Impacts of Land Use Change on Climate

1. Impacts of Land Use Change on Climate Marcus Williams

2. Outline

3. What is land use change(definition) • Show graphics from Pilkie papers • Land use changes vs. Greenhouse gasses(Pielkie-2007) • Problems with data sets and observation records • How has land use change impacted the climate (temperature and precip) and seasonal averages • Show difference between rural areas and urban areas (Easterling Paper) • What is urbanization • Show how draining wetlands can change the temperatures

4. Dousset-2003 testing

5. Dousset-2003

6. Dousset-2003 Average image of Los Angeles LST, based on 15 NOAA-AVHRR thermal IR images, at 14:50 PDT in August 1985. P1, P2, P3, P4 indicate some urban parks. The temperature grey scale is labeled in C.

7. Dousset-2003 Land cover classification of Los Angeles derived from a multispectral SPOT-HRV 1 image on June 29, 1986.

8. (a) Land cover classification of Paris derived from a SPOT-HRV 2 image on March 9, 1998. The white frame outlines the enlargement shown in (b) Dousset-2003

9. Doussett-2003 (b) Enlargement of the 20-m resolution landcover classification (a) of Orly, in the Paris suburbs, collocated with the 1-km resolution average afternoon image of LST (Fig. 5b). The LST values are indicated in white and the 1-km resolution grid in black.

10. Dousset-2003 (a) Nighttime average image of Paris LST, based on five NOAA-AVHRR thermal IR images at 03:27 UTC, August 6 –10, 1998. The white frame outlines the coverage of the SPOT image shown in Fig. 4a

11. Dousset-2003 (b) Daytime average image of Paris LST, based on five NOAA-AVHRR thermal IR images at 13:28 UTC, August 6– 10, 1998.

12. Foley-2005

13. Foley-2005

14. Foley-2005

15. Foley-2005 • Fig. 2. Worldwide extent of human land-use and land-cover change. These maps illustrate the geographic distribution of ‘‘potential vegetation’’ (top), vegetation that would most likely exist in the absence of human land use, and the extent of agricultural land cover (including croplands and pastures) (middle and bottom) across the world during the 1990s. [Adapted from (17) and (18)] • 17. N. Ramankutty, J. A. Foley, Global Biogeochem. Cycles 13, 997 (1999). • 18. G. P. Asner et al., Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 29 (2004).

16. Foley-2005

17. Foley-2005 • Fig. 3. Conceptual framework for comparing land use and trade-offs of ecosystem services. The provisioning of multiple ecosystem services under different land-use regimes can be illustrated with these simple ‘‘flower’’ diagrams, in which the condition of each ecosystem service is indicated along each axis. (In this qualitative illustration, the axes are not labeled or normalized with common units.) For purposes of illustration, we compare three hypothetical landscapes: a natural ecosystem (left), an intensively managed cropland (middle), and a cropland with restored ecosystem services (right). The natural ecosystems are able to support many ecosystem services at high levels, but not food production. The intensively managed cropland, however, is able to produce food in abundance (at least in the short run), at the cost of diminishing other ecosystem services. However, a middle ground—a cropland that is explicitly managed to maintain other ecosystem services—may be able to support a broader portfolio of ecosystem services.