3 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
- ItemImplications of non-linearities between cumulative CO2 emissions and CO2-induced warming for assessing the remaining carbon budget(Bristol : IOP Publ., 2020) Nicholls, Z.R.J.; Gieseke, R.; Lewis, J.; Nauels, A.; Meinshausen, M.To determine the remaining carbon budget, a new framework was introduced in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (SR1.5). We refer to this as a 'segmented' framework because it considers the various components of the carbon budget derivation independently from one another. Whilst implementing this segmented framework, in SR1.5 the assumption was that there is a strictly linear relationship between cumulative CO2 emissions and CO2-induced warming i.e. the TCRE is constant and can be applied to a range of emissions scenarios. Here we test whether such an approach is able to replicate results from model simulations that take the climate system's internal feedbacks and non-linearities into account. Within our modelling framework, following the SR1.5's choices leads to smaller carbon budgets than using simulations with interacting climate components. For 1.5 °C and 2 °C warming targets, the differences are 50 GtCO2 (or 10%) and 260 GtCO2 (or 17%), respectively. However, by relaxing the assumption of strict linearity, we find that this difference can be reduced to around 0 GtCO2 for 1.5 °C of warming and 80 GtCO2 (or 5%) for 2.0 °C of warming (for middle of the range estimates of the carbon cycle and warming response to anthropogenic emissions). We propose an updated implementation of the segmented framework that allows for the consideration of non-linearities between cumulative CO2 emissions and CO2-induced warming.
- ItemReduced Complexity Model Intercomparison Project Phase 2: Synthesizing Earth System Knowledge for Probabilistic Climate Projections(Hoboken, NJ : Wiley-Blackwell, 2021) Nicholls, Z.; Meinshausen, M.; Lewis, J.; Corradi, M. Rojas; Dorheim, K.; Gasser, T.; Gieseke, R.; Hope, A.P.; Leach, N.J.; McBride, L.A.; Quilcaille, Y.; Rogelj, J.; Salawitch, R.J.; Samset, B.H.; Sandstad, M.; Shiklomanov, A.; Skeie, R.B.; Smith, C.J.; Smith, S.J.; Su, X.; Tsutsui, J.; Vega-Westhoff, B.; Woodard, D.L.Over the last decades, climate science has evolved rapidly across multiple expert domains. Our best tools to capture state-of-the-art knowledge in an internally self-consistent modeling framework are the increasingly complex fully coupled Earth System Models (ESMs). However, computational limitations and the structural rigidity of ESMs mean that the full range of uncertainties across multiple domains are difficult to capture with ESMs alone. The tools of choice are instead more computationally efficient reduced complexity models (RCMs), which are structurally flexible and can span the response dynamics across a range of domain-specific models and ESM experiments. Here we present Phase 2 of the Reduced Complexity Model Intercomparison Project (RCMIP Phase 2), the first comprehensive intercomparison of RCMs that are probabilistically calibrated with key benchmark ranges from specialized research communities. Unsurprisingly, but crucially, we find that models which have been constrained to reflect the key benchmarks better reflect the key benchmarks. Under the low-emissions SSP1-1.9 scenario, across the RCMs, median peak warming projections range from 1.3 to 1.7°C (relative to 1850-1900, using an observationally based historical warming estimate of 0.8°C between 1850-1900 and 1995-2014). Further developing methodologies to constrain these projection uncertainties seems paramount given the international community's goal to contain warming to below 1.5°C above preindustrial in the long-term. Our findings suggest that users of RCMs should carefully evaluate their RCM, specifically its skill against key benchmarks and consider the need to include projections benchmarks either from ESM results or other assessments to reduce divergence in future projections.
- ItemMeasuring Success: Improving Assessments of Aggregate Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Goals(Chichester : John Wiley and Sons Inc, 2018) Jeffery, M.L.; Gütschow, J.; Rocha, M.R.; Gieseke, R.Long-term success of the Paris Agreement will depend on the effectiveness of the instruments that it sets in place. Key among these are the nationally determined contributions (NDCs), which elaborate country-specific goals for mitigating and adapting to climate change. One role of the academic community and civil society in supporting the Paris Agreement is to assess the consistency between the near-term action under NDCs and the agreement's long-term goals, thereby providing insight into the chances of long-term success. Here we assess the strengths and weaknesses of current methods to estimate the effectiveness of the mitigation component of NDCs and identify the scientific and political advances that could be made to improve confidence in evaluating NDCs against the long-term goals. Specifically, we highlight (1) the influence of post-2030 assumptions on estimated 21st century warming, (2) uncertainties arising from the lack of published integrated assessment modeling scenarios with long-term, moderate effort reflecting a continuation of the current political situation, and (3) challenges in using a carbon budget approach. We further identify aspects that can be improved in the coming years: clearer communication regarding the meaning, likelihood, and timeframe of NDC consistent warming estimates; additional modeling of long-term, moderate action scenarios; and the identification of metrics for assessing progress that are not based solely on emissions, such as infrastructure investment, energy demand, or installed power capacity.