4.5 Article

Community climate simulations to assess avoided impacts in 1.5 and 2 °C futures

期刊

EARTH SYSTEM DYNAMICS
卷 8, 期 3, 页码 827-847

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/esd-8-827-2017

关键词

-

资金

  1. Regional and Global Climate Modeling Program (RGCM) of the US Department of Energy's, Office of Science (BER) [DE-FC02-97ER62402]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Paris Agreement of December 2015 stated a goal to pursue efforts to keep global temperatures below 1.5 degrees C above preindustrial levels and well below 2 degrees C. The IPCC was charged with assessing climate impacts at these temperature levels, but fully coupled equilibrium climate simulations do not currently exist to inform such assessments. In this study, we produce a set of scenarios using a simple model designed to achieve long-term 1.5 and 2 degrees C temperatures in a stable climate. These scenarios are then used to produce century-scale ensemble simulations using the Community Earth System Model, providing impact-relevant long-term climate data for stabilization pathways at 1.5 and 2 degrees C levels and an overshoot 1.5 degrees C case, which are realized (for the 21st century) in the coupled model and are freely available to the community. Here we describe the design of the simulations and a brief overview of their impact-relevant climate response. Exceedance of historical record temperature occurs with 60% greater frequency in the 2 degrees C climate than in a 1.5 degrees C climate aggregated globally, and with twice the frequency in equatorial and arid regions. Extreme precipitation intensity is statistically significantly higher in a 2.0 degrees C climate than a 1.5 degrees C climate in some specific regions (but not all). The model exhibits large differences in the Arctic, which is ice-free with a frequency of 1 in 3 years in the 2.0 degrees C scenario, and 1 in 40 years in the 1.5 degrees C scenario. Significance of impact differences with respect to multi-model variability is not assessed.

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

4.5
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