Articles | Volume 18, issue 5
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Model description paper
| 
14 Mar 2025
Model description paper |
| 14 Mar 2025
| 14 Mar 2025
A rapid-application emissions-to-impacts tool for scenario assessment: Probabilistic Regional Impacts from Model patterns and Emissions (PRIME)
Camilla Mathison
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Eleanor J. Burke
Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
Gregory Munday
Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
Chris D. Jones
Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Chris J. Smith
Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
Department of Water and Climate, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 1050 Brussels, Belgium
Energy, Climate and Environment Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), 2361 Laxenburg, Austria
Norman J. Steinert
Norwegian Research Centre AS (NORCE), Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, Bergen, Norway
CICERO Center for International Climate Research, Oslo, Norway
Andy J. Wiltshire
Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
Faculty of Environment, Science and Economy, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
Chris Huntingford
UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, UK
Eszter Kovacs
School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Laila K. Gohar
Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
Rebecca M. Varney
Faculty of Environment, Science and Economy, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
Douglas McNeall
Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
Faculty of Environment, Science and Economy, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
Related authors
Detlef P. Van Vuuren, Brian C. O'Neill, Claudia Tebaldi, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Louise P. Chini, Pierre Friedlingstein, Tomoko Hasegawa, Keywan Riahi, Bala Govindasamy, Nico Bauer, Veronika Eyring, Cheikh M. N. Fall, Katja Frieler, Matthew J. Gidden, Laila K. Gohar, Annika Högner, Andrew D. Jones, Jarmo Kikstra, Andrew King, Reto Knutti, Elmar Kriegler, Peter Lawrence, Chris Lennard, Jason Lowe, Camilla Mathison, Shahbaz Mehmood, Zebedee Nicholls, Luciana F. Prado, Qiang Zhang, Steven K. Rose, Alex C. Ruane, Marit Sandstad, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Roland Seferian, Jana Sillmann, Chris Smith, Anna A. Sörensson, Swapna Panickal, Kaoru Tachiiri, Naomi Vaughan, Saritha S. Vishwanathan, Tokuta Yokohata, Marco Zecchetto, and Tilo Ziehn
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 2627–2656, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-2627-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-2627-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a set of seven plausible 21st century emission scenarios, and their multi-century extensions, that will be used by the international community of climate modeling centers to produce the next generation of climate projections. These projections will support climate, impact and mitigation researchers, provide information to practitioners to address future risks from climate change, and contribute to policymakers’ considerations of the trade-offs among various levels of mitigation.
Alejandro Romero-Prieto, Camilla Mathison, and Chris Smith
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 115–165, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-115-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-115-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Simple Climate Models (SCMs) are widely used tools to explore how Earth's climate may change in the future. In recent decades, the number and types of SCMs have increased significantly, hindering efforts to understand cross-model differences. In this study, we provide an overview of the main principles guiding climate simulation by SCMs, as well as a description of most high-profile SCMs. This work offers a clear reference to support the informed use of these important tools.
Rebecca M. Varney, Daniel Hooke, Norman J. Steinert, T. Luke Smallman, Camilla Mathison, and Eleanor J. Burke
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6075, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6075, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
The northern high latitudes mitigate climate change by land ecosystems absorbing more carbon from the atmosphere than they release. This carbon sink is sensitive to long-term CO2 emissions. Here, we use a probabilistic framework to quantify the timing and magnitude of a transition to a carbon source in different future emission scenarios, including overshoot. The fate of this region is dependent on the balance between carbon loss from permafrost and gain from increased vegetation productivity.
Alejandro Romero-Prieto, Marit Sandstad, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Zebedee R. J. Nicholls, Norman J. Steinert, Thomas Gasser, Camilla Mathison, Jarmo Kikstra, Thomas J. Aubry, and Chris Smith
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5775, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5775, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
Reduced-complexity models are an important tool in climate science, helping us understand and estimate future climate change. We present the experimental protocol for the next phase of the reduced-complexity model intercomparison project, which aims to compare results from many such models to better understand their behaviour. This knowledge will guide how these models are developed and used in the future, including in the upcoming IPCC assessment report (AR7).
Inika Taylor, Douglas I. Kelley, Camilla Mathison, Karina E. Williams, Andrew J. Hartley, Richard A. Betts, and Chantelle Burton
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-720, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-720, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Climate change is reshaping fire seasons worldwide and, in many places, increasing fire weather risk. We use climate model simulations to project future changes in fire danger at different levels of global warming, focusing on Australia, Brazil, and the USA. Keeping warming below 2 °C significantly limits the increase in fire risk, but even at 1.5 °C, fire seasons lengthen, with more extreme conditions. However, low-fire weather periods remain, offering critical windows for fire management.
Chris Smith, Donald P. Cummins, Hege-Beate Fredriksen, Zebedee Nicholls, Malte Meinshausen, Myles Allen, Stuart Jenkins, Nicholas Leach, Camilla Mathison, and Antti-Ilari Partanen
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8569–8592, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8569-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8569-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate projections are only useful if the underlying models that produce them are well calibrated and can reproduce observed climate change. We formalise a software package that calibrates the open-source FaIR simple climate model to full-complexity Earth system models. Observations, including historical warming, and assessments of key climate variables such as that of climate sensitivity are used to constrain the model output.
Camilla Mathison, Eleanor Burke, Andrew J. Hartley, Douglas I. Kelley, Chantelle Burton, Eddy Robertson, Nicola Gedney, Karina Williams, Andy Wiltshire, Richard J. Ellis, Alistair A. Sellar, and Chris D. Jones
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4249–4264, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4249-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4249-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes and evaluates a new modelling methodology to quantify the impacts of climate change on water, biomes and the carbon cycle. We have created a new configuration and set-up for the JULES-ES land surface model, driven by bias-corrected historical and future climate model output provided by the Inter-Sectoral Impacts Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP). This allows us to compare projections of the impacts of climate change across multiple impact models and multiple sectors.
Anna B. Harper, Karina E. Williams, Patrick C. McGuire, Maria Carolina Duran Rojas, Debbie Hemming, Anne Verhoef, Chris Huntingford, Lucy Rowland, Toby Marthews, Cleiton Breder Eller, Camilla Mathison, Rodolfo L. B. Nobrega, Nicola Gedney, Pier Luigi Vidale, Fred Otu-Larbi, Divya Pandey, Sebastien Garrigues, Azin Wright, Darren Slevin, Martin G. De Kauwe, Eleanor Blyth, Jonas Ardö, Andrew Black, Damien Bonal, Nina Buchmann, Benoit Burban, Kathrin Fuchs, Agnès de Grandcourt, Ivan Mammarella, Lutz Merbold, Leonardo Montagnani, Yann Nouvellon, Natalia Restrepo-Coupe, and Georg Wohlfahrt
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3269–3294, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3269-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3269-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluated 10 representations of soil moisture stress in the JULES land surface model against site observations of GPP and latent heat flux. Increasing the soil depth and plant access to deep soil moisture improved many aspects of the simulations, and we recommend these settings in future work using JULES. In addition, using soil matric potential presents the opportunity to include parameters specific to plant functional type to further improve modeled fluxes.
Piers M. Forster, Tristram Walsh, Chris Smith, William F. Lamb, Robin Lamboll, Christophe Cassou, Mathias Hauser, Zeke Hausfather, June-Yi Lee, Matthew D. Palmer, Karina von Schuckmann, Aimée B. A. Slangen, Sophie Szopa, Blair Trewin, Jeongeun Yun, Nathan P. Gillett, Stuart Jenkins, H. Damon Matthews, Krishnan Raghavan, Aurélien Ribes, Joeri Rogelj, Debbie Rosen, Xuebin Zhang, Myles Allen, Robbie M. Andrew, Chris Atkinson, Richard A. Betts, Antonio Bombelli, Samantha N. Burgess, Lijing Cheng, Helen E. Claxton, Pierre Friedlingstein, Thomas L. Frölicher, Catia M. Domingues, Thomas Gasser, Catherine H. Gregory, Rachel M. Hoesly, Daniel Huppmann, Masayoshi Ishii, Christopher Kadow, Alexia Karwat, John Kennedy, Rachel E. Killick, Mahesh V. M. Kovilakam, Paul B. Krummel, Xin Lan, Jean-François Lamarque, Aurélien Liné, Belén Martín-Míguez, Didier P. Monselesan, Colin Morice, Jens Mühle, Pino Mussak, Glen P. Peters, Anna Pirani, Julia Pongratz, Matthew Rigby, Robert Rohde, Abhishek Savita, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Steven J. Smith, Ghassan Taha, Caterina Tassone, Peter Thorne, Christopher Wells, Luke M. Western, Guido R. van der Werf, Susan E. Wijffels, Marco Zecchetto, Junting Zhong, Xiao-ye Zhang, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, and Panmao Zhai
Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-287, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2026-287, 2026
Preprint under review for ESSD
Short summary
Short summary
We give our annual update of key climate indicators. Our work quantifies the human contribution to global warming and the pace of climate change. This represents a large effort by the international community akin to an IPCC report
William F. Lamb, Robbie M. Andrew, Matthew Jones, Zebedee Nicholls, Glen P. Peters, Chris Smith, Marielle Saunois, Giacomo Grassi, Julia Pongratz, Steven J. Smith, Francesco N. Tubiello, Monica Crippa, Matthew Gidden, Pierre Friedlingstein, Jan Minx, and Piers M. Forster
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 18, 2549–2572, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-18-2549-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-18-2549-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
This study explores why global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions estimates vary. Key reasons include different coverage of gases and sectors, varying definitions of anthropogenic land use change emissions, and the Paris Agreement not covering all emission sources. The study highlights three main ways emissions data is reported, each with different objectives and resulting in varying global emission totals. It emphasizes the need for transparency in choosing datasets and setting assessment scopes.
Abigail L. S. Swann, Charles D. Koven, Cristian Proistosecu, Rosie A. Fisher, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Victor Brovkin, Tomohiro Hajima, Chris D. Jones, Nancy Y. Kiang, David M. Lawrence, Spencer Liddicoat, Hannah Liddy, Anastasia Romanou, Roland Séférian, Lori T. Sentman, Norman J. Steinert, Jerry Tjiputra, and Tilo Ziehn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1673, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1673, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Earth System Dynamics (ESD).
Short summary
Short summary
We analyzed simulations from Earth system models (ESM) with a constant rate of emissions, zero emissions, and negative emissions of CO2 to quantify the response of land carbon sinks. We found that under positive emissions vegetation in the tropics gained carbon. Under zero emissions and negative emissions most ESMs lost carbon from vegetation in the tropics but gained carbon in mid- and high-latitudes, mostly in soils. Our findings imply that tropical carbon is vulnerable under zero emissions.
Detlef P. Van Vuuren, Brian C. O'Neill, Claudia Tebaldi, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Louise P. Chini, Pierre Friedlingstein, Tomoko Hasegawa, Keywan Riahi, Bala Govindasamy, Nico Bauer, Veronika Eyring, Cheikh M. N. Fall, Katja Frieler, Matthew J. Gidden, Laila K. Gohar, Annika Högner, Andrew D. Jones, Jarmo Kikstra, Andrew King, Reto Knutti, Elmar Kriegler, Peter Lawrence, Chris Lennard, Jason Lowe, Camilla Mathison, Shahbaz Mehmood, Zebedee Nicholls, Luciana F. Prado, Qiang Zhang, Steven K. Rose, Alex C. Ruane, Marit Sandstad, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Roland Seferian, Jana Sillmann, Chris Smith, Anna A. Sörensson, Swapna Panickal, Kaoru Tachiiri, Naomi Vaughan, Saritha S. Vishwanathan, Tokuta Yokohata, Marco Zecchetto, and Tilo Ziehn
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 2627–2656, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-2627-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-2627-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a set of seven plausible 21st century emission scenarios, and their multi-century extensions, that will be used by the international community of climate modeling centers to produce the next generation of climate projections. These projections will support climate, impact and mitigation researchers, provide information to practitioners to address future risks from climate change, and contribute to policymakers’ considerations of the trade-offs among various levels of mitigation.
Martin Willett, Melissa Brooks, Andrew Bushell, Paul Earnshaw, Samantha Smith, Lorenzo Tomassini, Martin Best, Ian Boutle, Jennifer Brooke, John M. Edwards, Andrew D. Elvidge, Kalli Furtado, Catherine Hardacre, Andrew J. Hartley, Alan J. Hewitt, Ben Johnson, Adrian Lock, Andy Malcolm, Jane Mulcahy, Eike Müller, Ian A. Renfrew, Heather Rumbold, Gabriel G. Rooney, Alistair Sellar, Masashi Ujiie, Annelize van Niekerk, Andy Wiltshire, and Michael Whitall
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 1473–1517, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-1473-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-1473-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Global Atmosphere (GA) configurations of the Unified Model (UM) and Global Land (GL) configurations of Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES) are developed for use in any global atmospheric modelling application. We describe a recent iteration of these configurations, GA8GL9, which includes improvements to the representation of convection and other physical processes. GA8GL9 is used for operational weather prediction in the UK and forms the basis for the next GA and GL configuration.
Léa M. C. Prévost, Leighton A. Regayre, Jill S. Johnson, Doug McNeall, Sean Milton, and Kenneth S. Carslaw
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 26, 2487–2530, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-2487-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-2487-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Climate models rely on uncertain adjustable parameters. We tested millions of combinations of these inputs to see how well the model matches real-world data. We found that no single set of inputs can match several observations at the same time, which suggests that the issue lies in the model itself. We developed a method to detect these conflicts and trace them back trace them to their source. The aim is to help modellers target improvements that reduce uncertainty in climate projections.
Christopher D. Wells, Lennart Ramme, Chris Smith, Jannes Breier, Adakudlu Muralidhar, Chao Li, Ada Gjermundsen, William Alexander Schoenberg, Benjamin Blanz, and Cecilie Mauritzen
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 1429–1453, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-1429-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-1429-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Understanding the change in climate that would occur under different future pathways of greenhouse gas emissions and changes in land use is crucial. Here, we develop a new simple climate model to help study this. We reduce the number of inputs so that our model can be connected to a model of the human causes of climate change. This way, we can study the interaction between climate change and society, including climate impacts. Our model broadly agrees with historical observations.
Chris Huntingford, Paul D. L. Ritchie, and Joseph Clarke
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-550, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-550, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
The risk of climate change triggering tipping points is a concern. While Earth System Models (ESMs) predict these points, their timing often varies. Equations of nonlinear dynamical systems can model tipping, hysteresis, and inertia, enabling comparison with ESMs. We propose a method to map tipping timing estimates onto a dynamical system that simulates a full hysteresis loop. We focus on solutions to the equation under overshoot forcing in global temperature and different inertia levels.
Christopher D. Wells, Benjamin Blanz, Lennart Ramme, Jannes Breier, Beniamino Callegari, Adakudlu Muralidhar, Jefferson K. Rajah, Andreas Nicolaidis Lindqvist, Axel E. Eriksson, William Alexander Schoenberg, Alexandre C. Köberle, Lan Wang-Erlandsson, Cecilie Mauritzen, Martin B. Grimeland, and Chris Smith
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 1229–1260, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-1229-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-1229-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Computer models built to study future developments of human activity and climate change often exclude the impacts of climate change. Here, we include these effects in a new model. We create functions connecting changes in global temperature, carbon dioxide, and sea level to energy supply and demand, food systems, mortality, economic damages, and other important quantities. Including these effects will allow us to explore their impact on future changes in the human and climate realms.
Peter W. Thorne, John M. Nicklas, John J. Kennedy, Bruce Calvert, Baylor Fox-Kemper, Mark T. Richardson, Adrian Simmons, Ed Hawkins, Robert Rhode, Kathryn Cowtan, Nerilie J. Abram, Axel Andersson, Simon Noone, Phillipe Marbaix, Nathan Lenssen, Dirk Olonscheck, Tristram Walsh, Stephen Outten, Ingo Bethke, Bjorn H. Samset, Chris Smith, Anna Pirani, Jan Fuglestvedt, Lavanya Rajamani, Richard A. Betts, Elizabeth C. Kent, Blair Trewin, Colin Morice, Tim Osborn, Samantha N. Burgess, Oliver Geden, Andrew Parnell, Piers M. Forster, Chris Hewitt, Zeke Hausfather, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Jochem Marotzke, Nathan Gillett, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Gavin A. Schmidt, Duo Chan, Stefan Brönnimann, Andy Reisinger, Matthew Menne, Maisa Rojas Corradi, Christopher Kadow, Peter Huybers, David B. Stephenson, Emily Wallis, Joeri Rogelj, Andrew Schurer, Karen McKinnon, Panmao Zhai, Fatima Driouech, Wilfran Moufouma Okia, Saeed Vazifehkhah, Sophie Szopa, Christopher J. Merchant, Shoji Hirahara, Masayoshi Ishii, Francois A. Engelbrecht, Qingxiang Li, June-Yi Lee, Alex J. Cannon, Christophe Cassou, Karina von Schuckmann, Amir H. Delju, and Ellie Murtagh
Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-825, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-825, 2026
Preprint under review for ESSD
Short summary
Short summary
We reassess the basis for determining the present level of long-term global warming. Unbiased estimates of both realised warming and anthropogenic warming are possible that approximate a 20-year retrospective mean. Our resulting estimates of 1.40 [1.23–1.58] °C (realised) and 1.34 [1.18–1.50] °C (anthropogenic) as at end of 2024 highlight the urgency of immediate, far-reaching and sustained climate mitigation actions if we are to meet the long term temperature goal of the Paris Agreement.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Susanne Baur, Carl-Freidrich Schleussner, Glen P. Peters, Shivika Mittal, Marit Sandstad, Steffen Kallbekken, Chris Smith, Sabine Fuss, Bas van Ruijven, Rosie A. Fisher, Joeri Rogelj, Roland Séférian, Bjørn Samset, Norman J. Steinert, Laurent Terray, and Jan Fuglestvedt
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-28, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-28, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Solar Radiation Modification by adding aerosols to the stratosphere could rapidly and temporarily cool the Earth, but this speed creates unprecedented risks. Fast climate responses coupled with political instability create risks of failure to decarbonise, super-rapid climate change, and conflict. Idealized scenarios or conventional modeling tools could lead to systematic ignorance of these risks. We thus introduce a framework outlining what must be represented in future modeling and assessment.
Rebecca M. Varney, Daniel Hooke, Norman J. Steinert, T. Luke Smallman, Camilla Mathison, and Eleanor J. Burke
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6075, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6075, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
The northern high latitudes mitigate climate change by land ecosystems absorbing more carbon from the atmosphere than they release. This carbon sink is sensitive to long-term CO2 emissions. Here, we use a probabilistic framework to quantify the timing and magnitude of a transition to a carbon source in different future emission scenarios, including overshoot. The fate of this region is dependent on the balance between carbon loss from permafrost and gain from increased vegetation productivity.
Alejandro Romero-Prieto, Camilla Mathison, and Chris Smith
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 115–165, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-115-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-115-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Simple Climate Models (SCMs) are widely used tools to explore how Earth's climate may change in the future. In recent decades, the number and types of SCMs have increased significantly, hindering efforts to understand cross-model differences. In this study, we provide an overview of the main principles guiding climate simulation by SCMs, as well as a description of most high-profile SCMs. This work offers a clear reference to support the informed use of these important tools.
Andrew J. Nicoll, Hannah M. Christensen, Chris Huntingford, and Doug Smith
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6123, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-6123, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We use artificial intelligence to learn simple equations from historical climate data that describe how North Atlantic ocean temperature, air pressure and rainfall vary and influence each other over decades. Analysing the model's behaviour and equation terms, we find rainfall strongly feeds back on both the ocean and the atmosphere. These interactions are well captured by the models and allow rainfall to be predicted over the ocean, and nearby regions such as Europe over coming decades.
Lennart Ramme, Benjamin Blanz, Christopher Wells, Tony E. Wong, William Schoenberg, Chris Smith, and Chao Li
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 10017–10052, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-10017-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-10017-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present FRISIA version 1.0, a model for emulating sea level rise (SLR) and representing SLR impacts and adaptation in integrated assessment models (IAMs). FRISIA includes previously uncaptured coastal socio-economic feedback and a diverse set of impact strains, thereby improving the represenation of SLR impacts in IAMs. Here we describe the baseline behaviour of FRISIA, explore the effects of the additional feedback and showcase the coupling of FRISIA to an IAM.
Daniele Peano, Deborah Hemming, Christine Delire, Yuanchao Fan, Hanna Lee, Stefano Materia, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Taejin Park, David Wårlind, Andy Wiltshire, and Sönke Zaehle
Biogeosciences, 22, 7117–7135, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-7117-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-7117-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Earth System Models are the principal tools for scientists to study past, present, and future climate changes. This work investigates the ability of a set of them to represent the observed changes in vegetation, which are vital to estimating the impact of future climate mitigation and adaptation strategies. This study highlights the main limitations in correctly representing vegetation variability. These tools still need further development to improve our understanding of future changes.
Richard G. Williams, Philip Goodwin, Paulo Ceppi, Chris D. Jones, and Andrew H. MacDougall
Biogeosciences, 22, 7167–7186, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-7167-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-7167-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
How the climate system responds when carbon emissions cease is an open question: some climate models reveal a slight warming, whereas most models reveal a slight cooling. The temperature response after net zero is connected via a new framework to quantify and compare the opposing thermal and carbon drivers. The climate response after net zero is controlled by how the planet takes up heat and radiates heat back to space, and how the land and ocean sequester carbon from the atmosphere.
Alejandro Romero-Prieto, Marit Sandstad, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Zebedee R. J. Nicholls, Norman J. Steinert, Thomas Gasser, Camilla Mathison, Jarmo Kikstra, Thomas J. Aubry, and Chris Smith
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5775, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5775, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
Reduced-complexity models are an important tool in climate science, helping us understand and estimate future climate change. We present the experimental protocol for the next phase of the reduced-complexity model intercomparison project, which aims to compare results from many such models to better understand their behaviour. This knowledge will guide how these models are developed and used in the future, including in the upcoming IPCC assessment report (AR7).
Joseph Clarke, Chris Huntingford, Paul D. L. Ritchie, Rebecca Varney, Mark S. Williamson, and Peter Cox
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 2087–2100, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-2087-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-2087-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
An increase in CO2 in the atmosphere warms the climate through the greenhouse effect, but also leads to uptake of CO2 by the land and ocean. However, the warming is also expected to suppress carbon uptake. If this suppression were strong enough, it could overwhelm the uptake of carbon, leading to a runaway feedback loop causing severe global warming. We find it is possible that this runaway could be relevant in complex climate models and even at the end of the last ice age.
Félix García-Pereira, Jesús Fidel González-Rouco, Nagore Meabe-Yanguas, Philipp de Vrese, Norman Julius Steinert, Johann Jungclaus, and Stephan Lorenz
The Cryosphere, 19, 5959–5981, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-5959-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-19-5959-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This work shows that changing the hydrological state of permafrost produces differences of up to 3 °C in the annual ground temperature, 1–2 m in the active layer thickness, and 5 million km2 in the permafrost extent. Including a deeper vertical thermal scheme reduces the extent decline by more than 2 million km2 in the highest radiative emission scenario. This is shown for the first time in fully-coupled experiments with an Earth System Model.
Victor Brovkin, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Noel G. Brizuela, Tomohiro Hajima, Tatiana Ilyina, Chris D. Jones, Charles Koven, David Lawrence, Peter Lawrence, Hongmei Li, Spencer Liddcoat, Anastasia Romanou, Roland Séférian, Lori T. Sentman, Abigail L. S. Swann, Jerry Tjiputra, Tilo Ziehn, and Alexander J. Winkler
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 2021–2034, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-2021-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-2021-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Idealized experiments with Earth system models provide a basis for understanding the response of the carbon cycle to emissions. We show that most models exhibit a quasi-linear relationship between cumulative carbon uptake on land and in the ocean and hypothesize that this relationship does not depend on emission pathways. We reduce the coupled system to only one differential equation, which represents a powerful simplification of the Earth system dynamics as a function of fossil fuel emissions.
Chris Smith, Lennart Ramme, Christopher D. Wells, Ada Gjermundsen, Hongmei Li, Tatiana Ilyina, Adakudlu Muralidhar, Timothée Bourgeois, Jörg Schwinger, Alejandro Romero-Prieto, Chao Li, and Cecilie Mauritzen
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5292, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5292, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We run the MPI-ESM1.2-LR and NorESM2-LM climate models in CO2 emissions-driven mode to 2300 for three climate scenarios. For climate overshoot scenarios, there is a large residual warming in the 22nd century in NorESM2-LM, despite negative CO2 emissions, related to Southern Ocean heat release. In both models, while global mean surface temperature is largely reversible, other global and regional climate models exhibit hysteresis and irreversibility.
Marit Sandstad, Norman Julius Steinert, Susanne Baur, and Benjamin Mark Sanderson
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 8269–8312, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-8269-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-8269-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present METEORv1.0.1, a climate model emulator, that can be trained on full spatially resolved and widely available climate model data to reproduce climate variables and make predictions from unseen emission trajectories. The methodology identifies patterns with timescales of impact for one or more forcers using idealised experiments and anomaly calculations. Results for precipitation and temperature show good model performance and can reproduce hysteresis for overshoot scenarios.
William Schoenberg, Benjamin Blanz, Jefferson K. Rajah, Beniamino Callegari, Christopher Wells, Jannes Breier, Martin B. Grimeland, Andreas Nicolaidis Lindqvist, Lennart Ramme, Chris Smith, Chao Li, Sarah Mashhadi, Adakudlu Muralidhar, and Cecilie Mauritzen
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 8047–8069, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-8047-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-8047-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The current crop of models assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to produce their assessment reports lack endogenous process-based representations of climate-driven changes to human activities, limiting understanding of the feedback between climate and humans. FRIDA (Feedback-based knowledge Repository for IntegrateD Assessments) v2.1 integrates these systems and generate results that suggest standard scenarios the shared socioeconomic pathways baseline scenarios may overestimate economic growth, highlighting the importance of feedbacks for realistic projections and informed policymaking.
Magali Verkerk, Thomas J. Aubry, Chris Smith, Peter O. Hopcroft, Michael Sigl, Jessica E. Tierney, Kevin Anchukaitis, Matthew Osman, Anja Schmidt, and Matthew Toohey
Clim. Past, 21, 1755–1778, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-21-1755-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-21-1755-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Large volcanic eruptions can trigger global cooling, affecting human societies. Using ice-core records and simple climate model to simulate volcanic effect over the last 8500 years, we show that volcanic eruptions cool the climate by 0.12 °C on average. By comparing model results with temperature recorded by tree rings over the last 1000 years, we demonstrate that our models can predict the large-scale cooling caused by volcanic eruptions and can be used in cases of large eruptions in the future.
Douglas I. Kelley, Chantelle Burton, Francesca Di Giuseppe, Matthew W. Jones, Maria L. F. Barbosa, Esther Brambleby, Joe R. McNorton, Zhongwei Liu, Anna S. I. Bradley, Katie Blackford, Eleanor Burke, Andrew Ciavarella, Enza Di Tomaso, Jonathan Eden, Igor José M. Ferreira, Lukas Fiedler, Andrew J. Hartley, Theodore R. Keeping, Seppe Lampe, Anna Lombardi, Guilherme Mataveli, Yuquan Qu, Patrícia S. Silva, Fiona R. Spuler, Carmen B. Steinmann, Miguel Ángel Torres-Vázquez, Renata Veiga, Dave van Wees, Jakob B. Wessel, Emily Wright, Bibiana Bilbao, Mathieu Bourbonnais, Cong Gao, Carlos M. Di Bella, Kebonye Dintwe, Victoria M. Donovan, Sarah Harris, Elena A. Kukavskaya, Aya Brigitte N'Dri, Cristina Santín, Galia Selaya, Johan Sjöström, John T. Abatzoglou, Niels Andela, Rachel Carmenta, Emilio Chuvieco, Louis Giglio, Douglas S. Hamilton, Stijn Hantson, Sarah Meier, Mark Parrington, Mojtaba Sadegh, Jesus San-Miguel-Ayanz, Fernando Sedano, Marco Turco, Guido R. van der Werf, Sander Veraverbeke, Liana O. Anderson, Hamish Clarke, Paulo M. Fernandes, and Crystal A. Kolden
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 5377–5488, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-5377-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-5377-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The second State of Wildfires report examines extreme wildfire events from 2024 to early 2025. It analyses key regional events in Southern California, Northeast Amazonia, Pantanal–Chiquitano, and the Congo Basin, assessing their drivers and predictability and attributing them to climate change and land use. Seasonal outlooks and decadal projections are provided. Climate change greatly increased the likelihood of these fires, and without strong mitigation, such events will become more frequent.
Norman J. Steinert and Benjamin M. Sanderson
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 1711–1721, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1711-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1711-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we explore how carbon emissions from thawing permafrost, known as the permafrost carbon feedback, affect two important climate metrics: how much the Earth warms per amount of carbon we emit and how much warming continues after we stop emitting carbon. Our study tackles a major gap in how we estimate future climate change. Using simplified climate models, we find a generalizable relationship between the permafrost carbon feedback and its additional warming impact on climate.
Patric J. L. Boardman, Joseph Clarke, Peter M. Cox, Chris Huntingford, Christopher D. Jones, and Mark S. Williamson
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4899, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4899, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Climate sensitivity quantifies how much Earth warms for a given radiative forcing, and can be characterised by TCR. Although the IPCC estimates the most likely TCR to be 1.8 K, some models predict values >2.4 K. Record warmth in 2023–2024 raises questions as to whether the TCR may indeed be larger than previously suggested. Using up-to-date data, we estimate the TCR to be 1.81 K. We also show that future warming falls within the low–mid model range, making the 2 °C Paris target still feasible.
Colin Jones, Isaline Bossert, Donovan P. Dennis, Hazel Jeffery, Chris D. Jones, Torben Koenigk, Sina Loriani, Benjamin Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Klaus Wyser, Shuting Yang, Manabu Abe, Sebastian Bathiany, Pascale Braconnot, Victor Brovkin, Friedrich A. Burger, Patrica Cadule, Frederic S. Castruccio, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Andrea Dittus, Jonathan F. Donges, Friederike Fröb, Thomas Frölicher, Goran Georgievski, Chuncheng Guo, Aixue Hu, Peter Lawrence, Paul Lerner, José Licón-Saláiz, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Anastasia Romanou, Elena Shevliakova, Yona Silvy, Didier Swingedouw, Jerry Tjiputra, Jeremy Walton, Andy Wiltshire, Ricarda Winkelmann, Richard Wood, Tokuta Yokohata, and Tilo Ziehn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3604, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3604, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce a new Earth system model experiment protocol to help researchers understand how Earth might respond to positive, zero, and negative carbon emissions. This protocol enables different models to be compared following similar warming and cooling rates. Researchers use the models to explore how the Earth reacts to different climate futures, including the risk of tipping points being exceeded and whether changes can be reversed. The results will support improved long-term climate policy.
Ryan Kramer, Chris Smith, and Timothy Andrews
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4378, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4378, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Natural or anthropogenic activities can cause a perturbation in Earth’s radiative energy budget known as a radiative forcing, which induces a climate response. Diagnosing radiative forcing and its uncertainty is foundational to understanding past and future climate change. Here we outline the protocol for the second iteration of the Radiative Forcing Model Intercomparison Project (RFMIP2.0), which provides a standardized method for diagnosing radiative forcing across Global Climate Models.
Paul D. L. Ritchie, Chris Huntingford, and Peter M. Cox
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 1523–1526, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1523-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1523-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Climate tipping points are not committed upon crossing critical thresholds in global warming, as is often assumed. Instead, it is possible to temporarily overshoot a threshold without causing tipping, provided the duration of the overshoot is short. In this Idea, we demonstrate that restricting the time over 1.5 °C would considerably reduce tipping point risks.
Anastasios Rovithakis, Eleanor Burke, Chantelle Burton, Matthew Kasoar, Manolis G. Grillakis, Konstantinos D. Seiradakis, and Apostolos Voulgarakis
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 3185–3200, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-3185-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-3185-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We used a land surface computer model to forecast how climate change will impact wildfires in Greece. Our results show a significant increase in future burnt area due to hotter, drier climate. Allowing vegetation to change with the climate lessens this increase overall, since fire is no longer igniting in areas already burnt, and it even led to projected decreases in the agricultural areas in the north of the country.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Victor Brovkin, Rosie A. Fisher, David Hohn, Tatiana Ilyina, Chris D. Jones, Torben Koenigk, Charles Koven, Hongmei Li, David M. Lawrence, Peter Lawrence, Spencer Liddicoat, Andrew H. MacDougall, Nadine Mengis, Zebedee Nicholls, Eleanor O'Rourke, Anastasia Romanou, Marit Sandstad, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Lori T. Sentman, Isla R. Simpson, Chris Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Abigail L. S. Swann, Jerry Tjiputra, and Tilo Ziehn
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 5699–5724, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-5699-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-5699-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates how climate models warm in response to simplified carbon emissions trajectories, refining the understanding of climate reversibility and commitment. Metrics are defined for warming response to cumulative emissions and for the cessation of emissions or ramp-down to net-zero and net-negative levels. Results indicate that previous concentration-driven experiments may have overstated the Zero Emissions Commitment due to emissions rates exceeding historical levels.
Paul T. Griffiths, Laura J. Wilcox, Robert J. Allen, Vaishali Naik, Fiona M. O'Connor, Michael Prather, Alex Archibald, Florence Brown, Makoto Deushi, William Collins, Stephanie Fiedler, Naga Oshima, Lee T. Murray, Bjørn H. Samset, Chris Smith, Steven Turnock, Duncan Watson-Parris, and Paul J. Young
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 8289–8328, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-8289-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-8289-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Aerosol Chemistry Model Intercomparison Project (AerChemMIP) aimed to quantify the climate and air quality impacts of aerosols and chemically reactive gases. We review its contribution to AR6 (Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and the wider understanding of the role of these species in climate and climate change. We identify challenges and provide recommendations to improve the utility and uptake of climate model data, detailed summary tables of CMIP6 models, experiments, and emergent diagnostics.
Piers M. Forster, Chris Smith, Tristram Walsh, William F. Lamb, Robin Lamboll, Christophe Cassou, Mathias Hauser, Zeke Hausfather, June-Yi Lee, Matthew D. Palmer, Karina von Schuckmann, Aimée B. A. Slangen, Sophie Szopa, Blair Trewin, Jeongeun Yun, Nathan P. Gillett, Stuart Jenkins, H. Damon Matthews, Krishnan Raghavan, Aurélien Ribes, Joeri Rogelj, Debbie Rosen, Xuebin Zhang, Myles Allen, Lara Aleluia Reis, Robbie M. Andrew, Richard A. Betts, Alex Borger, Jiddu A. Broersma, Samantha N. Burgess, Lijing Cheng, Pierre Friedlingstein, Catia M. Domingues, Marco Gambarini, Thomas Gasser, Johannes Gütschow, Masayoshi Ishii, Christopher Kadow, John Kennedy, Rachel E. Killick, Paul B. Krummel, Aurélien Liné, Didier P. Monselesan, Colin Morice, Jens Mühle, Vaishali Naik, Glen P. Peters, Anna Pirani, Julia Pongratz, Jan C. Minx, Matthew Rigby, Robert Rohde, Abhishek Savita, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Peter Thorne, Christopher Wells, Luke M. Western, Guido R. van der Werf, Susan E. Wijffels, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, and Panmao Zhai
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 2641–2680, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-2641-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-2641-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In a rapidly changing climate, evidence-based decision-making benefits from up-to-date and timely information. Here we compile monitoring datasets to track real-world changes over time. To make our work relevant to policymakers, we follow methods from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Human activities are increasing the Earth's energy imbalance and driving faster sea-level rise compared to the IPCC assessment.
Ricarda Winkelmann, Donovan P. Dennis, Jonathan F. Donges, Sina Loriani, Ann Kristin Klose, Jesse F. Abrams, Jorge Alvarez-Solas, Torsten Albrecht, David Armstrong McKay, Sebastian Bathiany, Javier Blasco Navarro, Victor Brovkin, Eleanor Burke, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Reik V. Donner, Markus Drüke, Goran Georgievski, Heiko Goelzer, Anna B. Harper, Gabriele Hegerl, Marina Hirota, Aixue Hu, Laura C. Jackson, Colin Jones, Hyungjun Kim, Torben Koenigk, Peter Lawrence, Timothy M. Lenton, Hannah Liddy, José Licón-Saláiz, Maxence Menthon, Marisa Montoya, Jan Nitzbon, Sophie Nowicki, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Francesco Pausata, Stefan Rahmstorf, Karoline Ramin, Alexander Robinson, Johan Rockström, Anastasia Romanou, Boris Sakschewski, Christina Schädel, Steven Sherwood, Robin S. Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Didier Swingedouw, Matteo Willeit, Wilbert Weijer, Richard Wood, Klaus Wyser, and Shuting Yang
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1899, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1899, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Tipping Points Modelling Intercomparison Project (TIPMIP) is an international collaborative effort to systematically assess tipping point risks in the Earth system using state-of-the-art coupled and stand-alone domain models. TIPMIP will provide a first global atlas of potential tipping dynamics, respective critical thresholds and key uncertainties, generating an important building block towards a comprehensive scientific basis for policy- and decision-making.
Katja Frieler, Stefan Lange, Jacob Schewe, Matthias Mengel, Simon Treu, Christian Otto, Jan Volkholz, Christopher P. O. Reyer, Stefanie Heinicke, Colin Jones, Julia L. Blanchard, Cheryl S. Harrison, Colleen M. Petrik, Tyler D. Eddy, Kelly Ortega-Cisneros, Camilla Novaglio, Ryan Heneghan, Derek P. Tittensor, Olivier Maury, Matthias Büchner, Thomas Vogt, Dánnell Quesada Chacón, Kerry Emanuel, Chia-Ying Lee, Suzana J. Camargo, Jonas Jägermeyr, Sam Rabin, Jochen Klar, Iliusi D. Vega del Valle, Lisa Novak, Inga J. Sauer, Gitta Lasslop, Sarah Chadburn, Eleanor Burke, Angela Gallego-Sala, Noah Smith, Jinfeng Chang, Stijn Hantson, Chantelle Burton, Anne Gädeke, Fang Li, Simon N. Gosling, Hannes Müller Schmied, Fred Hattermann, Thomas Hickler, Rafael Marcé, Don Pierson, Wim Thiery, Daniel Mercado-Bettín, Robert Ladwig, Ana Isabel Ayala-Zamora, Matthew Forrest, Michel Bechtold, Robert Reinecke, Inge de Graaf, Jed O. Kaplan, Alexander Koch, and Matthieu Lengaigne
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2103, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2103, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes the experiments and data sets necessary to run historic and future impact projections, and the underlying assumptions of future climate change as defined by the 3rd round of the ISIMIP Project (Inter-sectoral Impactmodel Intercomparison Project, isimip.org). ISIMIP provides a framework for cross-sectorally consistent climate impact simulations to contribute to a comprehensive and consistent picture of the world under different climate-change scenarios.
Gang Tang, Zebedee Nicholls, Chris Jones, Thomas Gasser, Alexander Norton, Tilo Ziehn, Alejandro Romero-Prieto, and Malte Meinshausen
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2111–2136, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2111-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2111-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We analyzed carbon and nitrogen mass conservation in data from various Earth system models. Our findings reveal significant discrepancies between flux and pool size data, where cumulative imbalances can reach hundreds of gigatons of carbon or nitrogen. These imbalances appear primarily due to missing or inconsistently reported fluxes – especially for land-use and fire emissions. To enhance data quality, we recommend that future climate data protocols address this issue at the reporting stage.
Chris Huntingford, Andrew J. Nicoll, Cornelia Klein, and Jawairia A. Ahmad
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 475–495, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-475-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-475-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
AI is impacting science, providing key data insights, but most algorithms are statistical requiring cautious "out-of-sample" extrapolation. Yet climate research concerns predicting future climatic states. We consider a new method of AI-led equation discovery. Equations offer process interpretation and more robust predictions. We recommend this method for climate analysis, suggesting illustrative application to atmospheric convection, land–atmosphere CO2 flux, and global ocean circulation models.
Inika Taylor, Douglas I. Kelley, Camilla Mathison, Karina E. Williams, Andrew J. Hartley, Richard A. Betts, and Chantelle Burton
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-720, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-720, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Climate change is reshaping fire seasons worldwide and, in many places, increasing fire weather risk. We use climate model simulations to project future changes in fire danger at different levels of global warming, focusing on Australia, Brazil, and the USA. Keeping warming below 2 °C significantly limits the increase in fire risk, but even at 1.5 °C, fire seasons lengthen, with more extreme conditions. However, low-fire weather periods remain, offering critical windows for fire management.
Tomohiro Hajima, Michio Kawamiya, Akihiko Ito, Kaoru Tachiiri, Chris D. Jones, Vivek Arora, Victor Brovkin, Roland Séférian, Spencer Liddicoat, Pierre Friedlingstein, and Elena Shevliakova
Biogeosciences, 22, 1447–1473, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-1447-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-1447-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study analyzes atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global carbon budgets simulated by multiple Earth system models, using several types of simulations (CO2 concentration- and emission-driven experiments). We successfully identified problems with regard to the global carbon budget in each model. We also found urgent issues with regard to land use change CO2 emissions that should be solved in the latest generation of models.
Marcos B. Sanches, Manoel Cardoso, Celso von Randow, Chris Jones, and Mathew Williams
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-942, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-942, 2025
Preprint archived
Short summary
Short summary
This study examines South America's role in the global carbon cycle using flux and stock analyses from CMIP6 Earth System Models. We discuss the continent’s relevance, model-observation agreement, and the impacts of dry and wet years on major biomes. Additionally, we assess model results indicating that parts of South America could shift from carbon sinks to emitters, significantly affecting the global carbon balance.
Tuula Aalto, Aki Tsuruta, Jarmo Mäkelä, Jurek Müller, Maria Tenkanen, Eleanor Burke, Sarah Chadburn, Yao Gao, Vilma Mannisenaho, Thomas Kleinen, Hanna Lee, Antti Leppänen, Tiina Markkanen, Stefano Materia, Paul A. Miller, Daniele Peano, Olli Peltola, Benjamin Poulter, Maarit Raivonen, Marielle Saunois, David Wårlind, and Sönke Zaehle
Biogeosciences, 22, 323–340, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-323-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-22-323-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Wetland methane responses to temperature and precipitation were studied in a boreal wetland-rich region in northern Europe using ecosystem models, atmospheric inversions, and upscaled flux observations. The ecosystem models differed in their responses to temperature and precipitation and in their seasonality. However, multi-model means, inversions, and upscaled fluxes had similar seasonality, and they suggested co-limitation by temperature and precipitation.
Chris Smith, Donald P. Cummins, Hege-Beate Fredriksen, Zebedee Nicholls, Malte Meinshausen, Myles Allen, Stuart Jenkins, Nicholas Leach, Camilla Mathison, and Antti-Ilari Partanen
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8569–8592, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8569-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8569-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate projections are only useful if the underlying models that produce them are well calibrated and can reproduce observed climate change. We formalise a software package that calibrates the open-source FaIR simple climate model to full-complexity Earth system models. Observations, including historical warming, and assessments of key climate variables such as that of climate sensitivity are used to constrain the model output.
Bettina K. Gier, Manuel Schlund, Pierre Friedlingstein, Chris D. Jones, Colin Jones, Sönke Zaehle, and Veronika Eyring
Biogeosciences, 21, 5321–5360, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5321-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-5321-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates present-day carbon cycle variables in CMIP5 and CMIP6 simulations. Overall, CMIP6 models perform better but also show many remaining biases. A significant improvement in the simulation of photosynthesis in models with a nitrogen cycle is found, with only small differences between emission- and concentration-based simulations. Thus, we recommend using emission-driven simulations in CMIP7 by default and including the nitrogen cycle in all future carbon cycle models.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Ben B. B. Booth, John Dunne, Veronika Eyring, Rosie A. Fisher, Pierre Friedlingstein, Matthew J. Gidden, Tomohiro Hajima, Chris D. Jones, Colin G. Jones, Andrew King, Charles D. Koven, David M. Lawrence, Jason Lowe, Nadine Mengis, Glen P. Peters, Joeri Rogelj, Chris Smith, Abigail C. Snyder, Isla R. Simpson, Abigail L. S. Swann, Claudia Tebaldi, Tatiana Ilyina, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Roland Séférian, Bjørn H. Samset, Detlef van Vuuren, and Sönke Zaehle
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8141–8172, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8141-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8141-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We discuss how, in order to provide more relevant guidance for climate policy, coordinated climate experiments should adopt a greater focus on simulations where Earth system models are provided with carbon emissions from fossil fuels together with land use change instructions, rather than past approaches that have largely focused on experiments with prescribed atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. We discuss how these goals might be achieved in coordinated climate modeling experiments.
Colin G. Jones, Fanny Adloff, Ben B. B. Booth, Peter M. Cox, Veronika Eyring, Pierre Friedlingstein, Katja Frieler, Helene T. Hewitt, Hazel A. Jeffery, Sylvie Joussaume, Torben Koenigk, Bryan N. Lawrence, Eleanor O'Rourke, Malcolm J. Roberts, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Samuel Somot, Pier Luigi Vidale, Detlef van Vuuren, Mario Acosta, Mats Bentsen, Raffaele Bernardello, Richard Betts, Ed Blockley, Julien Boé, Tom Bracegirdle, Pascale Braconnot, Victor Brovkin, Carlo Buontempo, Francisco Doblas-Reyes, Markus Donat, Italo Epicoco, Pete Falloon, Sandro Fiore, Thomas Frölicher, Neven S. Fučkar, Matthew J. Gidden, Helge F. Goessling, Rune Grand Graversen, Silvio Gualdi, José M. Gutiérrez, Tatiana Ilyina, Daniela Jacob, Chris D. Jones, Martin Juckes, Elizabeth Kendon, Erik Kjellström, Reto Knutti, Jason Lowe, Matthew Mizielinski, Paola Nassisi, Michael Obersteiner, Pierre Regnier, Romain Roehrig, David Salas y Mélia, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Michael Schulz, Enrico Scoccimarro, Laurent Terray, Hannes Thiemann, Richard A. Wood, Shuting Yang, and Sönke Zaehle
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1319–1351, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1319-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1319-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a number of priority areas for the international climate research community to address over the coming decade. Advances in these areas will both increase our understanding of past and future Earth system change, including the societal and environmental impacts of this change, and deliver significantly improved scientific support to international climate policy, such as future IPCC assessments and the UNFCCC Global Stocktake.
Robert J. Allen, Xueying Zhao, Cynthia A. Randles, Ryan J. Kramer, Bjørn H. Samset, and Christopher J. Smith
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 11207–11226, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-11207-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-11207-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Present-day methane shortwave absorption mutes 28% (7–55%) of the surface warming associated with its longwave absorption. The precipitation increase associated with the longwave radiative effects of the present-day methane perturbation is also muted by shortwave absorption but not significantly so. Methane shortwave absorption also impacts the magnitude of its climate feedback parameter, largely through the cloud feedback.
Matthew W. Jones, Douglas I. Kelley, Chantelle A. Burton, Francesca Di Giuseppe, Maria Lucia F. Barbosa, Esther Brambleby, Andrew J. Hartley, Anna Lombardi, Guilherme Mataveli, Joe R. McNorton, Fiona R. Spuler, Jakob B. Wessel, John T. Abatzoglou, Liana O. Anderson, Niels Andela, Sally Archibald, Dolors Armenteras, Eleanor Burke, Rachel Carmenta, Emilio Chuvieco, Hamish Clarke, Stefan H. Doerr, Paulo M. Fernandes, Louis Giglio, Douglas S. Hamilton, Stijn Hantson, Sarah Harris, Piyush Jain, Crystal A. Kolden, Tiina Kurvits, Seppe Lampe, Sarah Meier, Stacey New, Mark Parrington, Morgane M. G. Perron, Yuquan Qu, Natasha S. Ribeiro, Bambang H. Saharjo, Jesus San-Miguel-Ayanz, Jacquelyn K. Shuman, Veerachai Tanpipat, Guido R. van der Werf, Sander Veraverbeke, and Gavriil Xanthopoulos
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 3601–3685, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-3601-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-3601-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This inaugural State of Wildfires report catalogues extreme fires of the 2023–2024 fire season. For key events, we analyse their predictability and drivers and attribute them to climate change and land use. We provide a seasonal outlook and decadal projections. Key anomalies occurred in Canada, Greece, and western Amazonia, with other high-impact events catalogued worldwide. Climate change significantly increased the likelihood of extreme fires, and mitigation is required to lessen future risk.
Mark S. Williamson, Peter M. Cox, Chris Huntingford, and Femke J. M. M. Nijsse
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 829–852, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-829-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-829-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Emergent constraints on equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) have generally got statistically weaker in the latest set of state-of-the-art climate models (CMIP6) compared to past sets (CMIP5). We look at why this weakening happened for one particular study (Cox et al, 2018) and attribute it to an assumption made in the theory that when corrected for restores there is a stronger relationship between predictor and ECS.
Rebecca M. Varney, Pierre Friedlingstein, Sarah E. Chadburn, Eleanor J. Burke, and Peter M. Cox
Biogeosciences, 21, 2759–2776, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-2759-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-2759-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Soil carbon is the largest store of carbon on the land surface of Earth and is known to be particularly sensitive to climate change. Understanding this future response is vital to successfully meeting Paris Agreement targets, which rely heavily on carbon uptake by the land surface. In this study, the individual responses of soil carbon are quantified and compared amongst CMIP6 Earth system models used within the most recent IPCC report, and the role of soils in the land response is highlighted.
Piers M. Forster, Chris Smith, Tristram Walsh, William F. Lamb, Robin Lamboll, Bradley Hall, Mathias Hauser, Aurélien Ribes, Debbie Rosen, Nathan P. Gillett, Matthew D. Palmer, Joeri Rogelj, Karina von Schuckmann, Blair Trewin, Myles Allen, Robbie Andrew, Richard A. Betts, Alex Borger, Tim Boyer, Jiddu A. Broersma, Carlo Buontempo, Samantha Burgess, Chiara Cagnazzo, Lijing Cheng, Pierre Friedlingstein, Andrew Gettelman, Johannes Gütschow, Masayoshi Ishii, Stuart Jenkins, Xin Lan, Colin Morice, Jens Mühle, Christopher Kadow, John Kennedy, Rachel E. Killick, Paul B. Krummel, Jan C. Minx, Gunnar Myhre, Vaishali Naik, Glen P. Peters, Anna Pirani, Julia Pongratz, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Sophie Szopa, Peter Thorne, Mahesh V. M. Kovilakam, Elisa Majamäki, Jukka-Pekka Jalkanen, Margreet van Marle, Rachel M. Hoesly, Robert Rohde, Dominik Schumacher, Guido van der Werf, Russell Vose, Kirsten Zickfeld, Xuebin Zhang, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, and Panmao Zhai
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 2625–2658, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-2625-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-2625-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper tracks some key indicators of global warming through time, from 1850 through to the end of 2023. It is designed to give an authoritative estimate of global warming to date and its causes. We find that in 2023, global warming reached 1.3 °C and is increasing at over 0.2 °C per decade. This is caused by all-time-high greenhouse gas emissions.
Malte Meinshausen, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Kathleen Beyer, Greg Bodeker, Olivier Boucher, Josep G. Canadell, John S. Daniel, Aïda Diongue-Niang, Fatima Driouech, Erich Fischer, Piers Forster, Michael Grose, Gerrit Hansen, Zeke Hausfather, Tatiana Ilyina, Jarmo S. Kikstra, Joyce Kimutai, Andrew D. King, June-Yi Lee, Chris Lennard, Tabea Lissner, Alexander Nauels, Glen P. Peters, Anna Pirani, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Hans Pörtner, Joeri Rogelj, Maisa Rojas, Joyashree Roy, Bjørn H. Samset, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Sonia Seneviratne, Christopher J. Smith, Sophie Szopa, Adelle Thomas, Diana Urge-Vorsatz, Guus J. M. Velders, Tokuta Yokohata, Tilo Ziehn, and Zebedee Nicholls
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4533–4559, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4533-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4533-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The scientific community is considering new scenarios to succeed RCPs and SSPs for the next generation of Earth system model runs to project future climate change. To contribute to that effort, we reflect on relevant policy and scientific research questions and suggest categories for representative emission pathways. These categories are tailored to the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal, high-risk outcomes in the absence of further climate policy and worlds “that could have been”.
Félix García-Pereira, Jesús Fidel González-Rouco, Camilo Melo-Aguilar, Norman Julius Steinert, Elena García-Bustamante, Philip de Vrese, Johann Jungclaus, Stephan Lorenz, Stefan Hagemann, Francisco José Cuesta-Valero, Almudena García-García, and Hugo Beltrami
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 547–564, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-547-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-547-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
According to climate model estimates, the land stored 2 % of the system's heat excess in the last decades, while observational studies show it was around 6 %. This difference stems from these models using land components that are too shallow to constrain land heat uptake. Deepening the land component does not affect the surface temperature. This result can be used to derive land heat uptake estimates from different sources, which are much closer to previous observational reports.
Katie R. Blackford, Matthew Kasoar, Chantelle Burton, Eleanor Burke, Iain Colin Prentice, and Apostolos Voulgarakis
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3063–3079, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3063-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3063-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Peatlands are globally important stores of carbon which are being increasingly threatened by wildfires with knock-on effects on the climate system. Here we introduce a novel peat fire parameterization in the northern high latitudes to the INFERNO global fire model. Representing peat fires increases annual burnt area across the high latitudes, alongside improvements in how we capture year-to-year variation in burning and emissions.
Stephanie Fiedler, Vaishali Naik, Fiona M. O'Connor, Christopher J. Smith, Paul Griffiths, Ryan J. Kramer, Toshihiko Takemura, Robert J. Allen, Ulas Im, Matthew Kasoar, Angshuman Modak, Steven Turnock, Apostolos Voulgarakis, Duncan Watson-Parris, Daniel M. Westervelt, Laura J. Wilcox, Alcide Zhao, William J. Collins, Michael Schulz, Gunnar Myhre, and Piers M. Forster
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2387–2417, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2387-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2387-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate scientists want to better understand modern climate change. Thus, climate model experiments are performed and compared. The results of climate model experiments differ, as assessed in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report. This article gives insights into the challenges and outlines opportunities for further improving the understanding of climate change. It is based on views of a group of experts in atmospheric composition–climate interactions.
Douglas McNeall, Eddy Robertson, and Andy Wiltshire
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1059–1089, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1059-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1059-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We can run simulations of the land surface and carbon cycle, using computer models to help us understand and predict climate change and its impacts. These simulations are not perfect reproductions of the real land surface, and that can make them less effective tools. We use new statistical and computational techniques to help us understand how different our models are from the real land surface, how to make them more realistic, and how well we can simulate past and future climate.
Nico Wunderling, Anna S. von der Heydt, Yevgeny Aksenov, Stephen Barker, Robbin Bastiaansen, Victor Brovkin, Maura Brunetti, Victor Couplet, Thomas Kleinen, Caroline H. Lear, Johannes Lohmann, Rosa Maria Roman-Cuesta, Sacha Sinet, Didier Swingedouw, Ricarda Winkelmann, Pallavi Anand, Jonathan Barichivich, Sebastian Bathiany, Mara Baudena, John T. Bruun, Cristiano M. Chiessi, Helen K. Coxall, David Docquier, Jonathan F. Donges, Swinda K. J. Falkena, Ann Kristin Klose, David Obura, Juan Rocha, Stefanie Rynders, Norman Julius Steinert, and Matteo Willeit
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 41–74, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-41-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-41-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper maps out the state-of-the-art literature on interactions between tipping elements relevant for current global warming pathways. We find indications that many of the interactions between tipping elements are destabilizing. This means that tipping cascades cannot be ruled out on centennial to millennial timescales at global warming levels between 1.5 and 2.0 °C or on shorter timescales if global warming surpasses 2.0 °C.
Ali Asaadi, Jörg Schwinger, Hanna Lee, Jerry Tjiputra, Vivek Arora, Roland Séférian, Spencer Liddicoat, Tomohiro Hajima, Yeray Santana-Falcón, and Chris D. Jones
Biogeosciences, 21, 411–435, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-411-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-411-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Carbon cycle feedback metrics are employed to assess phases of positive and negative CO2 emissions. When emissions become negative, we find that the model disagreement in feedback metrics increases more strongly than expected from the assumption that the uncertainties accumulate linearly with time. The geographical patterns of such metrics over land highlight that differences in response between tropical/subtropical and temperate/boreal ecosystems are a major source of model disagreement.
Félix García-Pereira, Jesús Fidel González-Rouco, Thomas Schmid, Camilo Melo-Aguilar, Cristina Vegas-Cañas, Norman Julius Steinert, Pedro José Roldán-Gómez, Francisco José Cuesta-Valero, Almudena García-García, Hugo Beltrami, and Philipp de Vrese
SOIL, 10, 1–21, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-10-1-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-10-1-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This work addresses air–ground temperature coupling and propagation into the subsurface in a mountainous area in central Spain using surface and subsurface data from six meteorological stations. Heat transfer of temperature changes at the ground surface occurs mainly by conduction controlled by thermal diffusivity of the subsurface, which varies with depth and time. A new methodology shows that near-surface diffusivity and soil moisture content changes with time are closely related.
Katja Frieler, Jan Volkholz, Stefan Lange, Jacob Schewe, Matthias Mengel, María del Rocío Rivas López, Christian Otto, Christopher P. O. Reyer, Dirk Nikolaus Karger, Johanna T. Malle, Simon Treu, Christoph Menz, Julia L. Blanchard, Cheryl S. Harrison, Colleen M. Petrik, Tyler D. Eddy, Kelly Ortega-Cisneros, Camilla Novaglio, Yannick Rousseau, Reg A. Watson, Charles Stock, Xiao Liu, Ryan Heneghan, Derek Tittensor, Olivier Maury, Matthias Büchner, Thomas Vogt, Tingting Wang, Fubao Sun, Inga J. Sauer, Johannes Koch, Inne Vanderkelen, Jonas Jägermeyr, Christoph Müller, Sam Rabin, Jochen Klar, Iliusi D. Vega del Valle, Gitta Lasslop, Sarah Chadburn, Eleanor Burke, Angela Gallego-Sala, Noah Smith, Jinfeng Chang, Stijn Hantson, Chantelle Burton, Anne Gädeke, Fang Li, Simon N. Gosling, Hannes Müller Schmied, Fred Hattermann, Jida Wang, Fangfang Yao, Thomas Hickler, Rafael Marcé, Don Pierson, Wim Thiery, Daniel Mercado-Bettín, Robert Ladwig, Ana Isabel Ayala-Zamora, Matthew Forrest, and Michel Bechtold
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1–51, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Our paper provides an overview of all observational climate-related and socioeconomic forcing data used as input for the impact model evaluation and impact attribution experiments within the third round of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project. The experiments are designed to test our understanding of observed changes in natural and human systems and to quantify to what degree these changes have already been induced by climate change.
Robert E. Kopp, Gregory G. Garner, Tim H. J. Hermans, Shantenu Jha, Praveen Kumar, Alexander Reedy, Aimée B. A. Slangen, Matteo Turilli, Tamsin L. Edwards, Jonathan M. Gregory, George Koubbe, Anders Levermann, Andre Merzky, Sophie Nowicki, Matthew D. Palmer, and Chris Smith
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 7461–7489, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-7461-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-7461-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Future sea-level rise projections exhibit multiple forms of uncertainty, all of which must be considered by scientific assessments intended to inform decision-making. The Framework for Assessing Changes To Sea-level (FACTS) is a new software package intended to support assessments of global mean, regional, and extreme sea-level rise. An early version of FACTS supported the development of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report sea-level projections.
Lee de Mora, Ranjini Swaminathan, Richard P. Allan, Jerry C. Blackford, Douglas I. Kelley, Phil Harris, Chris D. Jones, Colin G. Jones, Spencer Liddicoat, Robert J. Parker, Tristan Quaife, Jeremy Walton, and Andrew Yool
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 1295–1315, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-1295-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-1295-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate the flux of carbon from the atmosphere into the land surface and ocean for multiple models and over a range of future scenarios. We did this by comparing simulations after the same change in the global-mean near-surface temperature. Using this method, we show that the choice of scenario can impact the carbon allocation to the land, ocean, and atmosphere. Scenarios with higher emissions reach the same warming levels sooner, but also with relatively more carbon in the atmosphere.
Emma L. Robinson, Chris Huntingford, Valyaveetil Shamsudheen Semeena, and James M. Bullock
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5371–5401, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5371-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5371-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
CHESS-SCAPE is a suite of high-resolution climate projections for the UK to 2080, derived from United Kingdom Climate Projections 2018 (UKCP18), designed to support climate impact modelling. It contains four realisations of four scenarios of future greenhouse gas levels (RCP2.6, 4.5, 6.0 and 8.5), with and without bias correction to historical data. The variables are available at 1 km resolution and a daily time step, with monthly, seasonal and annual means and 20-year mean-monthly time slices.
Rebecca M. Varney, Sarah E. Chadburn, Eleanor J. Burke, Simon Jones, Andy J. Wiltshire, and Peter M. Cox
Biogeosciences, 20, 3767–3790, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-3767-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-3767-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This study evaluates soil carbon projections during the 21st century in CMIP6 Earth system models. In general, we find a reduced spread of changes in global soil carbon in CMIP6 compared to the previous CMIP5 generation. The reduced CMIP6 spread arises from an emergent relationship between soil carbon changes due to change in plant productivity and soil carbon changes due to changes in turnover time. We show that this relationship is consistent with false priming under transient climate change.
Olivia Linke, Johannes Quaas, Finja Baumer, Sebastian Becker, Jan Chylik, Sandro Dahlke, André Ehrlich, Dörthe Handorf, Christoph Jacobi, Heike Kalesse-Los, Luca Lelli, Sina Mehrdad, Roel A. J. Neggers, Johannes Riebold, Pablo Saavedra Garfias, Niklas Schnierstein, Matthew D. Shupe, Chris Smith, Gunnar Spreen, Baptiste Verneuil, Kameswara S. Vinjamuri, Marco Vountas, and Manfred Wendisch
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 9963–9992, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-9963-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-9963-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Lapse rate feedback (LRF) is a major driver of the Arctic amplification (AA) of climate change. It arises because the warming is stronger at the surface than aloft. Several processes can affect the LRF in the Arctic, such as the omnipresent temperature inversion. Here, we compare multimodel climate simulations to Arctic-based observations from a large research consortium to broaden our understanding of these processes, find synergy among them, and constrain the Arctic LRF and AA.
Mark D. Zelinka, Christopher J. Smith, Yi Qin, and Karl E. Taylor
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 8879–8898, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-8879-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-8879-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The primary uncertainty in how strongly Earth's climate has been perturbed by human activities comes from the unknown radiative impact of aerosol changes. Accurately quantifying these forcings – and their sub-components – in climate models is crucial for understanding the past and future simulated climate. In this study we describe biases in previously published estimates of aerosol radiative forcing in climate models and provide corrected estimates along with code for users to compute them.
Camilla Mathison, Eleanor Burke, Andrew J. Hartley, Douglas I. Kelley, Chantelle Burton, Eddy Robertson, Nicola Gedney, Karina Williams, Andy Wiltshire, Richard J. Ellis, Alistair A. Sellar, and Chris D. Jones
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4249–4264, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4249-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4249-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes and evaluates a new modelling methodology to quantify the impacts of climate change on water, biomes and the carbon cycle. We have created a new configuration and set-up for the JULES-ES land surface model, driven by bias-corrected historical and future climate model output provided by the Inter-Sectoral Impacts Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP). This allows us to compare projections of the impacts of climate change across multiple impact models and multiple sectors.
Piers M. Forster, Christopher J. Smith, Tristram Walsh, William F. Lamb, Robin Lamboll, Mathias Hauser, Aurélien Ribes, Debbie Rosen, Nathan Gillett, Matthew D. Palmer, Joeri Rogelj, Karina von Schuckmann, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Blair Trewin, Xuebin Zhang, Myles Allen, Robbie Andrew, Arlene Birt, Alex Borger, Tim Boyer, Jiddu A. Broersma, Lijing Cheng, Frank Dentener, Pierre Friedlingstein, José M. Gutiérrez, Johannes Gütschow, Bradley Hall, Masayoshi Ishii, Stuart Jenkins, Xin Lan, June-Yi Lee, Colin Morice, Christopher Kadow, John Kennedy, Rachel Killick, Jan C. Minx, Vaishali Naik, Glen P. Peters, Anna Pirani, Julia Pongratz, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Sophie Szopa, Peter Thorne, Robert Rohde, Maisa Rojas Corradi, Dominik Schumacher, Russell Vose, Kirsten Zickfeld, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, and Panmao Zhai
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 2295–2327, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-2295-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-2295-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This is a critical decade for climate action, but there is no annual tracking of the level of human-induced warming. We build on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment reports that are authoritative but published infrequently to create a set of key global climate indicators that can be tracked through time. Our hope is that this becomes an important annual publication that policymakers, media, scientists and the public can refer to.
Philipp de Vrese, Goran Georgievski, Jesus Fidel Gonzalez Rouco, Dirk Notz, Tobias Stacke, Norman Julius Steinert, Stiig Wilkenskjeld, and Victor Brovkin
The Cryosphere, 17, 2095–2118, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-2095-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-2095-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The current generation of Earth system models exhibits large inter-model differences in the simulated climate of the Arctic and subarctic zone. We used an adapted version of the Max Planck Institute (MPI) Earth System Model to show that differences in the representation of the soil hydrology in permafrost-affected regions could help explain a large part of this inter-model spread and have pronounced impacts on important elements of Earth systems as far to the south as the tropics.
Chris Huntingford, Peter M. Cox, Mark S. Williamson, Joseph J. Clarke, and Paul D. L. Ritchie
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 433–442, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-433-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-433-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Emergent constraints (ECs) reduce the spread of projections between climate models. ECs estimate changes to climate features impacting adaptation policy, and with this high profile, the method is under scrutiny. Asking
What is an EC?, we suggest they are often the discovery of parameters that characterise hidden large-scale equations that climate models solve implicitly. We present this conceptually via two examples. Our analysis implies possible new paths to link ECs and physical processes.
Gang Liu, Shushi Peng, Chris Huntingford, and Yi Xi
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1277–1296, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1277-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1277-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Due to computational limits, lower-complexity models (LCMs) were developed as a complementary tool for accelerating comprehensive Earth system models (ESMs) but still lack a good precipitation emulator for LCMs. Here, we developed a data-calibrated precipitation emulator (PREMU), a computationally effective way to better estimate historical and simulated precipitation by current ESMs. PREMU has potential applications related to land surface processes and their interactions with climate change.
Jarmo S. Kikstra, Zebedee R. J. Nicholls, Christopher J. Smith, Jared Lewis, Robin D. Lamboll, Edward Byers, Marit Sandstad, Malte Meinshausen, Matthew J. Gidden, Joeri Rogelj, Elmar Kriegler, Glen P. Peters, Jan S. Fuglestvedt, Ragnhild B. Skeie, Bjørn H. Samset, Laura Wienpahl, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Kaj-Ivar van der Wijst, Alaa Al Khourdajie, Piers M. Forster, Andy Reisinger, Roberto Schaeffer, and Keywan Riahi
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 9075–9109, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-9075-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-9075-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Assessing hundreds or thousands of emission scenarios in terms of their global mean temperature implications requires standardised procedures of infilling, harmonisation, and probabilistic temperature assessments. We here present the open-source
climate-assessmentworkflow that was used in the IPCC AR6 Working Group III report. The paper provides key insight for anyone wishing to understand the assessment of climate outcomes of mitigation pathways in the context of the Paris Agreement.
Yao Gao, Eleanor J. Burke, Sarah E. Chadburn, Maarit Raivonen, Mika Aurela, Lawrence B. Flanagan, Krzysztof Fortuniak, Elyn Humphreys, Annalea Lohila, Tingting Li, Tiina Markkanen, Olli Nevalainen, Mats B. Nilsson, Włodzimierz Pawlak, Aki Tsuruta, Huiyi Yang, and Tuula Aalto
Biogeosciences Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-229, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2022-229, 2022
Manuscript not accepted for further review
Short summary
Short summary
We coupled a process-based peatland CH4 emission model HIMMELI with a state-of-art land surface model JULES. The performance of the coupled model was evaluated at six northern wetland sites. The coupled model is considered to be more appropriate in simulating wetland CH4 emission. In order to improve the simulated CH4 emission, the model requires better representation of the peat soil carbon and hydrologic processes in JULES and the methane production and transportation processes in HIMMELI.
Jörg Schwinger, Ali Asaadi, Norman Julius Steinert, and Hanna Lee
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1641–1665, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1641-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1641-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We test whether climate change can be partially reversed if CO2 is removed from the atmosphere to compensate for too large past and near-term emissions by using idealized model simulations of overshoot pathways. On a timescale of 100 years, we find a high degree of reversibility if the overshoot size remains small, and we do not find tipping points even for intense overshoots. We caution that current Earth system models are most likely not able to skilfully model tipping points in ecosystems.
Stephanie Woodward, Alistair A. Sellar, Yongming Tang, Marc Stringer, Andrew Yool, Eddy Robertson, and Andy Wiltshire
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 14503–14528, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-14503-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-14503-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We describe the dust scheme in the UKESM1 Earth system model and show generally good agreement with observations. Comparing with the closely related HadGEM3-GC3.1 model, we show that dust differences are not only due to inter-model differences but also to the dust size distribution. Under climate change, HadGEM3-GC3.1 dust hardly changes, but UKESM1 dust decreases because that model includes the vegetation response which, in our models, has a bigger impact on dust than climate change itself.
Rebecca M. Varney, Sarah E. Chadburn, Eleanor J. Burke, and Peter M. Cox
Biogeosciences, 19, 4671–4704, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-4671-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-4671-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Soil carbon is the Earth’s largest terrestrial carbon store, and the response to climate change represents one of the key uncertainties in obtaining accurate global carbon budgets required to successfully militate against climate change. The ability of climate models to simulate present-day soil carbon is therefore vital. This study assesses soil carbon simulation in the latest ensemble of models which allows key areas for future model development to be identified.
Louise J. Slater, Chris Huntingford, Richard F. Pywell, John W. Redhead, and Elizabeth J. Kendon
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1377–1396, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1377-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1377-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This work considers how wheat yields are affected by weather conditions during the three main wheat growth stages in the UK. Impacts are strongest in years with compound weather extremes across multiple growth stages. Future climate projections are beneficial for wheat yields, on average, but indicate a high risk of unseen weather conditions which farmers may struggle to adapt to and mitigate against.
Johannes Quaas, Hailing Jia, Chris Smith, Anna Lea Albright, Wenche Aas, Nicolas Bellouin, Olivier Boucher, Marie Doutriaux-Boucher, Piers M. Forster, Daniel Grosvenor, Stuart Jenkins, Zbigniew Klimont, Norman G. Loeb, Xiaoyan Ma, Vaishali Naik, Fabien Paulot, Philip Stier, Martin Wild, Gunnar Myhre, and Michael Schulz
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 12221–12239, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-12221-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-12221-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Pollution particles cool climate and offset part of the global warming. However, they are washed out by rain and thus their effect responds quickly to changes in emissions. We show multiple datasets to demonstrate that aerosol emissions and their concentrations declined in many regions influenced by human emissions, as did the effects on clouds. Consequently, the cooling impact on the Earth energy budget became smaller. This change in trend implies a relative warming.
Rebecca J. Oliver, Lina M. Mercado, Doug B. Clark, Chris Huntingford, Christopher M. Taylor, Pier Luigi Vidale, Patrick C. McGuire, Markus Todt, Sonja Folwell, Valiyaveetil Shamsudheen Semeena, and Belinda E. Medlyn
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5567–5592, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5567-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5567-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce new representations of plant physiological processes into a land surface model. Including new biological understanding improves modelled carbon and water fluxes for the present in tropical and northern-latitude forests. Future climate simulations demonstrate the sensitivity of photosynthesis to temperature is important for modelling carbon cycle dynamics in a warming world. Accurate representation of these processes in models is necessary for robust predictions of climate change.
Mahdi André Nakhavali, Lina M. Mercado, Iain P. Hartley, Stephen Sitch, Fernanda V. Cunha, Raffaello di Ponzio, Laynara F. Lugli, Carlos A. Quesada, Kelly M. Andersen, Sarah E. Chadburn, Andy J. Wiltshire, Douglas B. Clark, Gyovanni Ribeiro, Lara Siebert, Anna C. M. Moraes, Jéssica Schmeisk Rosa, Rafael Assis, and José L. Camargo
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5241–5269, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5241-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5241-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In tropical ecosystems, the availability of rock-derived elements such as P can be very low. Thus, without a representation of P cycling, tropical forest responses to rising atmospheric CO2 conditions in areas such as Amazonia remain highly uncertain. We introduced P dynamics and its interactions with the N and P cycles into the JULES model. Our results highlight the potential for high P limitation and therefore lower CO2 fertilization capacity in the Amazon forest with low-fertility soils.
Charles D. Koven, Vivek K. Arora, Patricia Cadule, Rosie A. Fisher, Chris D. Jones, David M. Lawrence, Jared Lewis, Keith Lindsay, Sabine Mathesius, Malte Meinshausen, Michael Mills, Zebedee Nicholls, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Neil C. Swart, William R. Wieder, and Kirsten Zickfeld
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 885–909, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-885-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-885-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We explore the long-term dynamics of Earth's climate and carbon cycles under a pair of contrasting scenarios to the year 2300 using six models that include both climate and carbon cycle dynamics. One scenario assumes very high emissions, while the second assumes a peak in emissions, followed by rapid declines to net negative emissions. We show that the models generally agree that warming is roughly proportional to carbon emissions but that many other aspects of the model projections differ.
Noah D. Smith, Eleanor J. Burke, Kjetil Schanke Aas, Inge H. J. Althuizen, Julia Boike, Casper Tai Christiansen, Bernd Etzelmüller, Thomas Friborg, Hanna Lee, Heather Rumbold, Rachael H. Turton, Sebastian Westermann, and Sarah E. Chadburn
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 3603–3639, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3603-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3603-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Arctic has large areas of small mounds that are caused by ice lifting up the soil. Snow blown by wind gathers in hollows next to these mounds, insulating them in winter. The hollows tend to be wetter, and thus the soil absorbs more heat in summer. The warm wet soil in the hollows decomposes, releasing methane. We have made a model of this, and we have tested how it behaves and whether it looks like sites in Scandinavia and Siberia. Sometimes we get more methane than a model without mounds.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Matthew W. Jones, Michael O'Sullivan, Robbie M. Andrew, Dorothee C. E. Bakker, Judith Hauck, Corinne Le Quéré, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Rob B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Peter Anthoni, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Laurent Bopp, Thi Tuyet Trang Chau, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Margot Cronin, Kim I. Currie, Bertrand Decharme, Laique M. Djeutchouang, Xinyu Dou, Wiley Evans, Richard A. Feely, Liang Feng, Thomas Gasser, Dennis Gilfillan, Thanos Gkritzalis, Giacomo Grassi, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Richard A. Houghton, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Atul Jain, Steve D. Jones, Etsushi Kato, Daniel Kennedy, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Arne Körtzinger, Peter Landschützer, Siv K. Lauvset, Nathalie Lefèvre, Sebastian Lienert, Junjie Liu, Gregg Marland, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, David R. Munro, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Tsuneo Ono, Denis Pierrot, Benjamin Poulter, Gregor Rehder, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Thais M. Rosan, Jörg Schwinger, Clemens Schwingshackl, Roland Séférian, Adrienne J. Sutton, Colm Sweeney, Toste Tanhua, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Francesco Tubiello, Guido R. van der Werf, Nicolas Vuichard, Chisato Wada, Rik Wanninkhof, Andrew J. Watson, David Willis, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Wenping Yuan, Chao Yue, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, and Jiye Zeng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 1917–2005, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1917-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1917-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2021 describes the data sets and methodology used to quantify the emissions of carbon dioxide and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land, and ocean. These living data are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Sarah E. Chadburn, Eleanor J. Burke, Angela V. Gallego-Sala, Noah D. Smith, M. Syndonia Bret-Harte, Dan J. Charman, Julia Drewer, Colin W. Edgar, Eugenie S. Euskirchen, Krzysztof Fortuniak, Yao Gao, Mahdi Nakhavali, Włodzimierz Pawlak, Edward A. G. Schuur, and Sebastian Westermann
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 1633–1657, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1633-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1633-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We present a new method to include peatlands in an Earth system model (ESM). Peatlands store huge amounts of carbon that accumulates very slowly but that can be rapidly destabilised, emitting greenhouse gases. Our model captures the dynamic nature of peat by simulating the change in surface height and physical properties of the soil as carbon is added or decomposed. Thus, we model, for the first time in an ESM, peat dynamics and its threshold behaviours that can lead to destabilisation.
Robin D. Lamboll, Chris D. Jones, Ragnhild B. Skeie, Stephanie Fiedler, Bjørn H. Samset, Nathan P. Gillett, Joeri Rogelj, and Piers M. Forster
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3683–3695, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3683-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3683-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Lockdowns to avoid the spread of COVID-19 have created an unprecedented reduction in human emissions. We can estimate the changes in emissions at a country level, but to make predictions about how this will affect our climate, we need more precise information about where the emissions happen. Here we combine older estimates of where emissions normally occur with very recent estimates of sector activity levels to enable different groups to make simulations of the climatic effects of lockdown.
Anna B. Harper, Karina E. Williams, Patrick C. McGuire, Maria Carolina Duran Rojas, Debbie Hemming, Anne Verhoef, Chris Huntingford, Lucy Rowland, Toby Marthews, Cleiton Breder Eller, Camilla Mathison, Rodolfo L. B. Nobrega, Nicola Gedney, Pier Luigi Vidale, Fred Otu-Larbi, Divya Pandey, Sebastien Garrigues, Azin Wright, Darren Slevin, Martin G. De Kauwe, Eleanor Blyth, Jonas Ardö, Andrew Black, Damien Bonal, Nina Buchmann, Benoit Burban, Kathrin Fuchs, Agnès de Grandcourt, Ivan Mammarella, Lutz Merbold, Leonardo Montagnani, Yann Nouvellon, Natalia Restrepo-Coupe, and Georg Wohlfahrt
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3269–3294, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3269-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3269-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluated 10 representations of soil moisture stress in the JULES land surface model against site observations of GPP and latent heat flux. Increasing the soil depth and plant access to deep soil moisture improved many aspects of the simulations, and we recommend these settings in future work using JULES. In addition, using soil matric potential presents the opportunity to include parameters specific to plant functional type to further improve modeled fluxes.
Nicholas J. Leach, Stuart Jenkins, Zebedee Nicholls, Christopher J. Smith, John Lynch, Michelle Cain, Tristram Walsh, Bill Wu, Junichi Tsutsui, and Myles R. Allen
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3007–3036, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3007-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3007-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents an update of the FaIR simple climate model, which can estimate the impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions on the global climate. This update aims to significantly increase the structural simplicity of the model, making it more understandable and transparent. This simplicity allows it to be implemented in a wide range of environments, including Excel. We suggest that it could be used widely in academia, corporate research, and education.
Wolfgang A. Obermeier, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Tammas Loughran, Kerstin Hartung, Ana Bastos, Felix Havermann, Peter Anthoni, Almut Arneth, Daniel S. Goll, Sebastian Lienert, Danica Lombardozzi, Sebastiaan Luyssaert, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, Benjamin Poulter, Stephen Sitch, Michael O. Sullivan, Hanqin Tian, Anthony P. Walker, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Soenke Zaehle, and Julia Pongratz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 635–670, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-635-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-635-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We provide the first spatio-temporally explicit comparison of different model-derived fluxes from land use and land cover changes (fLULCCs) by using the TRENDY v8 dynamic global vegetation models used in the 2019 global carbon budget. We find huge regional fLULCC differences resulting from environmental assumptions, simulated periods, and the timing of land use and land cover changes, and we argue for a method consistent across time and space and for carefully choosing the accounting period.
Garry D. Hayman, Edward Comyn-Platt, Chris Huntingford, Anna B. Harper, Tom Powell, Peter M. Cox, William Collins, Christopher Webber, Jason Lowe, Stephen Sitch, Joanna I. House, Jonathan C. Doelman, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Sarah E. Chadburn, Eleanor Burke, and Nicola Gedney
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 513–544, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-513-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-513-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We model greenhouse gas emission scenarios consistent with limiting global warming to either 1.5 or 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. We quantify the effectiveness of methane emission control and land-based mitigation options regionally. Our results highlight the importance of reducing methane emissions for realistic emission pathways that meet the global warming targets. For land-based mitigation, growing bioenergy crops on existing agricultural land is preferable to replacing forests.
Zichong Chen, Junjie Liu, Daven K. Henze, Deborah N. Huntzinger, Kelley C. Wells, Stephen Sitch, Pierre Friedlingstein, Emilie Joetzjer, Vladislav Bastrikov, Daniel S. Goll, Vanessa Haverd, Atul K. Jain, Etsushi Kato, Sebastian Lienert, Danica L. Lombardozzi, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Benjamin Poulter, Hanqin Tian, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Sönke Zaehle, and Scot M. Miller
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 6663–6680, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6663-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6663-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2) satellite observes atmospheric CO2 globally. We use a multiple regression and inverse model to quantify the relationships between OCO-2 and environmental drivers within individual years for 2015–2018 and within seven global biomes. Our results point to limitations of current space-based observations for inferring environmental relationships but also indicate the potential to inform key relationships that are very uncertain in process-based models.
Andrew J. Wiltshire, Eleanor J. Burke, Sarah E. Chadburn, Chris D. Jones, Peter M. Cox, Taraka Davies-Barnard, Pierre Friedlingstein, Anna B. Harper, Spencer Liddicoat, Stephen Sitch, and Sönke Zaehle
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2161–2186, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2161-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2161-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Limited nitrogen availbility can restrict the growth of plants and their ability to assimilate carbon. It is important to include the impact of this process on the global land carbon cycle. This paper presents a model of the coupled land carbon and nitrogen cycle, which is included within the UK Earth System model to improve projections of climate change and impacts on ecosystems.
Cited articles
Andela, B., Broetz, B., de Mora, L., Drost, N., Eyring, V., Koldunov, N., Lauer, A., Mueller, B., Predoi, V., Righi, M., Schlund, M., Vegas-Regidor, J., Zimmermann, K., Adeniyi, K., Arnone, E., Bellprat, O., Berg, P., Bock, L., Bodas-Salcedo, A., Caron, L.-P., Carvalhais, N., Cionni, I., Cortesi, N., Corti, S., Crezee, B., Davin, E. L., Davini, P., Deser, C., Diblen, F., Docquier, D., Dreyer, L., Ehbrecht, C., Earnshaw, P., Gier, B., Gonzalez-Reviriego, N., Goodman, P., Hagemann, S., Hardacre, C., von Hardenberg, J., Hassler, B., Heuer, H., Hunter, A., Kadow, C., Kindermann, S., Koirala, S., Kuehbacher, B., Lledó, L., Lejeune, Q., Lembo, V., Little, B., Loosveldt-Tomas, S., Lorenz, R., Lovato, T., Lucarini, V., Massonnet, F., Mohr, C. W., Amarjiit, P., Pérez-Zanón, N., Phillips, A., Russell, J., Sandstad, M., Sellar, A., Senftleben, D., Serva, F., Sillmann, J., Stacke, T., Swaminathan, R., Torralba, V., Weigel, K., Sarauer, E., Roberts, C., Kalverla, P., Alidoost, S., Verhoeven, S., Vreede, B., Smeets, S., Soares Siqueira, A., Kazeroni, R., Potter, J., Winterstein, F., Beucher, R., Kraft, J., Ruhe, L., Bonnet, P., and Munday, G.: ESMValTool (v2.11.0), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12654299, 2024. a, b
Andrews, T. and Webb, M. J.: The Dependence of Global Cloud and Lapse Rate Feedbacks on the Spatial Structure of Tropical Pacific Warming, J. Climate, 31, 641–654, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0087.1, 2018. a
Arnell, N. W., Lowe, J. A., Bernie, D., Nicholls, R. J., Brown, S., Challinor, A. J., and Osborn, T. J.: The global and regional impacts of climate change under representative concentration pathway forcings and shared socioeconomic pathway socioeconomic scenarios, Environ. Res. Lett., 14, 084046, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab35a6, 2019. a
Arora, V. K., Katavouta, A., Williams, R. G., Jones, C. D., Brovkin, V., Friedlingstein, P., Schwinger, J., Bopp, L., Boucher, O., Cadule, P., Chamberlain, M. A., Christian, J. R., Delire, C., Fisher, R. A., Hajima, T., Ilyina, T., Joetzjer, E., Kawamiya, M., Koven, C. D., Krasting, J. P., Law, R. M., Lawrence, D. M., Lenton, A., Lindsay, K., Pongratz, J., Raddatz, T., Séférian, R., Tachiiri, K., Tjiputra, J. F., Wiltshire, A., Wu, T., and Ziehn, T.: Carbon–concentration and carbon–climate feedbacks in CMIP6 models and their comparison to CMIP5 models, Biogeosciences, 17, 4173–4222, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-4173-2020, 2020. a
Best, M. J., Pryor, M., Clark, D. B., Rooney, G. G., Essery, R. L. H., Menard, C. B., Edwards, J. M., Hendry, M. A., Porson, A., Gedney, N., Mercado, L. M., Sitch, S., Blyth, E., Boucher, O., Cox, P. M., Grimmond, C. S. B., and Harding, R. J.: The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description – Part 1: Energy and water fluxes, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 677–699, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-677-2011, 2011. a
Beusch, L., Gudmundsson, L., and Seneviratne, S. I.: Emulating Earth system model temperatures with MESMER: from global mean temperature trajectories to grid-point-level realizations on land, Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 139–159, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-139-2020, 2020. a
Beusch, L., Nicholls, Z., Gudmundsson, L., Hauser, M., Meinshausen, M., and Seneviratne, S. I.: From emission scenarios to spatially resolved projections with a chain of computationally efficient emulators: coupling of MAGICC (v7.5.1) and MESMER (v0.8.3), Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2085–2103, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2085-2022, 2022. a
Bony, S., Bellon, G., Klocke, D., Sherwood, S., Fermepin, S., and Denvil, S.: Robust direct effect of carbon dioxide on tropical circulation and regional precipitation, Nat. Geosci., 6, 447–451, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1799, 2013. a
Eleanor, B. and Mathison, C.: JULES output from PRIME version 1, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10634291, 2024 a
Burke, E. J., Ekici, A., Huang, Y., Chadburn, S. E., Huntingford, C., Ciais, P., Friedlingstein, P., Peng, S., and Krinner, G.: Quantifying uncertainties of permafrost carbon–climate feedbacks, Biogeosciences, 14, 3051–3066, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-3051-2017, 2017. a
Burke, E. J., Chadburn, S. E., Huntingford, C., and Jones, C. D.: CO2 loss by permafrost thawing implies additional emissions reductions to limit warming to 1.5 or 2 °C, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 024024, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa138, 2018. a
Ceppi, P., Zappa, G., Shepherd, T. G., and Gregory, J. M.: Fast and slow components of the extratropical atmospheric circulation response to CO2 forcing, J. Climate, 31, 1091–1105, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0323.1, 2018. a
Chadburn, S., Burke, E., Cox, P., Friedlingstein, P., Hugelius, G., and Westermann, S.: An observation-based constraint on permafrost loss as a function of global warming, Nat. Clim. Change, 7, 340–344, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3262, 2017. a
Chadwick, R. and Good, P.: Understanding nonlinear tropical precipitation responses to CO2 forcing, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 4911–4915, https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50932, 2013. a
Clark, D. B., Mercado, L. M., Sitch, S., Jones, C. D., Gedney, N., Best, M. J., Pryor, M., Rooney, G. G., Essery, R. L. H., Blyth, E., Boucher, O., Harding, R. J., Huntingford, C., and Cox, P. M.: The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description – Part 2: Carbon fluxes and vegetation dynamics, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 701–722, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-701-2011, 2011. a
Collins, M., Knutti, R., Arblaster, J., Dufresne, J.-L., Fichefet, T., Friedlingstein, P., Gao, X., Gutowski, W., Johns, T., Krinner, G., Shongwe, M., Tebaldi, C., Weaver, A., and Wehner, M.: Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility, in: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, book section 12, edited by: Stocker, T., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and Midgley, P., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 1029–1136, ISBN 978-1-107-66182-0, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.024, 2013. a
Collins, W., Bellouin, N., Doutriaux-Boucher, M., Gedney, N., Halloran, P., Hinton, T., Hughes, J., Jones, C., Joshi, M., Liddicoat, S., Martin, G., O'Connor, F., Rae, J., Senior, C., Sitch, S., Totterdell, I., Wiltshire, A., and Woodward, S.: Development and evaluation of an Earth System model, HADGEM2, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 1051–1075, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-1051-2011, 2011. a
Cox, P. M.: Description of the TRIFFID dynamic global vegetation model, Tech. rep., Met Office, https://digital.nmla.metoffice.gov.uk/IO_cc8f146a-d524-4243-88fc-e3a3bcd782e7/ (last access: February 2025), 2001. a
Drijfhout, S., Bathiany, S., Beaulieu, C., Brovkin, V., Claussen, M., Huntingford, C., Scheffer, M., Sgubin, G., and Swingedouw, D.: Catalogue of abrupt shifts in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change climate models, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 112, E5777–E5786, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1511451112, 2015. a
Dvorak, M., Armour, K., Frierson, D., Proistosescu, C., Baker, M., and Smith, C.: Estimating the timing of geophysical commitment to 1.5 and 2.0 °C of global warming, Nat. Clim. Change, 12, 547–552, 2022. a
Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1937–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, 2016. a
Forster, P., Storelvmo, T., Armour, K., Collins, W., Dufresne, J. L., Frame, D., Lunt, D. J., Mauritsen, T., Palmer, M. D., Watanabe, M., Wild, M., and Zhang, H.: The Earth's Energy Budget, Climate Feedbacks, and Climate Sensitivity, in: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M. I., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J. B. R., Maycock, T. K., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and Zhou, B., Cambridge University Press, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_07.pdf (last access: January 2025), 2021. a
Forster, P. M., Smith, C. J., Walsh, T., Lamb, W. F., Lamboll, R., Hauser, M., Ribes, A., Rosen, D., Gillett, N., Palmer, M. D., Rogelj, J., von Schuckmann, K., Seneviratne, S. I., Trewin, B., Zhang, X., Allen, M., Andrew, R., Birt, A., Borger, A., Boyer, T., Broersma, J. A., Cheng, L., Dentener, F., Friedlingstein, P., Gutiérrez, J. M., Gütschow, J., Hall, B., Ishii, M., Jenkins, S., Lan, X., Lee, J.-Y., Morice, C., Kadow, C., Kennedy, J., Killick, R., Minx, J. C., Naik, V., Peters, G. P., Pirani, A., Pongratz, J., Schleussner, C.-F., Szopa, S., Thorne, P., Rohde, R., Rojas Corradi, M., Schumacher, D., Vose, R., Zickfeld, K., Masson-Delmotte, V., and Zhai, P.: Indicators of Global Climate Change 2022: annual update of large-scale indicators of the state of the climate system and human influence, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 2295–2327, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-2295-2023, 2023. a
Frieler, K., Lange, S., Piontek, F., Reyer, C. P. O., Schewe, J., Warszawski, L., Zhao, F., Chini, L., Denvil, S., Emanuel, K., Geiger, T., Halladay, K., Hurtt, G., Mengel, M., Murakami, D., Ostberg, S., Popp, A., Riva, R., Stevanovic, M., Suzuki, T., Volkholz, J., Burke, E., Ciais, P., Ebi, K., Eddy, T. D., Elliott, J., Galbraith, E., Gosling, S. N., Hattermann, F., Hickler, T., Hinkel, J., Hof, C., Huber, V., Jägermeyr, J., Krysanova, V., Marcé, R., Müller Schmied, H., Mouratiadou, I., Pierson, D., Tittensor, D. P., Vautard, R., van Vliet, M., Biber, M. F., Betts, R. A., Bodirsky, B. L., Deryng, D., Frolking, S., Jones, C. D., Lotze, H. K., Lotze-Campen, H., Sahajpal, R., Thonicke, K., Tian, H., and Yamagata, Y.: Assessing the impacts of 1.5 °C global warming – simulation protocol of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP2b), Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 4321–4345, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4321-2017, 2017. a
Frieler, K., Volkholz, J., Lange, S., Schewe, J., Mengel, M., del Rocío Rivas López, M., Otto, C., Reyer, C. P. O., Karger, D. N., Malle, J. T., Treu, S., Menz, C., Blanchard, J. L., Harrison, C. S., Petrik, C. M., Eddy, T. D., Ortega-Cisneros, K., Novaglio, C., Rousseau, Y., Watson, R. A., Stock, C., Liu, X., Heneghan, R., Tittensor, D., Maury, O., Büchner, M., Vogt, T., Wang, T., Sun, F., Sauer, I. J., Koch, J., Vanderkelen, I., Jägermeyr, J., Müller, C., Rabin, S., Klar, J., Vega del Valle, I. D., Lasslop, G., Chadburn, S., Burke, E., Gallego-Sala, A., Smith, N., Chang, J., Hantson, S., Burton, C., Gädeke, A., Li, F., Gosling, S. N., Müller Schmied, H., Hattermann, F., Wang, J., Yao, F., Hickler, T., Marcé, R., Pierson, D., Thiery, W., Mercado-Bettín, D., Ladwig, R., Ayala-Zamora, A. I., Forrest, M., and Bechtold, M.: Scenario setup and forcing data for impact model evaluation and impact attribution within the third round of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP3a), Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1–51, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1-2024, 2024. a
Goodwin, P., Leduc, M., Partanen, A.-I., Matthews, H. D., and Rogers, A.: A computationally efficient method for probabilistic local warming projections constrained by history matching and pattern scaling, demonstrated by WASP–LGRTC-1.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 5389–5399, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-5389-2020, 2020. a
Herger, N., Sanderson, B. M., and Knutti, R.: .: Improved pattern scaling approaches for the use in climate impact studies, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 3486–3494, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063569, 2015. a, b
Huntingford, C. and Cox, P.: An analogue model to derive additional climate change scenarios from existing GCM simulations, Clim. Dynam., 16, 575–586, https://doi.org/10.1007/s003820000067, 2000. a, b, c
Huntingford, C., Booth, B. B. B., Sitch, S., Gedney, N., Lowe, J. A., Liddicoat, S. K., Mercado, L. M., Best, M. J., Weedon, G. P., Fisher, R. A., Lomas, M. R., Good, P., Zelazowski, P., Everitt, A. C., Spessa, A. C., and Jones, C. D.: IMOGEN: an intermediate complexity model to evaluate terrestrial impacts of a changing climate, Geosci. Model Dev., 3, 679–687, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-3-679-2010, 2010. a, b, c, d, e
IPCC: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, in: Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896, 2021. a, b
IPCC: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, in: Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926, 2022a. a
IPCC: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, in: Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D. C., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E. S., Mintenbeck, K., Alegría, A., Craig, M., Langsdorf, S., Löschke, S., Möller, V., Okem, A., and Rama, B., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 3056 pp., https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844, 2022b. a
James, R., Washington, R., Schleussner, C.-F., Rogelj, J., and Conway, D.: Characterizing half-a-degree difference: a review of methods for identifying regional climate responses to global warming targets, WIREs Clim. Change, 8, e457, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.457, 2017. a, b
Jones, C. D., Hughes, J. K., Bellouin, N., Hardiman, S. C., Jones, G. S., Knight, J., Liddicoat, S., O'Connor, F. M., Andres, R. J., Bell, C., Boo, K.-O., Bozzo, A., Butchart, N., Cadule, P., Corbin, K. D., Doutriaux-Boucher, M., Friedlingstein, P., Gornall, J., Gray, L., Halloran, P. R., Hurtt, G., Ingram, W. J., Lamarque, J.-F., Law, R. M., Meinshausen, M., Osprey, S., Palin, E. J., Parsons Chini, L., Raddatz, T., Sanderson, M. G., Sellar, A. A., Schurer, A., Valdes, P., Wood, N., Woodward, S., Yoshioka, M., and Zerroukat, M.: The HadGEM2-ES implementation of CMIP5 centennial simulations, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 543–570, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-543-2011, 2011. a
Jones, C. D., Ziehn, T., Anand, J., Bastos, A., Burke, E., Canadell, J. G., Cardoso, M., Ernst, Y., Jain, A. K., Jeong, S., Keller, E. D., Kondo, M., Lauerwald, R., Lin, T.-S., Murray-Tortarolo, G., Nabuurs, G.-J., O'Sullivan, M., Poulter, B., Qin, X., von Randow, C., Sanches, M., Schepaschenko, D., Shvidenko, A., Smallman, T. L., Tian, H., Villalobos, Y., Wang, X., and Yun, J.: RECCAP2 Future Component: Consistency and Potential for Regional Assessment to Constrain Global Projections, AGU Adv., 4, e2023AV001024, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023AV001024, 2023. a
King, A., Karoly, D., and Henley, B.: Australian climate extremes at 1.5 °C and 2 °C of global warming, Nat. Clim. Change, 7, 412–416, 2017. a
King, A. D.: The drivers of nonlinear local temperature change under global warming, Environ. Res. Lett., 14, 064005, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab1976, 2019. a
King, A. D., Lane, T. P., Henley, B. J., and Brown, J. R.: Global and regional impacts differ between transient and equilibrium warmer worlds, Nat. Clim. Change, 10, 42–47, 2020. a
Kitsios, V., O'Kane, T. J., and Newth, D.: A machine learning approach to rapidly project climate responses under a multitude of net-zero emission pathways, Nat. Commun. Earth Environ., 4, 355, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01011-0, 2023. a
Kravitz, B., Lynch, C., Hartin, C., and Bond-Lamberty, B.: Exploring precipitation pattern scaling methodologies and robustness among CMIP5 models, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1889–1902, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1889-2017, 2017. a
Leach, N. J., Jenkins, S., Nicholls, Z., Smith, C. J., Lynch, J., Cain, M., Walsh, T., Wu, B., Tsutsui, J., and Allen, M. R.: FaIRv2.0.0: A generalized impulse response model for climate uncertainty and future scenario exploration, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3007–3036, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3007-2021, 2021. a
Lee, J.-Y., Marotzke, J., Bala, G., Cao, L., Corti, S., Dunne, J., Engelbrecht, F., Fischer, E., Fyfe, J., Jones, C., Maycock, A., Mutemi, J., Ndiaye, O., Panickal, S., and Zhou, T.: Future Global Climate: Scenario-Based Projections and Near-Term Information, in: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M. I., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J. B. R., Maycock, T. K., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and Zhou, B., book section 4, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.006, 2021. a, b, c, d, e
Mansfield, L., Nowack, P., Kasoar, M., Everitt, R., Collins, W. J., and Voulgarakis, A.: Predicting global patterns of long-term climate change from short-term simulations using machine learning, npj Clim. Atmos. Sci., 3, 44, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-020-00148-5, 2020. a
Mansfield, L. A., Gupta, A., Burnett, A. C., Green, B., Wilka, C., and Sheshadri, A.: Updates on Model Hierarchies for Understanding and Simulating the Climate System: A Focus on Data-Informed Methods and Climate Change Impacts, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 15, e2023MS003715, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023MS003715, 2023. a
Mauritsen, T., Bader, J., Becker, T., Behrens, J., Bittner, M., Brokopf, R., Brovkin, V., Claussen, M., Crueger, T., Esch, M., Fast, I., Fiedler, S., Fläschner, D., Gayler, V., Giorgetta, M., Goll, D. S., Haak, H., Hagemann, S., Hedemann, C., Hohenegger, C., Ilyina, T., Jahns, T., Jimenéz-de-la-Cuesta, D., Jungclaus, J., Kleinen, T., Kloster, S., Kracher, D., Kinne, S., Kleberg, D., Lasslop, G., Kornblueh, L., Marotzke, J., Matei, D., Meraner, K., Mikolajewicz, U., Modali, K., Möbis, B., Müller, W. A., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Nam, C. C. W., Notz, D., Nyawira, S.-S., Paulsen, H., Peters, K., Pincus, R., Pohlmann, H., Pongratz, J., Popp, M., Raddatz, T. J., Rast, S., Redler, R., Reick, C. H., Rohrschneider, T., Schemann, V., Schmidt, H., Schnur, R., Schulzweida, U., Six, K. D., Stein, L., Stemmler, I., Stevens, B., von Storch, J.-S., Tian, F., Voigt, A., Vrese, P., Wieners, K.-H., Wilkenskjeld, S., Winkler, A., and Roeckner, E.: Developments in the MPI-M Earth System Model version 1.2 (MPI-ESM1.2) and its response to increasing CO2, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 11, 998–1038, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001400, 2019. a
Mathison, C. and Smith, C.: Temps and CO2 concentrations for running PRIME from FaIRv1.6.4 (1.0) [Data set], Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10524338, 2024. a
Mathison, C., Burke, E., Hartley, A. J., Kelley, D. I., Burton, C., Robertson, E., Gedney, N., Williams, K., Wiltshire, A., Ellis, R. J., Sellar, A. A., and Jones, C. D.: Description and evaluation of the JULES-ES set-up for ISIMIP2b, Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4249–4264, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4249-2023, 2023. a, b, c, d
McKay, D. I. A., Staal, A., Abrams, J. F., Winkelmann, R., Sakschewski, B., Loriani, S., Fetzer, I., Cornell, S. E., Rockström, J., and Lenton, T. M.: Exceeding 1.5 °C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points, Science, 377, eabn7950, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abn7950, 2022. a
Mercado, L. M., Bellouin, N., Sitch, S., Boucher, O., Huntingford, C., Wild, M., and Cox, P. M.: Impact of changes in diffuse radiation on the global land carbon sink, Nature, 458, 1014–1017, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07949, 2009. a
Mitchell, D., James, R., Forster, P. M., Betts, R. A., Shiogama, H., and Allen, M.: Realizing the impacts of a 1.5 °C warmer world, Nat. Clim. Change, 6, 735–737, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3055, 2016. a, b
Nath, S., Lejeune, Q., Beusch, L., Seneviratne, S. I., and Schleussner, C.-F.: MESMER-M: an Earth system model emulator for spatially resolved monthly temperature, Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 851–877, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-851-2022, 2022. a
Nicholls, Z., Meinshausen, M., Lewis, J., Corradi, M. R., 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., and Woodard, D. L.: Reduced Complexity Model Intercomparison Project Phase 2: Synthesizing Earth System Knowledge for Probabilistic Climate Projections, Earth's Future, 9, e2020EF001900, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EF001900, 2021. a
Nicholls, Z. R. J., Meinshausen, M., Lewis, J., Gieseke, R., Dommenget, D., Dorheim, K., Fan, C.-S., Fuglestvedt, J. S., Gasser, T., Golüke, U., Goodwin, P., Hartin, C., Hope, A. P., Kriegler, E., Leach, N. J., Marchegiani, D., McBride, L. A., Quilcaille, Y., Rogelj, J., Salawitch, R. J., Samset, B. H., Sandstad, M., Shiklomanov, A. N., Skeie, R. B., Smith, C. J., Smith, S., Tanaka, K., Tsutsui, J., and Xie, Z.: Reduced Complexity Model Intercomparison Project Phase 1: introduction and evaluation of global-mean temperature response, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 5175–5190, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-5175-2020, 2020. a
Oliver, H. J., Shin, M., and Sanders, O.: Cylc: A Workflow Engine for Cycling Systems, J. Open Source Softw., 3, 737, https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00737, 2018. a
Oliver, H. J., Shin, O. S. M., Dutta, R., Pillinger, T., Fitzpatrick, B., Clark, A., Kinoshita, B. P., Hall, M., Bartholomew, S. L., Sutherland, D., Valters, D., Trzeciak, T., challurip, Matthews, D., Gaist, S., Coleman, T., Dawson, M., and Menezes, G.: Cylc: A Workflow Engine for Cycling Systems, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5945777, 2024. a
Osborn, T. J., Wallace, C. J., Lowe, J. A., and Bernie, D.: Performance of pattern-scaled climate projections under high-end warming. Part I: Surface air temperature over land, J. Climate, 31, 5667–5680, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0780.1, 2018. a
Palmer, T. E., McSweeney, C. F., Booth, B. B. B., Priestley, M. D. K., Davini, P., Brunner, L., Borchert, L., and Menary, M. B.: Performance-based sub-selection of CMIP6 models for impact assessments in Europe, Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 457–483, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-457-2023, 2023. a
Pugh, T. A. M., Jones, C. D., Huntingford, C., Burton, C., Arneth, A., Brovkin, V., Ciais, P., Lomas, M., Robertson, E., Piao, S. L., and Sitch, S.: A Large Committed Long-Term Sink of Carbon due to Vegetation Dynamics, Earth's Future, 6, 1413–1432, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EF000935, 2018. a
Quilcaille, Y., Gudmundsson, L., Beusch, L., Hauser, M., and Seneviratne, S. I.: Showcasing MESMER-X: Spatially Resolved Emulation of Annual Maximum Temperatures of Earth System Models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 49, e2022GL099012, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL099012, 2022. a
Riahi, K., Schaeffer, R., Arango, J., Calvin, K., Guivarch, C., Hasegawa, T., Jiang, K., Kriegler, E., Matthews, R., Peters, G. P., Rao, A., Robertson, S., Sebbit, A. M., Steinberger, J., Tavoni, M., and Vuuren, D. P. V.: Mitigation pathways compatible with long-term goals, in: IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Shukla, P. R., Skea, J., Slade, R., Khourdajie, A. A., van Diemen, R., McCollum, D., Pathak, M., Some, S., Vyas, P., Fradera, R., Belkacemi, M., Hasija, A., Lisboa, G., Luz, S., and Malley, J., Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.005, 2022. a
Ribes, A., Qasmi, S., and Gillett, N.: Making climate projections conditional on historical observations, Science Adv., 7, eabc0671, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abc0671, 2021. a
Ribes, A., Boé, J., Qasmi, S., Dubuisson, B., and Douville, H.and Terray, L.: An Updated Assessment of Past and Future Warming over France Based on a Regional Observational Constraint, Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1397–1415, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1397-2022, 2022. a
Richters, O., Bertram, C., Kriegler, E., Al Khourdajie, A., Cui, R., Edmonds, J., Hackstock, P., Holland, D., Hurst, I., Kikstra, J., Lewis, J., Liadze, I., Meinshausen, M., Min, J., Nicholls, Z., Piontek, F., Sauer, I., Sferra, F., Sanchez Juanino, P., van Ruijven, B., Weigmann, P., Yu, S., Zhao, A., and Zwerling, M.: NGFS Climate Scenarios Data Set, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7198430, 2022. a
Ringer, M. A., Andrews, T., and Webb, M. J.: Global-mean radiative feedbacks and forcing in atmosphere-only and coupled atmosphere-ocean climate change experiments, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 4035–4042, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL060347, 2014. a
Rogelj, J., Shindell, D., Jiang, K., Fifita, S., Forster, P., Ginzburg, V., Handa, C., Kheshgi, H., Kobayashi, S., Kriegler, E., Mundaca, L., Séférian, R., and Vilariño, M. V.: Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5 °C in the Context of Sustainable Development, in: Global Warming of 1.5 °C: An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty, edited by: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D., Skea, J., Shukla, P. R., Pirani, A., Moufouma-Okia, W., Péan, C., Pidcock, R., Connors, S., Matthews, J. B. R., Chen, Y., Zhou, X., Gomis, M. I., Lonnoy, E., Maycock, T., Tignor, M., and Waterfield, T., World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, ISBN 978-92-9169-151-7, https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ (last access: June 2024), 2018. a
Schleussner, C.-F., Lissner, T. K., Fischer, E. M., Wohland, J., Perrette, M., Golly, A., Rogelj, J., Childers, K., Schewe, J., Frieler, K., Mengel, M., Hare, W., and Schaeffer, M.: Differential climate impacts for policy-relevant limits to global warming: the case of 1.5 °C and 2 °C, Earth Syst. Dynam., 7, 327–351, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-327-2016, 2016. a
Séférian, R., Nabat, P., Michou, M., Saint-Martin, D., Voldoire, A., Colin, J., Decharme, B., Delire, C., Berthet, S., Chevallier, M., Sénési, S., Franchisteguy, L., Vial, J., Mallet, M., Joetzjer, E., Geoffroy, O., Guérémy, J.-F., Moine, M.-P., Msadek, R., Ribes, A., Rocher, M., Roehrig, R., Salas-y-Mélia, D., Sanchez, E., Terray, L., Valcke, S., Waldman, R., Aumont, Ol., Bopp, L., Deshayes, J., Éthé, C., and Madec, G.: Evaluation of CNRM Earth-System model, CNRM-ESM2-1: role of Earth system processes in present-day and future climate, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 11, 4182–4227. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001791, 2019. a
Sellar, A. A., Jones, C. G., Mulcahy, J. P., Tang, Y., Yool, A., Wiltshire, A., O'Connor, F. M., Stringer, M., Hill, R., Palmieri, J., Woodward, S., de Mora, L., Kuhlbrodt, T., Rumbold, S. T., Kelley, D. I., Ellis, R., Johnson, C. E., Walton, J., Abraham, N. L., Andrews, M. B., Andrews, T., Archibald, A. T., Berthou, S., Burke, E., Blockley, E., Carslaw, K., Dalvi, M., Edwards, J., Folberth, G. A., Gedney, N., Griffiths, P. T., Harper, A. B., Hendry, M. A., Hewitt, A. J., Johnson, B., Jones, A., Jones, C. D., Keeble, J., Liddicoat, S., Morgenstern, O., Parker, R. J., Predoi, V., Robertson, E., Siahaan, An., Smith, R. S., Swaminathan, R., Woodhouse, M. T., Zeng, G., and Zerroukat, M.: UKESM1: Description and evaluation of the UK Earth System Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 11, 4513–4558, 2019. a, b
Smith, C.: FaIR v1.6.2 calibrated and constrained parameter set, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6601980, 2022. a, b
Smith, C., Millar, R., Nicholls, Z., Allen, M., Forster, P., Leach, N., Passerello, G., and Regayre, L.: FAIR – Finite Amplitude Impulse Response Model (multi-forcing version), version v1.3.2, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1247898, 2018. a
Smith, C., Nicholls, Z., and Gieseke, R.: OMS-NetZero/FAIR: Updates to ozone forcing, v1.6.2, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4465032, 2021 (code available at: https://github.com/OMS-NetZero/FAIR/tree/v1.6.2, last access: December 2024). a
Smith, C., Cummins, D. P., Fredriksen, H.-B., Nicholls, Z., Meinshausen, M., Allen, M., Jenkins, S., Leach, N., Mathison, C., and Partanen, A.-I.: fair-calibrate v1.4.1: calibration, constraining, and validation of the FaIR simple climate model for reliable future climate projections, Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8569–8592, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8569-2024, 2024. a
Smith, C. J., Forster, P. M., Allen, M., Leach, N., Millar, R. J., Passerello, G. A., and Regayre, L. A.: FAIR v1.3: a simple emissions-based impulse response and carbon cycle model, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 2273–2297, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2273-2018, 2018. a, b
Smith, C. J., Nicholls, Z. R. J., Armour, K., Collins, W., Forster, P., Meinshausen, M., Palmer, M. D., and Watanabe, M.: The Earth's Energy Budget, Climate Feedbacks, and Climate Sensitivity Supplementary Material, in: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M. I., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J. B. R., Maycock, T. K., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and Zhou, B., Cambridge University Press, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_07_Supplementary_Material.pdf (last access: November 2024), 2021. a
Smith, C. J., Khourdajie, A. A., Yang, P., and Folini, D.: Climate uncertainty impacts on optimal mitigation pathways and social cost of carbon, Environ. Res. Lett., 18, 094024, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acedc6, 2023. a
Stanhill, G. and Cohen, S.: Global dimming: a review of the evidence for a widespread and significant reduction in global radiation with discussion of its probable causes and possible agricultural consequences, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 107, 255–278, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1923(00)00241-0, 2001. a
Swaminathan, R., Schewe, J., Walton, J., Zimmermann, K., Jones, C., Betts, R. A., Burton, C., Jones, C. D., Mengel, M., Reyer, C. P. O., Turner, A. G., and Weigel, K.: Regional Impacts Poorly Constrained by Climate Sensitivity, Earth's Future, 12, e2024EF004901, https://doi.org/10.1029/2024EF004901, 2024. a
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., and Meehl, G. A.: An Overview of CMIP5 and the Experiment Design, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93, 485–498, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1, 2012. a
Tebaldi, C. and Arblaster, J. M.: Pattern scaling: Its strengths and limitations, and an update on the latest model simulations, Climatic Change, 122, 459–471, 2014. a
Tebaldi, C. and Knutti, R.: Evaluating the accuracy of climate change pattern emulation for low warming targets, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 055006, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabef2, 2018. a
Tebaldi, C., Snyder, A., and Dorheim, K.: STITCHES: creating new scenarios of climate model output by stitching together pieces of existing simulations, Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1557–1609, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1557-2022, 2022. a
van Vuuren, D. P., Lowe, J., Stehfest, E., Gohar, L., Hof, A. F., Hope, C., Warren, R., Meinshausen, M., and Plattner, G.-K.: How well do integrated assessment models simulate climate change?, Climatic Change, 104, 255–285, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9764-2, 2011. a
Varney, R. M., Chadburn, S. E., Burke, E. J., Jones, S., Wiltshire, A. J., and Cox, P. M.: Simulated responses of soil carbon to climate change in CMIP6 Earth system models: the role of false priming, Biogeosciences, 20, 3767–3790, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-3767-2023, 2023. a
Wang, Z., Zhang, M., Wang, L., and Qin, W.: A comprehensive research on the global all-sky surface solar radiation and its driving factors during 1980–2019, Atmos. Res., 265, 105870, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2021.105870, 2022. a
Warszawski, L., Friend, A., Ostberg, S., Frieler, K., Lucht, W., Schaphoff, S., Beerling, D., Cadule, P., Ciais, P., Clark, D. B., Kahana, R., Ito, A., Keribin, R., Kleidon, A., Lomas, M., Nishina, K., Pavlick, R., Rademacher, T. T., Buechner, M., Piontek, F., Schewe, J., Serdeczny, O., and Schellnhuber, H. J.: A multi-model analysis of risk of ecosystem shifts under climate change, Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 044018, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044018, 2013. a
Warszawski, L., Frieler, K., Huber, V., Piontek, F., Serdeczny, O., and Schewe, J.: The Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISI-MIP): Project framework, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 111, 3228–3232, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1312330110, 2014. a
Watson-Parris, D., Rao, Y., Olivié, D., Seland, O., Nowack, P., Camps-Valls, G., Stier, P., Bouabid, S., Dewey, M., Fons, E., Gonzalez, J., Harder, P., Jeggle, K., Lenhardt, J., Manshausen, P., Novitasari, M., Ricard, L., and Roesch, C.: ClimateBench v1.0: A Benchmark for Data-Driven Climate Projections, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 14, e2021MS002954, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021MS002954, 2022. a
Wells, C. D., Jackson, L. S., Maycock, A. C., and Forster, P. M.: Understanding pattern scaling errors across a range of emissions pathways, Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 817–834, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-817-2023, 2023. a, b
Wilson Kemsley, S., Osborn, T., Dorling, S., and Wallace, C.: Pattern scaling the parameters of a Markov-Chain gamma-distribution daily precipitation generator, Int. J. Climatol., 44, 144–159, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.8320, 2024. a
Wiltshire, A. J., Burke, E. J., Chadburn, S. E., Jones, C. D., Cox, P. M., Davies-Barnard, T., Friedlingstein, P., Harper, A. B., Liddicoat, S., Sitch, S., and Zaehle, S.: JULES-CN: a coupled terrestrial carbon–nitrogen scheme (JULES vn5.1), Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2161–2186, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2161-2021, 2021. a, b
Zelazowski, P., Huntingford, C., Mercado, L. M., and Schaller, N.: Climate pattern-scaling set for an ensemble of 22 GCMs – adding uncertainty to the IMOGEN version 2.0 impact system, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 541–560, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-541-2018, 2018. a, b
Short summary
We present PRIME (Probabilistic Regional Impacts from Model patterns and Emissions), which is designed to take new emissions scenarios and rapidly provide regional impact information. PRIME allows large ensembles to be run on multi-centennial timescales, including the analysis of many important variables for impact assessments. Our evaluation shows that PRIME reproduces the climate response for known scenarios, providing confidence in using PRIME for novel scenarios.
We present PRIME (Probabilistic Regional Impacts from Model patterns and Emissions), which is...
