under a past project that received external support from 2009–2012.

Other areas where the Joint Program could benefit from expanded attention in the form of a special initiative are water, land/agriculture and renewables, and a focus on developing countries. While substantial research capacity in the world is dedicated to these topics, the particular focus of the Program is on the linkages of these issues within the broader context of global change.

We seek to intensify our efforts to perform quantitative analyses that reflect the diversity of water‑energy interactions and capture the regional character of water scarcity issues. Potential investigations include: assessments of mitigation policy and environmental change against growing water demands, changing supplies and changing energy resources; assessment of options in fuels (biofuels, oil sands, hydrologic fracturing) and electricity (biomass, coal, gas, nuclear, solar and wind) and their water implications; analysis of potential challenges to energy facility cooling options and the effect of river‑water temperature changes on power plant cooling and efficiency; adaptation and response including water saving technology, water reuse, conservation, desalinization and pricing; and risk‑based analyses of climate change and surface hydrology at regional basin scales, and the effectiveness of adaptation actions.

Expanding our work on agriculture and food entails addressing the concomitant challenges of a growing global population, increased food consumption and the potential for increasing demand for biofuels, against the backdrop of global environmental change. This effort will involve integrated analyses of the competing stressors affecting land use and land‑use change; availability of resources (water, energy, fertilizer, etc.), taking into account such factors as variability in climate and changing patterns of temperature and precipitation; accelerating urbanization; policies affecting energy cost; and the economic impacts of climate change on food prices and international trade.

We have continued to investigate how we can devote more attention to renewables, with a particular focus on Africa. Building on work that we started in 2014, we aim to increase our specification of Africa’s renewable energy resources and to develop a model of Africa’s energy infrastructure, hydropower basins, solar and wind resources and socioeconomic development. We expanded the effort in 2015 under a broadly defined “Climate, Land, Energy, Water and Development in Africa (CLEWDA) Project” that is undertaking a disaggregation of Africa in the EPPA model, and identifying regional projects, decisions and uncertainties of interest for targeted studies.

40 Communications MIT JOINT PROGRAM • 2016 ANNUAL REPORT

Another new focus in the Joint Program is on expanding our research capacity for targeted analysis of energy and climate policy issues in developing and emerging countries. For example, we have initiated collaborative research to address climate policy questions of interest to specific regions. In 2016 we launched collaborative projects with a government agency in Taiwan, and an industrial organization in South Korea, to investigate energy and climate policy and the long‑term implications of global emission mitigation targets and international agreements on regional economy and sustainable development. We are seeking to significantly expand this work, and discussions with government agencies in Saudi Arabia and India are ongoing.

The focus of expanded efforts in these areas will depend, in part, on the interests of new sponsors of the work and the level of support. Through these research‑support partnerships, we expect to produce quantitative results that will inform investment and strategy decisions, enabling stakeholders, managers and policymakers to meet environmental challenges and ensure a sustainable world in the coming decades.

7. COMMUNICATIONSIn 2016 the Joint Program continued to upgrade its efforts to inform industry leaders, policymakers, the research community and the public about its work. We communicated about our research and its implications through media outreach, presentations and briefings; an expanded edition of our annual Outlook; on‑campus engagement; a new and improved website; and online outreach efforts.

Media outreach

As in previous years, targeted media outreach was an important communications approach for increasing recognition of Joint Program research and disseminating it to decision‑makers and the general public. This year our media relations efforts helped to secure coverage of Joint Program faculty and researchers in major media outlets such as the Boston Globe, Christian Science Monitor, Economist, Fortune, National Geographic, Nature, New York Times, Scientific American, Time, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post; broadcast outlets such as BBC America, CNBC, PRI and Voice of America; widely‑distributed wire services such as Reuters and Bloomberg; and international publications such as the Globe & Mail and Straits Times. Examples of media coverage are included in Section 7.5.

Presentationsandbriefings

Joint Program researchers communicated their progress and informed understanding of global change science and policy options through sponsors‑only gatherings such as the MIT Global Change Forum as well as professional and public outreach events. Our faculty, students and staff gave

• presentations, briefings and consulting services to U.S. federal agencies including the Department of Energy, Department of State, and Environmental Protection Agency (Science Advisory Panel on Economic Modeling);

• presentations at major U.S. and international conferences including the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, European Geosciences Union General Assembly, American Meteorological Society Mario Molina Symposium, National Council for Science and the Environment Food‑Energy‑Water Nexus Conference, NASA Predictive Carbon Cycle Science Workshop,


NOAA‑ESRL Global Monitoring Annual Conference, Climate Change Impacts and Integrated Assessment Workshop, Asia Oceania Geosciences Society Annual Conference, International Conference on Economic Modeling (EcoMod), UNU‑WIDER Annual Workshop, International Transport Energy Modeling Workshop, and Joint Workshop on Climate Resilient Infrastructure in Africa; and

• talks at meetings of organizations such as the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, where Joint Program researchers moderated and contributed to a Low Emissions Roundtable Stakeholder event.

An expanded 2016 Outlook

In October the Joint Program expanded its flagship publication, the Food, Water, Energy and Climate Outlook (formerly the Energy and Climate Outlook) to report on projected effects—assuming national pledges in the Paris Agreement are met and retained for the rest of the 21st century—of climate change and other factors on crop yields and water resources; examine the goal of stabilizing concentrations of greenhouse gases at levels consistent with targets identified in international negotiations; and assess technical and economic barriers to commercializing key energy technologies and systems needed to achieve stabilization of concentrations at reasonable cost. Since its release, the 2016 Outlook has been the most‑viewed page (aside from the homepage) of the Joint Program website.

On‑campus engagement

In 2016 the Joint Program played a leading role not only in informing the public’s understanding of the issues and stakes of the Paris Agreement, but also in facilitating conversation about and action on climate change at MIT.

To support the implementation of MIT’s new five‑year Plan for Action on Climate Change in 2016, the Program (through its two co‑directors) began serving on the newly established Climate Action Advisory Committee (CAAC); continued to serve as a key partner in the Plan’s strategy of “sustained engagement with governments, industry and other institutions to accelerate technological, policy, design and other solutions to climate change;” and provided two Joint Program‑affiliated researchers to speak on a panel at a three‑hour, MIT‑wide forum titled “Climate Change: Ethics in Action” in November. The Joint Program also hosted or cosponsored four campus‑wide events on climate science and policy, and Joint Program researchers presented related work and perspectives at additional on‑ and off‑campus venues. Detailed information on these events can be found in Section 7.4.

New website

Frequently updated throughout the year, the Joint Program’s website is a broad and in‑depth clearinghouse for global change news and information at MIT. In 2016 we completed the design of a new website (launched in January 2017) that more precisely reflects the breadth and depth of the Program. The homepage now showcases the Joint Program’s seven core areas of research—food, water and forestry; infrastructure and air pollution; natural ecosystems; energy; Earth system science; climate policy; and regional analysis—and four main research tools—the MIT Earth System

http://climateaction.mit.edu/


Model (MESM), Economic Projection and Policy Analysis (EPPA) model, Integrated Global System Modeling (IGSM) framework, and risk analysis methods.

When clicking on each of these research areas and tools, visitors will access a landing page featuring an overview of the topic and a list of the latest Joint Program and peer‑reviewed publications, news articles, projects and researchers associated with that topic. The homepage also displays our latest news and upcoming events. A sponsors’ dashboard will also provide sponsor representatives with at‑a‑glance access to the latest Joint Program news and publications, and upcoming events.

Online outreach

The Joint Program also engaged with researchers, students, sponsors, stakeholders, the media and members of the interested public through email marketing campaigns. In 2016 we continued to provide email notification—both through our monthly e‑newsletter and occasional news releases—of the latest research, events and publications, and media coverage of Joint Program research. We also began releasing the online version of our triennial newsletter, Global Changes, to the public one month after distributing it to our sponsors. Section 7.3 includes more information on our publications.

These efforts have attracted a steady stream of visitors to the Joint Program’s website and social media channels. During 2016, the Joint Program received more than 26,437 unique visitors to our website. Meanwhile, the Joint Program drew several more followers to its Facebook and Twitter pages. On Facebook the Joint Program went from having 3,350 followers (“Likes”) in 2014 to 4,061 in 2015 to 4,469 in 2016. On Twitter, the Joint Program went from having nearly 3,400 followers in 2014 to 5,919 in 2015 to 7,243 in 2016.

While we continued to expand our public outreach activities this year, we also dedicated much effort toward improving communication with our sponsors. Our work in this area is included in Section 7.2.

7.1 Global Change ForumThe MIT Global Change Forum serves as a prominent vehicle to convey results to sponsor members, and a targeted community involved in global change research and policymaking. The Forum involves a group of approximately 100 representatives from industry, government, international bodies, academia and research organizations who meet for discussions on the evolving understanding of and issues regarding global environmental change science and policy. The Global Change

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000TWITTERFACEBOOK

2016201520142013Figure 4. Social media followers 2013–2016.


Forum promotes interaction among disparate stakeholders, and provides an unofficial, neutral, “off‑the‑record” setting for independent assessment of studies and policy proposals. To further facilitate a frank interchange, no official transcripts are made of the Forum sessions, and the discussion is under the Chatham House Rule. MIT Global Change Forums are by invitation only, and occur approximately every nine months.

The XXXIX (39th) MIT Global Change Forum, in conjunction with the 25th Anniversary celebration of the MIT Joint Program, was held June 15–17, 2016 at the Royal Sonesta Hotel in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The general theme of the Forum was “Corporate Strategies and Climate Change.” Meeting sessions included: Land and Agriculture, Finance, Future Directions of Energy, Supply Chain Risk, Water Resources and Adaptation Strategies, and a panel on Implementing the Climate Agreement. A retrospective of 25 years of the Joint Program, 1991–2016, was presented at the Thursday evening dinner.

7.2 Webinars and Sponsors‑Only Website PortalIn 2012 we launched a special, sponsors‑only section of the Joint Program website, and in 2016 we upgraded that section to make it easier to use and maintain. In addition, we continued to provide Joint Program sponsors with timely resources that are not made available to the public. These include research presentations; webinars; our Annual Report; event and Forum information; and early access to our triannual newsletter Global Changes and research publications.

The Pre‑Release Publications page is our way of providing early access to our latest findings in the form of preliminary drafts and clear, accessible summaries of peer‑reviewed papers and Joint Program Reports. When new publications are added to the Pre‑Release Publication Page, sponsors are notified via email. Authenticated users will soon be given the ability to make comments on sponsors‑only content—giving sponsors a way to communicate with researchers in the Joint Program, or other sponsors, on elements of our research, announcements or other topics.

The Joint Program Sponsors’ Webinar series, launched in 2011, continues to serve as a useful mode of communication in the interim between Global Change Forum meetings. In May 2016, John Reilly presented “Costs of Climate Policy Mitigation Policies.” In September, Ronald Prinn presented “Wild Weather and Climate Change.” In December, John Reilly presented “The 2° Challenge: Results from the 2016 Food, Water, Energy and Climate Outlook.” The next webinars in the series for 2017 are in the planning stages. All sponsors‑only webinars are archived in the private sponsors’ login section of the website.

The XL (40th) MIT Global Change Forum is planned for March 29–31, 2017, at Airlie House Conference Center in Warrenton, Virginia, USA, a northern Virginia suburb of Washington, DC. The general theme of the Forum is “New Challenges in Global Change Research.” Meeting sessions are to include: Earth System Science, Energy, Transport, Agriculture and Water, U.S. Energy & Environmental Policy, and a panel on Mitigation and Adaptation under the Paris Agreement.


7.3 PublicationsPublication in peer‑reviewed literature remains a crucial component of our outreach effort. Such publications serve to present results to a wide professional audience, and establish credibility for less technical communications and policy studies. Material in professional and popular journals is available through the Joint Program’s Reprint Series. Like the Reprint Series, the Joint Program’s Report Series is another important channel for distributing research results. During 2016, the Joint Program published 17 Reports (Report numbers 291 through 307), 55 peer‑reviewed articles, and 36 reprints of peer‑reviewed articles (Reprint numbers 2015‑23 to 2015‑35 and 2016‑1 to 2016‑23).

Program sponsors can elect to receive Joint Program publication notifications by email immediately or on a quarterly basis; hard‑copy editions are distributed by post. These publications are also distributed in limited quantities in print to interested colleagues and institutions, or to others upon request. All of the Program’s Reports, and many of its Reprints, are publicly available from our website. In addition, results are distributed to a wide audience through publication in disciplinary and popular journals, book chapters, doctoral and master’s theses, conference proceedings and other outlets, as shown in the appended list of publication citations.

7.4 Outreach and EducationGlobal change remained a major focus of events and discussion across MIT in 2016, anchored by the Institute’s five‑year Plan for Action on Climate Change. Launched in October, 2015 to help catalyze a transition to a zero‑carbon global energy system, the Plan aims to improve understanding of climate change and advance novel, targeted mitigation and adaptation solutions; accelerate progress toward low‑ and zero‑carbon energy technologies; educate a new generation of climate, energy and environment innovators; share knowledge about climate change, and learning from others around the world; and use the MIT community as a “testbed” for change.

The Plan’s April progress report highlighted two developments involving the Joint Program. First, the Program’s co‑directors were named as members of the newly established Climate Action Advisory Committee (CAAC) charged to “help ensure the successful implementation of MIT’s Plan for Action on Climate Change, including advising on MIT’s efforts to engage with government, industry, academia and the public to help accelerate solutions to the urgent problem of global climate change.” Second, the report cited the Joint Program, which focused its June 2016 Global Change Forum on corporate strategy and climate change, as a key partner in its strategy of “sustained engagement with

Publications (2016)

417

28

36

55

Book Chapters (1)

Joint Program Reports

ConferenceProceedings

Joint Program Reprints

OtherJournal Articles

Figure 5. Joint Program publications in 2016.

http://climateaction.mit.edu/


governments, industry and other institutions to accelerate technological, policy, design and other solutions to climate change.”

As part of the Plan, the Office of the Vice President for Research and Radius (an initiative of the Technology and Culture Forum) convened a three‑hour, MIT‑wide forum titled “Climate Change: Ethics in Action” in November. Designed to explore the ethical dimensions of climate change, as well as the ethical responsibilities of many different parties involved in the phenomenon, the forum featured a panel discussion that included two Joint Program‑affiliated faculty: Kerry Emanuel, MIT’s Cecil and Ida Green Professor in Earth and Planetary Sciences (EAPS); and Janelle Knox‑Hayes, the Lister Brothers Associate Professor of Economic Geography and Planning in MIT’s Department of Urban Studies and Planning.

In 2016 the Program hosted and/or cosponsored four campus‑wide events:

In January, the 2016 MIT Independent Activities Period (IAP) featured two programs presented by Joint Program graduate students and postdoctoral fellows—one focused on climate science and policy, the other on challenges and opportunities in scaling up wind energy. Organized by Joint Program graduate students, the Introduction to Climate Science and Policy program provided a fast‑paced but accessible introduction to the Earth’s climate system and the links between scientific and societal aspects of climate change. The program consisted of eight sessions on climate science and global and local climate policy. The second IAP program, “From Turbines to Tariffs: Technical and Regulatory Issues for Scaling Up Wind Energy,” covered the fundamentals of wind energy and how it integrates with electricity systems and regulatory structures.

In March, the Joint Program hosted Janos Pasztor, Senior Advisor to the UN Secretary General on Climate Change, who delivered a talk on the UN’s action agenda, from its origins to its emergence at COP21 to its potential future. The action agenda calls for “non‑state actors” such as NGOs and industry leaders, along with national representatives, to form partnerships and increase climate action. The Joint Program cosponsored Pasztor’s lecture along with four other on‑campus presentations that he made in a single week on the history, status and possible future of international climate change negotiations.

In April, the Joint Program hosted two activities for MIT’s Open House, which drew an estimated 40,000 people and helped mark the 100th anniversary of the Institute’s move from Boston to Cambridge. At two tables inside a tent by MIT’s Walker Memorial, Joint Program PhD students and postdocs presented “Cool the Planet or Turn Up the Heat? Take the 2°C Challenge.” They showed visitors how to work a Climate Calculator to see if they could make the choices needed to reduce the global average temperature enough to save the world from the most disastrous consequences of climate change; invited children and adults to spin a Greenhouse Gamble roulette wheel to compare the likely impact of different climate policies on the rate of global warming; and showed a video on how Joint Program researchers are combining scientific knowledge with policy analysis to inform decision‑making on global environmental challenges that include climate change, air pollution, food insecurity, water shortages, biodiversity loss and more. In collaboration with MIT Climate CoLab, the Joint Program also offered visitors two 30‑minute workshops in a nearby classroom: “Intro to the Science of Climate Change,” by Joint Program postdoctoral associate Benjamin Brown‑Steiner, and

https://globalchange.mit.edu/news-media/jp-news-outreach/cool-planet-or-turn-heat

http://news.mit.edu/2016/mit-open-house-attracts-tens-thousands-saturday-0424

http://mit2016.mit.edu/open-house/activity/cool-planet-or-turn-heat-take-2-%C2%B0c-challenge

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015/11/opinion/climate-calculator/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0cvB-_R6AY

http://mit2016.mit.edu/open-house/activity/intro-science-climate-change

http://mit2016.mit.edu/open-house/activity/intro-science-climate-change


“Paris Climate Talks: Outcome and Next Steps,” by Joint Program research assistant and Engineering Systems PhD student Paul Kishimoto.

In October, the Joint Program co‑sponsored the fourth Crowds and Climate conference, which was hosted by the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence’s Climate CoLab, a global online community of over 75,000 people who collaborate and compete through a series of interrelated contests focused on different aspects of the climate change problem. The conference brought together over 200 participants from around the world to celebrate the 27 winning teams from 17 Climate CoLab contests concluded in 2016. The winners presented business models, social enterprises, public engagement campaigns, digital tools and other work aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions or supporting climate‑change adaptation efforts.

Joint Program‑affiliated researchers also presented their work at several on‑campus events. At a daylong symposium in January sponsored by the MIT Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS), “MIT on Climate = Science + Action,” Joint Program‑affiliated speakers included Daniel Cziczo, Elfatih A. B. Eltahir, Kerry Emanuel, Valerie Karplus, John Marshall, Ronald Prinn and Noelle Selin. The symposium explored the science behind climate change, and how basic research can inform efforts to avert, mitigate and adapt to its impacts. In February, Valerie Karplus, Noelle Selin and John Sterman served as panelists at the MIT Center for International Studies Starr Forum, “Paris Climate Talks: Now What?” In June, Susan Solomon and John Marshall presented at an “Ozone and Climate” workshop. Joint Program‑affiliated researchers also presented their work at two “Lunch and Learn” events sponsored by MITEI. In February, Henry “Jake” Jacoby, Valerie Karplus and John Sterman discussed their COP21 experiences on a panel; in October, John Reilly and Adam Schlosser highlighted findings in the Joint Program’s 2016 Food, Water, Energy and Climate Outlook.

In 2016, Joint Program researchers also participated in several off‑campus events around the globe that focused on outreach and education. In June, John Reilly served as a keynote speaker at Mexico’s First National Forum on Air Quality, Adaptation and Mitigation, with his talk “An Outlook for Energy and Climate: The Need for Low Cost, Low Carbon Energy Technology.” Also in June, Da Zhang presented “Potential of wind integration in China” at the School of Management, Beihang University in Beijing, China. In September, Noelle Selin presented “Modeling and Evaluating the Impacts of Air Pollution and Climate Policies” at the Weston Roundtable Series, Nelson Institute Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment, University of Wisconsin. Throughout the year, Stephanie Dutkiewicz’s research on modeling photoplankton diversity has been on display at the San Francisco Exploratorium and Paris Planetarium. Examples of other public outreach and presentations are listed in Section 7.5.

Many MIT faculty associated with the Joint Program teach in addition to conducting and presenting research. Relevant global change courses taught (or co‑taught) in the 2016–2017 academic year by Joint Program‑affiliated faculty are listed on the following page.

MIT Professional Education Short Programs offered in 2016 and 2017 include Agriculture, Innovation and the Environment, which in 2016 featured Civil and Environmental Engineering Department Associate Professor Daniel Cziczo, who emphasized the important roles climate, weather and microbiology play in agricultural productivity; Climate Change: From Science to Solutions taught by Noelle Selin and Daniel Cziczo, and Sustainability: Principles and Practice taught by Noelle Selin.

http://mit2016.mit.edu/open-house/activity/paris-climate-talks-outcome-and-next-steps

http://climatecolab.org/conference2016

http://climatecolab.org/

http://news.mit.edu/2016/climate-colab-awards-innovative-climate-proposals-1004

http://news.mit.edu/2016/climate-colab-awards-innovative-climate-proposals-1004

http://news.mit.edu/2016/symposium-science-based-climate-change-action-0129


For the past seven years, the Joint Program has organized a workshop on the MIT Economic Projection and Policy Analysis (EPPA) model to introduce students in the Program to the model’s underlying theory, structure and practical operation. Joint Program sponsors are also invited to send representatives to attend the workshop. The 2016 EPPA workshop was held Sept 30 – Oct 1 in Maine. The Joint Program also held its first MIT Earth System Model (MESM) Retreat at the MIT Endicott House in Dedham, Massachusetts, on April 14–15, which served to introduce Program students and sponsors to the MESM and explore opportunities to improve the model.

7.5 Individual Professional and Policy ContributionsIndividual Joint Program faculty, staff and graduate students participate in many activities where they communicate research results and interpret the policy relevance of their work. These venues include workshops and seminars, corporate and public briefings, and media interviews. The following pages list many examples of professional and public lecturing activities that occurred during 2016. (Not listed here are a number of private presentations to executive groups within our sponsor organizations.)

Blanc, ÉlodieStatistical Emulators of Maize, Rice, Soybean and

Wheat Yields from Global Gridded Crop Models. Presentation (Oral), 60th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society. Canberra, Australia), Feb 2–5 2016

Statistical Emulators of Maize, Rice, Soybean and Wheat Yields from Global Gridded Crop Models. Presentation (Poster), European Geosciences Union General Assembly. Vienna, Austria), Apr 17–22 2016

Statistical Emulators of Maize, Rice, Soybean and Wheat Yields from Global Gridded Crop Models. Participant (Workshop), Meeting with Climate Corporation. Jul 2016

Participant (Workshop), MIT‑Conservation Int’l Research Workshop & Collaboration Discussion. MIT (Cambridge, MA), Jul 2016

Statistical Emulators of Maize, Rice, Soybean and Wheat Yields from Global Gridded Crop Models. Presentation (Poster), EcoSummit 2016, Ecological Sustainability: Engineering Change. (Montpellier, France), Aug 29–Sep 1 2016

Reviewer: Global Environmental Change; Environmental and Resource Economics; Journal of Global Economic Analysis

Examples of Media Coverage:“Assessing crop damage after extreme weather.” MIT News, Aug 2016

Selected Courses by Joint Program FacultyAerosol and Cloud Microphysics and Chemistry • Daniel Cziczo

Aerospace, Energy, and the Environment • Steven Barrett

Air Pollution • Colette Heald

Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry • Ronald Prinn

Climate Science • Kerry Emanuel et al.

Dynamics of the Atmosphere • Paul O’Gorman

Energy Economics and Policy • Christopher Knittel

Experimental Atmospheric Chemistry • Ronald Prinn et al.

Fluid Dynamics of the Atmosphere and Ocean • John Marshall

Global Environmental Negotiations • Noelle Selin

Introduction to Atmosphere, Ocean, and Climate Dynamics • Paul O’Gorman

Introduction to Hydrology and Water Resources • Dara Entekhabi

Introduction to Hydrology Modeling • Dara Entekhabi

Modeling and Assessment for Policy • Noelle Selin

Science, Politics and Environmental Policy • Susan Solomon • Janelle Knox‑Hayes

Weather and Climate Laboratory • John Marshall et al.

http://professional.mit.edu/

http://professional.mit.edu/programs/short-programs

http://professional.mit.edu/programs/short-programs/agriculture-innovation-environment

http://professional.mit.edu/programs/short-programs/agriculture-innovation-environment

http://professional.mit.edu/programs/short-programs/climate-change

http://professional.mit.edu/programs/short-programs/sustainability-principles-and-practice

https://globalchange.mit.edu/events/all/2016-eppa-workshop


Brown‑Steiner, BenjaminComparision of Chemical Mechanisms. Presentation

(with N. Selin, R. Prinn, E. Monier et al.), CESM Winter Working Group Meeting (Boulder, CO, USA), Feb 8–11 2016

Volunteer: Ask a Scientists at the Cambridge Science Festival (Cambridge, MA, USA), Feb 18–19 2016

Atmospheric Chemistry within the MESM Framework. Presentation, MESM Science Retreat (Boston, MA, USA), Apr 13–15 2016

Intro to the Science of Climate Change. Volunteer, MIT Open House (Boston, MA, USA), Apr 16 2016

Participant: Kauffman Teaching Certificate Program (Boston, MA, USA), May 22 2016

Volunteer: Courageous Sailing ‑ Visiting Scientist Talks (Charlestown, MA, USA), June (multiple)

Science Communication Fellow: Discovery Museum Meet the Scientists (Fellowship) (Acton, MA, USA), Jun 3 2016

Parametric and Structural Uncertainties Related to Air Pollution and Human Health: Influence of Reslution, Chemical Mechanism, Meteorology, and Model (CESM CAM‑Chem and GEOS‑Chem). Presentation (with N. Selin, R. Prinn, E. Monier, K. Mulvaney et al.), CESM Summer Working Group Meeting (Breckenridge, CO, USA), Jun 20–24 2016

Attendee: Science Advocacy Workshop (Boston, MA, USA), Sep 16–17 2016

Parametric and Structural Uncertainties Related to Air Pollution and Human Health. Presentation (Poster) with N. Selin, R. Prinn, E. Monier, K. Mulvaney et al., IGAC Conference (Breckenridge, CO, USA), Sep 26–30 2016

Volunteer: Lexplore Sustainability Fair: “Understanding Air” (Lexington, MA, USA), Oct 29 2016

The Square Root of Cat: Better Chemistry Through Simplicity? Presentation, AtmosChem Fall Seminar (Boston, MA, USA), Nov 9 2016

Reviewer for Journal: Environmental Pollution

Chen, HenryIntroduction to EPPA: The Structure of EPPA6.

Presentation, EPPA Workshop (Newry, ME), Sep 2016Introduction to CGE Modeling. Invited Presentation

(with S. Paltsev), INER Workshop (Taipei, Taiwan), Nov 2016

Examples of Media Coverage:“Food, water still at risk despite Paris Agreement — MIT.” ClimateWire, Oct 2016

Davidson, MichaelDecarbonizing China’s Power Grid. Invited

Presentation, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (Washington, DC), Mar 2016

Seminar on China’s Electricity Reforms. Organizer (with V. Karplus), MIT Sloan (Cambridge, MA), Jul 22 2016

A Multi‑Method Approach to Assess Institutional Design in Electricity Systems. Presentation, American Political Science Association Annual Meeting (Philadelphia, PA), Sep 2016

Comparative Perspectives on China’s Regulatory State. Invited Panelist, American Political Science Association Annual Meeting (Philadelphia, PA), Sep 2016

Examples of Media Coverage:“Food, water still at risk despite Paris Agreement — MIT.” ClimateWire, Oct 3 2016

“Putting the Brakes on Carbon: China After Paris [webcast].” WilsonCenter.org, Mar 18 2016

“How China Can Stop Wasting Wind Energy.” chinadialogue, Jul 22 2016

“Forging ahead on climate action.” MIT News, Nov 22 2016“Making China’s Economic Transition Work for Global Climate and the Local Environment.” ChinaFAQs, Aug 24 2016

“MIT: China Needs To Make Some Adjustments To Reach Its Wind Power Potential.” North American WindPower, Jun 20 2016

“Winds of change?” MIT News, Jun 20 2016“Wind at China’s Back to Amp Up Its Renewables.” Climate Central, Jun 23 2016

Dutkiewicz, StephanieOptical Signatures of Climate Change Impacts

on Phytoplankton (abstract ID: ME51A‑08). Presentation (with A. Hickman, O. Jahn, E. Monier), AGU/ASLO Ocean Sciences Meeting (New Orleans, LA), Feb 2016

Do Seasonal Nutrient Fluctuations Induce Blooms of Diatom‑Diazotroph Associations in the Oligotrophic Pacific Ocean? (abstract ID: ME44B‑0861). Presentation (with C. Follett, M. Follows), AGU/ASLO Ocean Sciences Meeting (New Orleans, LA), Feb 2016

What Drives Regional Variation in Global Ocean‑Atmosphere CO2 Fluxes? (abstract ID: PC44B‑2196). Presentation (with J. Lauderdale, R. Williams, M. Follows), AGU/ASLO Ocean Sciences Meeting (New Orleans, LA), Feb 2016


The annual cycle of the North Atlantic phytoplankton (abstract ID: OD21A‑05). Presentation (with A. Mignot et al.), AGU/ASLO Ocean Sciences Meeting (New Orleans, LA), Feb 2016

Resolving Microzooplankton Functional Groups In A Size‑Structured Planktonic Model (abstract ID: ME53B‑05). Presentation (with D. Taniguchi, M. Follows, O. Jahn, S. Mendan‑Deuer), AGU/ASLO Ocean Sciences Meeting (New Orleans, LA), Feb 2016

Phytoplankton functional diversity increases ecosystem productivity and stability (abstract ID: ME53B‑07). Presentation (with S. Vallina et al.), AGU/ASLO Ocean Sciences Meeting (New Orleans, LA), Feb 2016

Why (and why not) to include optical properties and radiative transfer in a numerical model. Presentation (Oral), IOCCG Working Group Meeting: Ocean Colour Applications for Biogeochemical, Ecosystem and Climate Models (New Orleans, LA), Feb 19–20 2016

Convener and Lead: IOCCG Working Group Meeting: Ocean Colour Applications for Biogeochemical, Ecosystem and Climate Models (New Orleans, LA), Feb 19–20 2016

Member: Science Committee, IOCCG Annual Committee Meeting. (Santa Monica, CA), Mar 2016

Update of working group on Ocean Colour Applications for Biogeochemical, Ecosystem and Climate Models. Presentation (Oral), IOCCG Annual Committee Meeting (Santa Monica, CA), Mar 2016

Tutorial: Global ecosystem modeling. WHOI/Bergen Ocean Outlook Meeting (Woods Hole, MA), Apr 2016

Multiple Stressors Impact Phytoplankton in a Changing Climate. WHOI/Bergen Ocean Outlook Meeting (Woods Hole, MA), Apr 2016; University of Delaware Marine Seminar Series (Lewes, DE), Apr 2016

Ocean Colour signature of Climate Change. European Space Agency Ocean Color Climate Change Initiative. (Reading, UK), Apr 2016; Poster, NASA Ocean Color Research Team Meeting. (Silver Spring, MD), May 2016

Modelling ocean colour. Speaker, MIT PAOC SACK seminar series (Cambridge, MA), May 2016

Modelling Diverse Phytoplankton Communities. Marine Microbes Gordon Research Conference (Girona, Spain), Jun 2016; Invited Speaker, Colour and Light in the Oceans from Earth Observations (CLEO) (Frascati, Italy), Sep 2016

Ocean Colour and Biogeochemical Models. Instructor, IOCCG Ocean Optics Summer School (VilleFranche‑sur‑mer), Jul 2016

Links between Biogeochemical/Ecological Models and Ocean Colour. Webinar, NOAA Ocean Colour Coordination Group (NOCCG) Meeting, Sep 2016

The ocean colour signal of climate change. Plenary Speaker, Ocean Optics Meeting (Victoria, BC, Canada), Oct 2016

Outreach: Phytoplankton diversity: collaboration with Exploratorium (1.4 million visitors/year) in San Francisco to develop a interactive display using model output to explore phytoplankton diversity.

Outreach: Oceans from space: collaboration with Planetarium in Paris for phytoplankton diversity movie to display on the dome as part of a documentary.

Outreach: Graphics (movies) from model results are frequently requested for outreach and education (http://darwinproject.mit.edu/media‑library)

Outreach: NOAA Science on the Sphere: http://sos.noaa.gov/Datasets/dataset.php?id=630

Outreach: NASA Hyperwall: https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/30669

Examples of Media Coverage:“Digital Ocean.” MIT Spectrum, Apr 2016“Computing the ocean’s true colors.” MIT News, Sep 2016MIT Team Develops Future‑Oriented Computer Models of Ocean’s Colors Based on Phytoplankton Population.” AZO CleanTech, Sep 16 2016

Eltahir, Elfatih

Examples of Media Coverage:“Climate Change (I): Will the Middle East Become ‘Uninhabitable’?” Inter Press Service, Apr 18 2016

“Middle East: Too Hot to Handle?” BBC World Service (Radio Clip), Aug 10 2016

Emanuel, Kerry

Examples of Media Coverage:“Why This Hurricane Season Is So Important to Scientists.” Bloomberg, Jun 3 2016

“It’s the first new U.S. nuclear reactor in decades. And climate change has made that a very big deal..” Washington Post, Jun 17 2016

“A Super Typhoon is About to Wreak Havoc.” National Geographic, Jul 7 2016

“How Conservatives Can Win The Global Warming Policy Debate.” Forbes, Aug 3 2016

“‘A changing climate is and will continue to put people out of their homes’.” Washington Post, Aug 18 2016


“Climate change makes hurricanes, and predicting them, more challenging, expert says.” Portland Press Herald, Aug 21 2016

“Hurricane Season Is Heating Up. So Is the Planet. Coincidence?” NY Times, Sep 2 2016

“Is climate change generating stronger, more frequent typhoons?” Christian Science Monitor, Sep 6 2016

“3Q: Kerry Emanuel on a “Parexit” and the serious risks of climate change.” MIT News, Sep 20 2016

“How climate change triggers earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes.” The Guardian, Oct 16 2016

Fant, Charles

Examples of Media Coverage:“Water problems in Asia’s future?” MIT News, Mar 30 2016“High Risk Of Severe Water Shortage In Parts Of Asia By 2050, New Study Predicts.” TechTimes, Apr 1 2016

Gao, XiangThe future water risks under global change in

Southern and Eastern Asia: implications of mitigation. Presentation (Oral), Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS) 13th Annual Meeting (Beijing, China), Jul 31–Aug 5 2016

21st century changes in precipitation extremes based on resolved atmospheric patterns. Presentation (Oral), Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS) 13th Annual Meeting (Beijing, China), Jul 31–Aug 5 2016

The Future of Heavy Precipitation Frequency Over the U.S: A Climate‑Analogue Perspective. Invited Seminar, State Key Laboratory of Severe Weather, Chinese Academy of Meteorological Sciences (Beijing, China), Aug 8 2016

Heavy precipitation in regional climate models: does it pay to play analogue? Presentation (Poster), AGU Fall Meeting (San Francisco, CA), Dec 11–16 2016

Gasore, Jimmy

Examples of Media Coverage:“Rwanda: From Killing Fields to Technopolis.” Nature.com, Aug 31 2016

Giang, AmandaDispatches from Paris: Reflecting on the Climate

Talks with COP21 Attendees. Moderator, MIT (Cambridge, USA), Jan 25 2016

Leveraging environmental monitoring networks for policy evaluation. Presentation, Technology Management Policy Graduate Consortium (Cambridge, UK), Jun 28 2016

Assessing the impacts of mercury policy under global environmental change. Invited Presentation/Seminar, Climate and Health Seminar, Columia University Mailman School of Public Health (New York, USA), Oct 20 2016

Impacts assessment to support policy‑making across scales: regional implciations of global mercury policy. Invited Presentation/Seminar, Southern Ontario Centre for Atmospheric Aerosol Research Seminar, University of Toronto (Toronto, Canada), Nov 2 2016

Implications of climate variability for monitoring the effectiveness of global mercury policy. Poster, American Geophysical Union (San Francisco, USA), Dec 12 2016

Local Organizing Committee Member: International Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant 2017 (Providence, USA)

Reviewer for Journals: Environmental Science & Technology; Environmental Pollution

Examples of Media Coverage:“Unfriendly skies: Piston engine aircraft pose a significant health threat.” MIT News, Aug 2016

“Using data to inform the connections between technology and policy.” MIT News, Jul 22 2016

Herzog, Howard

Examples of Media Coverage:“This Texas fight shows just how conflicted we still are about ‘clean coal’.” Washington Post, May 25 2016

“Storing Carbon Underground May Be Safer Than We Thought.” Washington Post, Jul 29 2016

“We’re Placing Far Too Much Hope in Pulling Carbon Dioxide Out of the Air, Scientists Warn.” Washington Post, Oct 13 2016

“Carbon Capture Is Technically Feasible, and It Can Be Financially Feasible.” NY Times (Opinion), Jul 7 2016

Jacoby, Henry D.Participant: U.S. Department of Energy Workshop

on Low Energy Futures of the U.S. Energy System (Washington DC), Jan 14 2016

National Ambition: INDCs and “Pledge and Review”. Presentation, IPIECA workshop on Low Emission Pathways (Houston, TX), Mar 15–16 2016

Participant: Conference on the Next 15 Years of Energy, Schlumberger‑Doll Research (Cambridge, MA)

http://darwinproject.mit.edu/media-library

http://sos.noaa.gov/Datasets/dataset.php?id=630

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/30669


What Will “Transparency” Mean and Who Will Contribute to It? Presentation, EPRG & CEEPR European Energy Policy Conference (Paris, France), Jul 7–8 2016

Session Moderator: Low Emission Roadmap Stakeholder Roundtable Event, Oil and Gas Climate Institute (New York City, NY), Sep 23 2016

Presenter and Participant: Meeting of the Working Group on Climate Change, SSRC Anxieties of Democracy Program, Princeton University (Princeton, NJ), Nov 11–12 2016

Member: U.S. National Research Council Committee to Provide Guidance to the U.S. Global Change Research Program

Member: National Research Council Committee on Assessing Approaches to Updating the Social Cost of Carbon

Member: Editorial Board, Journal of Economics of Energy and Environmental Policy

Examples of Media Coverage:“The Paris climate deal won’t even dent global warming.” NY Post, Feb 22 2016

“CARBON MARKETS: What will it take to build a global emissions trading system?” Greenwire, May 18 2016

Valerie Karplus

Examples of Media Coverage:“Symposium calls for science‑based climate action.” MIT News, Jan 29 2016

“Study: China’s new policies will lower CO2 emissions faster, without preventing economic growth.” MIT News, Feb 9 2016

“2016 Best 40 Under 40 Professors: Valerie Karplus, Sloan School of Management.” Poets & Quants, Apr 13 2016

“Carbon pricing under binding political constraints.” MIT News, May 23 2016

“Why a Price on Carbon Alone Isn’t the Golden Ticket.” Wall Street Journal, Sep 13 2016

“China’s Thirteenth Five‑Year Plan Paves the Way for a CO2 Emissions Peak.” ChinaFAQs, Mar 22 2016

“Has China’s coal use peaked? Here’s how to read the tea leaves.” The Conversation, Apr 12 2016

“Target coal or carbon?” MIT News, May 24 2016“Making China’s Economic Transition Work for Global Climate and the Local Environment.” ChinaFAQs, Aug 24 2016

“MIT: China Needs To Make Some Adjustments To Reach Its Wind Power Potential.” North American WindPower, Jun 20 2016

“Winds of change?” MIT News, Jun 20 2016

“Wind at China’s Back to Amp Up Its Renewables.” Climate Central, Jun 23 2016

Kicklighter, DavidQuantifying the role of land‑use and land‑cover

changes in Northern Eurasia in global greenhouse gas emissions and biomass supply during the 21st century using an earth system modeling approach. Presentation, AGU Fall Meeting (San Francisco, CA), Dec 12–16 2016

Modeling global change impacts on Northern Eurasia. Presentation (Oral), AGU Fall Meeting (San Francisco, CA), Dec 12–16 2016

Reviewer for Journals: Nature Climate Change; Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A.; Environmental Research Letters; New Phytologist; Acta Oecologica; Forests

Knittel, Christopher

Examples of Media Coverage:“Has the U.S. Really Reached an Epic Turning Point in Energy?” National Geographic, Feb 4 2016

“Turns out Wind and Solar have a Secret Friend: Natural Gas.” Washington Post, Aug 11 2016

Melillo, Jerry

Examples of Media Coverage:“Assessing nature’s carbon sinks.” MIT News, Jan 5 2016

Monier, Erwan

Examples of Media Coverage:“Gauging the impact of climate change on U.S. agriculture.” MIT News, Jul 7 2016

“How much of a difference will the Paris Agreement make?” MIT News, Apr 22 2016

O’Gorman, Paul

Examples of Media Coverage:“The Future of Epic Blizzards in a Warming World.” Scientific American, Jan 22 2016

Paltsev, SergeyEnergy Scenarios: The Value and Limits of Scenario

Analysis. Presentation, Bocconi University (Milan, Italy), Mar 2016


Projecting Energy and Climate for the 21st Century: Energy Scenarios, Energy Geopolitics, and Impacts of the Paris Agreement (COP‑21). Presentation, Eni (Milan, Italy), Mar 2016

University‑Industry Interactions: MIT Experience. Presentation, Belarusian State University (Minsk, Belarus), Apr 2016

CGE Modeling for Energy and Economic Analysis. Presentation, Institute of Economics of Academy of Sciences of Belarus (Minsk, Belarus), Apr 2016

Prospects for Advanced Energy Technologies. Presentation, Statoil (Oslo, Norway), May 2016

China Energy and Economic Directions. Presentation, MIT Joint Program Sponsors Meeting (Cambridge, MA), Jun 2016

Future Directions in Energy. Presentation, MIT Joint Program Forum (Cambridge, MA), Jun 2016

Energy Scenarios: The Value and Limits of Scenario Analysis. Presentation, EcoMod Conference (Lisbon, Portugal), Jul 2016

Climate Mitigation Policies. Presentation, ConocoPhillips (Houston, TX), Jul 2016

Addressing Uncertainty in Integrated Assessment Modeling. Presentation, EnBW AG and European School of Management and Technology (Berlin, Germany), Sep 2016

Natural Gas: Energy Transition and Energy Geopolitics. Presentation, NTNU Energy Transiton Strategy Workshop (Trondheim, Norway), Oct 2016

MIT Outlook for the 21st Century: Emphasis on Energy & Climate. Presentation, Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum and Energy (Oslo, Norway), Oct 2016

Reducing CO2 from private transportation in the EU and the macroeconomic feedback. Presentation, International Transport Energy Modeling Workshop (Goteborg, Sweden), Oct 2016

Oil & Gas Markets: The Changed Context. Presentation, MIT CEEPR Workshop (Cambridge, MA), Nov 2016

Introduction to Computable General Equilibrium. Presentation, Institute for Nuclear Energy Research (Taipei, Taiwan), Nov 2016

Science Advisory Panel on Economy‑Wide Modeling. Member, U.S. EPA (Washington DC)

Reviewer for Journals: Energy Policy; Energy Journal; Energy Economics; Climate Policy; Climatic Change; Journal of Environmental Economics & Management

Examples of Media Coverage:“The Complicated Geopolitics of Renewable Energy.” Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Nov 1 2016

“What’s the best way for Europe to curb greenhouse emissions from cars?” MIT News, Nov 8 2016

“Even if the Paris Agreement is implemented, food and water supplies remain at risk.” MIT News, Oct 4 2016

“Meeting climate goals through international carbon markets.” MIT News, Jul 29 2016

Prinn, RonaldClimate Change: the Greenhouse Gamble and the

Challenge of 2°C. Invited Talk, MIT on CLIMATE Science + Action Symposium (Cambridge, MA), Jan 2016

Meeting the Climate Challenge of 2°C: A Study using an Integrated Economics & Earth System Model. Invited Keynote Lecture, Mario Molina Symposium, American Meteorological Society (New Orleans, LA), Jan 2016

Climate Change: Science, Impacts, Solutions and Adaptation with an African Focus. Invited Lecture, Carnegie Mellon University (Kigali campus, Rwanda), Apr 21, 2016

Lowering Risks of Climate Change: the Greenhouse Gamble and the Challenge of 2°C. Invited Panelist, MIT Sustainability Connect 2016 (Cambridge, MA), May 9, 2016

Benefits of a World‑class Climate and Greenhouse Gas Observatory in the Azores. Invited Presentation, Atlantic Interactions: Knowledge, Climate Change, Space and Oceans, 2nd Workshop, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, University of the Azores (Ponta Delgada, Portugal), Jun 2016; Invited Presentation, Azores International Research Center Meeting (Brussels, Belgium), Sep 2016

Theme Group for Combining Trace Gas Data from NDACC and Cooperating Networks. Invited Presentation, Network for Detection of Atmospheric Composition Change (NDACC), International Steering Committee Annual Meeting (Bremen, Germany), Oct 19, 2016

Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE): An Overview. Invited Presentation, NDACC, International Steering Committee Annual Meeting (Bremen, Germany), Oct 18, 2016; Invited Presentation, Joint Meeting of WMO‑GAW Reactive Gases Advisory Group and AGAGE Scientists (Stanley, Tasmania), Nov 12, 2016

Climate Change: Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Economics, Technology & Policy. Invited Presentation, American Chemical Society Northeastern University Student Chapter (Boston, MA), Nov 17, 2016


Examples of Media Coverage:“Scientists Protest Cuts and Commercialization at Australian Climate Center.” NY Times, Feb 27 2016

“SustainabilityConnect 2016 brings MIT together around big ideas for campus and the globe.” MIT News, May 16 2016

“Symposium calls for science‑based climate action.” MIT News, Jan 29 2016

Reilly, JohnThe Challenge Facing Energy Companies. Interview,

NPR for Public Radio International (Brighton, MA), Jan 19 2016

Participant: Emissions Trading in North America and Beyond (Cambridge, MA), Apr 11 2016

Participant: MIT Earth System Model Retreat (Dedham, MA), Apr 14–15 2016

An Outlook for Energy and Climate: Challenges and Opportunities for the Power Sector. Invited Keynote Speaker, International Utility Working Group (IUWG) Conference (Hong Kong), Apr 19 2016

Participant: China Energy and Climate Project Fifth Annual Meeting, Apr 25 2016

Costs of Climate Mitigation Policies. Webinar (MIT Sponsors), May 5 2016

After the Paris Climate Summit: Achieving National Contributions. Invited Speaker, MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research (CEEPR) Workshop (Cambridge, MA), May 12–13 2016

Member: MIT Climate Action Advisory CommitteeAgricultural Challenges for the Coming Decades.

Invited Speaker, MIT Global Change Forum (Cambridge, MA), Jun 15–17 2016

An Outlook for Energy and Climate: The Need for Low Cost, Low Carbon Energy Technology. Invited Keynote Speaker, Mexico’s First National Forum on Air Quality, Adaptation and Mitigation [organized by National Institute of Ecology and Climate Change (INECC)] (Mexico City, Mexico), Jun 27–29 2016

Uncertainty in Climate & Crop Yields. Invited Speaker, Agricultural & Applied Economics Association (AAEA) Annual Meeting (Boston, MA), Aug 2016

The OGCI Low Emission Roadmap Stakeholder Roundtable Event, Getting from Paris to 2°C. Invited Speaker, World Economic Forum (New York, NY), Sep 23 2016

Participant: SOLVE Retreat, MIT Samburg Center (Cambridge, MA), Sep 27–28 2016

Introduction to the MIT IGSM and EPPA: How to think like an economist. Presentation, EPPA Workshop (Newry, ME), Sep 29–Oct 2 2016

Committee Member: US EPA Science Advisory Board, Subcommittee on Biogenic Carbon (Teleconference), Oct 12 2016

Food, Energy, Water & Climate Outlook. Presentation, US EPA Headquarters (Washington DC), Oct 2016

The Costs of Climate Mitigation. Presentation, US EPA Headquarters (Washington DC), Oct 13 2016

Mitigation and Adaptation to Climate Change in Taiwan and Asia. Lecture, Taiwan Sloan Group, MIT Sloan School of Management (Cambridge, MA), Oct 17 2016

Invited Participant: Building Global Energy Interconnection and Achieving a Sustainable World, UN Department of Economics and Social Affairs/GEIDCO (New York, NY), Oct 26 2016

The Challenges of Integrating Intermittent Renewable Electricity. Invited Speaker, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ 2016 Clock Symposium (Chicago, IL), Nov 14 2016

A Food, Energy, Water & Climate Outlook. Webinar (MIT Sponsors), Dec 15 2016

Examples of Media Coverage:“Assessing nature’s carbon sinks.” MIT News, Jan 5 2016“Food, water still at risk despite Paris Agreement — MIT.” ClimateWire, Oct 2016

“Can a Norwegian company with ‘oil’ in its name transform into a wind company?” PRI, Jan 22 2016

“Rubio says he has ‘never supported cap and trade,’ despite energy deal as Florida speaker.” Politifact, Jan 29 2016

“Uncertainty Can’t Be an Excuse for Climate Inaction, Researchers Argue.” Inside Climate News, Aug 11 2016

“Building a more sustainable future in a world where energy production, water resources, land use and environmental concerns intersect.” CLP Group blog, Feb 19 2016

“Opinion: The oil industry’s troubles aren’t bad enough to trigger another global crisis.” MarketWatch, Apr 14 2016

“The geography of carbon pricing.” MIT News, May 18 2016“Engaging industry in addressing climate change.” MIT News, Sep 29 2016

Schlosser, Adam

Examples of Media Coverage:“Food, water still at risk despite Paris Agreement — MIT.” ClimateWire, Oct 2016


“Melting Permafrost in the Arctic: A Tale of Two Feedbacks.” DecodedScience.org, Mar 11 2016

“Asian Countries Could Experience Widespread Water Shortages by 2050.” TIME, Mar 31 2016

“India and China will suffer severe water stress by 2050, says study.” Christian Science Monitor, Apr 1 2016

“By 2050 Asia at high risk of severe water shortages: MIT study.” Reuters, Apr 14 2016

“Water problems in Asia’s future?” MIT News, Mar 30 2016

“High Risk Of Severe Water Shortage In Parts Of Asia By 2050, New Study Predicts.” TechTimes, Apr 1 2016

Schmalensee, Richard

Examples of Media Coverage:“Pricing solar so it doesn’t raise everyone’s energy rates.” Boston Globe (Opinion), Mar 23 2016

Scott, JefferyThe response of the ocean to short‑term

(volcano‑like) cooling. AGU Ocean Sciences Meeting (New Orleans, LA), Feb 25 2016

Participant: FAMOS Meeting and Workshop (Woods Hole, MA), Nov 2–4 2016

Climate response functions for the Arctic Ocean. Presentation (Oral), AGU Fall Meeting (San Francisco, CA), Dec 11–16 2016

Extreme Weather and Climate: Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences pre‑orientation program. Co‑Coordinator and Presenter, MIT (Cambridge, MA)

Wxchallenge: collegiate weather forecasting competition. MIT forecasting team manager, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences

Reviewer for Journals: Journal of Climate, Tellus

Examples of Media Coverage:“Solving the mystery of the Antarctic’s missing heat.” MIT News, Jun 17 2016

“Oceans delay warming of Antarctic waters: study.” Yahoo! News, May 30 2016

“The Antarctic Peninsula is cooling – but climate skeptics shouldn’t get too excited .” Washington Post, Jul 20 2016

Selin, NoelleLinking Science with Climate Policy &

Decision‑Making. Invited Presentation (Oral), MIT on Climate (Cambridge, MA), Jan 2016

Climate/Air Quality/Health Co‑Benefits Analysis. oral presentation via web. Invited Webinar, Workshop: Assessing the Impacts of Future Global Air Pollution Scenarios: Implications for HTAP2, AMAP, and Global IAMs. Task force on Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution, Convention on Long‑Range Transboundary Air Pollution, Feb 2016

Modeling Mercury in the Atmosphere: Challenges, Uncertainties, and Opportunities. Invited Presentation (Oral), Workshop on Mercury in Remote Environments, Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Geophysique de l’Environement (LGGE) (Grenoble, France), Mar 2016

Tracing Toxic Air Pollutants from Emissions to Impacts: Informing Policy. Invited Presentation (Oral), GTL Symposium, Multidisciplinary Education for Research Universities, University of Tokyo (Kashiwa, Japan), Mar 2016

Climate Change: From Science to Solutions. D. Cziczo, Instructor, MIT Professional Education Short Program (Cambridge, MA), Jul 2016

Modeling and Evaluating the Impacts of Air Pollution and Climate Policies. Invited Presentation (Oral), Weston Roundtable Series, Nelson Institute Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment, University of Wisconsin (Madison, WI), Sep 2016

Evaluating the Atmospheric Chemistry Implications of Climate Policies for Human Health in the U.S. and China. Presentation (Oral), International Global Atmospheric Chemistry (IGAC) Project (Breckenridge, CO), Sep 2016

Modeling and Evaluating the Impacts of Air Pollution and Climate Policies. Invited Seminar (Series), Harvard University Atmospheric and Environmental Chemistry Seminar (Cambridge, MA), Oct 2016

Modeling and Evaluating the Impacts of Air Pollution and Climate Policies. Invited Presentation (Oral), Lamont‑Doherty Earth Observatory Ocean and Climate Physics seminar (New York, NY), Oct 2016

Leshner Leadership Institute Fellow. Participant, American Association for the Advancement of Science (2016–2017)

Executive Committee: Organizer: 2017 International Conference on Mercury as a Global Pollutant (Providence, RI)


Reviewer for Journals: Environmental Science and Technology, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Chemosphere, Environmental Science Processes and Impacts, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Earth’s Future, Environmental Science and Policy

Examples of Media Coverage:“Impacts of the Minamata Convention on Mercury Emissions and Global Deposition from Coal‑Fired Power Generation in Asia.” Best Environmental Policy Paper of 2015 ‑ ES&T., Apr 2016

“Why coal‑dependent Poland signed the Paris climate agreement.” Christian Science Monitor, Oct 6 2016

“Regulating particulate pollution: Novel analysis yields new insights.” MIT News, Jul 11 2016

“Technology and Policy Program celebrates 40 years.” MIT News, Jun 9 2016

“Where the parties stand on environmental regulation: Six essential reads.” SF Gate, Oct 12 2016

“Unfriendly skies: Piston engine aircraft pose a significant health threat.” MIT News, Aug 26 2016

“Using data to inform the connections between technology and policy.” MIT News, Jul 22 2016

“Addressing energy technologies and policies that shape future sustainability.” MIT News, May 27 2016

“Symposium calls for science‑based climate action.” MIT News, Jan 29 2016

“World leaders poised to seal landmark emissions deal in Vienna.” Christian Science Monitor, Jul 21 2016

“Global mercury regulations to have major economic benefits for US.” Science Daily, Jan 5 2016

“Are tighter EPA controls on mercury pollution worth it?” The Conversation, Feb 9 2016

Singh, Arun

Examples of Media Coverage:“Forging ahead on climate action.” MIT News, Nov 22 2016“Seeking to inform India’s climate policy choices.” MIT News, Nov 16 2016

Sokolov, AndreiImpact of Paris agreement on climate change in

Northern Eurasia. Presentation (with S. Paltsev, H. Chen, E. Monier, C. Forest, A. Libardoni), Voeikov Main Geophysical Observatory (St. Petersburg, Russia), Apr 2016

Climate Impacts of the Paris Agreement. S. Paltsev, H. Chen, and E. Monier. Presentation, European Geosciences Union General Assembly (Geophysical Research Abstracts Vol. 18, EGU2016–8016) (Vienna, Austria), Apr 17–22 2016

Probabilistic Estimates of Climate Impacts of the Paris Agreement. S. Paltsev, H. Chen, A. Libardoni, C. Forest, E. Monier, X. Gao. Presentation, AGU Fall Meeting (San Francisco, CA), Dec 12–16 2016

Examples of Media Coverage:“How much of a difference will the Paris Agreement make?” MIT News, Apr 22 2016

Solomon, Susan

Examples of Media Coverage:“What the Earth will be like in 10,000 years, according to scientists.” Washington Post, Feb 8 2016

“Global warming ‘hiatus’ debate flares up again.” Nature.com, Feb 24 2016

“Scientists observe first signs of healing in the Antarctic ozone layer.” MIT News, Jun 30 2016

“Ozone layer on the mend, thanks to chemical ban.” Science Mag, Jun 30 2016

“Remember the Ozone Hole? Now There’s Proof It’s Healing.” National Geographic, Jun 30 2016

“Decades after the Montreal Protocol, there are signs the hole in the ozone layer has begun to heal.” LA Times, Jun 30 2016

“Ozone Hole Shows Signs of Shrinking, Scientists Say.” NY Times, Jun 30 2016

“The Antarctic ozone hole has finally started to ‘heal,’ scientists report.” Washington Post, Jun 30 2016

“An Environmental Victory (and Cautionary Tale).” Bloomberg, Jul 1 2016

“Antarctic ozone hole is shrinking, scientists say.” Boston Globe, Jul 1 2016

“Is the Hole in Ozone Layer Closing? First Signs of Healing.” Nature World News, Jul 4 2016

“Editorial: The ozone hole is finally on the mend.” Chicago Tribune, Jul 22 2016

“World Leaders Try to Ban Another Greenhouse Gas.” Scientific American, Oct 10 2016

Sterman, John

Examples of Media Coverage:“California’s Emissions Goal Is a ‘Milestone’ on Climate Efforts.” NY Times, Aug 25 2016

Strzepek, Kenneth

Examples of Media Coverage:“Sharing the Nile.” The Economist, Jan 16 2016

56 Administration MIT JOINT PROGRAM • 2016 ANNUAL REPORT

Tian, Hanqin

Examples of Media Coverage:“Greenhouse gas ‘bookkeeping’ turned on its head.” Carnegie Science, Mar 9 2016

Wang, Chien

Examples of Media Coverage:“Higher coal use in Asia could increase water stress.” MIT News, Apr 28 2016

Winchester, Niven

Examples of Media Coverage:“India Backs Enactment of Paris Climate Deal This Year.” Voice of America, Jun 7 2016

“Will Indian Prime Minister Modi Seal Paris Climate Deal?” Voice of America, Jun 8 2016

“Meeting climate goals through international carbon markets.” MIT News, Jul 29 2016

Wunsch, Carl

Examples of Media Coverage:“Questions and answers with Carl Wunsch.” Physics Today, Jan 14 2016

Zhang, DaPotential of wind integration in China. Invited

Presentation, School of Management, Beihang University (Beijing, China), Jun 2016

Management and Productivity in Chinese Firms. CoPresenter. Presentation, Organizational economics lunch (Cambridge, US), Nov 2016

Reviewer for Journals: Nature Energy, The Energy Journal, Energy Economics, Ecological Economics, Climate Policy, Energy, Energy Policy, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Applied Energy, Journal of Cleaner Production, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Sustainability

Examples of Media Coverage:“Winds of change?” MIT News, Jun 20 2016

“Wind at China’s Back to Amp Up Its Renewables.” Climate Central, Jun 23 2016

“This is how China can live up to its huge wind energy potential.” The Washington Post, Jun 20 2016

“Wind Could Provide 26% of China’s Electricity by 2030.” IEEE Spectrum, Jun 20 2016

“Study: China could go big on wind power—if it adjusts its grid operations.” Physics.org, Jun 20 2016

“China to generate a quarter of electricity from wind power by 2030.” The Guardian, Jun 20 2016

“Tornado of potential for wind energy in China.” Nature Asia, Jun 21 2016

8. ADMINISTRATION8.1 Membership and FinancesThe Joint Program is supported by an international consortium of government, industry and foundation sponsors. A variety of agencies of the U.S. federal government support the Joint Program through competitive research grants awarded to peer‑reviewed proposals, as well as efforts funded under cooperative agreements, and individual contracts for specific projects. A few components of our work receive targeted support from particular industry groups or corporations. Most industry support provides funding for the Joint Program in general, without delineating specific work tasks. During 2016, the Joint Program was supported by the 41 members listed on page 57.

The Joint Program’s revenue in MIT Fiscal Year 2016 was approximately $7.3 million, of which 57% originated from industrial corporations, institutes and foundations. The remaining 43% came from U.S. federal agencies. The breakdown of revenue is shown in Figure 6. The revenue projection for FY2017 is approximately $6.8 million, with about 52% from industry and foundation sources. Several proposals to U.S. federal agencies are under review with notification pending. The Joint Program’s expenditure by category is also depicted in Figure 6. The distribution has remained nearly unchanged in the past five years.


Revenue History and Projections (thousand US$)

Source of Support 2014† 2015 2016 2017* † MIT’s FY runs July–June.

Corporate, Foundation, Institutes 4,243 3,643 4,212 3,572 * Projected: Only firmly committed 2017 resources are included.U.S. Federal Government 3,496 3,395 3,125 3,227

TOTAL 7,739 7,038 7,337 6,849

Industrial, Foundation, Foreign Government Ministries, Institute, NGO, and Other Support

U.S. Federal Government Research Grants and Cooperative Agreements

Revenue

$ (m

illio

n)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

FY12 13 14 15 16

Source of Funds

Computing & Operating Costs

Communications (Forums, Reports)

Administration

Research and Analysis

8%8%

8%

76%

Allocation of Funds

Corporate Sponsors & Foundations

BP

Cargill

Centro Mario Molina

Chevron

ClearPath Foundation

ClimateWorks Foundation

CLP Holdings

ConocoPhillips

Dow Chemical

Duke Energy

Electric Power Research Institute

Electricité de France

Eni

Exelon

ExxonMobil

General Motors

Hancock Natural Resource Group

Institute for Nuclear Energy Research

J‑Power

Lockheed Martin

Murphy Oil

Nike

Norwegian Ministry of Petroleum & Energy

Oglethorpe Power Corporation

Shell International Petroleum

Statoil

Tokyo Electric Power Company

Total

Toyota Motor North America

Vetlesen Foundation

Weyerhauser Company

U.S. Government Funding

Department of Agriculture [USDA]

Department of Defense [DOD]

Department of Energy [DOE]

Department of Transportation [DOT]

Energy Information Agency [EIA]

Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]

Federal Aviation Administration [FAA]

National Aeronautics & Space Administration [NASA]

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]

National Science Foundation [NSF]

Figure 6. Graphs of financial information for the Joint Program in 2016.


U.S. government support has included several awards for specific tasks, as well as general support of MIT Joint Program development. During 2016 these awards/tasks included the following:

DOD ‑ Air Force

Climate change research organized by the MIT Lincoln Laboratory. Assessment of the reliability of projections for power‑grid resiliency under climate change (a joint effort led by the MIT Lincoln Laboratory).

DOEIntegrated Assessment of Global Climate Change program. Support of the development and application of the MIT Integrated Global System Model.

Energy Information Agency. Analysis of the dynamics of energy demand in China, and investigation of micro‑level phenomena and trends in China’s energy and economic system.

EPAOffice of Air and Radiation. Integrated assessment of multiple greenhouse gases, climate impacts and pollution.

Office of Transportation and Air Quality’s Transportation & Climate Division. Integrated assessment of transportation‑related policies on greenhouse gases, land‑use change and other economy‑wide impacts.

Air, Climate and Energy (ACE) Center program. Projecting and quantifying future changes in socioeconomic drivers of air pollution and its health‑related impacts (a joint effort led by the Harvard School of Public Health).

FAAPartnership for Air Transportation Noise & Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) program. Alternative jet fuel supply chain analysis.

NASALand‑Cover and Land‑Use Change (LCLUC) program. Modeling land use–ecosystem–climate interactions in Northern Eurasia (a joint effort led by Purdue University, involving the MIT Joint Program and MBL).

Science Utilization of the Soil Moisture Active‑Passive Mission program. Use of satellite measurements of soil‑moisture to refine global land trace gas emissions and their climate feedbacks (a collaborative effort led by the MIT Joint Program involving Emory University).

Ocean Biology and Biogeochemistry program. Assessing ecosystem vulnerability to climate change through optics, imagery and models (a collaborative effort led by MIT involving the Joint Program and Michigan Technology University).


Cooperative effort with the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Research on the natural variability of climate and the impact on anthropogenic forcing on climate.

NSF

Climate and Large Scale Dynamics program. Quantifying the climatic responses and feedbacks to tropospheric anthropogenic aerosols and natural aerosols converted by anthropogenic pollutants.

MacroSystems Biology program. Study of the future of ecosystems and extremes using diverse environmental data sets in support of regional to global Earth system models and predictions (collaborative effort led by the Joint Program involving MBL; the University of California, Davis; and Lehigh University).

Polar program. Evaluating the competing impacts of global emissions reductions and climate change on the distribution and retention of selected persistent organic pollutants in the Arctic Ocean (a collaborative effort led by the University of Rhode Island involving the MIT Joint Program and the Harvard School of Public Health).

Atmospheric Chemistry program. Quantifying the distribution and chemical transformations of mercury in the atmosphere over the eastern United States (a joint effort led by the University of Washington involving the MIT Joint Program and University of Colorado, Boulder).

Coupled Natural and Human Systems. Analysis of the environmental cycling, global transport and management of atmosphere–surface exchangeable pollutants in the context of global change (a collaborative effort led by Michigan Technological University involving the MIT Joint Program).

Biological Oceanography program. An investigation of the size structure and function of phytoplankton communities in a changing ocean (a joint effort involving the University of Rhode Island).

NOAAAtmospheric Composition and Climate program. Assessing the terrestrial and atmospheric nitrogen cycle (a collaborative effort led by Emory University involving the MIT Joint Program).

8.2 PersonnelA distinguishing characteristic of the MIT Joint Program is its team of specialists from different disciplines who work closely together in carrying out the integration of science and policy. The group includes faculty, staff and students, supplemented by affiliated researchers from outside MIT. The total number of MIT personnel participating in the Joint Program during 2016 is similar to that of prior years.

Approximately 25 faculty and senior researchers participated in the Joint Program during 2016, along with 15 graduate students and six undergraduate students who contributed to the research effort. Nearly 20 professional research staff members and 12 postdoctoral associates were engaged in the day‑to‑day work of model construction, maintenance and documentation, and application to global change issues. An additional 10 affiliated researchers were involved through cooperative agreements, and seven visiting scholars were resident for some portion of the year. The administrative


staff devoted to publication, communication and administrative support includes the equivalent of about six full‑time personnel. The Joint Program’s parent organizations—the Center for Global Change Science (CGCS) and the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research (CEEPR)—provide substantial administrative support through part‑time commitments of several staff members. Program personnel and affiliates are listed on our website.10

8.3 StudentsThe Joint Program supports student research that contributes to the core research focus areas and tools described in Section 2, as well as to fill gaps in the available disciplines and assist in the preparation of policy assessments. Following is a list of student research supported by or contributing to Joint Program efforts.11

10 https://globalchange.mit.edu/about‑us/personnel

11 For a complete list of students who participated in our research during the year, see globalchange.mit.edu/about‑us/personnel.

Several personnel changes occurred during 2016:Erwan Monier and Niven Winchester were promoted to Principal Research Scientist, earning the privilege to serve as principal investigator.

Mei Yuan was appointed as a research scientist to advance the development of the USREP model.

Joshua Hodge became the Executive Director of CEEPR, although will continue part‑time with the Joint Program for the next several months.

Horacio Caperan was appointed as Program Officer to take over the development responsibilities previously held by Joshua Hodge.

Melissa Fox, administrative assistant to Joint Program Co‑Director Ronald Prinn, retired after more than 10 years of service.

Ruth Mattson was hired as Melissa Fox’s replacement.

Amy Dale arrived as a postdoctoral associate to study water and food sustainability as related to uncertainties in climate change and climate variability.

Daniel Rothenberg began as a postdoctoral associate to focus on air quality issues.

Chiao‑Ting Li completed a postdoctoral term and left to join the HIWIN Corporation in Taiwan as a R&D engineer.

David Ramberg completed a postdoctoral stay and left to join Amazon as a data engineer and senior demand planner.

https://globalchange.mit.edu/about-us/personnel

https://globalchange.mit.edu/about-us/personnel


Completed Student WorkImpact of technology improvement on crude oil reserve

volumes and costs of extraction and production. Master’s research, Tochukwu Akobi (supervisor: Dr. Paltsev). Akobi (2016).

Modeling non‑linearities in aerosol formation over the US and the influence of emissions changes. Doctoral research, Jareth Holt (supervisor: Prof. Selin). Holt (2016).

Investigation of aerosol‑cloud interactions using a combination of global models, idealized simple models, and satellite observations. Doctoral research, Daniel Rothenberg (supervisor: Dr. Wang & Prof. Prinn). Rothenberg (2016); Rothenberg & Wang (2016).

Inverse modeling of atmospheric mercury emissions using a global chemical transport model and surface observations. Doctoral research, Shaojie Song (supervisor: Prof. Selin). Song (2016); Song et al. (2016).

Modeling persistent organic pollutants focusing on the transport to the Arctic. Doctoral research, Colin Pike‑Thackray (supervisor: Prof. Selin). Thackray et al. (2016).

Future of natural gas in China: effects of pricing reform and climate policy. Master’s research by Danwei Zhang (supervisor: Dr. Paltsev). Zhang (2016); Zhang & Paltsev (2016).

Continuing Student WorkDeveloping a modeling framework to assess large‑scale

penetration of low‑carbon electricity sources and Chinese energy policy. Doctoral research, Michael Davidson (supervisors: Prof. Karplus & Prof. Peréz‑Arriaga). Davidson et al. (2016).

Quantifying air quality co‑benefits of climate and energy policies. Master’s research, Emil Dimantchev (supervisors: Prof. Selin & Dr. Paltsev).

Modelling and cost assessment of carbon capture and storage technologies, including industrial CCS and geological storage capacity. Master’s research, Jessica Farrell (supervisor: Dr. Paltsev & Dr. Herzog).

Air quality impacts of U.S. carbon and emissions regulations. Doctoral research, Tao Feng (supervisor: Prof. Selin).

Quantifying emissions of CO2 and CH4 in the Greater Horn of Africa through high frequency measurements at the Rwanda Climate Observatory. Doctoral research, Jimmy Gasore (supervisor: Prof. Prinn).

Data assimilation for paleoclimate: climate and paleoclimate studies using models and proxy data. Doctoral research, Charles Gertler (supervisor: Prof. Prinn).

Modeling mercury pollution and policy with integrated assessment. Doctoral research, Amanda Giang (supervisor: Prof. Selin).

Assessing the geological storage capacity for CO2 from carbon capture and storage. Master’s research, Jordan Kearns (supervisors: Dr. Herzog and Dr. Paltsev).

Transportation sector policies to address climate change, focusing on China. Doctoral research, Paul Kishimoto (supervisor: Prof. Karplus). Kishimoto et al. (2016).

Assessment of bioenergy pathways under a global climate policy, including impacts on water, land‑use change and emissions. Undergraduate research, Kirby Ledvina (supervisor: Dr. Winchester).

Modeling the effects of energy policy on air pollution in China and trans‑Pacific transport. Doctoral research, Mingwei Li (supervisor: Prof. Selin).

Global source and sink estimates for N2O using isotopic measurements at the AGAGE Ireland Observatory. Doctoral research, Michael McClellan (supervisor: Prof. Prinn).

Mercury and integrated assessment, responses of pollution to policy in China. Master’s research, Kathleen Mulvaney (supervisor: Prof. Selin).

Air quality and economic activity in China. Master’s research, Minghao Qiu (supervisors: Prof. Selin & Prof. Karplus).

Assessing the role of industry‑government linkages in city‑level air quality in China. Master’s research, Xingyao Shen (supervisor: Prof. Karplus).

Modeling Clean Development Pathways for India. Master’s research, Arun Singh (supervisor: Prof. Karplus).

Applications of decision‑making under uncertainty methods to infrastructure projects in Africa. Master’s research, Christoph Tries (supervisors: Dr. Morris & Dr. Paltsev).

Environmental Policy and the Development of the Iron and Steel Industry in China’s Beijing‑Tianjin‑Hebei Region. Master’s research, Danielle Wilson (supervisor: Prof. Karplus).

Evaluating city‑level implementation of air pollution controls in China. Master’s research, Mandy Wu (supervisor: Prof. Karplus).

62 References MIT JOINT PROGRAM • 2016 ANNUAL REPORT

9. REFERENCESAbrell, J. and S. Rausch (2016). Cross‑country electricity

trade, renewable energy and European transmission infrastructure policy. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 79(Sept 2016): 87–113 (doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2016.04.001) [See also: Reprint 2016‑9]

Akobi, T.C. (2016). Estimating the Rate of Technical Change in the Oil and Gas Industry using Data from Private and National Companies. Master of Science Thesis, System Design & Management Program, MIT.

Armour, K.C., J. Marshall, J.R. Scott, A. Donohoe and E.R. Newman (2016). Southern ocean warming delayed by circumpolar upwelling and equatorward transport. Nature Geoscience 9: 549–554. (doi:10.1038/NGEO2731) [See also: Reprint 2016‑21)

Arndt, C, W. Akpalu, N. Ouedrago and K. Strzepek (2016). Africa’s Energy Futures. United Nations University (https://www.wider.unu.edu/project/africas‑energy‑futures)

Bernstein, P., S.D. Tuladhar and M. Yuan (2016). Economics of U.S. Natural Gas Exports: Should Regulators Limit U.S. LNG Exports? Energy Economics, 60: 427–437 (doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2016.06.010).

Blanc, É. (2016). Statistical Emulators of Maize, Rice, Soybean, and Wheat from Globally Gridded Crop Models. Joint Program Report Series Report 296 (May, 28 p.)

Blanc, É. and E. Strobl (2016). Assessing the impact of typhoons on rice production in the Philippines. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 55: 993–1007. (doi:10.1175/JAMC‑D‑15‑0214.1)

Blanc, É., J. Caron, C. Fant, E. Monier (2016a). Is Current Irrigation Sustainable in the United States? An Integrated Assessment of Climate Change Impact in Water Resources and Irrigated Yields. Joint Program Report Series Report 305 (November, 24 p.)

Blanc, É., A. Lépine and E. Strobl (2016b). Determinants of Family Farms Efficiency: Evidence from the Senegal River Valley. Experimental Agriculture, 52(1): 110–136 (doi:10.1017/S0014479714000581) [See also: Reprint 2016‑5].

Brasseur, G., et al. (2016). Impact of aviation on climate: FAA’s Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative (ACCRI). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 97(4): 561–583 (2016). (doi:10.1175/BAMS‑D‑13‑00089.1)

Calvin, K., R. Beach, A. Gurgel, M. Labriet and A. Rodreguez (2016). Agriculture, forestry, and other land use emissions in Latin America. Energy Economics 56: 615–624. (doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2015.03.020)

Caron, J., G.E. Metcalf and J. Reilly (2016). The CO2 Content of Consumption Across U.S. Regions: A Multi‑ Regional Input‑Output (MRIO) Approach. The Energy Journal, 38(1) (doi:10.5547/01956574.38.1.jcar), in press

Cervigni, R., R. Liden, J.E. Neumann, K.M. Strzepek (2016). Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Africa’s Infrastructure: The Power and Water Sectors. Africa Development Forum. Washington, DC: World Bank. (https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/21875).

Chang, K.‑Y., K.T. Paw, L. Xu (2016). A Drought Indicator Based on Ecosystem Responses to Water Availabilty: The Normalized Ecosystem Drought Index. Joint Program Report Series Report 306 (November, 11 p.)

Chen, Y.‑H.H. (2016). Economic Projection with Non‑homothetic Preferences: The Performance and Application of a CDE Demand System. Journal of Global Economic Analysis, in review [See also: Report 307]

Chen, H., Q. Ejaz, X. Gao, J. Huang, J. Morris, E. Monier, S. Paltsev, J. Reilly, C.A. Schlosser, J. Scott, A. Sokolov (2016a). Food, Water, Energy, & Climate Outlook: Perspectives from 2016. Joint Program Special Report (http://globalchange.mit.edu/Outlook2016).

Chen, Y.‑H.H., M. Babiker, S. Paltsev and J. Reilly (2016b). Costs of Climate Mitigation Policies. Joint Program Report Series Report 292 (March, 22 p.)

Chen, Y.‑H.H., S. Paltsev, J. Reilly, J.F. Morris and M.H. Babiker (2016c). Long‑term economic modeling for climate change assessment. Economic Modelling 52(Part B): 867–883. (doi:10.1016/j.econmod.2015.10.023) [See also: Report 278; Reprint 2016‑1]

Davidson, M.R., D. Zhang, W. Xiong, X. Zhang & V.J. Karplus (2016). Modelling the potential for wind energy integration on China’s coal‑heavy electricity grid. Nature Energy 1: Article #16086. (doi:10.1038/nenergy.2016.86)[See also: Reprint 2016‑14]

Ejaz, Q.J., S. Paltsev, D.W. Kicklighter and N.W. Winchester (2016): Are Land‑use Emissions Scalable with Increasing Corn Ethanol Mandates in the United States? Joint Program Report Series Report 295, April, 24 p.

Fant, C., C.A. Schlosser, Z. Gao, K. Strzepek and J. Reilly (2016). Projections of Water Stress Based on an Ensemble of Socioeconomic Growth and Climate Change Scenarios: A Case Study in Asia. PLOS ONE, 11(3): e0150633. (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150633) [See also: Report 269; Reprint 2016‑6]

Friedman, C.L and N.E. Selin (2016). PCBs in the Arctic atmosphere: determining important driving forces using a global atmospheric transport model, Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics 16: 3433–3448 (doi:10.5194/acp‑16‑3433‑2016)

Gao, X., C.A. Schlosser and E.R. Morgan (2016a). Application of the Analog Method to Modelling Heat Waves: A Case Study of with Power Transformers. Joint Program Report Series, forthcoming.

PUBLICATIONS

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2016.04.001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/NGEO2731

https://www.wider.unu.edu/project/africas-energy-futures

https://www.wider.unu.edu/project/africas-energy-futures

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.06.010

http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-15-0214.1

http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0014479714000581

http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00089.1


http://dx.doi.org/10.5547/01956574.38.1.jcar

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/21875

https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/21875

http://globalchange.mit.edu/Outlook2016

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2015.10.023

http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2016.86

http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150633

http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-3433-2016


Gao X., C.A. Schlosser, P. O’Gorman, E. Monier and D. Entekhabi (2016b): 21st century changes in U.S. regional heavy precipitation frequency based on resolved atmospheric patterns. Journal of Climate, in press [See also: Report 302]

Gavard, C., N. Winchester and S. Paltsev (2016). Limited Trading of Emissions Permits as a Climate Cooperation Mechanism? US‑China and EU‑China Examples. Energy Economics, 58(Aug 2016): 95–104 (doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2016.06.012) [See also: Reprint 2016‑16]

Grandey, B.S., H. Cheng and C. Wang (2016a). Transient climate impacts for aerosol emissions from Asia: A story of coal versus gas. Journal of Climate 29: 2849–2867. (doi:10.1175/JCLI‑D‑15‑0555.1) [See also: Reprint 2016‑8]

Grandey, B.S., H.‑H. Lee, C. Wang (2016b). Radiative effects of interannually varying vs. interannually invariant aerosol emissions from fires, Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics 16: 14495–14513. (doi:10.5194/acp‑16‑14495‑2016)

Gurgel, A., H. Chen, S. Paltsev and J.M. Reilly (2016). CGE models: Linking natural resources to the CGE framework. A. Dinar and WDA Bryant (eds.) Global Economic and Computable General Equilibrium Models of Society, Environment and Resources, Volume 3 in The WSPC Set on Globalization, Society and Environment (in press).

Holt, J.I. (2016). Sensitivity of inorganic aerosol impacts to US precursor emissions. PhD Thesis, Climate Physics and Chemistry, MIT.

IEA/NEA [International Energy Agency/Nuclear Energy Agency] (2015). Projected Costs of Generating Electricity, 2015 Edition. Organization for Economic Co‑operation and Development, Paris.

Karplus, V.J., S. Rausch and D. Zhang (2016a). Energy caps: Alternative climate policy instruments for China? Energy Economics, 56(2016): 422–431 (doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2016.03.019) [See also: Report 237; Reprint 2016‑10]

Karplus, V.J., X. Shen and D. Zhang (2016b). Scaling Compliance with Coverage? Firm-level Performance in China’s Industrial Energy Conservation Program. Joint Program Report Series Report 303 (October, 22 p.)

Kishimoto, P.N., V.J. Karplus, M. Zhong, E. Saikawa, X. Zhang and X. Zhang (2016). The Impact of Coordinated Policies on Air Pollution Emissions from Road Transportation in China. Joint Program Report Series Report 299 (July, 34 p.)

Kleinberg, R., S. Paltsev, C. Ebinger, D. Hobbs and T. Boersma (2016). Tight Oil Development Economics: Benchmarks, Breakeven Points, and Inelasticities. MIT CEEPR Working Paper WP-2016-012.

Kwon, S.‑Y. and N.E. Selin, 2016. Uncertainties in atmospheric mercury modeling for policy evaluation. Current Pollution Reports 2(2): 103. (doi:10.1007/s40726‑016‑0030‑8) [See also: Reprint 2016‑17]

Lanz, B. and S. Rausch (2016). Cap‑and‑Trade Climate Policy with Price‑Regulated Industries: The Case of the US Electricity Sector. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, in review

Libardoni, A.G. (2016). Improving Constraints On Climate System Properties with Additional Data and New Methods. Ph.D. Thesis (Meteorology). Pennsylvania State University, defended, final, to be submitted.

Libardoni, A.G., C. Forest, A.P. Sokolov and E. Monier (2016). Assessing the 1.5-Degree Target in Light of Recent Estimates of Climate Change, Presented at: 1.5 Degrees: Meeting the challenges of the Paris Agreement. Oxford University, 21 September.

Lucena, A.F.P., L. Clarke, R. Schaeffer, A. Szklo, P.R.R. Rochedo, L.P.P. Nogueira, K. Daenzer, A. Gurgel, A. Kitous and T. Kober (2016). Climate policy scenarios in Brazil: A multi‑model comparison for energy. Energy Economics, 56(May 2016): 564–574 (doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2015.02.005)

Luo, X., J. Caron, V.J. Karplus, D. Zhang and X. Zhang (2016). Interprovincial migration and the stringency of energy policy in China. Energy Economics, 58(August 2016): 164–173 (doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2016.05.017) [See also: Report 270; Reprint 2016‑15]

Monier, E., L. Xu and R. Snyder (2016a). Uncertainty in future agro‑climate projections in the United States and benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation. Environmental Research Letters 11(5): 055001 (doi:10.1088/1748‑9326/11/5/055001)[See also: Report 293]

Monier, E., D. Kicklighter, A. Sokolov, Q. Zhuang, J. Melillo and J. Reilly (2016b): Overview of past, ongoing and future efforts of the integrated modeling of global change for Northern Eurasia. European Geophysical Union, General Assembly 2016 Geophysical Research Abstracts: EGU2016‑10666.

Morris, J., M. Webster and J. Reilly (2016a). Electricity Investments under Technology Cost Uncertainty and Stochastic Technological Learning. Joint Program Report Series Report 297 (May, 20 p.)

Morris, J., J. Reilly and Y.‑H.H. Chen (2016b). Advanced Technologies in Energy‑Economy Models for Climate Change Assessment. Energy Economics, in review. [See also: Report 272]

Octaviano, C., S. Paltsev and A.C. Gurgel (2016). Climate change policy in Brazil and Mexico: Results from the MIT EPPA model. Energy Economics, 56, 600–614 (doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2015.04.007) [See also: Reprint 2015‑7]

Paltsev, S. (2016a). The Complicated Geopolitics of Renewable Energy. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 72(6), 390–395. (doi:10.1080/00963402.2016.1240476)

Paltsev, S. (2016b). Energy Scenarios: The Value and Limits of Scenario Analysis. WIRE Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, e242, in press.

Paltsev, S., Y.H. Chen, V. Karplus, P. Kishimoto, A. Loeschel, K. von Graevenitz and S. Koesler (2016a). Reducing CO2 from cars in the European Union. Transportation, online first. (doi:10.1007/s11116‑016‑9741‑3)

Paltsev, S., A. Sokolov, H. Chen, X. Gao, A. Schlosser, E. Monier, C. Fant, J. Scott, Q. Ejaz, E. Couzo, R. Prinn and M. Haigh (2016b). Scenarios of Global Change: Integrated Assessment of Climate Impacts. Joint Program Report Series Report 291 (February, 34 p.)

Reilly, J. and J. Melillo (2016). Climate and land: tradeoffs and opportunities. Geoinfomatics & Geostatistics: An Overview 4(1): 1000135. (doi:10.4172/2327‑4581.1000135) [See also: Reprint 2016‑7]


http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0555.1



http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40726-016-0030-8



http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/055001


http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2016.1240476

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11116-016-9741-3

http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2327-4581.1000135


Rothenberg, D.A. (2016). Fundamental Aerosol-Cloud Interactions and their Influence on the Aerosol Indirect Effect on Climate. Doctoral Dissertation, MIT Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, October.

Rothenberg, D. and C. Wang (2016). Metamodeling of Droplet Activation for Global Climate Models. J. Atmos. Sci. 3, 1255–1272. (doi:10.1175/JAS‑D‑15‑0223.1)[See also: Reprint 2016‑4]

Shah, V. et al. (2016). Origin of oxidized mercury in the summertime free troposphere over the southeastern U.S. Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics 16: 1511–1530. (doi:10.5194/acp‑16‑1511‑2016)

Sokolov, A., S. Paltsev, Y‑H. Chen, A. Libardoni, C. Forest, E. Monier, X. Gao (2016). Probabilistic Estimates of Climate Impacts of the Paris Agreement. Presented at: American Geophysical Union annual meeting, 12–16 December, San Francisco.

Song, S. (2016). Quantifying Mercury Surface Fluxes by Combining Atmospheric Observations and Models. PhD Thesis, Atmospheric Chemistry, MIT.

Song, H., J. Marshall, M.J. Follows, S. Dutkiewicz and G. Forget (2016). Source waters for the highly productive Patagonian shelf in the southwestern Atlantic. Journal of Marine Systems, 158(Jun 2016): 120–128 (doi:10.1016/j.jmarsys.2016.02.009)

Song, S., N.E. Selin, L.E. Gratz, J.L. Ambrose, D.A. Jaffe, V. Shah, L. Jaeglé, A. Giang, B. Yuan, L. Kaser, E.C. Apel, R.S. Hornbrook, N.J. Blake, A.J. Weinheimer, R.L. Mauldin III, C.A. Cantrell, M.S. Castro, G. Conley, T.M. Holsen, W.T. Luke and R. Talbot (2016). Constraints from observations and modeling on atmosphere–surface exchange of mercury in eastern North America. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene 4: 000100 (doi:10.12952/journal.elementa.000100).

Stokes, L.C., A. Giang and N.E. Selin (2016). Splitting the South: Explaining China and India’s Divergence in International Environmental Negotiations. Global Environmental Politics, 16(4): 12–31. (doi:10.1162/GLEP_a_00378)

Tagliabue, A., O. Aumont, R. DeAth, J.P. Dunne, S. Dutkiewicz, E. Galbraith, K. Misumi, J.K. Moore, A. Ridgwell, E. Sherman, C. Stock, M. Vichi, C. Volker and A. Yool (2016). How well do global ocean biogeochemistry models simulate dissolved iron distributions? Global Biogeochemical Cycles 30, 149–174 (doi:10.1002/2015GB005289)

Thackray, C. (2016). An uncertainty-focused approach to modeling the atmospheric chemistry of persistent organic pollutants. PhD Thesis, MIT.

Thompson, T., S. Rausch, R.K. Saari and N.E. Selin (2016). Air quality co‑benefits of sub‑national carbon policies. Journal of Air and Waste Management Association 66(10); 988–1002. (doi:10.1080/10962247.2016.1192071)

Tian, H., W. Ren, B. Tao, G. Sun, A. Chappelka, W. Wang, S. Pan, J. Yang, J. Liu, B.S. Felszer, J.M. Melillo and J. Reilly (2016). Climate extremes and ozone pollution: a growing threat to China’s food security. Ecosystem Health and Sustainability 2(1): 01203. (doi:10.1002/ehs2.1203)

Van Ruijven, B., K. Daenzer, K. Fihser‑Vanden, T. Kober, S. Paltsev, R. Beach, S. Calderon, K. Calvin, M. Labriet, A. Kitous, A. Lucena and D. van Vuuren (2016). Baseline projections for Latin America: base‑year assumptions, key drivers and greenhouse emissions. Energy Economics, 56, 498–511 (doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2015.02.003)

Veysey, J., C. Octaviano, K. Calvin, S. Herreras Martinez, A. Kitous, J. McFarland and B. van der Zwaan (2016). Pathways to Mexico’s climate change mitigation targets: A multi‑model analysis. Energy Economics, 56(May 2016): 587–599 (doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2015.04.011) [See also: Reprint 2016‑13]

Wang, C. (2016). Anthropogenic aerosols and the distribution of past large‑scale precipitation change. Geophysical Research Letters 42: 10876–10884. (doi:10.1002/2015GL066416)

Winchester, N. and K. Ledvina (2016). The Impact of Oil Prices on Bioenergy, Emissions, and Land Use. Joint Program Report Series Report 304 (October, 12 p.)

Winchester, N., K. Ledvina, K. Strzepek and J.M. Reilly (2016). The Impact of Water Scarcity on Food, Bioenergy and Deforestation. Joint Program Report Series Report 300 (July, 20 p.)

Wolf, P.J., A. Giang, A. Ashok, N.E. Selin, S.R.H. Barret (2016). Costs of IQ loss from leaded aviation gasoline emissions, Environmental Science and Technology 50(17): 9026–9033. (doi:10.1021/acs.est.6b02910)

Xu, L., R.D. Pyles, K.T. Paw U, R.L. Snyder, E. Monier, M. Falk and S.H. Chen (2016a): Impact of Canopy Representations on Regional Modeling of Evapotranspiration using the WRF‑ACASA Coupled Model. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, in review [See also: Report 287]

Xu L., R.D. Pyles, K.T. Paw U, S.H. Chen, E. Monier and M. Falk (2016b): Modeling Regional Carbon Dioxide Flux over California using the WRF‑ACASA Coupled Model. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, in review [See also: Report 298]

Zhang, D. (2016). The Future of Natural Gas in China: Effects of Pricing Reform and Climate Policy. Master of Science Thesis, Technology and Policy Program, MIT.

Zhang, D. and S. Paltsev (2016). The Future of Natural Gas in China: Effects of Pricing Reform and Climate Policy. Climate Change Economics 7(4): 1650012. (doi:10.1142/S2010007816500123)[See also: Report 294]

Zhang, X., V. Karplus, T. Qi, D. Zhang and J. He (2016a). Carbon emissions in China: How far can new efforts bend the curve? Energy Economics 54: 388–395. (doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2015.12.002)[See also: Report 267; Reprint 2016‑2]

Zhang, D., M. Springmann and V.J. Karplus (2016b). Equity and Emissions Trading in China. Climatic Change, 134(1): 131–146 (doi:10.1007/s10584‑015‑1516‑x) [See also: Report 257]

Zhang, D., V. Karplus and S. Rausch (2016c). Capturing Natural Resource Dynamics in Top‑Down Energy‑Economic Equilibrium Models. Resource and Energy Economics, in review [See also: Report 284]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-15-0223.1


http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2016.02.009

http://dx.doi.org/10.12952/journal.elementa.000100

http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00378

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2015GB005289

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2016.1192071

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ehs2.1203



http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2015GL066416

http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b02910

http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S2010007816500123


http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1516-x

APPENDIX

APPENDIX: PUBLICATIONS 2014–2016This list includes selected work authored or co-authored by Joint Program-affiliatedresearchers who are involved with the MIT Integrated Global System Model (IGSM)framework through development, application, or supporting research.

For more information, please contact the Joint Program:

Journal Articles................................ A1Books and Chapters........................ A9In Press/In Review...........................A9Conference Proceedings............... A10Joint Program Reports...................A13Student Dissertations/Theses........A15Working Papers & Other................A15

Table of Contents

Citations prior to 2014 available by request

MIT JOINT PROGRAM ON THE SCIENCE AND POLICY OF GLOBAL CHANGE ANNUAL REPORT

T 617.253.7492 F [email protected]://globalchange.mit.edu

77 Massachusetts AvenueMIT Building E19-411Cambridge MA 02139, USA

JOURNAL ARTICLES2016

Abrell, J. and S. Rausch, 2016: Cross-country electricity trade, renewableenergy and European transmission infrastructure policy, Journal ofEnvironmental Economics and Management, 79(Sept 2016): 87–113(Reprint 2016-9)

Angot, H., A. Dastoor, F. De Simone, K. Gårdfeldt, C.N. Gencarelli, I.M.Hedgecock, S. Langer, O. Magand, M.N. Mastromonaco, C.Nordstrøm, K.A. Pfaffhuber, N. Pirrone, A. Ryjkov, N.E. Selin, H. Skov,S. Song, F. Sprovieri, A. Steffen, K. Toyota, O. Travnikov, X. Yang andA. Dommergue, 2016: Chemical cycling and deposition of atmosphericmercury in Polar Regions: review of recent measurements andcomparison with models, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 16:10735-10763

Armour, K.C., J. Marshall, J.R. Scott, A. Donohoe and E.R. Newsom, 2016:Southern Ocean warming delayed by circumpolar upwelling andequatorward transport, Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/NGEO2731

Bernstein, P., S.D. Tuladhar and M. Yuan, 2016: Economics of U.S. NaturalGas Exports: Should Regulators Limit U.S. LNG Exports?, EnergyEconomics, 60(Nov 2016): 427-437 (doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2016.06.010)

Blanc, É. and E. Strobl, 2016: Assessing the Impact of Typhoons on RiceProduction in the Philippines , Journal of Applied Meteorology andClimatology, 55, 993–1007 (doi:10.1175/JAMC-D-15-0214.1) (Reprint2016-18)

Blanc, É., A. Lépine and E. Strobl, 2016: Determinants of Family FarmsEfficiency: Evidence from the Senegal River Valley, ExperimentalAgriculture, 52(1): 110-136 (Reprint 2016-5)

Brasseur, G., M. Gupta, B. Anderson, S. Balasubramanian, S. Barrett, D.Duda, G. Fleming, P. Forster, J. Fuglestvedt, A. Gettelman, R. Halthore,S. Jacob, M. Jacobson, A. Khodayari, K. Liou, M. Lund, R. Miake-Lye,P. Minnis, S. Olsen, J. Penner, R. Prinn, U. Schumann, H. Selkirk, A.Sokolov, N. Unger, P. Wolfe, H. Wong, D. Wuebbles, B. Yi, P. Yangand C. Zhou, 2016: Impact of Aviation on Climate: FAA's AviationClimate Change Research Initiative (ACCRI) Phase II., Bull. Amer.Meteor. Soc., 97(4): 561-583 (doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00089.1)

Calvin, K.V., R. Beach, A. Gurgel, M. Labriet and A.M.L. Rodriguez, 2016:Agriculture, forestry, and other land-use emissions in Latin America,Energy Economics, 56(May 2016): 615–624 (doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2015.03.020)

Chen, Y.-H.H., S. Paltsev, J.M. Reilly, J.F. Morris and M.H. Babiker, 2016:Long-term economic modeling for climate change assessment,Economic Modeling, 52(Part B): 867–883 (Report 278) Reprint 2016-1

Chirkov, M., G.P. Stiller, A. Laeng, S. Kellmann, T. von Clarmann, C.Boone, J.W. Elkins, A. Engel, N. Glatthor, U. Grabowski, C.M. Harth,M. Kiefer, F. Kolonjari, P.B. Krummel, A. Linden, C.R. Lunder, B.R.Miller S.A. Montzka, J. Mühle, S. O'Doherty, J. Orphal, R.G. Prinn, G.Toon, M.K. Vollmer, K.A. Walker, R.F. Weiss, A. Wiegele and D.Young, 2016: Global HCFC-22 measurements with MIPAS: retrieval,validation, global distribution and its evolution over 2005-2012,Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 3345-3368 (doi:10.5194/acp-16-3345-2016)

Davidson, M.R., D. Zhang, W. Xiong, X. Zhang and V.J. Karplus, 2016:Modelling the potential for wind energy integration on China’s coal-heavy electricity grid, Nature Energy, 1: 16086(doi:10.1038/nenergy.2016.86) (Reprint 2016-14)

Fang, X., G.J.M. Velders, A.R. Ravishankara, M.J. Molina, J. Hu and R.G.Prinn, 2016: Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) Emissions in China: AnInventory for 2005–2013 and Projections to 2050, EnvironmentalScience & Technology, 50(4): 2027-2034 (doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b04376 )

Fang, X., M. Shao, A. Stohl, Q. Zhang, J. Zheng, H. Guo, C. Wang, M.Wang, J. Ou, R.L. Thompson and R.G. Prinn, 2016: Top-downestimates of benzene and toluene emissions in Pearl River Delta andHong Kong, China, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 3369-82 (doi:10.5194/acp-16-3369-2016)

Fant, C., C.A. Schlosser, X. Gao, K. Strzepek and J. Reilly, 2016: Projectionsof Water Stress Based on an Ensemble of Uncertain SocioeconomicGrowth and Climate Change: A Case Study in Asia, PLoS ONE, 11(3):e0150633 (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150633) (Report 269) Reprint2016-6

Friedman, C.L. and N.E. Selin, 2016: PCBs in the Arctic atmosphere:determining important driving forces using a global atmospherictransport model, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 16: 3433-3448

Gavard, C., N. Winchester and S. Paltsev, 2016: Limited Trading ofEmissions Permits as a Climate Cooperation Mechanism? US-Chinaand EU-China Examples, Energy Economics, 58(Aug 2016): 95–104(doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2016.06.012) (Reprint 2016-16)

Grandey, B.S., H. Cheng and C. Wang, 2016: Transient Climate Impacts forScenarios of Aerosol Emissions from Asia: A Story of Coal versus Gas ,Journal of Climate, 29, 2849–2867 (doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0555.1)(Reprint 2016-8)

Grandey, B.S., H.-H. Lee and C. Wang, 2016: Radiative effects ofinterannually varying vs. inter-annually invariant aerosol emissionsfrom fires, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 16, 14495-14513 (doi:10.5194/acp-16-14495-2016)

A1

MIT Joint Program Annual Report Appendix Journal Articles 2014–2016

Gratz, L.E., J.L. Ambrose, D.A. Jaffe, C. Knote, L. Jaeglé, N.E. Selin, T.Campos, F.M. Flocke, M. Reeves, D. Stechman, M. Stell, A.J.Weilheimer, D.J. Knapp, D.D. Montzka, G.S. Tyndall, R.L. Mauldin III,C.A. Cantrell, E.C. Apel, R.S. Hornbrock and N.J. Blake, 2016:Airborne Observations of Mercury Emissions from the Chicago/GaryUrban/Industrial Area during the 2013 NOMADSS Campaign,Atmospheric Environment, 145(November): 415–423 (doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.09.051)

Gustin, M.S., D.C. Evers, M.S. Bank, C.R. Hammerschmidt, A. Pierce, N.Basu, J. Blum, P. Bustamante, C. Chen, C.T. Driscoll, M. Horvat, D.Jaffe, J. Pacyna, N. Pirrone and N.E. Selin, 2016: Importance ofIntegration and Implementation of Emerging and Future Research intothe Minamata Convention, (Viewpoint) Environmental Science andTechnology 50: 2767-2770

Jiang, M., B.S. Felzer and D. Sahagian, 2016: Characterizing Predictability ofPrecipitation Means and Extremes over the Conterminous UnitedStates, 1949–2010, J. Climate, 29(7): 2621–2633 (doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0560.1)

Karplus, V.J., S. Rausch and D. Zhang, 2016: Energy caps: Alternativeclimate policy instruments for China?, Energy Economics, 56(2016):422–431 (doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2016.03.019) (Report 237) Reprint 2016-10

Kwon, S.Y. and N.E. Selin, 2016: Uncertainties in Atmospheric MercuryModeling for Policy Evaluation, Current Pollution Reports, 2(June2016): 103-114 (doi:10.1007/s40726-016-0030-8) (Reprint 2016-17)

Lucena, A.F.P., L. Clarke, R. Schaeffer, A. Szklo, P.R.R. Rochedo, L.P.P.Nogueira, K. Daenzer, A. Gurgel, A. Kitous and T. Kober, 2016:Climate policy scenarios in Brazil: A multi-model comparison forenergy, Energy Economics, 56(May 2016): 564–574 (doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2015.02.005)

Luo, X., J. Caron, V.J. Karplus, D. Zhang and X. Zhang, 2016:Interprovincial migration and the stringency of energy policy in China,Energy Economics, 58(August 2016): 164–173 (Report 270) Reprint2016-15

McNorton, J., M. P. Chipperfield, M. Gloor, C. Wilson, W. Feng, G. D.Hayman, M. Rigby, P. B. Krummel, S. O'Doherty, R. G. Prinn, R. F.Weiss, D. Young, E. Dlugokencky, and S. A. Montzka, 2016: Role ofOH variability in the stalling of the global atmospheric CH4 growthrate from 1999 to 2006, Atmos. Chem. Phys. 16, 7843-7956(10.5194/acp-16-7943-2016)

Meredith, L., R. G. Prinn,. S. Klosterman, J. Tang, S. Wofsy, P. H. Templer,R. Commane and T. Keenan, 2016: Ecosystem fluxes of hydrogen in amid-latitude forest driven by soil microorganisms and plants, GlobalChange Biology, online first (MS.GCB-16-0609.R1)

Monier, E., L. Xu and R.L. Snyder, 2016: Uncertainty in future agro-climateprojections in the United States and benefits of greenhouse gasmitigation, Environmental Research Letters, 11, 055001(doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/055001) (Report 293)

Octaviano, C., S. Paltsev and A.C. Gurgel , 2016: Climate change policy inBrazil and Mexico: Results from the MIT EPPA model, EnergyEconomics, 56, 600-614 (doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2015.04.007) (Reprint2015-7)

Paltsev, S., 2016: The complicated geopolitics of renewable energy, Bulletinof the Atomic Scientists, 72(6): 390-395 (doi:10.1080/00963402.2016.1240476)

Paltsev, S., Y.-H. Chen, V. Karplus, P. Kishimoto, J. Reilly, A. Loeschel, K.von Graevenitz and S. Koesler, 2016: Reducing CO2 from Cars in theEuropean Union: Emission Standards or Emission Trading?,Transportation, online first (doi: 10.1007/s11116-016-9741-3)

Perlinger, J., H. Gorman, E. Norman, D. Obrist, N.E. Selin, N. Urban and S.Wu, 2016: Measurement and Modeling of Atmosphere-SurfaceExchangeable Pollutants (ASEPs) to Better Understand theirEnvironmental Cycling and Planetary Boundaries, (Viewpoint)Environmental Science and Technology, 50, 8932-8934

Reilly, J.M. and J.M. Melillo, 2016: Climate and Land: Tradeoffs andOpportunities, Geoinformatics and Geostatistics: An Overview, 4(1):1000135 (doi:10.4172/2327-4581.1000135) (Reprint 2016-7)

Rothenberg, D., and C. Wang, 2016: Metamodeling of droplet activation forglobal climate models, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 73(3):1255–1272 (doi:10.1175/JAS-D-15-0223.1) (Reprint 2016-4)

Saunois, M., P. Bousquet, B. Poulter, A. Peregon, P. Ciais, J. G. Canadell, E.J. Dlugokencky, G. Etiope, D. Bastviken, S. Houweling, G. Janssens-Maenhout, F. N. Tubiello, S. Castaldi, R. B. Jackson, M. Alexe, V. K.Arora, D. J. Beerling, P. Bergamaschi, D. R. Blake, G. Brailsford, V.Brovkin, L. Bruhwiler, C. Crevoisier, P. Crill, C. Curry, C. Frankenberg,N. Gedney, L. Höglund-Isaksson, M. Ishizawa, A. Ito, F. Joos, H.-S.Kim, T. Kleinen, P. Krummel J.-F. Lamarque, R. Langenfelds, R.Locatelli, T. Machida, S. Maksyutov, K. C. McDonald, J. Marshall, J. R.Melton, I. Morino, S. O'Doherty, F.-J. W. Parmentier, P. K. Patra, C.Peng, S. Peng, G. P. Peters, I. Pison, C. Prigent, R. Prinn, M. Ramonet,W. J. Riley, M. Saito, R. Schroeder, I. J. Simpson, R. Spahni, P. Steele, A.Takizawa, B. F. Thornton, H. Tian, Y. Tohjima, N. Viovy, A.Voulgarakis, M. van Weele, G. van der Werf, R. Weiss, C. Wiedinmyer,D. J. Wilton, A. Wiltshire, D. Worthy, D.B. Wunsch, X. Xu, Y. Yoshida,B. Zhang, Z. Zhang and Q. Zhu, 2016: The global methane budget: 2000-2012, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 8(2): 697-751 (doi: 10.5194/essd-2016-25)

Selin, N.E., 2016: Teaching and Learning from Environmental Summits:COP-21 and Beyond, Global Environmental Politics, 16(3): 31-40

Shah, V., L. Jaeglé, L.E. Gratz, J.L. Ambrose, D.A. Jaffe, N.E. Selin, S. Song,T.L. Campos, F.M. Flocke, M. Reeves, D. Stechman, M. Stell, J. Festa, J.Stutz, A.J. Weinheimer, D.J. Knapp, D.D. Montzka, G.S. Tyndall, E.C.Apel, R.S. Hornbrook, A.J. Hills, D.D. Riemer, N.J. Blake, C.A. Cantrelland R.L. Mauldin III, 2016: Origin of oxidized mercury in thesummertime free troposphere over the southeastern U.S., AtmosphericChemistry and Physics, 16, 1511-1530

Simmonds, P.G., M. Rigby, A.J. Manning, M.F. Lunt, S. O’Doherty, D.Young, A. McCulloch, P.J. Fraser, S. Henne, M.K. Vollmer, S.Reimann, A. Wenger, J. Mühle, C.M. Harth, P.K. Salameh, T. Arnold,R.F. Weiss, P.B. Krummel, L.P. Steele, B.L. Dunse, B.R. Miller, C.R.Lunder, O. Hermansen, N. Schmidbauer, T. Saito, Y. Yokouchi, S.Park, S. Li, B. Yao, L. Zhou, J. Arduini, M. Maione, R. H.J. Wang, D.Ivy and R.G. Prinn, 2016: Global and regional emissions estimates of1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a, CH3CHF2) from in situ and air archiveobservations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 365-382 (doi:10.5194/acp-16-365-2016)

Song, H., J. Marshall, M.J. Follows, S. Dutkiewicz and G. Forget, 2016:Source waters for the highly productive Patagonian shelf in thesouthwestern Atlantic, Journal of Marine Systems, 158(Jun 2016): 120–128 (doi:10.1016/j.jmarsys.2016.02.009)

Song, S., N.E. Selin, L.E. Gratz, J.L. Ambrose, D.A. Jaffe, V. Shah, L. Jaeglé,A. Giang, B. Yuan, L. Kaser, E.C. Apel, R.S. Hornbrook, N.J. Blake, A.J.Weinheimer, R.L. Mauldin III, C.A. Cantrell, M.S. Castro, G. Conley,T.M. Holsen, W.T. Luke and R. Talbot, 2016: Constraints fromObservations and Modeling on Atmosphere-Surface Exchange ofMercury in Eastern North America, Elementa: Science of theAnthropocene, 4, 000100 (doi:10.12952/journal.elementa.000100)

Stokes, L.C., A. Giang and N.E. Selin, 2016: Splitting the South: ExplainingChina and India’s Divergence in International EnvironmentalNegotiations, Global Environmental Politics, 16(4): 12-31

Tagliabue, A., O. Aumont, R. DeAth, J.P. Dunne, S. Dutkiewicz, E.Galbraith, K. Misumi, J.K. Moore, A. Ridgwell, E. Sherman, C. Stock,M. Vichi, C. Volker and A. Yool, 2016: How well do global oceanbiogeochemistry models simulate dissolved iron distributions?, GlobalBiogeochemical Cycles, 30, 149–174 (doi:10.1002/2015GB005289)

Thompson, T.M., S. Rausch, R.K. Saari and N.E. Selin, 2016: Air QualityCo-Benefits of Sub-National Carbon Policies, Journal of the Air andWaste Management Association, 66(10): 988-1002

A2


Tian, H., C. Lu, P. Ciais, A.M. Michalak, J.G. Canadell, E. Saikawa, D.N.Huntzinger, K.R. Gurney, S. Sitch, B. Zhang, J. Yang, P. Bousquet,L. Bruhwiler, G. Chen, E. Dlugokencky, P. Friedlingstein, J. Melillo,S. Pan, B. Poulter, R. Prinn, M. Saunois, C.R. Schwalm and S.C.Wofsy, 2016: The terrestrial biosphere as a net source of greenhousegases to the atmosphere, Nature, 531, 225–228(doi:10.1038/nature16946)

Tian, H., W. Ren, B. Tao, G. Sun, A. Chappelka, X. Wang, S. Pan, J. Yang, J.Liu, B. Felzer, J. Melillo and J. Reilly, 2016: Climate extremes and ozonepollution: a growing threat to China’s food security, Ecosystem Healthand Sustainability, 2(1): e01203 (doi: 10.1002/ehs2.1203) (Reprint 2016-3)

Van Ruijven, B., K. Daenzer, K. Fihser-Vanden, T. Kober, S. Paltsev, R.Beach, S. Calderon, K. Calvin, M. Labriet, A. Kitous, A. Lucena and D.van Vuuren, 2016: Baseline projections for Latin America: base-yearassumptions, key drivers and greenhouse emissions, EnergyEconomics, 56, 498-511

Veysey, J., C. Octaviano, K. Calvin, S. Herreras Martinez, A. Kitous, J.McFarland and B. van der Zwaan, 2016: Pathways to Mexico’s climatechange mitigation targets: A multi-model analysis, Energy Economics,56(May 2016): 587–599 (doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2015.04.011) (Reprint2016-13)

Vollmer, M., J. Mühle, C. Trudinger, M. Rigby, S. Montzka, C. Harth, B.Miller, S.n Henne, P. Krummel, B. Hall, D. Young, J. Kim, J. Arduini,A. Wenger, B. Yao, S. Reimann, S. O'Doherty, M. Maione, D.Etheridge, S. Li, D.l Verdonik, S. Park, G. Dutton, L. Steele, C. Lunder,T. Rhee, O. Hermansen, N. Schmidbauer, H. J. Wang, M. Hill, P.Salameh, R. Langenfelds, L. Zhou, T. Blunier, J. Schwander, J. Elkins, J.Butler, P. Simmonds, R. Weiss, R. Prinn, and P. Fraser, 2016:Atmospheric histories and global emissions of halons H-1211(CBrClF2), H-1301 (CBrF3), and H-2402 (CBrF2CBrF2), J. Geophys.Res. Atmos., 121, 3663-3686 (doi:10.1002/2015JD024488)

Wolfe, P.J., A. Giang, A. Ashok, N.E. Selin and S.R.H. Barrett, 2016: Costsof IQ Loss from Leaded Aviation Gasoline Emissions, EnvironmentalScience & Technology, 50(17): 9026-33 (doi:10.1021/acs.est.6b02910)

Zhang, D. and S. Paltsev, 2016: The Future of Natural Gas in China: Effectsof Pricing Reform and Climate Policy, Climate Change Economics, 7(4): 1650012, 1-32 (Report 294)

Zhang, D., M. Springmann and V.J. Karplus, 2016: Equity and EmissionsTrading in China, Climatic Change, 134(1): 131-146(doi:10.1007/s10584-015-1516-x)

Zhang, J., B.S. Felzer and T.J. Troy, 2016: Extreme precipitation drivesgroundwater recharge: the northern High Plains Aquifer, CentralUnited States, 1950-2010, Hydrological Processes, 30(14): 2533–2545(doi:10.1002/hyp.10809)

Zhang, X., V.J. Karplus, T. Qi, D. Zhang and J. He, 2016: Carbon emissionsin China: How far can new efforts bend the curve?, Energy Economics,54(Feb 2016): 388–395 (Report 267) Reprint 2016-2

Zickfield, K., S. Solomon and D.M. Gilford, 2016: Centuries of thermal sea-level rise due to anthropogenic emissions of short-lived greenhousegases, PNAS, online first (doi:10.1073/pnas.1612066114)

2015Andrews, T. and B.S. Felzer, 2015: Very-Heavy Precipitation in the Greater

New York City Region and Widespread Drought Alleviation Tied toWestern US Agriculture, PLOS ONE, 10(12): e0144416(doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0144416)

Blanc, É. and B. Sultan, 2015: Emulating maize yields from global griddedcrop models using statistical estimates, Agricultural and ForestMeteorology, 214–215,(December): 134–147 (Report 279) Reprint 2015-29

Blanc, É. and E. Strobl, 2015: Water Availability and Crop Growth at theCrop Plot Level in South Africa, Journal of Agricultural Science, 153(2):306-321

Blanc, E. and J. Reilly, 2015: Climate Change Impacts on U.S. Crops,Choices, 30(2): 1–4 Reprint 2015-10

Boehlert, B., K.M. Strzepek, S.C. Chapra, C. Fant, Y. Gebretsadik, M.Lickley, R. Swanson, A. McCluskey, J.E. Neumann and J. Martinich,2015: Climate change impacts and greenhouse gas mitigation effects onU.S. water quality, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 07,doi: 10.1002/2014MS000400 (Reprint 2015-20)

Brix, H., D. Menemenlis, C.N. Hill, S. Dutkiewicz, O. Jahn, D. Wang, K.Bowman and H. Zhang, 2015: Using Green’s Functions to Initializeand Adjust a Global, Eddying Ocean Biogeochemistry GeneralCirculation Model, Ocean Modelling, 95, 1-14 (doi:j.ocemod.2015.07.008)

Dutkiewicz, S., A.E. Hickman, O. Jahn, W.W. Gregg, C.B. Mouw, and M.J.Follows, 2015: Capturing optically important constituents andproperties in a marine biogeochemical and ecosystem model,Biogeosciences, 12, 4447-4481 (doi:10.5194/bg-12-4447-2015) (Reprint2015-16)

Dutkiewicz, S., J.J. Morris, M.J. Follows, J. Scott, O. Levitan, S.T. Dyhrmanand I. Berman-Frank, 2015: Impact of ocean acidification on thestructure of future phytoplankton communities, Nature ClimateChange, 5, 1002–1006 (doi:10.1038/nclimate2722)

Fant, C. and C.A. Schlosser, 2015: The impact of climate change on windand solar resources in Southern Africa, Applied Energy, 161(Jan 2016):556–564 (doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.03.042) (Reprint 2015-21)

Fortems-Cheiney, A., M. Saunois, I. Pison, F. Chevallier, P. Bousquet, C.Cressot, S. Montzka, P. Fraser, M. Vollmer, P. Simmonds, D. Young, S.O’Doherty, R. Weiss, F. Artuso, B. Barletta, D. Blake, S. Li, C. Lunder,B. Miller, S.-Y. Park, R. Prinn, T. Saito, L. Steele and Y. Yokouchi, 2015:Increase in HFC-134a emissions in response to the success of theMontreal Protocol, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 120, 11728–11742(doi:10.1002/2015JD023741)

Garcia-Menendez, F., R.K. Saari, E. Monier, and N.E. Selin, 2015: U.S. AirQuality and Health Benefits from Avoided Climate Change underGreenhouse Gas Mitigation, Environ. Sci. Technol., 49 (13): 7580–7588(doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b01324) (Reprint 2015-13)

Giang, A. and N.E. Selin, 2015: Benefits of mercury controls for the UnitedStates, PNAS, 113(2): 286–291 (doi:101.1073/pnas.1514395113)Reprint 2015-25

Giang, A., L.C. Stokes, D.G. Streets E.S. Corbitt and N.E. Selin, 2015:Impacts of the Minamata Convention on mercury emissions and globaldeposition from coal-fired power generation in Asia, EnvironmentalScience and Technology, 49(9): 5326–5335 (doi: 10.1021/acs.est.5b00074) (Reprint 2015-6)

Grandey, B. S., and C. Wang, 2015: Enhanced marine sulphur emissionsoffset global warming and impact rainfall, Scientific Reports, 5, Article#13055 (doi:10.1038/srep13055) (Reprint 2015-20)

Gunturu, U.B. and C.A. Schlosser, 2015: Behavior of the aggregate windresource in the ISO regions in the United States, Applied Energy, 144(April): 175–181 (Reprint 2015-2)

Holt, J., N.E. Selin and S. Solomon, 2015: Changes in Inorganic FineParticulate Matter Sensitivities to Precursors Due to Large-Scale USEmissions Reductions, Environmental Science & Technology, 49(8):4834-4841 (Reprint 2015-8)

Jiang, M., B. Felzer, B. Hargreaves and J. Zhang, 2015: ImprovedUnderstanding of Climate Change Impact to Pennsylvania DairyPasture, Crop Science, 55(2): 934-949 (doi:10.2135/cropsci2014.05.0377)

Karplus, V., P. Kishimoto and S. Paltsev, 2015: The Global Energy, CO2

Emissions, and Economic Impact of Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards,Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 49(4): 517-538(22) (Reprint2015-34)

A3


Karplus, V.J., 2015: Double Impact: Why China Needs Coordinated AirQuality and Climate Strategies, Paulson Papers on Energy andEnvironment (url: http://www.paulsoninstitute.org/think-tank/paulson-papers-on-energy-and-environment/double-impact-why-china-needs-coordinated-air-quality-and-climate-strategies/)(Reprint 2015-1)

Kishimoto, P.N., D. Zhang, X. Zhang and V.J. Karplus, 2015: ModelingRegional Transportation Demand in China and the Impacts of aNational Carbon Policy, Transportation Research Record, 2454: 1-11(Report 274) Reprint 2015-5

L’Ecuyer, T.S., H.K. Beaudoing, M. Rodell, W. Olson, B. Lin, S. Kato, C.A.Clayson, E. Wood, J. Sheffield, R. Adler, G. Huffman, M. Bosilovich, G.Gu, F. Robertson, P.R. Houser, D. Chambers, J.S. Famiglietti, E. Fetzer,W.T. Liu, X. Gao, C.A. Schlosser, E. Clark, D.P. Lettenmaier, and K.Hilburn, 2015: The Observed State of the Energy Budget in the Early21st Century, J. Climate, 28, 8319–8346 (doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00556.1) (Reprint 2015-27)

Lee, S.-Y. and C. Wang, 2015: The response of the South Asian summermonsoon to temporal and spatial variations in absorbing aerosolradiative forcing, J. Climate, 28(17): 6626–6646 (doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00609.1)

Lépine, A., S. Chandrashekar, A. Le Nestour, É. Blanc and A. Vassall, 2015:Effect of scaling-up HIV prevention services on cost: Evidence from theAvahan initiative in India, Social Science and Medicine, 131(April2015): 164–172

Levy, M., O. Jahn, S. Dutkiewicz, M.J. Follows, and F. d'Ovidio, 2015: Thedynamical landscape of marine phytoplankton diversity, Journal ofRoyal Society Interface, 12, 20150481 (doi:10.1098/rsif.2015.0481)

Lickley, M., N. Lin and H.D. Jacoby, 2015: Analysis of Coastal ProtectionUnder Rising Flood Risk, Climate Risk Management, 6(2014): 18-26(Report 240) Reprint 2015-3

Lu, X., D. W. Kicklighter, J. M. Melillo, J. M. Reilly and L. Xu, 2015: Landcarbon sequestration within the conterminous United States: Regional-and state-level analyses, J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci., 120(2): 379–398(doi:10.1002/2014JG002818)

Lu, X., M.R. Withers, N. Seifkar, R.P. Field, S.R.H. Barrett, H.J. Herzog,2015: Biomass logistics analysis for large scale biofuel production: Casestudy of loblolly pine and switchgrass, Bioresource Technology, 183(May 2015): 1-9 (doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2015.02.032)

Lunt, M.F., M. Rigby, A.L. Ganesan, A.J. Manning, R.G. Prinn, S.O’Doherty, J. Muhle, C. M. Harth, P.K. Salameh, T. Arnold, R.F. Weiss,T. Saito, Y. Yokouchi, P.B. Krummel, L. P. Steele, P. J. Fraser, S. Li, S.Park, S. Reimann, M.K. Vollmer, C. Lunder, O. Hermansen, N.Schmidbauer, M. Maione, J. Arduini., D. Young and P.G. Simmonds,2015: Reconciling reported and unreported HFC emissions withatmospheric observations, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 112(19): 5927-5931,doi: 10.1073/pnas.1420247112 (Reprint 2015-28)

Melillo, J.M., X. Lu, D.W. Kicklighter, J.M. Reilly, Y. Cai and A.P. Sokolov,2015: Protected areas’ role in climate-change mitigation, Ambio, 45(2):133–145 (doi:10.1007/s13280-015-0693-1) (Reprint 2015-22)

Mills, D., R. Jones, K. Carney, A. St. Juliana, R. Ready, A. Crimmins, J.Martinich, K. Shouse, B. DeAngelo and E. Monier , 2015: Quantifyingand monetizing potential climate change policy impacts on terrestrialecosystem carbon storage and wildfires in the United States , ClimaticChange, 131(1): 163-178 (Reprint 2015-15)

Monier, E. and X. Gao, 2015: Climate change impacts on extreme events inthe United States: An uncertainty analysis, Climatic Change, 131(1): 67-81 (doi:10.1007/s10584-013-1048-1) (Report 245) Reprint 2014-3

Monier, E., X. Gao, J.R. Scott, A.P. Sokolov and C.A. Schlosser, 2015: Aframework for modeling uncertainty in regional climate change,Climatic Change, 131(1), 51-66 (doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1112-5)(Report 244) Reprint 2014-10

Paltsev, S. and D. Zhang, 2015: Natural gas pricing reform in China: Gettingcloser to a market system?, Energy Policy, 86: 43-56 (Report 282)Reprint 2015-9

Paltsev, S., E. Monier, J. Scott, A. Sokolov and J. Reilly, 2015: IntegratedEconomic and Climate Projections for Impact Assessment, ClimaticChange, 31(1): 21-33 (doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-0892-3) (Report 243)Reprint 2013-38

Paltsev, S., V. Karplus, Y.-H.H. Chen, I. Karkatsouli, J.M. Reilly and H.D.Jacoby, 2015: Regulatory Control of Vehicle and Power PlantEmissions: How Effective and at What Cost? , Climate Policy, 15(4):438-457 (doi: 10.1080/14693062.2014.937386) (Report 251)

Parpas, P., B. Ustun, and M. Webster, 2015: Importance Sampling inStochastic Programming: A Markov Chain Monte Carlo Approach,INFORMS Journal on Computing, 27(2): 358–377,doi:10.1287/ijoc.2014.0630

Qi, T., N. Winchester, D. Zhang and X. Zhang, 2015: An analysis of China’sclimate policy using the China-in-Global Energy Model, EconomicModeling, 52(Part B): 650–660 (Report 262) Reprint 2015-23

Rausch, S. and J. Reilly, 2015: Carbon taxes, deficits, and energy policyinteractions, National Tax Journal, 68(1): 157–178 (Report 228)Reprint 2015-12

Reilly, J. , 2015: Impacts on Resources and Climate of Projected Economicand Population Growth Patterns, The Bridge, 45(2): 6–15 Reprint 2015-11

Rodell, M., H.K. Beaudoing, T.S. L’Ecuyer, W.S. Olson, J.S. Famiglietti, P.R.Houser, R. Adler, M.G. Bosilovich, C.A. Clayson, D. Chambers, E.Clark, E.J. Fetzer, X. Gao, G. Gu, K. Hilburn, G.J. Huffman, D.P.Lettenmaier, W.T. Liu, F.R. Robertson, C.A. Schlosser, J. Sheffield andE.F. Wood, 2015: The Observed State of the Water Cycle in the Early21st Century, J. Climate, 28(21): 8289–8318 (doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00555.1)

Saari, R.K., N.E. Selin, S. Rausch and T.M. Thompson, 2015: A self-consistent method to assess air quality co-benefits from US climatepolicies, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 65(1): 74-89 (doi:10.1080/10962247.2014.959139) (Report 259)

Song, S., N.E. Selin, A.L. Soerensen, H. Angot, R. Artz, S. Brooks, E.-G.Brunke, G. Conley, A. Dommergue, R. Ebinghaus, T.M. Holsen, D.A.Jaffe, S. Kang, P. Kelley, W.T. Luke, O. Magand, K. Marumoto, K.A.Pfaffhuber, X. Ren, G.-R. Sheu, F. Slemr, T. Warneke, A. Weigelt, P.Weiss-Penzias, D. C. Wip and Q. Zhang, 2015: Top-down constraintson atmospheric mercury emissions and implications for globalbiogeochemical cycling, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 7103-7125(doi:10.5194/acp-15-7103-2015)

Speth, R., C. Rojo, R. Malina and S. Barrett, 2015: Black carbon emissionsreductions from combustion of alternative jet fuels, AtmosphericEnvironment, 105: 37–42

Springmann, M., D. Zhang and V. Karplus, 2015: Consumption-BasedAdjustment of Emissions-Intensity Targets: An Economic Analysis forChina’s Provinces, Environmental and Resource Economics, 61: 615–640 (doi:10.1007/s10640-014-9809-5) (Report 241) Reprint 2015-30

Strzepek, K., J. Neumann, J. Smith, J. Martinich, B. Boehlert, M. Hejazi, J.Henderson, C. Wobus, R. Jones, K. Calvin, D. Johnson, E. Monier, J.Strzepek and J.-H. Yoon , 2015: Benefits of greenhouse gas mitigationon the supply, management, and use of water resources in the UnitedStates, Climatic Change, 131(1), 127-141 (doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1279-9) (Reprint 2015-4)

Sue Wing, I., E. Monier, A. Stern and A. Mundra , 2015: US Major Crops'Uncertain Climate Change Risks and Greenhouse Gas MitigationBenefits, Environmental Research Letters, 10, 115002, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/11/115002 (Report 285) Reprint 2015-26

Tapia-Ahumada, K., C. Octaviano, S. Rausch and I. Pérez-Arriaga, 2015:Modeling intermittent renewable electricity technologies in generalequilibrium models, Economic Modelling, 51(December 2015): 242–262 (doi:10.1016/j.econmod.2015.08.004) (Reprint 2015-14)

Thackray, C.P., C.L. Friedman, Y. Zhang and N.E. Selin, 2015: QuantitativeAssessment of Parametric Uncertainty in Northern Hemisphere PAHConcentrations, Environmental Science and Technology, 49(15): 9185-9193, doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b01823 (Reprint 2015-18)

A4


Thompson, R.L., A. Stohl, L.X. Zhou, E. Dlugokencky, Y. Fukuyama, Y.Tohjima, S.-Y. Kim, H. Lee, E. G. Nisbet, R.E. Fisher, D. Lowry, R.F.Weiss , R.G. Prinn, S. O'Doherty, D. Young and J.W.C. White, 2015:Methane emissions in East Asia for 2000 - 2011 estimated using anatmospheric Bayesian inversion, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 120(9): 4352-4369 (doi:10.1002/2014JD022394)

Trivedi, P., H. Olcay, M. Staples, M. Withers, R. Malina and S. Barrett,2015: Energy return on investment for alternative aviation fuels,Applied Energy, 141: 167–174

Trivedi, P., R. Malina and S. Barrett, 2015: Environmental and economictradeoffs of using corn stover for liquid fuels and power production,Energy and Environmental Science, 2015(8): 1428-1437 (doi:10.1039/C5EE00153F)

Wang, C., 2015: Anthropogenic Aerosols and the Distribution of PastLarge-Scale Precipitation Change, Geophysical Research Letters, 42,10,876–10,884 (doi:10.1002/2015GL066416)

Weiss-Penzias, P., H.M. Amos, N.E. Selin, M.S.Gustin, D.A. Jaffe, D. Obrist,G-R. Sheu and A. Giang, 2015: Use of a global model to understandspeciated atmospheric mercury observations at five high-elevationsites, Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics, 15, 1161-1173, doi:10.5194/acp-15-1161-2015

Wells, K.C., D.B. Millet, N. Bousserez, D. K. Henze, S. Chaliyakunnel, T.J.Griffis, Y. Luan, E.J. Dlugokencky, R.G. Prinn, S. O’Doherty, R.F.Weiss, G.S. Dutton, J.W. Elkins, P.B. Krummel, R. Langenfelds, L.P.Steele, E.A. Kort, S.C. Wofsy and T. Umezawa, 2015: Simulation ofatmospheric N2O with GEOS-Chem and its adjoint: evaluation ofobservational constraints, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 3179-3198,doi:10.5194/gmd-8-3179-2015

Winchester, N. and J.M. Reilly, 2015: The feasibility, costs, andenvironmental implications of large-scale biomass energy, EnergyEconomics, 51: 188-203 (Report 273) Reprint 2015-17

Winchester, N., R. Malina, M.D. Staples and S.R.H. Barrett, 2015: TheImpact of Advanced Biofuels on Aviation Emissions and Operations inthe U.S., Energy Economics, 49(2015): 482–491 (doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2015.03.024) (Report 275)

Withers, M., R. Malina and S. Barrett, 2015: Carbon, climate, and economicbreakeven times for biofuel from woody biomass from managedforests, Ecological Economics, 112: 45–52 (doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.02.004)

Yim, S., G. Lee, L. Lee, F. Allroggen, A. Ashok, F. Caiazzo, S. Eastham, R.Malina and S. Barrett, 2015: Global, regional and local health impactsof civil aviation emissions, Environmental Research Letters, 10, 034001(doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/10/3/034001)

Zhang, Y., D.J. Jacob, S. Dutkiewicz, H.M. Amos, M.S. Long and E.M.Sunderland, 2015: Biogeochemical drivers of the fate of riverinemercury discharge to the global and Arctic oceans, GlobalBiogeochemical Cycles, 29(6): 854-864 (doi:10.1002/2015GB005124)

Zhu, Z., D. Zhang, P. Mischke and X. Zhang, 2015: Electricity generationcosts of concentrated solar power technologies in China based onoperational plants, Energy, 89: 65–74 (Reprint 2015-24)

2014Aerts, J.C.J.H, W.J. Wouter Botzen, K. Emanuel, N. Lin, H. de Moel and E.

O. Michel-Kerjan, 2014: Evaluating Flood Resilience Strategies forCoastal Megacities, Science, 344(6183): 473-475,doi:10.1126/science.1248222

Amos, H.M., D.J. Jacob, D. Kocman, H.M. Horowitz, Y. Zhang, S.Dutkiewicz, M. Horvat, E.S. Corbitt and E.M. Sunderland, 2014: Globalbiogeochemical implications of mercury discharges from rivers andsediment burial, Environmental Science and Technology, 48(16): 9514–9522, doi:10.1021/es502134t

Arent, D., J. Pless, T. Mai, R. Wiser, M. Hand, S. Baldwin, G. Heath, J.Macknick, M. Bazilian, A. Schlosser and P. Denholm, 2014:Implications of high renewable electricity penetration in the U.S. forwater use, greenhouse gas emissions, land-use, and materials supply,Applied Energy, 123(15): 368-377, doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.12.022(Reprint 2014-8)

Arndt., C., C.A. Schlosser, K. Strzepek and J. Thurlow, 2014: Climatechange and economic growth prospects for Malawi: An uncertaintyapproach, Journal of African Economies, 3(Supplement 2): ii83–ii107,doi:10.1093/jae/eju013 (Reprint 2014-24)

Arnold, T., D.J. Ivy, C.M. Harth, M.K. Vollmer, J. Mühle, P.K. Salameh, L.P. Steele, P.B. Krummel, R.H.J. Wang, D. Young, C.R. Lunder, O.Hermansen, T.S. Rhee, J. Kim, S. Reimann, S. O’Doherty, P.J. Fraser, P.G. Simmonds, R.G. Prinn and R.F. Weiss, 2014: HFC-43-10meeatmospheric abundances and global emission estimates, Geophys. Res.Lett. 41, 2228-2235, doi: 10.1002/2013GL059143

Ashok, A., I.C. Dedoussi, S.H.L. Yim, H. Balakrishnan and S.R.H. Barrett,2014: Quantifying the air quality-CO2 tradeoff potential for airports,Atmospheric Environment, 99(December): 546–555, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.10.024

Baker, J., K.M. Strzepek, W. Farmer and C.A. Schlosser, 2014: Quantifyingthe impact of renewable electricity futures on cooling water use,Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 50(5): 1289-1303,doi: 10.1111/jawr.12188

Baker, J., P. Block, K. Strzepek and R. de Neufville, 2014: Power ofScreening Models for Developing Flexible Design Strategies inHydropower Projects: Case Study of Ethiopia, J. of Water ResourcesPlanning and Management, 140(12), 04014038 (doi:10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000417)

Blanc, É., K. Strzepek, A. Schlosser, H. Jacoby, A. Gueneau, C. Fant, S.Rausch and J. Reilly, 2014: Modeling U.S. water resources underclimate change, Earth’s Future, 2(4): 197–224,doi:10.1002/2013EF000214 (Report 239) Reprint 2014-17

Bond, J.Q., A.A. Upadhye, H. Olcay, G.A. Tompsett, J. Jae, R. Xing, D.M.Alonso, D. Wang, T. Zhang, R. Kumar, A.Foster, S.M. Sen, C.T.Maravelias, R. Malina, S.R.H. Barrett, R. Lobo, C.E. Wyman, J.A.Dumesic and G.W. Huber, 2014: Production of renewable jet fuel rangealkanes and commodity chemicals from integrated catalytic processingof biomass, Energy and Environmental Science, 7: 1500-1523 (doi:10.1039/C3EE43846E)

Brunelle-Yeung, E., T. Masek, J.J. Rojo, J.I. Levy, S. Arunachalam, S.M.Miller, S.R.H. Barrett, S.R. Kuhn and I.A. Waitz, 2014: Assessing theimpact of aviation environmental policies on public health, TransportPolicy, 34(2014): 21-18 (doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.02.015)

Caiazzo, F., R. Malina, M.D. Staples, P.J. Wolfe, S.H.L. Yim and S.R.H.Barrett, 2014: Quantifying the climate impacts of albedo changes due tobiofuel production: a comparison with biogeochemical effects,Environmental Research Letters, 9: 024015 (doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/9/2/024015)

Caron, J., S. Rausch and N. Winchester, 2014: Leakage from Sub-nationalClimate Policy: The Case of California's cap–and–trade program,Energy Journal, 36(2): 167-190 (doi:10.5547/01956574.36.2.8) (Report220)

Caron, J., T. Fally and J. Markusen, 2014: International Trade Puzzles: ASolution Linking Production and Preferences, The Quarterly Journal ofEconomics, 129(3)

Chong, U., S.H.L. Yim, S.R.H. Barrett and A.M. Boies, 2014: Air Qualityand Climate Impacts of Alternative Bus Technologies in GreaterLondon, Environmental Science and Technology, 48(8): 4613-4622(doi: 10.1021/es4055274)

Cohen, J.B. and C. Wang, 2014: Estimating global black carbon emissionsusing a top-down Kalman filter approach, Journal of GeophysicalResearch—Atmospheres, 119: 1–17 (Reprint 2014-1)

A5


Constantin, B.V. and S.R.H. Barrett, 2014: Application of the complex stepmethod to chemistry-transport modeling, Atmospheric Environment,99(December): 457–465, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.10.017

Dangal, S.R.S., Felzer, B.S., and Hurteau, M.D., 2014: Effects of agricultureand timber harvest on carbon sequestration in the eastern US forests,Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 119(1): 35-54,doi:10.1002/2013JG002409

Death, J.L., F. Monteiro, A. Le Broq, M. Tranter, A. Ridgwell, S. Dutkiewicz,R. Raiswell, 2014: Antarctic Ice Sheet fertilises the Southern Ocean,Biogeosciences, 11, 2635–2644 (doi:10.5194/bg-11-2635-2014) (Reprint2014-25)

Dedoussi, I.C. and S.R.H. Barrett, 2014: Air pollution and early deaths inthe United States. Part II: Attribution of PM2.5 exposure to emissionsspecies, time, location and sector, Atmospheric Environment, 99(December): 610–617, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.10.033

Dutkiewicz, S., B.A. Ward, J.R Scott and M.J. Follows, 2014: UnderstandingPredicted Shifts in Diazotroph Biogeography using ResourceCompetition Theory, Biogeosciences, 11: 7113-7149, doi:10.5194/bg-11-5445-2014 (Reprint 2014-26)

Eastham, S.D., D. Weisenstein and S.R.H. Barrett, 2014: Development andevaluation of the unified tropospheric-stratospheric chemistryextension (UCX) for the global chemistry-transport model GEOS-Chem, Atmospheric Environment, 89(2014): 52-63 (doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.02.001)

Emanuel, K., A.A. Wing and E.M. Vincent, 2014: Radiative-ConvectiveInstability, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sys., 6, doi:10.1002/2013MS000270

Fawcett, A., L. Clarke, S. Rausch and J. Weyant, 2014: Overview of EMF 24U.S. Policy Scenarios, Energy Journal, 35 (doi:10.5547/01956574.35.SI1.3)

Felgenhauer, T. and M. Webster, 2014: Modeling Adaptation as a Flow andStock Decision with Mitigation, Climatic Change, 122(4): 665-679,doi:10.1007/s10584-013-1016-9

Felgenhauer, T. and M. Webster, 2014: Multiple Adaptation Types withMitigation: A Framework for Policy Analysis, Global EnvironmentalChange, 23(6): 1556–1565, doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.09.018

Felzer, B. and D. Sahagian, 2014: Climate Impacts on Regional EcosystemServices in the United States from CMIP3-based MultimodelComparisons, Climate Research, 61:133-155, doi: 10.3354/cr01249

Fraser, P., B. Dunse, A. Manning, S. Walsh, R. Wang, P. Krummel, P. Steele,C. Allison, S. O’Doherty, P. Simmonds, J. Mühle, R.F. Weiss and R.G.Prinn, 2014: Australian carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) emission in aglobal context, Environmental Chemistry 11, 77-88, http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/EN13171

Fraser, P., P.B. Krummel, L.P. Steele, C. Trudinger, D.M. Etheridge, N.Derek, S. O'Doherty, P.G. Simmonds, B.R. Miller, J. Mühle, R.F. Weiss,D.E. Oram, R.G. Prinn and R.H.J. Wang, 2014: Equivalent effectivestratospheric chlorine from Cape Grim Air Archive, Antarctic firn andAGAGE global measurements of ozone depleting substances, BaselineAtmospheric Program (Australia) 2009-2010, N. Derek, P.B. Krummel& S. Cleland (eds.), Australian Bureau of Meteorology and CSIROMarine and Atmospheric Research, Melbourne, 17-23

Friedman, C.L., J.R. Pierce and N.E. Selin, 2014: Assessing the Influence ofSecondary Organic versus Primary Carbonaceous Aerosols on Long-Range Atmospheric Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Transport,Environmental Science & Technology, 48(6): 3293-3302, doi:10.1021/es405219r (Reprint 2014-5)

Ganesan, A.L., M. Rigby, A. Zammit-Mangion, A. J. Manning, R. G. Prinn,P. J. Fraser, C.M. Harth, K-R. Kim, P. B. Krummel, S. Li, J. Mühle, S.J.O’Doherty, S. Park, P. K. Salameh, L.P. Steele and R. F. Weiss, 2014:Characterization of uncertainties in trace gas inversions usinghierarchical Bayesian methods, Atmos. Chem. Phys. 14, 3855-3864,2014, doi:10.5194/acp-14-3855-2014

Gao, X., C.A. Schlosser, P. Xie, E. Monier and D. Entekhabi, 2014: AnAnalogue Approach to Identify Heavy Precipitation Events: Evaluationand Application to CMIP5 Climate Models in the United States, J.Climate, 27, 5941–5963, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00598.1 (Report 253)

Gurgel, A. and S. Paltsev, 2014: Costs of reducing GHG emissions in Brazil,Climate Policy, 14(2), 209-223, doi: 10.1080/14693062.2013.835655

Hallgren, W., U.B. Gunturu, and C.A. Schlosser, 2014: The Potential WindPower Resource in Australia: A New Perspective, PLOS One, 9(7):e99608 (doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099608) (Report 256) Reprint 2014-14

Harris, E., D.D. Nelson, W. Olszewski, M. Zahniser, K.E. Potter, B.J.McManus, A. Whitehill, R.G. Prinn and S. Ono, 2014: Development ofa Spectroscopic Technique for Continuous Online Monitoring ofOxygen and Site-Specific Nitrogen Isotopic Composition ofAtmospheric Nitrous Oxide, Analytical Chemistry, 86(3): 1726–1734(Reprint 2014-6)

Hayes, D.J., D.W. Kicklighter, A.D. McGuire, M. Chen, Q. Zhuang, F.Yuan, J.M. Melillo and S.D. Wullschleger, 2014: The impacts of recentpermafrost thaw on land–atmosphere greenhouse gas exchange,Environmental Research Letters, 9(4): 045005, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/9/4/045005

Heald, C.L., D.A. Ridley, J.H. Kroll, S.R.H. Barrett, K.E. Cady-Pereira, M.J.Alvarado and C.D. Holmes, 2014: Contrasting the Direct RadiativeEffect and Direct Radiative Forcing of Aerosols, AtmosphericChemistry and Physics, (14): 5513-5527 (doi: 10.5194/acp-14-5513-2014)

Ivy, D.J., S. Solomon and D.W.J. Thompson, 2014: On the Identification ofthe Downward Propagation of Arctic Stratospheric Climate Changeover Recent Decades, J. Climate, 27, 2789–2799 (doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00445.1)

Karplus, V.J. and J. Cao, 2014: Firm-level determinants of energy andcarbon intensity in China, Energy Policy, 75(December): 167–178

Kicklighter, D.W., Y. Cai, Q. Zhuang, E.I. Parfenova, S. Paltsev, A.P.Sokolov, J.M. Melillo, J.M. Reilly, N.M. Tchebokova and X. Lu, 2014:Potential influence of climate-induced vegetation shifts on future landuse and associated land carbon fluxes in Northern Eurasia,Environmental Research Letters, 9(3): 035004, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/3/035004 (Reprint 2014-7)

Kim, D., C. Wang, A.M.L. Ekman, M.C. Barth, and D.-I. Lee, 2014: Theresponses of cloudiness to the direct radiative effect of sulfate andcarbonaceous aerosols, J. Geophys. Res., 119, doi:10.1002/2013JD020529

Kim, E.-J., G.J.D. Hewings and K.-M. Nam, 2014: Optimal UrbanPopulation Size: National vs. Local Economic Efficiency, UrbanStudies, 51(2): 428–445

Kim, J., P.J. Fraser, S.Li, J. Mühle, A.L. Ganesan, P.B. Krummel, L.P. Steele,S. Park, S.-K. Kim, M.-K. Park, T. Arnold, C.M. Harth, P.K. Salameh,R.G. Prinn, R.F. Weiss and K.-R. Kim, 2014: Quantifying aluminumand semiconductor industry perfluorocarbon emissions fromatmospheric measurements, Geophysical Research Letters, 41, 4787-4794, doi:10.1002/2014GL059783

Kossin, J. P., K. A. Emanuel and G. A. Vecchi, 2014: The polewardmigration of the location of tropical cyclone maximum intensity,Nature, 509, 349–352

Levy, M., O. Jahn, S. Dutkiewicz and M.J. Follows, 2014: Phytoplanktondiversity and community structure affected by oceanic dispersal andmesoscale turbulence, Limnology and Oceanography: Fluids andEnvironment, 4, 67-84, doi:10.1215/21573869-2768549

Lin, N., P. Lane, K.A. Emanuel, R.M. Sullivan and J.P. Donnelly, 2014:Heightened hurricane surge risk in northwest Florida revealed fromclimatological-hydromatic modeling and paleorecord reconstruction,J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 119, 8606–8623, doi:10.1002/2014JD021584

A6


Marcella, M.P. and E.A.B. Eltahir, 2014: Introducing an Irrigation Schemeto a Regional Climate Model: A Case Study over West Africa, J.Climate, 27, 5708–5723

Marshall, J., J.R. Scott, K.C. Armour, J.-M. Campin, M. Kelley and A.Romanou, 2014: The ocean’s role in the transient response of climate toabrupt greenhouse gas forcing, Climate Dynamics, 44(7-8): 2287-2299(doi: 10.1007/s00382-014-2308-0) (Reprint 2014-20)

Marshall, J., K. Armour, J. Scott, Y. Kostov, D. Ferriara, T. Shepherd and C.Bitz, 2014: The ocean's role in polar climate change: asymmetric Arcticand Antarctic responses to greenhouse gas and ozone forcing,Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 372(2019): 20130040(doi:10.1098/rsta.2013.0040) (Reprint 2014-21)

Meredith, L.K., R. Commane, W. Munger, A. Dunn, J. Tang, S.C. Wofsyand R.G. Prinn, 2014: Ecosystem fluxes of hydrogen: a comparison offlux-gradient methods, Atmos. Meas. Tech, 7, 2787-2805, 2014,doi:10.5194/amt-7-2787-2014

Moore, R.M., M. Kienast, M. Fraser, J. Cullen, C. Deutsch, S. Dutkiewicz,M.J. Follows and C.J. Somes, 2014: Substantial underestimation ofnitrogen fixation suggested by hydrogen supersaturations in theAtlantic, Journal of Geophysical Research, 119(7): 4340–4350,doi:10.1002/2014JC010017

Muntean, M., G. Janssens-Maenhout, S. Song, N.E. Selin, J.G.J. Olivier, D.Guizzardi, R. Maas and F. Dentener, 2014: Trend analysis from 1970 to2008 and model evaluation of EDGARv4 global gridded anthropogenicmercury emissions, Science of the Total Environment, 494-495(2014):337-350 (doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.06.014) (Reprint 2014-15)

Murray, B.C., M.L. Cropper, F.C. de la Chesnaye and J.M. Reilly, 2014: HowEffective are US Renewable Energy Subsidies in Cutting GreenhouseGases?, American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings 2014, 104(5): 569–574

Nam, K.-M., 2014: Compact Organizational Space and TechnologicalCatch-Up: A Comparative Study of China's Three Leading AutomotiveGroups, Research Policy, 44(1): 258-272 (Reprint 2014-18)

Nam, K.-M., C.W. Waugh, S. Paltsev, J.M. Reilly and V.J. Karplus, 2014:Synergy between Pollution and Carbon Emissions Control: ComparingChina and the United States, Energy Economics, 46: 186-201 (doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2014.08.013) (Report 252) Reprint 2014-19

Nelson, G.C., D. van der Mensbrugghe, É. Blanc, K. Calvin, T. Hasegawa, P.Havlíik, P. Kyle, H. Lotze-Campen, M. von Lampe, D. Mason d'Croz,H. van Meijl, C. Müller, J. Reilly, R. Robertson, R.D. Sands, C. Schmitz,A. Tabeau, K. Takahashi and H. Valin, 2014: Agriculture and climatechange in global scenarios: Why don't the models agree?, AgriculturalEconomics, 45(1): 85–101

O'Doherty, S., M. Rigby, J. Mühle, D.J. Ivy, B.R. Miller, D. Young, P.G.Simmonds, S. Reimann, M.K. Vollmer, P.B. Krummel, P.J. Fraser, L.P.Steele, B. Dunse, P.K. Salameh, C.M. Harth, T. Arnold, R.F. Weiss, J.Kim, S. Park, S. Li, C. Lunder, O. Hermansen, N. Schmitbauer, L.X.Zhou, B. Yau, R.H.J. Wang, A. Manning and R.G. Prinn, 2014: Globalemissions of HFC-143a (CH3CF3) and HFC-32 (CH2F2) from in situand air archive atmospheric observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys. 14, 9249-9258, doi:10.5194/acp-14-9249-2014

Olsen, S.C., G.P. Brasseur, D.J. Wuebbles, A. Khodayari, H. Dang, S.D.Eastham, M. Jacobson, H. Selkirk, A. Sokolov and N. Unger, 2014:Comparison of model estimates of the effects of aviation emissions onatmospheric ozone and methane, Geophysical Research Letters, 40(22):6004–6009 (doi: 10.1002/2013GL057660)

Ovchinnikov, M., A.S. Ackerman, A. Avramov, A. Cheng, J. Fan, A.M.Fridlind, S. Ghan, J.Y. Harrington, C. Hoose, A. Korolev, G.M.McFarquhar, H. Morrison, M. Paukert, J. Savre, B.J. Shipway, M.D.Shupe, A. Solomon and K. Sulia, 2014: Intercomparison of large-eddysimulations of Arctic mixed-phase clouds: Importance of ice sizedistribution assumptions, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 6(1): 223–248(doi: 10.1002/2013MS000282)

Palmintier, B. and M. Webster, 2014: Heterogeneous Unit Clustering forEfficient Operational Flexibility Modeling, IEEE Transactions onPower Systems, 29(3): 1089-1098, doi:10.1109/TPWRS.2013.2293127

Paltsev, S., 2014: Scenarios for Russia's Natural Gas Exports to 2050,Energy Economics, 42: 262-270 (Report 201)

Park, S.-A., B.-Y. Kim, W.-C. Jang and K.-M. Nam, 2014: ImperfectInformation and Labor Market Bias against Small and Medium-sizedEnterprises: A Korean Case, Small Business Economics, 43(3): 725-741(doi:10.1007/s11187-014-9571-7)

Patra, P.K., M.C. Krol, S.A. Montzka, T. Arnold, E.L. Atlas, B.R. Lintner, B.B. Stephens, B. Xiang, J.W. Elkins, P.J. Fraser,, A. Ghosh, E.J. Hintsa, D.F. Hurst, K. Ishijima, P.B. Krummel, B.R. Miller, K. Miyazaki, F.L.Moore, J. Mühle, S. O’Doherty, R.G. Prinn, L.P. Steele, M. Takigawa,H.J. Wang, R.F. Weiss, S.C. Wofsy, and D. Young, 2014: Observationalevidence for interhemispheric hydroxyl parity, Nature, 513, 219-223,doi:10.1038/nature13721

Prowe, A.E.F., Pahlow, M., Dutkiewicz, S., and Oschlies, A., 2014: Howimportant is diversity for capturing environmental-change responses inecosystem models?, Biogeosciences, 11, 3397-3407, doi:10.5194/bg-11-3397-2014 (Reprint 2014-12)

Qi, T., N. Winchester, V.J. Karplus and X. Zhang, 2014: Will EconomicRestructuring in China Reduce Trade-Embodied CO2 Emissions?,Energy Economics, 42(2014): 204–212 (Report 232) Reprint 2014-4

Qi, T., X. Zhang, V.J. Karplus, 2014: The energy and CO2 emissions impactof renewable energy development in China, Energy Policy, 68(May): 60-69 (Report 242) Reprint 2014-9

Rausch, S. and M. Mowers, 2014: Distributional and Efficiency Impacts ofClean and Renewable Energy Standards for Electricity, Resource andEnergy Economics, 36(2), 556-585

Rausch, S. and V.J. Karplus, 2014: Markets versus Regulation: TheEfficiency and Distributional Impacts of U.S. Climate Policy Proposals,Energy Journal, 35(SI1): 199-227, 2014 (Report 263) (Reprint 2014-11)

Rigby, M., R.G. Prinn, S. O'Doherty, B.R. Miller, D. Ivy, J. Mühle, C.M.Harth, P.K. Salameh, T. Arnold, R.F. Weiss, P.B. Krummel, L.P. Steele,P.J. Fraser, D. Young and P.G. Simmonds, 2014: Recent and futuretrends in synthetic greenhouse gas radiative forcing, GeophysicalResearch Letters, 41(7): 2623–2630 (doi: 10.1002/2013GL059099)

Ruegg, J., C. Gries, B. Bond-Lamberty, G.J. Bowen, B.S. Felzer, N.E.McIntyre, P.A. Soranno, K.L. Vanderbilt and K.C. Wathers, 2014:Closing the data life cycle: Using information management inmacrosystems ecology research, Frontiers in Ecology and theEnvironment, 12(1): 24-30

Saikawa E., M. Rigby, R.G. Prinn, S.A. Montzka, B.R. Miller, L.J.M.Kuijpers, P.J.B. Fraser, M.K. Vollmer, T. Saito, Y. Yokouchi, C.M.Harth, J. Muhle, R.F. Weiss, P.K. Salameh, J. Kim, S. Li, S. Park, K.-R.Kim, D. Young, S. O’Doherty, P.G. Simmonds, A. McCulloch, P. B.Krummel, L.P. Steele, C. Lunder, O. Hermansen, M. Maione, J.Arduini, B. Yao, L.X. Zhou, H.J. Wang, J.W. Elkins and B. Hall, 2014:Corrigendum to “Global and regional emission estimates for HCFC-22”, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 10033, 2012, Atmos. Chem. Phys. 14,4857-4858, 2014, doi:10.5194/acp-14-4857-2014

Saikawa, E. and J. Urpelainen, 2014: Environmental Standards as a Strategyof International Technology Transfer, Environmental Science andPolicy, 38, 192-206

Saikawa, E., R.G. Prinn, E. Dlugokencky, K. Ishijima, G. S. Dutton, B.D.Hall, R. Langenfelds, Y. Tohjima, T. Machida, M. Manizza, M. Rigby, S.O'Doherty, P.K. Patra, C.M. Harth, R.F. Weiss, P.B. Krummel, M. vander Schoot, P.B. Fraser, L.P. Steele, S. Aoki, T. Nakazawa and J.W.Elkins, 2014: Global and regional emissions estimates for N2O,Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 14, 4617-4641 (doi:10.5194/acp-14-4617-2014)

A7


Santer, B.D., C. Bonfils, J.F. Painter, M.D. Zelinka, C. Mears, S. Solomon, G.A. Schmidt, J.C. Fyfe, J.N.S. Cole, L. Nazarenko and K.E. Taylor, F.J.Wentz, 2014: Volcanic Contribution to Decadal Changes inTropospheric Temperature, Nature Geoscience, 7: 185–189, doi:10.1038/ngeo2098

Schlosser, C.A. and K. Strzepek, 2014: Regional climate change of thegreater Zambezi river basin: A hybrid assessment, Climatic Change,130(1): 9-19 (doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1230-0)

Schlosser, C.A., K. Strzepek, X. Gao, A. Gueneau, C. Fant, S. Paltsev, B.Rasheed, T. Smith-Greico, E. Blanc, H. Jacoby and J. Reilly, 2014: TheFuture of Global Water Stress: An Integrated Assessment, Earth’sFuture, 2(8), 341-361, doi:10.1002/2014EF000238 (Report 254) Reprint2014-16

Schmitz, C., H. van Meijl, P. Kyle, S. Fujimori, A. Gurgel, P. Havlik, D.Mason d'Croz, A. Popp, R. Sands, A. Tabeau, D. van der Mansbrugghe,M. von Lampe, M. Wise, É. Blanc, T. Hasegawa and H. Valin, 2014:Land-use change trajectories up to 2050: insights from a global agro-economic model comparison, Agricultural Economics, 45: 69–84(doi:10.1111/agec.12090)

Seber, G., R. Malina, M.N. Pearlson, H.O. Olcay, J.I. Hileman and S.R.H.Barrett, 2014: Environmental and economic assessment of producinghydroprocessed renewable jet fuel and diesel from waste oils andanimal fats, Biomass and Bioenergy, 67: 108-118 (doi: 10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.04.024)

Selin, N.E., 2014: Global Change and Mercury Cycling: Challenges forImplementing a Global Mercury Treaty, Environmental Toxicologyand Chemistry, 33: 1202–1210

Solomon, S., J. Haskins, D.J. Ivy and F. Min, 2014: Fundamental differencesbetween Arctic and Antarctic ozone depletion, Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences, 111(17): 6220-6225(doi:10.1073/pnas.1319307111)

Speth, R.L., E.W. Chow, R. Malina, S.R.H. Barrett, J.B. Heywood and W.H.Green, 2014: Economic and environmental benefits of higher-octanegasoline, Environmental Science and Technology, 48(12): 6561–6568(doi:10.1021/es405557p)

Staples, M.D., R. Malina, H. Olcay, M.N. Pearlson, J.I. Hileman, A. Boiesand S.R.H. Barrett, 2014: Lifecycle greenhouse gas footprint andminimum selling price of renewable diesel and jet fuel from advancedfermentation production technologies, Energy and EnvironmentalScience, 7: 1545-1554 (doi: 10.1039/C3EE43655A)

Stokes, L.C. and N.E. Selin, 2014: The Mercury Game: Evaluating aNegotiation Simulation that Teaches Students about Science-PolicyInteractions, Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 6(3): 597–605 (doi:10.1007/s13412-014-0183-y) (Report 255) Reprint 2014-23

Tai, A.P.K., M. Val Martin and C.L. Heald, 2014: Threat to future globalfood security from climate change and ozone air pollution, NatureClimate Change, 4, 817-821 (doi:10.1038/nclimate2317)

Thompson, R. L., K. Ishijima, E. Saikawa, M. Corazza, U. Karstens, P. K.Patra, P. Bergamaschi, F. Chevallier, E. Dlugokencky, R. G. Prinn, R. F.Weiss, S. O'Doherty, P. J. Fraser, L. P. Steele, P. B. Krummel, A.Vermeulen, Y. Tohjima, A. Jordan, L. Haszpra, M. Steinbacher, S. Vander Laan, T. Aalto, F. Meinhardt, M. E. Popa, J. Moncrieff and P.Bousquet, 2014: TransCom N2O model inter-comparison - Part II:Atmospheric inversion estimates of N2O emissions, Atmos. Chem.Phys. 14, 6177-6194

Thompson, R.L., F. Chevallier, A. Crotwell, G. Dutton, R.Langenfelds, L., R.G. Prinn, R.F. Weiss, Y. Tohjima, T. Nakazawa, P.B. Krummel, L.P.Steele, P. Fraser, K. Ishijima and S. Aoki, 2014: Nitrous oxide emissions1999–2009 from a global atmospheric inversion, Atmos. Chem. Phys.14, 1801-1817, doi:10.5194/acp-14-1801-2014

Thompson, R.L., P. K. Patra, K. Ishijima, E. Saikawa, M. Corazza, U.Karstens, C. Wilson, P. Bergamaschi, E. Dlugokencky, C. Sweeney, R.G. Prinn, R. F. Weiss, S. O'Doherty, P. B. Krummel, L. P. Steele, P.Fraser, M. Saunois, M. Chipperfield and P. Bousquet, 2014: TransComN2O model inter-comparison - Part I: Assessing the influence oftransport and surface fluxes on tropospheric N2O variability, Atmos.Chem. Phys. 14, 4349-4368

Thompson, T.M., R.K. Saari and N.E. Selin, 2014: Air quality resolution forhealth impacts assessment: influence of regional characteristics,Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 14: 969–978, doi: 10.5194/acp-14-969-2014 (Reprint 2014-2)

Thompson, T.M., S. Rausch, R.K. Saari and N.E. Selin, 2014: A systemsapproach to evaluating the air quality co-benefits of US carbon policies,Nature Climate Change, 4, 917–923, doi:10.1038/nclimate2342

Valin, H., R. Sands, D. van der Mensbrugghe, G. Nelson, H. Ahammad, D.Bodirsky, T. Hasegawa, P. Havlík, P. Kyle, D. Mason-D'Croz, S. Paltsev,A Tabeau, É. Blanc, S. Fujimori, E. Heyhoe, H. van Meijl, S. Rolinski,D. Willenbockel and M. von Lampe, 2014: The Future of FoodDemand: Understanding Differences in Global Economic Models,Agricultural Economics, 45: 51–67

Vallina, S.M., M.J. Follows, S. Dutkiewicz, J. Montoya, P. Cermeno and M.Loreau, 2014: Global relationship between phytoplankton diversity andproductivity in the ocean, Nature Communications, 5: 4299,doi:10.1038/ncomms5299

Velders, G.J.M., S. Solomon and J.S. Daniel, 2014: Growth of climatechange commitments from HFC banks and emissions, AtmosphericChemistry and Physics, 14: 4563-4572, doi: 10.5194/acp-14-4563-2014

von Lampe, M., D. Willenbockel, É. Blanc, Y. Cai, K. Calvin, S. Fujimori, T.Hasegawa, P. Havlík, P. Kyle, H. Lotze-Campen, D. Mason-D'Croz, G.D. Nelson, R.D. Sands, C. Scmitz, A. Tabeau, H. Valin, D. van derMensbrugghe and H. van Meijl, 2014: Why do global long-termscenarios for agriculture differ? An overview of the AgMIP globaleconomic model intercomparison, Agricultural Economics, 45: 3–20

Wang, Q., D.J. Jacob, J.R. Spackman, A.E. Perring, J.P. Schwarz, D.W.Fahey, Y. Kondo, N. Moteki, E.A. Marais, C. Ge, J. Wang and S.Barrett, 2014: Global budget and radiative forcing of black carbonaerosol: constraints from pole-to-pole (HIPPO) observations, Journalof Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 119 (1): 195-206 (doi:10.1002/2013JD020824)

Ward, B.A., S. Dutkiewicz and M.J. Follows, 2014: Modelling spatial andtemporal patterns in size-structured marine plankton communities:top-down and bottom-up controls, Journal of Plankton Research, 36(1): 31-47 (doi: 10.1093/plankt/fbt097)

Wing, A.A. and K.A. Emanuel, 2014: Physical mechanisms controlling self-aggregation of convection in idealized numerical modelingsimulations , J. Adv. Model. Earth Sys., 6, doi:10.1002/2013MS000269

Withers, M.R., R. Malina, C.K. Gilmore, J.M. Gibbs, C. Trigg, P.J. Wolfe, P.Trivedi and S.R.H. Barrett, 2014: Economic and EnvironmentalAssessment of Liquefied Natural Gas as a Supplemental Aircraft Fuel,Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 66(2014): 17-36 (doi: 10.1016/j.paerosci.2013.12.002)

Wolfe, P.J., S.H.L. Yim, G. Lee, A. Ashok, S.R.H. Barrett and I.A. Waitz,2014: Near-Airport Distribution of the Environmental Costs ofAviation, Transport Policy, 24(2014): 102-108 (doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.02.023)

Xiang, B., P.K. Patra, S.A. Montzka, S.M. Miller, J.W. Elkins, F. Moore, E.L. Atlas, B.R. Miller, R.F. Weiss, R.G. Prinn and S.C. Wofsy, 2014:Global Emissions of Refrigerants HCFC-22 and HFC-134a: UnforeseenSeasonal Contributions, Proc. Natl . Acad. Sci., 111(49): 17379–17384(doi:10.1073/pnas.1417372111)

Xu, L., R.D. Pyles, K.T. Paw U, S.-H. Chen and E. Monier, 2014: Couplingthe high-complexity land surface model ACASA to the mesoscalemodel WRF, Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 2917-2932, doi:10.5194/gmd-7-2917-2014 (Report 265) Reprint 2014-27

A8


Zhang, D., V.J. Karplus, C. Cassisa and X. Zhang, 2014: Emissions tradingin China: Progress and prospects, Energy Policy, 75(December): 9–16(doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.022) (Reprint 2014-22)

BOOKS AND BOOK CHAPTERS2016

Gurgel, A., Y.-H.H. Chen, S. Paltsev and J.M. Reilly, 2016: Linking NaturalResources to the CGE Framework, Chapter 3 in T. Bryant and A.Dinar (eds.) Global Economic and Computable General EquilibriumModels Of Society, Environment and Resources, Volume 3 In The WSPCSet on Globalization, Society and Environment, in press (WorldScientific)

2014Collins, R.D., V. Sakhrani, N.E. Selin, A. Alsaati and K.M. Strzepek, 2014:

Using inclusive wealth for policy evaluation: the case of infrastructurecapital, in: Inclusive Wealth Report, C. Scherkenbach and J. Tkacik(eds.) Cambridge University Press, p. 179–200

Karplus, V.J., 2014: China, Handbook on Agriculture, Biotechnology, andDevelopment, D. Castle, P. Phillips and S. Smith (eds.), Edward ElgarPublishing, Chapter 4

IN PRESS OR IN REVIEW2017

Blanc, É., 2017: Statistical Emulators of Maize, Rice, Soybean and WheatYields from Global Gridded Crop Models, Agricultural and ForestMeteorology, in press (doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.12.022) (Report296)

Caron, J., G.E. Metcalf and J. Reilly, 2017: The CO2 Content ofConsumption Across U.S. Regions: A Multi-Regional Input-Output(MRIO) Approach, The Energy Journal, 38(1)(doi:10.5547/01956574.38.1.jcar), in press

2016Blanc É. and J. Reilly, 2016: Climate change impact assessments on crops:

An overview of the debate, Review of Environmental Economics andPolicy, in review

Blanc, É., J. Caron, C. Fant and E. Monier, 2016: Is Current IrrigationSustainable in the United States? An Integrated Assessment of ClimateChange Impact on Water Resources and Irrigated Crop Yields, Earth'sFuture, in review

Brasseur, G.P., B. Weber, M.Z. Jacobson, H.B. Selkirk, Q. Liang, S. Olsen, L.D. Oman, L. Ott, A.R. Douglass, S. Pawson, A.P. Sokolov, R.S.Stolarski, R. Domah, D.J. Wuebbles and N. Unger, 2016: ModelIntercomparison of Aircraft-generated Ozone Change in theAtmosphere, Geophysical Research Letters, in review

Chen, Y.-H.H., 2016: Economic Projection with Non-homotheticPreferences: The Performance and Application of a CDE DemandSystem, Journal of Global Economic Analysis, in review (Report 307)

Chen, Y.-H.H., M. Babiker, S. Paltsev and J. Reilly, 2016: Costs of ClimateMitigation Policies , Journal of Environmental Economics andManagement, in review (Report 292)

Chien, C.-T., K.R.M. Mackey, S. Dutkiewicz, N.M. Mahowald, J.M.Prospero and A. Paytan, 2016: Effects of atmospheric dry deposition onphytoplankton downwind of the Sahara dust plume in the Westerntropical Atlantic Ocean off Barbados, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, inreview

Chipperfield, M.P., Q., Liang, M. Rigby, R. Hossaini, S. A. Montzka, S.Dhomse, W. Feng, R. G. Prinn, R. F. Weiss, C. M. Harth, P. K.Salameh, J. Mühle, S. O'Doherty, D. Young, P. G. Simmonds, P. B.Krummel, P. J. Fraser, L. P. Steele, J. D. Happell, R. C. Rhew, J. Butler,S. A. Yvon-Lewis, B. Hall, D. Nance, F. Moore, B. R. Miller, J. W.Elkins, J. J. Harrison, C. D. Boone, E. L. Atlas and E. Mahieu, 2016:Model Sensitivity Studies of the Decrease in Atmospheric CarbonTetrachloride, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., in press (doi: 10.5194/acp-2016-603)

Gao X., C.A. Schlosser, P. O’Gorman, E. Monier and D. Entekhabi, 2016:21st century changes in U.S. regional heavy precipitation frequencybased on resolved atmospheric patterns, Journal of Climate, in press(Report 302)

Gebretsadik, Y., C. A. Schlosser, and K. Strzepek, 2016: A hybrid approachto incorporating climate change and variability into climate scenariofor impact assessments, Applied Energy, in review

Gunturu, U.B., C.A. Schlosser and D.E. Waliser, 2016: Intraseasonalvariability and predictability of wind power resource in the U.S.,PNAS, in review

Lanz, B. and S. Rausch, 2016: Cap-and-Trade Climate Policy with Price-Regulated Industries: The Case of the US Electricity Sector, AmericanEconomic Journal: Economic Policy, in review

Lanz, B., S. Dietzy and T. Swanson, 2016: Global population growth,technology, and Malthusian constraints: A quantitative growththeoretic perspective, International Economic Review, in press (Report283)

Lee, E., C.A. Schlosser and R.G. Prinn, 2016: Effects of Wind-driven SeedDispersal Constraint in Plant Migration Modeling, Journal ofAdvances in Modeling Earth Systems, in review

Marshall, J., J.R. Scott, A. Romanou, M. Kelley and T. Leboissetier, 2016:The dependence of the ocean’s MOC on mesoscale eddy diffusivities: amodel study, Ocean Modeling, in review

Meinshausen, M., E. Vogel, A. Nauels, K. Lorbacher, N. Meinshausen, D.Etheridge, P. Fraser, S. A. Montzka, P. Rayner, C. Trudinger, P.Krummel, U. Beyerle, J. G. Cannadell, J. S. Daniel, I. Enting, R. M. Law,S. O'Doherty, R. G. Prinn, S. Reimann, M. Rubino, G. J. M. Velders, M.K. Vollmer, and R. Weiss, 2016: Historical greenhouse gasconcentrations, Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., in review (doi:10.5194/gmd-2016-169)

Morris, J., J. Reilly and Y.-H. H. Chen, 2016: Advanced Technologies inEnergy-Economy Models for Climate Change Assessment, EnergyEconomics, in review

Morris, J., V. Srikrishnan, M. Webster and J. Reilly, 2016: HedgingStrategies: Electricity Investment Decisions under Policy Uncertainty,Energy Journal, in review (Report 260)

Paltsev, S., 2016: Energy Scenarios: The Value and Limits of ScenarioAnalysis, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews (WIREs) Energy andEnvironment, in press

Romanou, A., J. Marshall, M. Kelley, and J. Scott, 2016: Role of the ocean’sMOC in the uptake of transient tracers, Geophysical Research Letters,in review

Strzepek, K., C. Fant, Y. Gebretsadik, M. Lickley, B. Boehlert, S. Chapra, E.Adams, A. Strzepek and C.A. Schlosser, 2016: Water BodyTemperature Model for Assessing Climate Change Impacts on ThermalCooling, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, in review(Report 280)

Vallina, S., P. Cermeno, S. Dutkiewicz, M. Loreau and J.M. Montoya, 2016:Phytoplankton functional diversity, productivity and stability, NatureCommunications, in review

Xu L., R.D. Pyles, K.T. Paw U, S.H. Chen, E. Monier and M. Falk, 2016:Modeling Regional Carbon Dioxide Flux over California using theWRF-ACASA Coupled Model, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology,in review (Report 298)

A9

MIT Joint Program Annual Report Appendix In Press or In Review 2014–2016

Xu, L., R.D. Pyles, K.T. Paw U, R.L. Snyder, E. Monier, M. Falk and S.H.Chen, 2016: Impact of Canopy Representations on Regional Modelingof Evapotranspiration using the WRF-ACASA Coupled Model,Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, in review (Report 287)

Zhang, D., V. Karplus and S. Rausch, 2016: Capturing Natural ResourceDynamics in Top-Down Energy-Economic Equilibrium Models,Resource and Energy Economics, in review (Report 284)

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS: PAPERS& ABSTRACTS2016

Feng, T., E.A. Couzo, N.E. Selin, F. Garcia-Menendez and E. Monier, 2016:Influence of Air Pollutant Emission Controls on the “Climate Penalty”in the United States (poster), AGU Fall Meeting (December 12-16,2016): abstract A11L-0170

Gao X., C.A. Schlosser, C. Fant, K. Strzepek and J. Reilly, 2016: The futurewater risks under global change in Southern and Eastern Asia:implications of mitigation, Asia Oceania Geosciences Society 13thAnnual Meeting (Abstract: HS03-A034)

Gao X., C.A. Schlosser, P. O’Gorman, E. Monier and D. Entekhabi, 2016:21st century changes in precipitation extremes based on resolvedatmospheric patterns, Asia Oceania Geosciences Society 13th AnnualMeeting (Abstract: AS17-A006)

Gao, X. and C.A. Schlosser, 2016: Heavy precipitation in regional climatemodels: does it pay to play analogue?, AGU Fall Meeting (December12-16, 2016): A13E-0315

Gasore, J. and R.G. Prinn, 2016: First Continuous High Frequency in SituMeasurements of CO2 and CH4 in Rwanda Using Cavity Ring-DownSpectroscopy, and Preliminary Results of Regional EmissionEstimation , AGU Fall Meeting (December 12-16, 2016): abstract B13B-0567

Gertler, C.G., E. Monier and R.G. Prinn, 2016: The Role of Arctic Sea Ice inLast Millennium Climate Variability: Model-Proxy Comparisons UsingEnsemble Members and Novel Model Experiments (poster), AGU FallMeeting (December 12-16, 2016): abstract PP41C-2260

Giang, A., E. Monier, E.A. Couzo, C. Pike-Thackray and N.E. Selin, 2016:Implications of climate variability for monitoring the effectiveness ofglobal mercury policy, AGU Fall Meeting (December 12-16, 2016):abstract A11L-0165

Gressent, A., J. Mühle, M.L. Rigby, M.F. Lunt, A. Ganesan, R.G. Prinn, P.B.Krummel, P.J. Fraser, P. Steele, R.F. Weiss, C.M. Harth, S. O'Doherty,D. Young, S. Park, S. Li, B. Yao, S. Reimann, M.K. Vollmer, M. Maione,I. Arduini and C.R. Lunder, 2016: Optimal Estimation of SulfurylFluoride Emissions on Regional and Global Scales Using Advanced 3DInverse Modeling and AGAGE Observations (Invited) , AGU FallMeeting (December 12-16, 2016): abstract A23P-02

Kicklighter, D., X. Lu, E. Monier, A. Sokolov, J. Melillo, J. Reilly and Q.Zhuang, 2016: Protected Areas’ Role in Climate-change Mitigation inNorthern Eurasia, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 18, EGU2016-9590

Kicklighter, D.W., E. Monier, A. Sokolov, Q. Zhuang, J.M. Melillo, and J.M.Reilly, 2016: Modeling global change impacts on Northern Eurasia,AGU Fall Meeting (December 12-16, 2016): Abstract #188006

Kishimoto, P.N., V.J. Karplus, M. Zhong, E. Saikawa, X. Zhang and X.L.Zhang, 2016: The Impact of Coordinated Policies on Air PollutionEmissions from Road Transportation in China, TransportationResearch Board 95th Annual Meeting (Washington D.C., January 10-14)

Li, M., N.E. Selin, E.A. Couzo, F. Garcia-Menendez, T. Feng and E. Monier,2016: Effects of Climate Variability on Transpacific Transport of Ozone(poster), AGU Fall Meeting (December 12-16, 2016): abstract A11L-0168

McClellan, M.J., M.L. Rigby, A. Ganesan, M.F. Lunt, E. Saikawa, A.Manning, S. Ono and R.G. Prinn, 2016: Source-Specific Nitrous OxideEmissions in Ireland and UK from New Isotopically ResolvedMeasurements and Models , AGU Fall Meeting (December 12-16,2016): abstract A41J-06

Monier, E., D. Kicklighter, A. Sokolov, Q. Zhuang, J. Melillo and J. Reilly,2016: Overview of past, ongoing and future efforts of the integratedmodeling of global change for Northern Eurasia, GeophysicalResearch Abstracts, Vol. 18, EGU2016-10666

Monier, E., D.W. Kicklighter, Q. Ejaz, N. Winchester, S. Paltsev and J.M.Reilly, 2016: Integrated modeling of land-use change: the role ofcoupling, interactions and feedbacks between the human and Earthsystems (poster), AGU Fall Meeting (December 12-16, 2016): abstractGC31B-1124

Paltsev, S., 2016: Projecting Energy and Climate for the 21st Century:Energy Scenarios, Energy Geopolitics, and Impacts of the ParisAgreement (COP-21), 23rd World Energy Congress, Istanbul, Turkey(Award-Winning Paper)

Prinn, R.G., 2016: Valuing and Maintaining Independent Research withPrivate Sector Funding, AGU Fall Meeting (December 12-16, 2016):abstract PA14A-02

Rothenberg, D., C. Wang and A. Avramov, 2016: Contributions ofUncertainty in Droplet Nucleation to the Indirect Effect in GlobalModels, AGU Fall Meeting (December 12-16, 2016): abstract A44E-03

Schlosser, C.A., K.M. Strzepek, X. Gao, C. Fant, S. Paltsev, E. Monier, A.P.Sokolov, N. Winchester, H. Chen, D.W. Kicklighter and Q. Ejaz, 2016:Confronting Future Risks of Global Water Stress and Sustainability:Avoided Changes Versus Adaptive Actions (Invited), AGU FallMeeting (December 12-16, 2016): abstract U13A-02

Scott, J.R., J. Marshall and A. Proshutinsky, 2016: Climate ResponseFunctions for the Arctic Ocean, AGU Fall Meeting (December 12-16,2016): abstract GC23H-08

Selin, N.E., M. Li, R. Saari, D. Zhang, V.J. Karplus, C.-T. Li, T.M.Thompson, K.M. Mulvaney and S. Rausch, 2016: Comparing climatepolicy co-benefits in the United States and China, AGU Fall Meeting(December 12-16, 2016): abstract A31J-02

Sokolov, A., S. Paltsev, H. Chen and E. Monier, 2016: Climate Impacts ofthe Paris Agreement, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 18,EGU2016-8016

Sokolov, A.P., S. Paltsev, H. Chen, C.E. Forest, A.G. Libardoni, E. Monierand X. Gao, 2016: Probabilistic Estimates of Climate Impacts of theParis Agreement, AGU Fall Meeting (December 12-16, 2016): abstractGC31F-1169

Tuladhar, S.D., M. Yuan and W.D. Montgomery, 2016: An EconomicAnalysis of the Circular Economy, GTAP 19th Annual Conference onGlobal Economic Analysis (Washington DC, June) GTAP Resource4937 (https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/res_display.asp?RecordID=4937)

Winchester, N., K. Ledvina, K.M. Strzepek and J.M. Reilly, 2016: TheImpact of Water Scarcity on Food, Bioenergy and Deforestation, AGUFall Meeting (December 12-16, 2016): abstract B31D-0494

Xu, L., C.A. Schlosser, D.W. Kicklighter, B.S. Felzer, K.-T. Paw U and K.-Y.Chang, 2016: Multi-Land Surface Models Sensitivity Study onEcosystem Responses to Enhanced and Extended Drought Conditions,AGU Fall Meeting (December 12-16, 2016): abstract GC53D-1333

Zhuang, Q., D. Kicklighter, Y. Cai, N. Tchebakova, J. Melillo, J. Reilly, A.Sokolov, A. Sirin, S. Maksyutov, and A. Shvidenko, 2016: Quantifyingthe role of land-use and land-cover changes in Northern Eurasia inglobal greenhouse gas emissions and biomass supply during the 21stcentury using an earth system modeling approach, AGU Fall Meeting(December 12-16, 2016)

A10

MIT Joint Program Annual Report Appendix Conference Proceedings: Papers & Abstracts 2014–2016

2015Chen, Y.-H.H., 2015: Economic Projection with Non-homothetic

Preferences: The Performance and Application of a CDE DemandSystem, 18th Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis:“Information for the Policy Maker: Practical Economic Modeling orTomorrow” (Melbourne, Australia, June 17-19) paper #4746 (https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/res_display.asp?RecordID=4746)

DeWitt, L., J. Gasore, R. Prinn and K. Potter, 2015: Measurements ofBackground and Polluted Air in Rural Regions of Rwanda, AmericanGeophysical Union Fall Meeting (San Francisco, December 14–18),abstract B11A-0405 (https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm15/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/63692)

Dutkiewicz, S., 2015: Modeling of phytoplankton composition: status andremote sensing needs, International Ocean Colour Science Meeting(San Francisco, June)

Dutkiewicz, S., A. Hickman, O. Jahn, and M. Gierach, 2015: Evaluating anevaluation dataset: satellite derived Chlorophyll-a, GODAE-MEOPARMEAP-TT Workshop (Halifax, Cananda, June 2015)

Dutkiewicz, S., A. Hickman, O. Jahn, and M. Gierach, 2015: Numericalmodel laboratory for exploring uncertainty in satellite derivedchlorophyll-a, International Ocean Colour Science Meeting (SanFrancisco, June)

Dutkiewicz, S., O. Jahn, B.A. Ward, J.R. Scott and M.J. Follows, 2015:Diversity of phytoplankton function and cell size in the current andfuture ocean (Abstract ID: 26408), Association for the Science ofLimnology and Oceanography (ASLO) 2015 Meeting (Granda, Spain,February 23-27 2015)

Fang, X., 2015: Atmospheric-measurement-based top-down estimate ofemissions of greenhouse gases and air Pollutants, EnvironmentalScholars Forum (New Haven, CT, USA, May 30-31, 2015)

Fang, X., G. Velders, A. Ravishankara, M. Moline, S. Su, X. Zhou, J. Hu andR. Prinn, 2015: Emission Inventory of Halogenated greenhouse gases inChina during 1980-2050, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting(San Francisco, December 14–18), abstract A51B-0042 (https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm15/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/82837)

Forest, C., A Libardoni, C.-Y. Tsai, A. Sokolov, E. Monier, R. Sriver and K.Keller, 2015: Towards Quantifying Robust Uncertainty Information forClimate Change Decision-making, American Geophysical Union FallMeeting (San Francisco, December 14–18), abstract GC41H-05 (https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm15/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/79319)

Ganesan, A., M. Lunt, M. Rigby, A. Chatterjee, H. Boesch, R. Parker, R.Prinn, M. van der Schoot, P. Krummel, Y. Tiwari, H. Mukai, T.Machida, Y. Terao, S. Nomura and P. Patra, 2015: Constrainingmethane emissions from the Indo-Gangetic Plains and South Asiausing combined surface and satellite data, American GeophysicalUnion Fall Meeting (San Francisco, December 14–18), abstract A52C-02 (https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm15/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/77962)

Garcia Menendez, F., E. Monier and N. Selin, 2015: An Assessment ofUncertainty in Projections of Climate-Induced Changes in U.S. O3Pollution, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting (San Francisco,December 14–18), abstract A42F-05 (https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm15/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/86736)

Gasore, J., L. DeWitt and R. Prinn, 2015: First Continuous High Frequencyin Situ Measurements of CO3 and CH4 in Rwanda, Using Ring-downSpectroscopy, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting (SanFrancisco, December 14–18), abstract B11A-0409 (https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm15/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/71705)

Kicklighter, D., E. Monier, A. Sokolov, Q. Zhuang and J. Melillo, 2015:Importance of soil thermal dynamics on land carbon sequestration inNorthern Eurasia during the 21st century, Geophysical ResearchAbstracts, Vol. 17, EGU2015-6435

Kicklighter, D., J. Melillo, E. Monier, A. Sokolov, X. Lu and Q. Zhuang,2015: Importance of Nitrogen Availability on Land CarbonSequestration in Northern Eurasia during the 21st Century, AmericanGeophysical Union Fall Meeting (San Francisco, December 14–18),abstract GC31B-1171 (https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm15/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/69270)

Lauderdale, J.M., S. Dutkiewicz, J. Scott, R.G. Williams and and M.J.Follows, 2015: Oceanic controls of air-sea CO2 fluxes (Abstract ID:27143), Association for the Science of Limnology and Oceanography(ASLO) 2015 Meeting (Granda, Spain, February 23-27 2015)

Libardoni, A.G., C.E. Forest and A.P. Sokolov, 2015: Examining robustestimates of climate system property distributions with climate datarecords to 2010, Geophysical Research Abstracts Vol. 17, EGU2015-6044-1, European Geophysical Union General Assembly (Vienna,Austria, April 12-17)

McClellan, M., E. Saikawa, R. Prinn and S. Ono, 2015: Measurement andModeling of Site-specific Nitrogen and Oxygen Isotopic Compositionof Atmospheric Nitrous Oxide at Mace Head, Ireland, AmericanGeophysical Union Fall Meeting (San Francisco, December 14–18),abstract A11I-0183 (https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm15/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/48380)

McClellan, M.J., E.J. Harris, W. Olszewski, S. Ono, and R.G. Prinn, 2015:Measurement and modeling of site-specific nitrogen and oxygenisotopic composition of atmospheric nitrous oxide at Mace Head,Ireland, 250th American Chemical Society National Meeting (Boston,MA, August 16–20). Paper ID: 2289701

Monier, E., D. Kicklighter and A. Sokolov, 2015: 21st century projections ofterrestrial carbon fluxes over Northern Eurasia: the role of land legacy,future land use change and future climate change, GeophysicalResearch Abstracts, Vol. 17, EGU2015-7253

Monteiro, F.M., S. Dutkiewicz, A. Poulton, L. Bach and A. Ridgwell, 2015:Why do marine phytoplankton calcify? (Abstract ID: 27389),Association for the Science of Limnology and Oceanography (ASLO)2015 Meeting (Granda, Spain, February 23-27 2015)

Paltsev, S., 2015: Economics and Geopolitics of Natural Gas: Pipelinesversus LNG, European Energy Market Conference (Lisbon, Portugal,May 2015). Available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7216651 (doi: 10.1109/EEM.2015.7216651)

Paltsev, S. and D. Zhang, 2015: The Future of Nuclear Power in China:Long-Term Scenarios, 21st International Conference: Nuclear FuelCycle for a Low-Carbon Future (Paris, France, September 2015).Available at: https://www.conftool.pro/global2015papers/index.php?page=browseSessions&form_session=1

Paltsev, S., Y.-H. H. Chen, V. Karplus, P. Kishimoto and J. Reilly, 2015: CO2

Emissions, Energy, and Economic Impacts of CO2 Mandates for NewCars in Europe, 18th Annual Conference on Global EconomicAnalysis: “Information for the Policy Maker: Practical EconomicModeling or Tomorrow” (Melbourne, Australia, June 17-19) paper#4628 (https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/download/7302.pdf)

Rigby, M., A. Wenger, S. O’Doherty, M. Lunt , A. Ganesan, A. Manningand R. Prinn, 2015: Inferring global and regional methane sources andsinks using isotopic observations and atmospheric chemical transportmodels, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting (San Francisco,December 14–18), abstract A11I-0178 (https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm15/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/70177)

Sokolov, A., E. Monier, X. Gao, A. Schlosser and J. Scott, 2015: Aframework for estimation of uncertainty in regional climate change,Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 17, EGU2015-7247

Sokolov, A., S. Paltsev, H. Chen, M. Haigh and R. Prinn, 2015: ClimateStabilization at 2°C and “Net Zero” Emissions, American GeophysicalUnion Fall Meeting (San Francisco, December 14–18), abstract GC43C-1212 (https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm15/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/66532)

A11


Tian, H., C. Lu, P. Ciais, A. Michalak, J.P. Canadell, , E. Saikawa, D.Huntzinger ,K. Gurney, S. Sitch, B. Zhang, J. Yang, P. Bousquet, L.Bruhwiler, G. Chen, E. Dlugokencky, P. Friedlingstein, J. Melillo, S.Pan, B. Poulter, R. Prinn, M. Saunois, C. Schwalm and S. Wofsy, 2015:The full budget of greenhouse gases in the terrestrial biosphere: Fromglobal C project to global GHG project, American Geophysical UnionFall Meeting (San Francisco, December 14–18), abstract B21M-03(https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm15/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/86216)

Vallina, S.M., J.M. Montoya, M. Loreau, M.J. Follows, S. Dutkiewicz and C.Le Quere, 2015: An ecosystem marine mechanistic model of modularcomplexity (EM4C): functional diversity and foodweb stability(Abstract ID: 27215), Association for the Science of Limnology andOceanography (ASLO) 2015 Meeting (Granda, Spain, February 23-272015)

Wells, K., D. Millet, N. Bousserez, D. Henze, S. Chaliyakunnel, T. Griffis, E.Dlugokencky, R. Prinn, S. O’Doherty, R. Weiss, G. Dutton, J. Elkins, P.Krummel, R. Langenfelds and P. Steele, 2015: Evaluating ObservationalConstraints on N2O Emissions via Information Content Analysis UsingGEOS-Chem and its Adjoint, American Geophysical Union FallMeeting (San Francisco, December 14–18), abstract A31B-0040 (https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm15/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/79283)

Xu, L., C.A. Schlosser, X. Xu, J. Gregory and R. Kirchain, 2015: Quantifyingthe impacts of surface albedo on climate using the WRF model,American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting (San Francisco, December14–18), abstract B33E-0774 (https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm15/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/86103)

Zhuang, Q., D. Kicklighter, Y. Cai, N. Tchebakova, J. Melillo, J. Reilly, A.Sokolov and A. Sirin, 2015: Quantifying the role of Northern Eurasia inglobal CO2, CH4, and water dynamics during the 21st Century,Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 17651

Zhuang, Q., X. Zhu, Y. He, C. Prigent, J.M. Melillo, A.D. McGuire, R.G.Prinn and D.W. Kicklighter, 2015: Influence of Changes in WetlandInundation Extent on Net Fluxes of Carbon Dioxide and Methane inNorthern High Latitudes from 1993 to 2004, Environmental ResearchLetters, 10(9): 095009 (doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/9/095009)AmericanGeophysical Union Fall Meeting (San Francisco, Dec. 3–7)

2014Bar-Or, R., and C. Wang, 2014: On The Unique Trends between East Asian

Cloud Coverage, Urbanization, and Haze, American GeophysicalUnion (AGU) Fall Meeting (San Francisco, CA, December 15–192014), abstract A22B-02 (http://agu.confex.com/agu/fm14/meetingapp.cgi#Paper/28412)

Blanc, E., E. Monier, C. Fant and J. Reilly, 2014: Climate Change, WaterResources and Irrigated Crop Yields: A Modeling Framework forIntegrated Assessment of the US, GTAP 17th Annual Conference onGlobal Economic Analysis (Dakar, Senegal, June) GTAP Resource 4409(https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/res_display.asp?RecordID=4409)

Caron, J., 2014: Per Capita Income, Consumption Patterns and CO2Emissions, Fifth World Congress of Environmental and ResourceEconomists (Istanbul, Turkey, July 2)

Chen, Y.-H. H., S. Paltsev, J. Reilly and J. Morris, 2014: The MIT EPPA6Model: Economic Growth, Energy Use, and Food Consumption,Taiwan Economic Association Annual Conference (Taipei, Taiwan,December 13)

Chen, Y.-H. H., S. Paltsev, J. Reilly, and J. Morris, 2014: The MIT EPPA6Model: Economic Growth, Energy Use, Emissions, and FoodConsumption, GTAP 17th Annual Conference on Global EconomicAnalysis (Dakar, Senegal, June 18) GTAP Resource 4443 (https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/res_display.asp?RecordID=4443)

Dutkiewicz, S., J. Morris, M.J. Follows, S. Dyhrman and I. Berman-Frank,2014: Will ocean acidification be the dominant driver influencingphytoplankton communities in the future?, 2014 AGU Ocean SciencesMeeting (Honolulu, HI, USA, February 23–28) (http://www.sgmeet.com/osm2014/viewabstract.asp?AbstractID=15019)

Fang, X., 2014: First multi-annual top-down estimate of HFC-23 emissionsin East Asia, 50th Meeting of AGAGE Scientists and CooperatingNetworks (La Jolla, CA, USA, December 8–13, 2014)

Follows, M.J., S. Dutkiewicz, J. Frazier and O. Jahn, 2014: Interpreting thediversity and biogeography of phytoplankton with an ocean model,2014 AGU Ocean Sciences Meeting (Honolulu, HI, USA, February 23–28) (http://www.sgmeet.com/osm2014/viewabstract.asp?AbstractID=17464)

Forest, C.E., A. Warner, K. Keller and A. Sokolov, 2014: Assessing theimpacts of using energy balance models to estimate probabilitydistributions of equilibrium climate sensitivity, American GeophysicalUnion Fall Meeting (San Francisco, December), Abstract ID: GC41F-0654.

Frazier, J.A., J. Ma, I. Liao and S. Dutkiewicz, 2014: Living liquid:partnering with ocean scientists to create museum exhibits, 2014 AGUOcean Sciences Meeting (Honolulu, HI, USA, February 23–28) (http://www.sgmeet.com/osm2014/viewabstract.asp?AbstractID=15484)

Gao, X., 2014: Characterizing, Understanding, and Modeling ClimateExtremes, American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting (SanFrancisco, CA, December 15–19 2014)

Gao, X. and C.A. Schlosser, 2014: 21st Century Changes in PrecipitationExtremes Over the United States: Can Climate Analogues Help orHinder?, American Meteorological Society 26th Conference on ClimateVariability and Change (Atlanta, GA, February 2–6) (https://ams.confex.com/ams/94Annual/webprogram/Paper238862.html)

Gao, X., C. Schlosser, P. O’Gorman and E. Monier, 2014: 21st CenturyChanges in Precipitation Extremes Based on Resolved AtmosphericPatterns, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting (San Francisco,December 19), abstract GC51A-0379 (https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm14/meetingapp.cgi#Paper/27628)

Garcia Mendez, F., 2014: Evaluating the Contribution of Natural Variabilityand Climate Model Response to Uncertainty in

Projections of Climate Change Impacts on U.S. Air Quality, AmericanGeophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting (San Francisco, CA, December15–19 2014)

Garcia Menendez, F., E. Monier and N. Selin, 2014: Evaluating theContribution of Natural Variability and Climate Model Response toUncertainty in Projections of Climate Change Impacts on U.S. AirQuality, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting (San Francisco,December 18), abstract A431-3390 (https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm14/meetingapp.cgi#Paper/14362)

Giang, A., L. Stokes and N.E. Selin, 2014: Mercury emissions in theMinamata Convention: Asia, North America, and Europe,International Studies Association 55th Annual Convention (Toronto,Canada, March 26)

Karplus, V., 2014: Ownership and Energy Management in China'sIndustrial Firms, Fifth World Congress of Environmental andResource Economists (Istanbul, Turkey, June 29)

Karplus, V.J., P.N. Kishimoto and D. Zhang, 2014: Transportation energydemand and emissions in China's provinces to 2030, 2nd InternationalConference on Air Benefit, Cost and Attainment Assessment (Beijing,China, May 28–30)

Kicklighter, D., Y. Cai, Q. Zhuang, E. Parfenova, S. Paltsev, A. Sokolov, J.Melillo, J. Reilly, N. Tchebakova and X. Lu, 2014: Potential Influence ofClimate-induced Vegetation Shifts on Future Land Use and AssociatedLand Carbon Fluxes in Northern Eurasia, American GeophysicalUnion (AGU) Fall Meeting (San Francisco, CA, December 15–192014), abstract GC33F-03 (https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm14/meetingapp.cgi#Paper/5349)

A12


Kishimoto, P.N., 2014: Energy & Emissions from Transport to 2030, 3rdAnnual Stakeholders' Meeting of CECP (Beijing, China, June 11)

Kishimoto, P.N., 2014: Energy, Emissions, Air Quality & Health Impacts ofTransport Policies in China, 3rd workshop of theMIT/Tsinghua/Emory U. project funded by the Energy Foundation(Beijing, China, May 27)

Kishimoto, P.N., 2014: Transportation Growth in China: energy-economicmodeling for policy analysis, Presentation for Beijing Energy Network(Beijing, China, June 11)

Kishimoto, P.N., D. Zhang, X. Luo, X. Zhang and V.J. Karplus, 2014:Projecting provincial energy demand and CO₂ emissions in China to2030, 7th International Energy Workshop (Beijing, China, June 4–6)

Kishimoto, P.N., D. Zhang, X. Zhang and V.J. Karplus, 2014: ModelingRegional Transportation Demand in China and Impacts of a NationalCarbon Policy, Transportation Research Board 93rd Annual Meeting(Washington DC, USA, January 12–16)

Kishimoto, P.N., V.J. Karplus and D. Zhang, 2014: Transportation energydemand and emissions in China's provinces to 2030, 37th IAEEInternational Conference (New York, NY, USA, Jun 15–18)

Libardoni, A., C. Forest and A. Sokolov, 2014: Estimates of climate systemproperties based on recent climate records up to 2012, AmericanGeophysical Union Fall Meeting (San Francisco, December) abstractGC41F-0655 (http://agu.confex.com/agu/fm14/meetingapp.cgi#Paper/23735)

Monier, E. and A. Sokolov, 2014: Relationship between future changes inmean climate and changes in extreme events, AmericanMeteorological Society 26th Conference on Climate Variability andChange (Atlanta, GA, February 2–6) (https://ams.confex.com/ams/94Annual/webprogram/Paper240179.html)

Monier, E., D. Kicklighter and A. Sokolov, 2014: Future changes interrestrial carbon fluxes over Northern Eurasia under uncertainty in21st century climate change, EGU General Assembly 2014 (Vienna,Austria, April)

Nam, K.-M., 2014: Synergy between pollution and carbon emissionscontrol: comparing China and the United States, UrbanEnvironmental Pollution 2014 Conference (Toronto, ON, Canada,June 12–15)

R.K. Saari, N.E. Selin, T. M. Thompson, 2014: Quantifying EconomicImpacts of US Ozone Policies for Low-Income Households throughIntegrated Modeling, Community Modeling and Analysis System(CMAS) Conference (Chapel Hill, NC, October 27-29 2014)

Ramberg, D.J. and S.A. Van Vactor, 2014: Implications of Residual OilPhase Out, Proceedings Paper for the 37th International Associationfor Energy Economists (IAEE) International Conference (New York,USA, June 18)

Scott, J.R., J. Marshall and K.C. Armour, 2014: Sensitivity of Ocean HeatUptake and Climate Response to Eddy and Diapyncal DiffusivityParameters, 2014 AGU Ocean Sciences Meeting (Honolulu, HI, USA,February 23–28)

Sokolov, A., A. Libardoni, C. Forest and E. Monier, 2014: Probabilisticforecast of long-term climate changes under different RCP scenarios,EGU General Assembly 2014 (Vienna, Austria, April)

Strzepek, K., 2014: Planning and Design of Water Resources under ClimateChange and Variability, American Geophysical Union (AGU) FallMeeting (San Francisco, CA, December 15–19 2014), abstract H12F-01(https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm14/meetingapp.cgi#Paper/4891)

Winchester, N. and J. Reilly, 2014: Contribution of biomass to emissionsabatement under a global carbon policy, GTAP 17th AnnualConference on Global Economic Analysis (Dakar, Senegal, June)GTAP Resource 4510 (https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/resources/res_display.asp?RecordID=4510)

Xu, L., 2014: Ecosystem Resiliency Study under Extreme Droughts usingMulti‐Land Surface Models, American Geophysical Union (AGU) FallMeeting (San Francisco, CA, December 15–19 2014)

Xu, L., C. Schlosser, D. Kickligher, K.T. Paw U., K.-Y. Chang, B. Felzer andZ. Kothavala, 2014: Ecosystem Resiliency Study under ExtremeDroughts using Multi-Land Surface Models, American GeophysicalUnion Fall Meeting (San Francisco, December 18), abstract B41C-0055(https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm14/meetingapp.cgi#Paper/31665)

Xu, L., D. Kicklighter, A. Schlosser, K.T. Paw U, B. Felzer and K.Y. Chang,2014: Impact of Extreme Events on Ecological Responses for Waterand Carbon, American Meteorological Society 26th Conference onClimate Variability and Change (Atlanta, GA, February 2–6) (https://ams.confex.com/ams/94Annual/webprogram/Paper241580.html)

Yip, A., Y. Du and J. Montgomery, 2014: Clean Investment Mechanism forEnergy Efficiency, International Association of Energy Economics2014 International Conference (New York City, NY, USA, June 15–18)

Zhang, D., M. Springmann and V.J. Karplus, 2014: Equity and EmissionsTrading in China, Fifth World Congress of Environmental andResource Economists (Istanbul, Turkey, June 30)

Zhang, D., V.J. Karplus and S. Rausch, 2014: Capturing renewable resourcedynamics in top-down energy models: A hybrid method applied tooffshore wind in China, 37th International Association of EnergyEconomics International Conference (New York, NY, USA, June)

JOINT PROGRAM REPORT SERIES2016

307. Chen, Y.-H.H., 2016: Economic Projection with Non-homotheticPreferences: The Performance and Application of a CDE DemandSystem, November, 25 p.

306. Chang, K.-Y., K.T. Paw U and L. Xu, 2016: A Drought Indicator basedon Ecosystem Responses to Water Availability: The NormalizedEcosystem Drought Index, December, 11 p.

305. Blanc, É., J. Caron, C. Fant and E. Monier, 2016: Is Current IrrigationSustainable in the United States? An Integrated Assessment of ClimateChange Impact on Water Resources and Irrigated Crop Yields,November, 24 p.

304. Winchester, N. and K. Ledvina, 2016: The Impact of Oil Prices onBioenergy, Emissions and Land Use, (October, 12 p.)

303. Karplus, V.J., X. Shen and D. Zhang, 2016: Scaling Compliance withCoverage? Firm-level Performance in China’s Industrial EnergyConservation Program, (October, 22 p.)

302. Gao, X., C.A. Schlosser, P. O'Gorman, E. Monier and D. Entekhabi,2016: 21st Century Changes in U.S. Heavy Precipitation FrequencyBased on Resolved Atmospheric Patterns , October, 24 p.

301. Abrell, J. and S. Rausch, 2016: Combining Price and QuantityControls under Partitioned Environmental Regulation , July, 29 p.

300. Winchester, N., K. Ledvina, K. Strzepek and J.M. Reilly, 2016: TheImpact of Water Scarcity on Food, Bioenergy and Deforestation, July,20 p.

299. Kishimoto, P.N., V.J. Karplus, M. Zhong, E. Saikawa, X. Zhang and X.Zhang, 2016: The Impact of Coordinated Policies on Air PollutionEmissions from Road Transportation in China , July, 34 p.

298. Xu, L., R.D. Pyles, K.T. Paw U, S.-H. Chen, E. Monier and M. Falk,2016: Modeling Regional Carbon Dioxide Flux over California usingthe WRF-ACASA Coupled Model , July, 24 p.

297. Morris, J., M. Webster and J. Reilly, 2016: Electricity Investmentsunder Technology Cost Uncertainty and Stochastic TechnologicalLearning, May, 20 p.

296. Blanc, É., 2016: Statistical Emulators of Maize, Rice, Soybean andWheat Yields from Global Gridded Crop Models, May, 38 p.

A13

MIT Joint Program Annual Report Appendix Joint Program Report Series 2014–2016

295. Ejaz, Q.J., S. Paltsev, D.W. Kicklighter and N.W. Winchester, 2016:Are Land-use Emissions Scalable with Increasing Corn EthanolMandates in the United States?, April, 24 p.

294. Zhang, D. and S. Paltsev, 2016: The Future of Natural Gas in China:Effects of Pricing Reform and Climate Policy, March, 28 p.

293. Monier, E., L. Xu and R. Snyder, 2016: Uncertainty in Future Agro-Climate Projections in the United States and Benefits of Greenhouse GasMitigation , March, 20 p.

292. Chen, Y.-H.H., M. Babiker, S. Paltsev and J. Reilly, 2016: Costs ofClimate Mitigation Policies , March, 22 p.

291. Paltsev, S., A. Sokolov, H. Chen, X. Gao, A. Schlosser, E. Monier, C.Fant, J. Scott, Q. Ejaz, E. Couzo, R. Prinn and M. Haigh, 2016:Scenarios of Global Change: Integrated Assessment of Climate Impacts ,February, 47 p.

2015290. Gillingham, K., W. Nordhaus, D. Anthoff, G. Blanford, V. Bosetti, P.

Christensen, H. McJeon, J. Reilly and P. Sztorc, 2015: ModelingUncertainty in Climate Change: A Multi-Model Comparison,December, 47 p.

289. Zhang, X., T. Qi and X. Zhang, 2015: The Impact of Climate Policy onCarbon Capture and Storage Deployment in China, December, 19 p.

288. Ramberg, D.J., Y.H.H. Chen, S. Paltsev and J.E. Parsons, 2015: TheInfluence of Gas-to-Liquids and Natural Gas Production TechnologyPenetration on the Crude Oil-Natural Gas Price Relationship,December, 22 p.

287. Xu, L., R.D. Pyles, K.T. Paw U, R. Snyder, E. Monier, M. Falk and S.-H. Chen, 2015: Impact of Canopy Representations on RegionalModeling of Evapotranspiration using the WRF-ACASA Coupled Model,December, 24 p.

286. Jacoby, H.D. and Y.-H.H. Chen, 2015: Launching a New ClimateRegime, November, 22 p.

285. Sue Wing, I., E. Monier, A. Stern and A. Mundra, 2015: US MajorCrops’ Uncertain Climate Change Risks and Greenhouse Gas MitigationBenefits , October, 34 p. (Reprint 2015-26)

284. Zhang, D., V. Karplus and S. Rausch, 2015: Capturing NaturalResource Dynamics in Top-Down Energy-Economic EquilibriumModels, October, 37 p.

283. Lanz, B., S. Dietzy and T. Swanson, 2015: Global population growth,technology, and Malthusian constraints: A quantitative growth theoreticperspective, October, 44 p.

282. Paltsev, S. and D. Zhang, 2015: Natural Gas Pricing Reform in China:Getting Closer to a Market System?, July, 26 p.

281. Paltsev, S., Y.-H.H. Chen, V. Karplus, P. Kishimoto and J. Reilly, 2015:Impacts of CO2 Mandates for New Cars in the European Union, May,18 p.

280. Strzepek, K., C. Fant, Y. Gebretsadik, M. Lickley, B. Boehlert, S.Chapra, E. Adams, A. Strzepek and C.A. Schlosser, 2015: Water BodyTemperature Model for Assessing Climate Change Impacts on ThermalCooling, May, 28 p.

279. Blanc, E. and B. Sultan, 2015: Emulating maize yields from globalgridded crop models using statistical estimates, March, 39 p.

278. Chen, Y.-H.H., S. Paltsev, J.M. Reilly, J.F. Morris and M.H. Babiker,2015: The MIT EPPA6 Model: Economic Growth, Energy Use, and FoodConsumption, March, 43 p. (Reprint 2016-1)

277. Delarue, E. and J. Morris, 2015: Renewables Intermittency: OperationalLimits and Implications for Long-Term Energy System Models, March,30 p.

276. Koesler, S., 2015: Specifying Parameters in Computable GeneralEquilibrium Models using Optimal Fingerprint Detection Methods,February, 27 p.

275. Winchester, N., R. Malina, M.D. Staples and S.R.H. Barrett, 2015: TheImpact of Advanced Biofuels on Aviation Emissions and Operations inthe U.S., February, 23 p.

274. Kishimoto, P.N., D. Zhang, X. Zhang and V.J. Karplus, 2015:Modeling regional transportation demand in China and the impacts of anational carbon constraint, January, 30 p. (Reprint 2015-5)

273. Winchester, N. and J.M. Reilly, 2015: The Contribution of Biomass toEmissions Mitigation under a Global Climate Policy, January, 31 p.

2014272. Morris, J.F., J.M. Reilly and Y.-H.H. Chen, 2014: Advanced

Technologies in Energy-Economy Models for Climate ChangeAssessment, December, 24 p.

271. Du, Y. and S. Paltsev, 2014: International Trade in Natural Gas:Golden Age of LNG?, November, 49 p.

270. Luo, X., D. Zhang, J. Caron, X. Zhang and V.J. Karplus, 2014:Interprovincial Migration and the Stringency of Energy Policy in China,November, 27 p. (Reprint 2016-15)

269. Fant, C., C.A. Schlosser, X. Gao, K. Strzepek and J. Reilly, 2014: AFramework for Analysis of the Uncertainty of Socioeconomic Growthand Climate Change on the Risk of Water Stress: a Case Study in Asia,November, 48 p. (Reprint 2016-6)

268. Bozonnat, C. and C.A. Schlosser, 2014: Characterization of the SolarPower Resource in Europe and Assessing Benefits of Co-Location withWind Power Installations, October, 31 p.

267. Zhang, X., V.J. Karplus, T. Qi, D. Zhang and J. He, 2014: Carbonemissions in China: How far can new efforts bend the curve?, October,22 p. (Reprint 2016-2)

266. Caron, J., G. Metcalf and J. Reilly, 2014: The CO2 Content ofConsumption Across US Regions: A Multi-Regional Input-Output(MRIO) Approach, August, 36 p.

265. Xu, L., R.D. Pyles, K.T. Paw U, S.-H. Chen and E. Monier, 2014:Coupling the High Complexity Land Surface Model ACASA to theMesoscale Model WRF, August, 31 p. (Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 2917-2932) Reprint 2014-27

264. Jacoby, H.D. and Y.-H.H. Chen, 2014: Expectations for a New ClimateAgreement, August, 24 p.

263. Rausch, S. and V.J. Karplus, 2014: Markets versus Regulation: TheEfficiency and Distributional Impacts of U.S. Climate Policy Proposals,May, 32 p. (Energy Journal, 35(SI1): 199-227) Reprint 2014-11

262. Qi, T., N. Winchester, D. Zhang, X. Zhang and V.J. Karplus, 2014: TheChina-in-Global Energy Model, May, 32 p.

261. Zhang, D., M. Davidson, B. Gunturu, X. Zhang and V.J. Karplus, 2014:An Integrated Assessment of China's Wind Energy Potential, April, 24p.

260. Morris, J., M. Webster and J. Reilly, 2014: Electricity Generation andEmissions Reduction Decisions under Policy Uncertainty: A GeneralEquilibrium Analysis, April, 28 p.

259. Saari, R., N.E. Selin, S. Rausch and T.M. Thompson, 2014: A Self-Consistent Method to Assess Air Quality Co-Benefits from US ClimatePolicies, April, 25 p.

258. Cosseron, A., C.A. Schlosser and U.B. Gunturu, 2014:Characterization of the Wind Power Resource in Europe and itsIntermittency, March, 31 p. (Reprint 2013-29)

257. Zhang, D., M. Springmann and V.J. Karplus, 2014: Equity andEmissions Trading in China, February, 38 p.

256. Hallgren, W., U.B. Gunturu and C.A. Schlosser, 2014: The PotentialWind Power Resource in Australia: A New Perspective, February, 16 p.(PLoS ONE, 9(7): e99608, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0099608) Reprint2014-14

255. Stokes, L.C. and N.E. Selin, 2014: The Mercury Game: Evaluating aNegotiation Simulation that Teaches Students about Science–PolicyInteractions, January, 14 p.

A14

MIT Joint Program Annual Report Appendix Joint Program Report Series 2014–2016

254. Schlosser, C.A., K.M. Strzepek, X. Gao, A. Gueneau, C. Fant, S.Paltsev, B. Rasheed, T. Smith-Greico, É. Blanc, H.D. Jacoby and J.M.Reilly, 2014: The Future of Global Water Stress: An IntegratedAssessment, January, 30 p. (Reprint 2014-16)

PHD DISSERTATIONS AND MS THESES2016

Akobi, T., 2016: Impact of technology improvement on crude oil reservevolumes and costs of extraction and production, Master of ScienceThesis, System Design & Management Program, MIT

Holt, J.I., 2016: Sensitivity of inorganic aerosol impacts to US precursoremissions , PhD Thesis, Climate Physics and Chemistry, MIT

Rothenberg, D., 2016: Investigation of aerosol-cloud interactions using acombination of global models, idealized simple models, and satelliteobservations, PhD Thesis, MIT

Song, S., 2016: Quantifying Mercury Surface Fluxes by CombiningAtmospheric Observations and Models , PhD Thesis, AtmosphericChemistry, MIT

Thackray, C., 2016: An uncertainty-focused approach to modeling theatmospheric chemistry of persistent organic pollutants, PhD Thesis,MIT

Zhang, D., 2016: The Future of Natural Gas in China: Effects of PricingReform and Climate Policy, Master of Science Thesis, Technology andPolicy Program, MIT

2015Octaviano, C.A., 2015: The Value of Electricity Storage under Large-Scale

Penetration of Renewable Energy: a Hybrid Modeling Approach, PhDThesis, Engineering Systems Division, MIT, June

Ramberg, D.J., 2015: General Equilibrium Impacts of New EnergyTechnologies on Sectoral Energy Usage, PhD Thesis, EngineeringSystems Division, MIT, June

Saari, R.K.., 2015: Air Quality Impacts and Benefits under U.S. Policy for AirPollution, Climate Change, and Clean Energy, PhD Thesis, EngineeringSystems Division, MIT, June

2014Argarwal, A., 2014: Managing Risks in Energy Capital Projects – The Value

of Contractual Risk-Sharing in CCS-EOR, Doctoral Thesis, Civil andEnvironmental Engineering, MIT, June

Craig, M., 2014: Reducing the Contribution of the Power Sector to Ground-Level Ozone Pollution: An Assessment of Time-Differentiated Pricing ofNitrogen Oxide Emissions, Master of Science Thesis, EngineeringSystems Division, Engineering Systems Division, MIT, June

Cronin, T., 2014: Land-Atmosphere Interaction and Radiative-ConvectiveEquilibrium, Doctoral Thesis, Earth, Atmospheric and PlanetarySciences, MIT, June

Davidson, M., 2014: Regulatory and Technical Barriers to Wind EnergyIntegration in Northeast China, Master of Science Thesis, Technologyand Policy Program, Engineering Systems Division, MIT, June

de Sisternes, F., 2014: Risk Implications of the Deployment of Renewables forInvestments in Electricity Generation, Doctoral Thesis, EngineeringSystems Division, MIT, June

Donohoo, P., 2014: Design of Wide-Area Electric Transmission NetworksUnder Uncertainty: Methods for Dimensionality Reduction, DoctoralThesis, Engineering Systems Division, MIT, June

Levy, T., 2014: Unexpected Consequences of Demand Response: Implicationsfor Energy and Capacity Price Level and Volatility, Master of ScienceThesis, Technology and Policy Program, MIT, June

Yip, A., 2014: Modelling the Global Prospects and Impacts of Heavy DutyLiquefied Natural Gas Vehicles in Computable General Equilibrium,Master of Science Thesis, Technology and Policy Program, EngineeringSystems Division, MIT, June

WORKING PAPERS AND OTHERPUBLICATIONS2016

Davidson, M.R., F. Kahrl and V.J. Karplus, 2016: Toward a PoliticalEconomy Framework for Wind Integration: Does China Break theMould?, (Working Paper 2016/32). Helsinki: United NationsUniversity World Institute for Development Economics Research.

Jenkins, J.D. and V.J. Karplus, 2016: Carbon pricing under binding politicalconstraints, UNU-WIDER Working Paper Series 44/2016 (https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/wp2016-44.pdf)

Kleinberg, R., S. Paltsev, C. Ebinger, D. Hobbs and T. Boersma, 2016: TightOil Development Economics: Benchmarks, Breakeven Points, andInelasticities, MIT CEEPR Working Paper WP-2016-012

Paltsev, S., 2016: Energy Scenarios: The Value and Limits of ScenarioAnalysis, MIT CEEPR Working Paper WP-2016-007

2015Basson, T., A. Bates, D. Blackmore, P. Block, B. Boehlert, D. Entekhabi, A.

Huber-Lee, H. Jacoby, M. Jeuland, J.H. Lienhard, D. Marks, S. Paltsev,S. Robinson, K. Sternlof, K. Strzepek, K. Wheeler and D. Whittington,2015: The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam: An Opportunity forCollaboration and Shared Benefits in the Eastern Nile Basin, AnAmicus Brief to the Riparian Nations of Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt,from the International, Non-partisan Eastern Nile Working Group(http://web.mit.edu/jwafs/gerd-report.html)

Blanc, É., 2015: WRS-US Version 2 - Technical Note, MIT JPSPGCTechnical Note 14, November, 3 pgs.

Gao, X., C. Fant, C.A. Schlosser, K. Strzepek and J. Reilly, 2015: The FutureWater Risks under Global Change in Southern and Eastern Asia:Implications of Mitigation,

Gao, X., C.A. Schlosser, P. O’Gorman and E. Monier, 2015: 21st Centurychanges in precipitation extremes over the United States: Can climateanalogues help?,

Ramberg, D.J. and Y.-H.H. Chen, 2015: Updates to disaggregating therefined oil sector in EPPA: EPPA6-ROIL, MIT JPSPGC Technical Note15, December, 33 pgs.

Schmalensee, R., V. Bulovic, R. Armstrong, C. Batlle, P. Brown, J. Deutch,H. Jacoby, R. Jaffe, J. Jean, R. Miller, F. O'Sullivan, J. Parsons, J.I. Pérez-Arriaga, 2015: The Future of Solar Energy: An Interdisciplinary MITStudy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, May, 356 p. (http://mitei.mit.edu/futureofsolar)

2014Paltsev, S., E. Monier, H. Chen, C. Fant, J. Morris, J. Reilly, A. Sokolov, J.

Huang, K. Strzepek, Q. Ejaz, D. Kicklighter, S. Dutkiewicz, J. Scott, A.Schlosser, H. Jacoby, A. Resutek, J. Bartholomay and A. Slinn, 2014:Energy and Climate Outlook 2014, MIT Joint Program Special Report,September, 24 pgs.

Reilly, J., S. Paltsev, E. Monier, H. Chen, A. Sokolov, J. Huang, Q. Ejaz, J.Scott, J. Morris and A. Schlosser, 2014: Energy and Climate Outlook:Perspectives from 2015, MIT Joint Program Special Report, October, 19pgs.

A15

Co‑Directors: Ronald G. Prinn John M. Reilly

Documents

Transcript of Co‑Directors: Ronald G. Prinn John M. Reilly