Changes in IPCC Scenario Assessment Emulators Between SR1.5 and AR6 Unraveled
The IPCC's scientific assessment of the timing of net‐zero emissions and 2030 emission reduction targets consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C or 2°C rests on large scenario databases. Updates to this assessment, such as between the IPCC's Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR1...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Geophysical research letters 2022-10, Vol.49 (20), p.e2022GL099788-n/a |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | n/a |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 20 |
| container_start_page | e2022GL099788 |
| container_title | Geophysical research letters |
| container_volume | 49 |
| creator | Nicholls, Z. Meinshausen, M. Lewis, J. Smith, C. J. Forster, P. M. Fuglestvedt, J. S. Rogelj, J. Kikstra, J. S. Riahi, K. Byers, E. |
| description | The IPCC's scientific assessment of the timing of net‐zero emissions and 2030 emission reduction targets consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C or 2°C rests on large scenario databases. Updates to this assessment, such as between the IPCC's Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR1.5) of warming and the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), are the result of intertwined, sometimes opaque, factors. Here we isolate one factor: the Earth System Model emulators used to estimate the global warming implications of scenarios. We show that warming projections using AR6‐calibrated emulators are consistent, to within around 0.1°C, with projections made by the emulators used in SR1.5. The consistency is due to two almost compensating changes: the increase in assessed historical warming between SR1.5 (based on AR5) and AR6, and a reduction in projected warming due to improved agreement between the emulators' response to emissions and the assessment to which it is calibrated.
Plain Language Summary
The IPCC's latest physical science report, the Working Group 1 Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), was released in August 2021. That report includes an update to the tools used to project the climate outcome of emission scenarios. Here we apply these newly calibrated tools, called earth system model emulators, to the set of scenarios assessed in the IPCC's Special Report on warming of 1.5°C (SR1.5). We find that two compensating changes lead to a remarkable consistency (peak warming projections within 0.1°C) between the projections made by the emulators used in SR1.5 and their descendants used in AR6. First, updates to the historical warming assessment since the SR1.5 (which was based on the IPCC's 2013 physical science report (AR5)) increase future warming projections. However, improved consistency between the emulators and the assessment of the underlying physics, particularly the short‐term warming response to emissions, lowers warming projections by an approximately equivalent amount. Our work reinforces the key messages from the IPCC: limiting warming to around 1.5°C is a great and urgent challenge, and it is up to us to decide whether we pull out all the stops to hold temperatures around 1.5°C or whether we sail on by.
Key Points
Emulators used in IPCC Special Report on warming of 1.5°C and Sixth Assessment Report are remarkably consistent, despite their entirely new calibrations
The consistency is due to two compensating factors: change in assessed his |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1029/2022GL099788 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9788315</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2729049591</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4899-d01c633871c1fe7d423b9da6847748a3cb9c8edac9e4856432b17ad314c5e27b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUtv1DAUhS1ERYfCjjWyxAYkpvgVPzZIQ1SmlVKBpnRtOc6dTqrEKXYyVf89Hk2p2i4qL2z5fj6-9xyEPlByTAkz3xhhbFkRY5TWr9CMGiHmmhD1Gs0IMfnMlDxEb1O6JoRwwukbdMhloQ2TeobOy40LV5BwG_DZ77LEFx6Ci-2AFylBSj2EEZ_0U-fGISb8A8ZbgIAvVvS4wC40eLGS-DJEt4UOmnfoYO26BO_v9yN0-fPkT3k6r34tz8pFNfdCGzNvCPWSc62op2tQjWC8No2TWigltOO-Nl5D47wBoQspOKupcg2nwhfAVM2P0Pe97s1U99DklsfoOnsT297FOzu41j6thHZjr4at3ZnEaZEFvuwFNs-enS4qu7sjgrGCU7mlmf18_1kc_k6QRtu3yUPXuQDDlGz2l1CVl8jop2fo9TDFkK3IFDNEmMLsBL_uKR-HlCKsHzqgxO4ytY8zzfjHx8M-wP9DzADbA7dtB3cvitnlqpLCSMP_AYDZp7o</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2729049591</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Changes in IPCC Scenario Assessment Emulators Between SR1.5 and AR6 Unraveled</title><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Library</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</source><creator>Nicholls, Z. ; Meinshausen, M. ; Lewis, J. ; Smith, C. J. ; Forster, P. M. ; Fuglestvedt, J. S. ; Rogelj, J. ; Kikstra, J. S. ; Riahi, K. ; Byers, E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Nicholls, Z. ; Meinshausen, M. ; Lewis, J. ; Smith, C. J. ; Forster, P. M. ; Fuglestvedt, J. S. ; Rogelj, J. ; Kikstra, J. S. ; Riahi, K. ; Byers, E.</creatorcontrib><description>The IPCC's scientific assessment of the timing of net‐zero emissions and 2030 emission reduction targets consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C or 2°C rests on large scenario databases. Updates to this assessment, such as between the IPCC's Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR1.5) of warming and the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), are the result of intertwined, sometimes opaque, factors. Here we isolate one factor: the Earth System Model emulators used to estimate the global warming implications of scenarios. We show that warming projections using AR6‐calibrated emulators are consistent, to within around 0.1°C, with projections made by the emulators used in SR1.5. The consistency is due to two almost compensating changes: the increase in assessed historical warming between SR1.5 (based on AR5) and AR6, and a reduction in projected warming due to improved agreement between the emulators' response to emissions and the assessment to which it is calibrated.
Plain Language Summary
The IPCC's latest physical science report, the Working Group 1 Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), was released in August 2021. That report includes an update to the tools used to project the climate outcome of emission scenarios. Here we apply these newly calibrated tools, called earth system model emulators, to the set of scenarios assessed in the IPCC's Special Report on warming of 1.5°C (SR1.5). We find that two compensating changes lead to a remarkable consistency (peak warming projections within 0.1°C) between the projections made by the emulators used in SR1.5 and their descendants used in AR6. First, updates to the historical warming assessment since the SR1.5 (which was based on the IPCC's 2013 physical science report (AR5)) increase future warming projections. However, improved consistency between the emulators and the assessment of the underlying physics, particularly the short‐term warming response to emissions, lowers warming projections by an approximately equivalent amount. Our work reinforces the key messages from the IPCC: limiting warming to around 1.5°C is a great and urgent challenge, and it is up to us to decide whether we pull out all the stops to hold temperatures around 1.5°C or whether we sail on by.
Key Points
Emulators used in IPCC Special Report on warming of 1.5°C and Sixth Assessment Report are remarkably consistent, despite their entirely new calibrations
The consistency is due to two compensating factors: change in assessed historical warming and improvements to emulator calibration methods</description><identifier>ISSN: 0094-8276</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1944-8007</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1029/2022GL099788</identifier><identifier>PMID: 36589268</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Abrupt/Rapid Climate Change ; Air/Sea Constituent Fluxes ; Air/Sea Interactions ; AR5 ; AR6 ; Atmospheric ; Atmospheric Composition and Structure ; Atmospheric Effects ; Atmospheric Processes ; Avalanches ; Benefit‐cost Analysis ; Biogeosciences ; Calibration ; Carbon Cycling ; Climate ; Climate and Interannual Variability ; Climate change ; Climate Change and Variability ; Climate Dynamics ; Climate Impact ; Climate Impacts ; Climate Variability ; Climatology ; Computational Geophysics ; Consistency ; Constraining ; Cryosphere ; Decadal Ocean Variability ; Disaster Risk Analysis and Assessment ; Earth System Modeling ; Earthquake Ground Motions and Engineering Seismology ; Effusive Volcanism ; Emission analysis ; Emissions ; Emissions control ; Emulators ; Environmental Sciences ; Explosive Volcanism ; General Circulation ; Geodesy and Gravity ; Geological ; Global Change ; Global Change from Geodesy ; Global warming ; Gravity and Isostasy ; Hydrological Cycles and Budgets ; Hydrology ; Impacts of Global Change ; Informatics ; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ; IPCC ; Land/Atmosphere Interactions ; Marine Geology and Geophysics ; Mass Balance ; Modeling ; Mud Volcanism ; Natural Hazards ; Net zero ; Numerical Modeling ; Numerical Solutions ; Ocean influence of Earth rotation ; Ocean Monitoring with Geodetic Techniques ; Ocean/Atmosphere Interactions ; Ocean/Earth/atmosphere/hydrosphere/cryosphere interactions ; Oceanic ; Oceanography: Biological and Chemical ; Oceanography: General ; Oceanography: Physical ; Oceans ; Paleoceanography ; Physical Modeling ; Physical sciences ; Physics ; Policy Sciences ; Radio Oceanography ; Radio Science ; Regional Climate Change ; Regional Modeling ; Research Letter ; Risk ; Sails ; scenarios ; Sea Level Change ; Sea Level: Variations and Mean ; Seismology ; Solid Earth ; Surface Waves and Tides ; Theoretical Modeling ; Tsunamis and Storm Surges ; Volcanic Effects ; Volcanic Hazards and Risks ; Volcano Monitoring ; Volcano Seismology ; Volcano/Climate Interactions ; Volcanology ; Water Cycles</subject><ispartof>Geophysical research letters, 2022-10, Vol.49 (20), p.e2022GL099788-n/a</ispartof><rights>2022. The Authors.</rights><rights>2022. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4899-d01c633871c1fe7d423b9da6847748a3cb9c8edac9e4856432b17ad314c5e27b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4899-d01c633871c1fe7d423b9da6847748a3cb9c8edac9e4856432b17ad314c5e27b3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2056-9061 ; 0000-0001-7193-3498 ; 0000-0002-4767-2723 ; 0000-0003-0349-5742 ; 0000-0003-0599-4633 ; 0000-0002-6078-0171 ; 0000-0003-4048-3521 ; 0000-0002-8155-8924</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029%2F2022GL099788$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029%2F2022GL099788$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,781,785,886,1418,1434,11519,27929,27930,45579,45580,46414,46473,46838,46897</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36589268$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://hal.science/hal-04225316$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Nicholls, Z.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meinshausen, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lewis, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, C. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Forster, P. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fuglestvedt, J. S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rogelj, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kikstra, J. S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Riahi, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Byers, E.</creatorcontrib><title>Changes in IPCC Scenario Assessment Emulators Between SR1.5 and AR6 Unraveled</title><title>Geophysical research letters</title><addtitle>Geophys Res Lett</addtitle><description>The IPCC's scientific assessment of the timing of net‐zero emissions and 2030 emission reduction targets consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C or 2°C rests on large scenario databases. Updates to this assessment, such as between the IPCC's Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR1.5) of warming and the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), are the result of intertwined, sometimes opaque, factors. Here we isolate one factor: the Earth System Model emulators used to estimate the global warming implications of scenarios. We show that warming projections using AR6‐calibrated emulators are consistent, to within around 0.1°C, with projections made by the emulators used in SR1.5. The consistency is due to two almost compensating changes: the increase in assessed historical warming between SR1.5 (based on AR5) and AR6, and a reduction in projected warming due to improved agreement between the emulators' response to emissions and the assessment to which it is calibrated.
Plain Language Summary
The IPCC's latest physical science report, the Working Group 1 Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), was released in August 2021. That report includes an update to the tools used to project the climate outcome of emission scenarios. Here we apply these newly calibrated tools, called earth system model emulators, to the set of scenarios assessed in the IPCC's Special Report on warming of 1.5°C (SR1.5). We find that two compensating changes lead to a remarkable consistency (peak warming projections within 0.1°C) between the projections made by the emulators used in SR1.5 and their descendants used in AR6. First, updates to the historical warming assessment since the SR1.5 (which was based on the IPCC's 2013 physical science report (AR5)) increase future warming projections. However, improved consistency between the emulators and the assessment of the underlying physics, particularly the short‐term warming response to emissions, lowers warming projections by an approximately equivalent amount. Our work reinforces the key messages from the IPCC: limiting warming to around 1.5°C is a great and urgent challenge, and it is up to us to decide whether we pull out all the stops to hold temperatures around 1.5°C or whether we sail on by.
Key Points
Emulators used in IPCC Special Report on warming of 1.5°C and Sixth Assessment Report are remarkably consistent, despite their entirely new calibrations
The consistency is due to two compensating factors: change in assessed historical warming and improvements to emulator calibration methods</description><subject>Abrupt/Rapid Climate Change</subject><subject>Air/Sea Constituent Fluxes</subject><subject>Air/Sea Interactions</subject><subject>AR5</subject><subject>AR6</subject><subject>Atmospheric</subject><subject>Atmospheric Composition and Structure</subject><subject>Atmospheric Effects</subject><subject>Atmospheric Processes</subject><subject>Avalanches</subject><subject>Benefit‐cost Analysis</subject><subject>Biogeosciences</subject><subject>Calibration</subject><subject>Carbon Cycling</subject><subject>Climate</subject><subject>Climate and Interannual Variability</subject><subject>Climate change</subject><subject>Climate Change and Variability</subject><subject>Climate Dynamics</subject><subject>Climate Impact</subject><subject>Climate Impacts</subject><subject>Climate Variability</subject><subject>Climatology</subject><subject>Computational Geophysics</subject><subject>Consistency</subject><subject>Constraining</subject><subject>Cryosphere</subject><subject>Decadal Ocean Variability</subject><subject>Disaster Risk Analysis and Assessment</subject><subject>Earth System Modeling</subject><subject>Earthquake Ground Motions and Engineering Seismology</subject><subject>Effusive Volcanism</subject><subject>Emission analysis</subject><subject>Emissions</subject><subject>Emissions control</subject><subject>Emulators</subject><subject>Environmental Sciences</subject><subject>Explosive Volcanism</subject><subject>General Circulation</subject><subject>Geodesy and Gravity</subject><subject>Geological</subject><subject>Global Change</subject><subject>Global Change from Geodesy</subject><subject>Global warming</subject><subject>Gravity and Isostasy</subject><subject>Hydrological Cycles and Budgets</subject><subject>Hydrology</subject><subject>Impacts of Global Change</subject><subject>Informatics</subject><subject>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</subject><subject>IPCC</subject><subject>Land/Atmosphere Interactions</subject><subject>Marine Geology and Geophysics</subject><subject>Mass Balance</subject><subject>Modeling</subject><subject>Mud Volcanism</subject><subject>Natural Hazards</subject><subject>Net zero</subject><subject>Numerical Modeling</subject><subject>Numerical Solutions</subject><subject>Ocean influence of Earth rotation</subject><subject>Ocean Monitoring with Geodetic Techniques</subject><subject>Ocean/Atmosphere Interactions</subject><subject>Ocean/Earth/atmosphere/hydrosphere/cryosphere interactions</subject><subject>Oceanic</subject><subject>Oceanography: Biological and Chemical</subject><subject>Oceanography: General</subject><subject>Oceanography: Physical</subject><subject>Oceans</subject><subject>Paleoceanography</subject><subject>Physical Modeling</subject><subject>Physical sciences</subject><subject>Physics</subject><subject>Policy Sciences</subject><subject>Radio Oceanography</subject><subject>Radio Science</subject><subject>Regional Climate Change</subject><subject>Regional Modeling</subject><subject>Research Letter</subject><subject>Risk</subject><subject>Sails</subject><subject>scenarios</subject><subject>Sea Level Change</subject><subject>Sea Level: Variations and Mean</subject><subject>Seismology</subject><subject>Solid Earth</subject><subject>Surface Waves and Tides</subject><subject>Theoretical Modeling</subject><subject>Tsunamis and Storm Surges</subject><subject>Volcanic Effects</subject><subject>Volcanic Hazards and Risks</subject><subject>Volcano Monitoring</subject><subject>Volcano Seismology</subject><subject>Volcano/Climate Interactions</subject><subject>Volcanology</subject><subject>Water Cycles</subject><issn>0094-8276</issn><issn>1944-8007</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kUtv1DAUhS1ERYfCjjWyxAYkpvgVPzZIQ1SmlVKBpnRtOc6dTqrEKXYyVf89Hk2p2i4qL2z5fj6-9xyEPlByTAkz3xhhbFkRY5TWr9CMGiHmmhD1Gs0IMfnMlDxEb1O6JoRwwukbdMhloQ2TeobOy40LV5BwG_DZ77LEFx6Ci-2AFylBSj2EEZ_0U-fGISb8A8ZbgIAvVvS4wC40eLGS-DJEt4UOmnfoYO26BO_v9yN0-fPkT3k6r34tz8pFNfdCGzNvCPWSc62op2tQjWC8No2TWigltOO-Nl5D47wBoQspOKupcg2nwhfAVM2P0Pe97s1U99DklsfoOnsT297FOzu41j6thHZjr4at3ZnEaZEFvuwFNs-enS4qu7sjgrGCU7mlmf18_1kc_k6QRtu3yUPXuQDDlGz2l1CVl8jop2fo9TDFkK3IFDNEmMLsBL_uKR-HlCKsHzqgxO4ytY8zzfjHx8M-wP9DzADbA7dtB3cvitnlqpLCSMP_AYDZp7o</recordid><startdate>20221028</startdate><enddate>20221028</enddate><creator>Nicholls, Z.</creator><creator>Meinshausen, M.</creator><creator>Lewis, J.</creator><creator>Smith, C. J.</creator><creator>Forster, P. M.</creator><creator>Fuglestvedt, J. S.</creator><creator>Rogelj, J.</creator><creator>Kikstra, J. S.</creator><creator>Riahi, K.</creator><creator>Byers, E.</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><general>American Geophysical Union</general><general>John Wiley and Sons Inc</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H8D</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>1XC</scope><scope>VOOES</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2056-9061</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7193-3498</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4767-2723</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0349-5742</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0599-4633</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6078-0171</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4048-3521</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8155-8924</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20221028</creationdate><title>Changes in IPCC Scenario Assessment Emulators Between SR1.5 and AR6 Unraveled</title><author>Nicholls, Z. ; Meinshausen, M. ; Lewis, J. ; Smith, C. J. ; Forster, P. M. ; Fuglestvedt, J. S. ; Rogelj, J. ; Kikstra, J. S. ; Riahi, K. ; Byers, E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4899-d01c633871c1fe7d423b9da6847748a3cb9c8edac9e4856432b17ad314c5e27b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Abrupt/Rapid Climate Change</topic><topic>Air/Sea Constituent Fluxes</topic><topic>Air/Sea Interactions</topic><topic>AR5</topic><topic>AR6</topic><topic>Atmospheric</topic><topic>Atmospheric Composition and Structure</topic><topic>Atmospheric Effects</topic><topic>Atmospheric Processes</topic><topic>Avalanches</topic><topic>Benefit‐cost Analysis</topic><topic>Biogeosciences</topic><topic>Calibration</topic><topic>Carbon Cycling</topic><topic>Climate</topic><topic>Climate and Interannual Variability</topic><topic>Climate change</topic><topic>Climate Change and Variability</topic><topic>Climate Dynamics</topic><topic>Climate Impact</topic><topic>Climate Impacts</topic><topic>Climate Variability</topic><topic>Climatology</topic><topic>Computational Geophysics</topic><topic>Consistency</topic><topic>Constraining</topic><topic>Cryosphere</topic><topic>Decadal Ocean Variability</topic><topic>Disaster Risk Analysis and Assessment</topic><topic>Earth System Modeling</topic><topic>Earthquake Ground Motions and Engineering Seismology</topic><topic>Effusive Volcanism</topic><topic>Emission analysis</topic><topic>Emissions</topic><topic>Emissions control</topic><topic>Emulators</topic><topic>Environmental Sciences</topic><topic>Explosive Volcanism</topic><topic>General Circulation</topic><topic>Geodesy and Gravity</topic><topic>Geological</topic><topic>Global Change</topic><topic>Global Change from Geodesy</topic><topic>Global warming</topic><topic>Gravity and Isostasy</topic><topic>Hydrological Cycles and Budgets</topic><topic>Hydrology</topic><topic>Impacts of Global Change</topic><topic>Informatics</topic><topic>Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</topic><topic>IPCC</topic><topic>Land/Atmosphere Interactions</topic><topic>Marine Geology and Geophysics</topic><topic>Mass Balance</topic><topic>Modeling</topic><topic>Mud Volcanism</topic><topic>Natural Hazards</topic><topic>Net zero</topic><topic>Numerical Modeling</topic><topic>Numerical Solutions</topic><topic>Ocean influence of Earth rotation</topic><topic>Ocean Monitoring with Geodetic Techniques</topic><topic>Ocean/Atmosphere Interactions</topic><topic>Ocean/Earth/atmosphere/hydrosphere/cryosphere interactions</topic><topic>Oceanic</topic><topic>Oceanography: Biological and Chemical</topic><topic>Oceanography: General</topic><topic>Oceanography: Physical</topic><topic>Oceans</topic><topic>Paleoceanography</topic><topic>Physical Modeling</topic><topic>Physical sciences</topic><topic>Physics</topic><topic>Policy Sciences</topic><topic>Radio Oceanography</topic><topic>Radio Science</topic><topic>Regional Climate Change</topic><topic>Regional Modeling</topic><topic>Research Letter</topic><topic>Risk</topic><topic>Sails</topic><topic>scenarios</topic><topic>Sea Level Change</topic><topic>Sea Level: Variations and Mean</topic><topic>Seismology</topic><topic>Solid Earth</topic><topic>Surface Waves and Tides</topic><topic>Theoretical Modeling</topic><topic>Tsunamis and Storm Surges</topic><topic>Volcanic Effects</topic><topic>Volcanic Hazards and Risks</topic><topic>Volcano Monitoring</topic><topic>Volcano Seismology</topic><topic>Volcano/Climate Interactions</topic><topic>Volcanology</topic><topic>Water Cycles</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nicholls, Z.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meinshausen, M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lewis, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, C. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Forster, P. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fuglestvedt, J. S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rogelj, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kikstra, J. S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Riahi, K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Byers, E.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Aerospace Database</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy & Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL) (Open Access)</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Geophysical research letters</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nicholls, Z.</au><au>Meinshausen, M.</au><au>Lewis, J.</au><au>Smith, C. J.</au><au>Forster, P. M.</au><au>Fuglestvedt, J. S.</au><au>Rogelj, J.</au><au>Kikstra, J. S.</au><au>Riahi, K.</au><au>Byers, E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Changes in IPCC Scenario Assessment Emulators Between SR1.5 and AR6 Unraveled</atitle><jtitle>Geophysical research letters</jtitle><addtitle>Geophys Res Lett</addtitle><date>2022-10-28</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>49</volume><issue>20</issue><spage>e2022GL099788</spage><epage>n/a</epage><pages>e2022GL099788-n/a</pages><issn>0094-8276</issn><eissn>1944-8007</eissn><abstract>The IPCC's scientific assessment of the timing of net‐zero emissions and 2030 emission reduction targets consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C or 2°C rests on large scenario databases. Updates to this assessment, such as between the IPCC's Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR1.5) of warming and the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), are the result of intertwined, sometimes opaque, factors. Here we isolate one factor: the Earth System Model emulators used to estimate the global warming implications of scenarios. We show that warming projections using AR6‐calibrated emulators are consistent, to within around 0.1°C, with projections made by the emulators used in SR1.5. The consistency is due to two almost compensating changes: the increase in assessed historical warming between SR1.5 (based on AR5) and AR6, and a reduction in projected warming due to improved agreement between the emulators' response to emissions and the assessment to which it is calibrated.
Plain Language Summary
The IPCC's latest physical science report, the Working Group 1 Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), was released in August 2021. That report includes an update to the tools used to project the climate outcome of emission scenarios. Here we apply these newly calibrated tools, called earth system model emulators, to the set of scenarios assessed in the IPCC's Special Report on warming of 1.5°C (SR1.5). We find that two compensating changes lead to a remarkable consistency (peak warming projections within 0.1°C) between the projections made by the emulators used in SR1.5 and their descendants used in AR6. First, updates to the historical warming assessment since the SR1.5 (which was based on the IPCC's 2013 physical science report (AR5)) increase future warming projections. However, improved consistency between the emulators and the assessment of the underlying physics, particularly the short‐term warming response to emissions, lowers warming projections by an approximately equivalent amount. Our work reinforces the key messages from the IPCC: limiting warming to around 1.5°C is a great and urgent challenge, and it is up to us to decide whether we pull out all the stops to hold temperatures around 1.5°C or whether we sail on by.
Key Points
Emulators used in IPCC Special Report on warming of 1.5°C and Sixth Assessment Report are remarkably consistent, despite their entirely new calibrations
The consistency is due to two compensating factors: change in assessed historical warming and improvements to emulator calibration methods</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>36589268</pmid><doi>10.1029/2022GL099788</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2056-9061</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7193-3498</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4767-2723</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0349-5742</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0599-4633</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6078-0171</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4048-3521</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8155-8924</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0094-8276 |
| ispartof | Geophysical research letters, 2022-10, Vol.49 (20), p.e2022GL099788-n/a |
| issn | 0094-8276 1944-8007 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9788315 |
| source | Access via Wiley Online Library; Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Library; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection) |
| subjects | Abrupt/Rapid Climate Change Air/Sea Constituent Fluxes Air/Sea Interactions AR5 AR6 Atmospheric Atmospheric Composition and Structure Atmospheric Effects Atmospheric Processes Avalanches Benefit‐cost Analysis Biogeosciences Calibration Carbon Cycling Climate Climate and Interannual Variability Climate change Climate Change and Variability Climate Dynamics Climate Impact Climate Impacts Climate Variability Climatology Computational Geophysics Consistency Constraining Cryosphere Decadal Ocean Variability Disaster Risk Analysis and Assessment Earth System Modeling Earthquake Ground Motions and Engineering Seismology Effusive Volcanism Emission analysis Emissions Emissions control Emulators Environmental Sciences Explosive Volcanism General Circulation Geodesy and Gravity Geological Global Change Global Change from Geodesy Global warming Gravity and Isostasy Hydrological Cycles and Budgets Hydrology Impacts of Global Change Informatics Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC Land/Atmosphere Interactions Marine Geology and Geophysics Mass Balance Modeling Mud Volcanism Natural Hazards Net zero Numerical Modeling Numerical Solutions Ocean influence of Earth rotation Ocean Monitoring with Geodetic Techniques Ocean/Atmosphere Interactions Ocean/Earth/atmosphere/hydrosphere/cryosphere interactions Oceanic Oceanography: Biological and Chemical Oceanography: General Oceanography: Physical Oceans Paleoceanography Physical Modeling Physical sciences Physics Policy Sciences Radio Oceanography Radio Science Regional Climate Change Regional Modeling Research Letter Risk Sails scenarios Sea Level Change Sea Level: Variations and Mean Seismology Solid Earth Surface Waves and Tides Theoretical Modeling Tsunamis and Storm Surges Volcanic Effects Volcanic Hazards and Risks Volcano Monitoring Volcano Seismology Volcano/Climate Interactions Volcanology Water Cycles |
| title | Changes in IPCC Scenario Assessment Emulators Between SR1.5 and AR6 Unraveled |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-13T13%3A07%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Changes%20in%20IPCC%20Scenario%20Assessment%20Emulators%20Between%20SR1.5%20and%20AR6%20Unraveled&rft.jtitle=Geophysical%20research%20letters&rft.au=Nicholls,%20Z.&rft.date=2022-10-28&rft.volume=49&rft.issue=20&rft.spage=e2022GL099788&rft.epage=n/a&rft.pages=e2022GL099788-n/a&rft.issn=0094-8276&rft.eissn=1944-8007&rft_id=info:doi/10.1029/2022GL099788&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2729049591%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2729049591&rft_id=info:pmid/36589268&rfr_iscdi=true |