3 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
- ItemLimiting global warming to 1.5 °C will lower increases in inequalities of four hazard indicators of climate change(Bristol : IOP Publ., 2019) Shiogama, Hideo; Hasegawa, Tomoko; Fujimori, Shinichiro; Murakami, Daisuke; Takahashi, Kiyoshi; Tanaka, Katsumasa; Emori, Seita; Kubota, Izumi; Abe, Manabu; Imada, Yukiko; Watanabe, Masahiro; Mitchell, Daniel; Schaller, Nathalie; Sillmann, Jana; Fischer, Erich M.; Scinocca, John F.; Bethke, Ingo; Lierhammer, Ludwig; Takakura, Jun’ya; Trautmann, Tim; Döll, Petra; Ostberg, Sebastian; Müller Schmied, Hannes; Saeed, Fahad; Schleussner, Carl-FriedrichClarifying characteristics of hazards and risks of climate change at 2 °C and 1.5 °C global warming is important for understanding the implications of the Paris Agreement. We perform and analyze large ensembles of 2 °C and 1.5 °C warming simulations. In the 2 °C runs, we find substantial increases in extreme hot days, heavy rainfalls, high streamflow and labor capacity reduction related to heat stress. For example, about half of the world's population is projected to experience a present day 1-in-10 year hot day event every other year at 2 °C warming. The regions with relatively large increases of these four hazard indicators coincide with countries characterized by small CO2 emissions, low-income and high vulnerability. Limiting global warming to 1.5 °C, compared to 2 °C, is projected to lower increases in the four hazard indicators especially in those regions.
- ItemDifferential climate impacts for policy-relevant limits to global warming: The case of 1.5 °c and 2 °c(München : European Geopyhsical Union, 2016) Schleussner, Carl-Friedrich; Lissner, Tabea K.; Fischer, Erich M.; Wohland, Jan; Perrette, Mahé; Golly, Antonius; Rogelj, Joeri; Childers, Katelin; Schewe, Jacob; Frieler, Katja; Mengel, Matthias; Hare, William; Schaeffer, MichielRobust appraisals of climate impacts at different levels of global-mean temperature increase are vital to guide assessments of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. The 2015 Paris Agreement includes a two-headed temperature goal: "holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C". Despite the prominence of these two temperature limits, a comprehensive overview of the differences in climate impacts at these levels is still missing. Here we provide an assessment of key impacts of climate change at warming levels of 1.5°C and 2°C, including extreme weather events, water availability, agricultural yields, sea-level rise and risk of coral reef loss. Our results reveal substantial differences in impacts between a 1.5°C and 2°C warming that are highly relevant for the assessment of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. For heat-related extremes, the additional 0.5°C increase in global-mean temperature marks the difference between events at the upper limit of present-day natural variability and a new climate regime, particularly in tropical regions. Similarly, this warming difference is likely to be decisive for the future of tropical coral reefs. In a scenario with an end-of-century warming of 2°C, virtually all tropical coral reefs are projected to be at risk of severe degradation due to temperature-induced bleaching from 2050 onwards. This fraction is reduced to about 90% in 2050 and projected to decline to 70% by 2100 for a 1.5°C scenario. Analyses of precipitation-related impacts reveal distinct regional differences and hot-spots of change emerge. Regional reduction in median water availability for the Mediterranean is found to nearly double from 9% to 17% between 1.5°C and 2°C, and the projected lengthening of regional dry spells increases from 7 to 11%. Projections for agricultural yields differ between crop types as well as world regions. While some (in particular high-latitude) regions may benefit, tropical regions like West Africa, South-East Asia, as well as Central and northern South America are projected to face substantial local yield reductions, particularly for wheat and maize. Best estimate sea-level rise projections based on two illustrative scenarios indicate a 50cm rise by 2100 relative to year 2000-levels for a 2°C scenario, and about 10 cm lower levels for a 1.5°C scenario. In a 1.5°C scenario, the rate of sea-level rise in 2100 would be reduced by about 30% compared to a 2°C scenario. Our findings highlight the importance of regional differentiation to assess both future climate risks and different vulnerabilities to incremental increases in global-mean temperature. The article provides a consistent and comprehensive assessment of existing projections and a good basis for future work on refining our understanding of the difference between impacts at 1.5°C and 2°C warming.
- ItemThe effect of univariate bias adjustment on multivariate hazard estimates(Göttingen : Copernicus Publ., 2019) Zscheischler, Jakob; Fischer, Erich M.; Lange, StefanBias adjustment is often a necessity in estimating climate impacts because impact models usually rely on unbiased climate information, a requirement that climate model outputs rarely fulfil. Most currently used statistical bias-adjustment methods adjust each climate variable separately, even though impacts usually depend on multiple potentially dependent variables. Human heat stress, for instance, depends on temperature and relative humidity, two variables that are often strongly correlated. Whether univariate bias-adjustment methods effectively improve estimates of impacts that depend on multiple drivers is largely unknown, and the lack of long-term impact data prevents a direct comparison between model outputs and observations for many climate-related impacts. Here we use two hazard indicators, heat stress and a simple fire risk indicator, as proxies for more sophisticated impact models. We show that univariate bias-adjustment methods such as univariate quantile mapping often cannot effectively reduce biases in multivariate hazard estimates. In some cases, it even increases biases. These cases typically occur (i) when hazards depend equally strongly on more than one climatic driver, (ii) when models exhibit biases in the dependence structure of drivers and (iii) when univariate biases are relatively small. Using a perfect model approach, we further quantify the uncertainty in bias-adjusted hazard indicators due to internal variability and show how imperfect bias adjustment can amplify this uncertainty. Both issues can be addressed successfully with a statistical bias adjustment that corrects the multivariate dependence structure in addition to the marginal distributions of the climate drivers. Our results suggest that currently many modeled climate impacts are associated with uncertainties related to the choice of bias adjustment. We conclude that in cases where impacts depend on multiple dependent climate variables these uncertainties can be reduced using statistical bias-adjustment approaches that correct the variables' multivariate dependence structure. © 2019 Copernicus GmbH. All rights reserved.