4.8 Article

Extreme sea levels at different global warming levels

期刊

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE
卷 11, 期 9, 页码 746-+

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41558-021-01127-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. Multisector Dynamics program of US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research
  2. US Environmental Protection Agency [DW-089-92459801]
  3. AXA Research fund
  4. Deltares Strategic Research Programme 'Natural Hazards'
  5. MultiSector Dynamics-Living, Intuitive, Value-adding Environment (MSD-LIVE) project

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study used a multimethod approach to describe changes in extreme sea levels driven by changes in mean sea level associated with global warming levels from 1.5 to 5 degrees C. The findings suggest that by 2100, over 50% of the locations considered will experience present-day 100-yr extreme-sea-level events at least once a year, even under 1.5 degrees C of global warming. The tropics appear to be more sensitive to these changes compared to Northern high latitudes.
The Paris agreement focused global climate mitigation policy on limiting global warming to 1.5 or 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels. Consequently, projections of hazards and risk are increasingly framed in terms of global warming levels rather than emission scenarios. Here, we use a multimethod approach to describe changes in extreme sea levels driven by changes in mean sea level associated with a wide range of global warming levels, from 1.5 to 5 degrees C, and for a large number of locations, providing uniform coverage over most of the world's coastlines. We estimate that by 2100 similar to 50% of the 7,000+ locations considered will experience the present-day 100-yr extreme-sea-level event at least once a year, even under 1.5 degrees C of warming, and often well before the end of the century. The tropics appear more sensitive than the Northern high latitudes, where some locations do not see this frequency change even for the highest global warming levels.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据