4.5 Article

The benefits of quantifying climate model uncertainty in climate change impacts assessment: an example with heat-related mortality change estimates

期刊

CLIMATIC CHANGE
卷 112, 期 2, 页码 217-231

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10584-011-0211-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
  2. UK Met Office
  3. DECC [GA01101]
  4. Defra [GA01101]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The majority of climate change impacts assessments account for climate change uncertainty by adopting the scenario-based approach. This typically involves assessing the impacts for a small number of emissions scenarios but neglecting the role of climate model physics uncertainty. Perturbed physics ensemble (PPE) climate simulations offer a unique opportunity to explore this uncertainty. Furthermore, PPEs mean it is now possible to make risk-based impacts estimates because they allow for a range of estimates to be presented to decision-makers, which spans the range of climate model physics uncertainty inherent from a given climate model and emissions scenario, due to uncertainty associated with the understanding of physical processes in the climate model. This is generally not possible with the scenario-based approach. Here, we present the first application of a PPE to estimate the impact of climate change on heat-related mortality. By using the estimated impacts of climate change on heat-related mortality in six cities, we demonstrate the benefits of quantifying climate model physics uncertainty in climate change impacts assessment over the more common scenario-based approach. We also show that the impacts are more sensitive to climate model physics uncertainty than they are to emissions scenario uncertainty, and least sensitive to whether the climate change projections are from a global climate model or a regional climate model. The results demonstrate the importance of presenting model uncertainties in climate change impacts assessments if the impacts are to be placed within a climate risk management framework.

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