Articles | Volume 19, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-115-2026
© Author(s) 2026. 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-19-115-2026
© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Review and perspective paper
| Highlight paper
| 
07 Jan 2026
Review and perspective paper | Highlight paper |
| 07 Jan 2026
| 07 Jan 2026
Review of climate simulation by Simple Climate Models
Alejandro Romero-Prieto
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
Priestley Centre for Climate Futures, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, United Kingdom
Camilla Mathison
Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, United Kingdom
School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
Chris Smith
Department of Water and Climate, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
Energy, Climate and Environment Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria
Related authors
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
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).
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.
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.
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
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Earth System Dynamics (ESD).
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.
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.
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
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).
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.
Christopher D. Wells, Lennart Ramme, Chris Smith, Jannes Breier, Adakudlu Muralidhar, Chao Li, Ada Gjermundsen, William Alexander Schoenberg, Benjamin Blanz, and Cecilie Mauritzen
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4766, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4766, 2025
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.
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.
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.
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.
Christopher 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, and Chris Smith
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2756, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2756, 2025
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.
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.
William Lamb, Robbie Andrew, Matthew Jones, Zebedee Nicholls, Glen Peters, Chris Smith, Marielle Saunois, Giacomo Grassi, Julia Pongratz, Steven Smith, Francesco Tubiello, Monica Crippa, Matthew Gidden, Pierre Friedlingstein, Jan Minx, and Piers Forster
Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-188, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-188, 2025
Preprint under review for ESSD
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.
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.
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.
Camilla Mathison, Eleanor J. Burke, Gregory Munday, Chris D. Jones, Chris J. Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Andy J. Wiltshire, Chris Huntingford, Eszter Kovacs, Laila K. Gohar, Rebecca M. Varney, and Douglas McNeall
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1785–1808, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, 2025
Short summary
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.
Detlef van Vuuren, Brian O'Neill, Claudia Tebaldi, Louise Chini, Pierre Friedlingstein, Tomoko Hasegawa, Keywan Riahi, Benjamin Sanderson, Bala Govindasamy, Nico Bauer, Veronika Eyring, Cheikh Fall, Katja Frieler, Matthew Gidden, Laila Gohar, Andrew Jones, Andrew King, Reto Knutti, Elmar Kriegler, Peter Lawrence, Chris Lennard, Jason Lowe, Camila Mathison, Shahbaz Mehmood, Luciana Prado, Qiang Zhang, Steven Rose, Alexander Ruane, Carl-Friederich Schleussner, Roland Seferian, Jana Sillmann, Chris Smith, Anna Sörensson, Swapna Panickal, Kaoru Tachiiri, Naomi Vaughan, Saritha Vishwanathan, Tokuta Yokohata, and Tilo Ziehn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3765, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3765, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a set of six 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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gillian Thornhill, William Collins, Dirk Olivié, Ragnhild B. Skeie, Alex Archibald, Susanne Bauer, Ramiro Checa-Garcia, Stephanie Fiedler, Gerd Folberth, Ada Gjermundsen, Larry Horowitz, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Martine Michou, Jane Mulcahy, Pierre Nabat, Vaishali Naik, Fiona M. O'Connor, Fabien Paulot, Michael Schulz, Catherine E. Scott, Roland Séférian, Chris Smith, Toshihiko Takemura, Simone Tilmes, Kostas Tsigaridis, and James Weber
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 1105–1126, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1105-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1105-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We find that increased temperatures affect aerosols and reactive gases by changing natural emissions and their rates of removal from the atmosphere. Changing the composition of these species in the atmosphere affects the radiative budget of the climate system and therefore amplifies or dampens the climate response of climate models of the Earth system. This study found that the largest effect is a dampening of climate change as warmer temperatures increase the emissions of cooling aerosols.
Camilla Mathison, Andrew J. Challinor, Chetan Deva, Pete Falloon, Sébastien Garrigues, Sophie Moulin, Karina Williams, and Andy Wiltshire
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 437–471, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-437-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-437-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Sequential cropping (also known as multiple or double cropping) is a common cropping system, particularly in tropical regions. Typically, land surface models only simulate a single crop per year. To understand how sequential crops influence surface fluxes, we implement sequential cropping in JULES to simulate all the crops grown within a year at a given location in a seamless way. We demonstrate the method using a site in Avignon, four locations in India and a regional run for two Indian states.
Gillian D. Thornhill, William J. Collins, Ryan J. Kramer, Dirk Olivié, Ragnhild B. Skeie, Fiona M. O'Connor, Nathan Luke Abraham, Ramiro Checa-Garcia, Susanne E. Bauer, Makoto Deushi, Louisa K. Emmons, Piers M. Forster, Larry W. Horowitz, Ben Johnson, James Keeble, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Martine Michou, Michael J. Mills, Jane P. Mulcahy, Gunnar Myhre, Pierre Nabat, Vaishali Naik, Naga Oshima, Michael Schulz, Christopher J. Smith, Toshihiko Takemura, Simone Tilmes, Tongwen Wu, Guang Zeng, and Jie Zhang
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 853–874, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-853-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-853-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper is a study of how different constituents in the atmosphere, such as aerosols and gases like methane and ozone, affect the energy balance in the atmosphere. Different climate models were run using the same inputs to allow an easy comparison of the results and to understand where the models differ. We found the effect of aerosols is to reduce warming in the atmosphere, but this effect varies between models. Reactions between gases are also important in affecting climate.
Cited articles
Alfsen, K. H. and Berntsen, T. K.: An efficient and accurate carbon cycle model for use in simple climate models, Working paper, CICERO Center for International Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo, https://pub.cicero.oslo.no/cicero-xmlui/handle/11250/192446 (last access: 29 April 2024), 1999. a
Ammann, C. M., Meehl, G. A., Washington, W. M., and Zender, C. S.: A monthly and latitudinally varying volcanic forcing dataset in simulations of 20th century climate, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL016875, 2003. a
Ångström, A.: On Radiation and Climate, Geograf. Ann., 7, 122–142, https://doi.org/10.1080/20014422.1925.11881110, 1925. 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
Arrhenius, S.: On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground, London Edinburgh Dublin Philos. Mag. J. Sci., 41, 237–276, https://doi.org/10.1080/14786449608620846, 1896. a
Azar, C., Johansson, D. J. A., and Mattsson, N.: Meeting global temperature targets – the role of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 034004, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034004, 2013. a
Bassetti, S., Hutchinson, B., Tebaldi, C., and Kravitz, B.: DiffESM: Conditional Emulation of Temperature and Precipitation in Earth System Models With 3D Diffusion Models, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 16, e2023MS004194, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023MS004194, 2024. 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
Bloch-Johnson, J., Rugenstein, M., Stolpe, M. B., Rohrschneider, T., Zheng, Y., and Gregory, J. M.: Climate Sensitivity Increases Under Higher CO2 Levels Due to Feedback Temperature Dependence, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2020GL089074, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL089074, 2021. a
Boucher, O. and Reddy, M. S.: Climate trade-off between black carbon and carbon dioxide emissions, Energy Policy, 36, 193–200, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.08.039, 2008. a
Brown, S., Jenkins, K., Goodwin, P., Lincke, D., Vafeidis, A. T., Tol, R. S. J., Jenkins, R., Warren, R., Nicholls, R. J., Jevrejeva, S., Arcilla, A. S., and Haigh, I. D.: Global costs of protecting against sea-level rise at 1.5 to 4.0 °C, Climatic Change, 167, 4, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-021-03130-z, 2021. a
Bruckner, T., Hooss, G., Füssel, H.-M., and Hasselmann, K.: Climate System Modeling in the Framework of the Tolerable Windows Approach: The ICLIPS Climate Model, Climatic Change, 56, 119–137, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021300924356, 2003. a
Budyko, M. I.: The Heat Balanceof the Earth's Surface (English translation), Tech. rep., US Dep. of Commer., Office of Tech. Serv., Washington, D.C., https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP81-01043R002500010003-6.pdf (last access: 31 December 2025), 1958. a
Budyko, M. I.: The effect of solar radiation variations on the climate of the Earth, Tellus A, 21, https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusa.v21i5.10109, 1969. a
Budyko, M. I.: The future climate, Eos Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 53, 868–874, https://doi.org/10.1029/EO053i010p00868, 1972. a
Butchart, N. and Scaife, A. A.: Removal of chlorofluorocarbons by increased mass exchange between the stratosphere and troposphere in a changing climate, Nature, 410, 799–802, https://doi.org/10.1038/35071047, 2001. a, b
Caldwell, P. M., Zelinka, M. D., Taylor, K. E., and Marvel, K.: Quantifying the Sources of Intermodel Spread in Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, J. Climate, 29, 513–524, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0352.1, 2016. a
Calvin, K., Patel, P., Clarke, L., Asrar, G., Bond-Lamberty, B., Cui, R. Y., Di Vittorio, A., Dorheim, K., Edmonds, J., Hartin, C., Hejazi, M., Horowitz, R., Iyer, G., Kyle, P., Kim, S., Link, R., McJeon, H., Smith, S. J., Snyder, A., Waldhoff, S., and Wise, M.: GCAM v5.1: representing the linkages between energy, water, land, climate, and economic systems, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 677–698, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-677-2019, 2019. a, b, c
Canty, T., Mascioli, N. R., Smarte, M. D., and Salawitch, R. J.: An empirical model of global climate – Part 1: A critical evaluation of volcanic cooling, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 3997–4031, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-3997-2013, 2013. a, b, c
Carslaw, K., Lee, L. A., Regayre, L. A., and Johnson, J.: Climate Models Are Uncertain, but We Can Do Something About It, http://eos.org/opinions/climate-models-are-uncertain-but-we-can-do-something-about-it (last access: 31 December 2025), 2018. a
Cherubini, F., Gasser, T., Bright, R. M., Ciais, P., and Strømman, A. H.: Linearity between temperature peak and bioenergy CO2 emission rates, Nat. Clim. Change, 4, 983–987, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2399, 2014. a
christianstassen: christianstassen/greb-hydro-develop-gmd: A Hydrological Cycle Model for the Globally Resolved Energy Balance Model (GREB) v1.0, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2232282, 2018. a
Ciais, P., Gasser, T., Paris, J. D., Caldeira, K., Raupach, M. R., Canadell, J. G., Patwardhan, A., Friedlingstein, P., Piao, S. L., and Gitz, V.: Attributing the increase in atmospheric CO2 to emitters and absorbers, Nat. Clim. Change, 3, 926–930, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1942, 2013. a
Cubasch, U., Hegerl, G., Hellbach, A., Höck, H., Mikolajewicz, U., Santer, B., and Voss, R.: A Climate Change Simulation Starting From 1935, Clim. Dynam., 11, 71–84, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00211674, 1995. a
Cubasch, U., Meehl, G. A., Boer, G. J., Stouffer, R. J., Dix, M., Noda, A., Senior, C. A., Raper, S., and Yap, K. S.: Projections of Future Climate Change, in: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, in: Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Houghton, J. T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D. J., Noguer, M., Van der Linden, P. J., Dai, X., Maskell, K., and Johnson, C. A., Cambridge University Press, 526–582, https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/5180/ (last access: 31 December 2025), 2001. a, b
Cummins, D. P., Stephenson, D. B., and Stott, P. A.: Optimal Estimation of Stochastic Energy Balance Model Parameters, J. Climate, 33, 7909–7926, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0589.1, 2020. a, b, c, d
den Elzen, M., Fuglestvedt, J., Höhne, N., Trudinger, C., Lowe, J., Matthews, B., Romstad, B., de Campos, C. P., and Andronova, N.: Analysing countries' contribution to climate change: scientific and policy-related choices, Environ. Sci.Policy, 8, 614–636, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2005.06.007, 2005. a
Dommenget, D., Nice, K., Bayr, T., Kasang, D., Stassen, C., and Rezny, M.: The Monash Simple Climate Model experiments (MSCM-DB v1.0): an interactive database of mean climate, climate change, and scenario simulations, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 2155–2179, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2155-2019, 2019. a
Dorheim, K., Link, R., Hartin, C., Kravitz, B., and Snyder, A.: Calibrating Simple Climate Models to Individual Earth System Models: Lessons Learned From Calibrating Hector, Earth Space Sci., 7, e2019EA000980, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EA000980, 2020. a
Dorheim, K., Bond-Lamberty, B., Hartin, C., Link, R., Nicholson, M., Pralit, P., Pressburger, L., Shiklomanov, A., Vega-Westhoff, B., and Woodard, D.: Hector a simple carbon-climate model, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10698028, 2024a. a
Dorheim, K., Gering, S., Gieseke, R., Hartin, C., Pressburger, L., Shiklomanov, A. N., Smith, S. J., Tebaldi, C., Woodard, D. L., and Bond-Lamberty, B.: Hector V3.2.0: functionality and performance of a reduced-complexity climate model, Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4855–4869, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4855-2024, 2024b. a, b, c, d
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, b
FAO: Methane emissions in livestock and rice systems, FAO, ISBN 978-92-5-138148-9, https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/cc7607en (last access: 31 December 2025), 2023. a
Farago, E. Z., McBride, L. A., Hope, A. P., Canty, T. P., Bennett, B. F., and Salawitch, R. J.: AR6 updates to RF by GHGs and aerosols lowers the probability of accomplishing the Paris Agreement compared to AR5 formulations, Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 1739–1758, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1739-2025, 2025. a, b, c
Fiore, A. M., Dentener, F. J., Wild, O., Cuvelier, C., Schultz, M. G., Hess, P., Textor, C., Schulz, M., Doherty, R. M., Horowitz, L. W., MacKenzie, I. A., Sanderson, M. G., Shindell, D. T., Stevenson, D. S., Szopa, S., Van Dingenen, R., Zeng, G., Atherton, C., Bergmann, D., Bey, I., Carmichael, G., Collins, W. J., Duncan, B. N., Faluvegi, G., Folberth, G., Gauss, M., Gong, S., Hauglustaine, D., Holloway, T., Isaksen, I. S. A., Jacob, D. J., Jonson, J. E., Kaminski, J. W., Keating, T. J., Lupu, A., Marmer, E., Montanaro, V., Park, R. J., Pitari, G., Pringle, K. J., Pyle, J. A., Schroeder, S., Vivanco, M. G., Wind, P., Wojcik, G., Wu, S., and Zuber, A.: Multimodel estimates of intercontinental source-receptor relationships for ozone pollution, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 114, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010816, 2009. a
Follows, M. J., Ito, T., and Dutkiewicz, S.: On the solution of the carbonate chemistry system in ocean biogeochemistry models, Ocean Model., 12, 290–301, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2005.05.004, 2006. a
Forster, P., Smith, C., and Rogelj, J.: Guest post: The Global Methane Pledge needs to go further to help limit warming to 1.5 °C, https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-the-global-methane-pledge-needs-to-go-further-to (last access: 31 December 2025), 2021a. a
Forster, P., Storelvmo, T., Armour, K., Collins, W., Dufresne, J.-L., Frame, D., Lunt, D., Mauritsen, T., Palmer, M., 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: Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1st Edn., Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1-00-915789-6, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.009, 2021b. a, b, c
Forster, P. M., Richardson, T., Maycock, A. C., Smith, C. J., Samset, B. H., Myhre, G., Andrews, T., Pincus, R., and Schulz, M.: Recommendations for diagnosing effective radiative forcing from climate models for CMIP6, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121, 12,460–12,475, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD025320, 2016. a
Fourier, J.-B.-J.: Mémoire sur les températures du globe terrestre et des espaces planétaires, Mem. Acad. Sci., https://www.academie-sciences.fr/pdf/dossiers/Fourier/Fourier_pdf/Mem1827_p569_604.pdf (last access: 1 January 2026), 1827. a
Friedlingstein, P., Cox, P., Betts, R., Bopp, L., Bloh, W. v., Brovkin, V., Cadule, P., Doney, S., Eby, M., Fung, I., Bala, G., John, J., Jones, C., Joos, F., Kato, T., Kawamiya, M., Knorr, W., Lindsay, K., Matthews, H. D., Raddatz, T., Rayner, P., Reick, C., Roeckner, E., Schnitzler, K.-G., Schnur, R., Strassmann, K., Weaver, A. J., Yoshikawa, C., and Zeng, N.: Climate–Carbon Cycle Feedback Analysis: Results from the C4MIP Model Intercomparison, J. Climate, 19, 3337–3353, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3800.1, 2006. a
Friedlingstein, P., O'Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Gregor, L., Hauck, J., Le Quéré, C., Luijkx, I. T., Olsen, A., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Schwingshackl, C., Sitch, S., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Alin, S. R., Alkama, R., Arneth, A., Arora, V. K., Bates, N. R., Becker, M., Bellouin, N., Bittig, H. C., Bopp, L., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Cronin, M., Evans, W., Falk, S., Feely, R. A., Gasser, T., Gehlen, M., Gkritzalis, T., Gloege, L., Grassi, G., Gruber, N., Gürses, O., Harris, I., Hefner, M., Houghton, R. A., Hurtt, G. C., Iida, Y., Ilyina, T., Jain, A. K., Jersild, A., Kadono, K., Kato, E., Kennedy, D., Klein Goldewijk, K., Knauer, J., Korsbakken, J. I., Landschützer, P., Lefèvre, N., Lindsay, K., Liu, J., Liu, Z., Marland, G., Mayot, N., McGrath, M. J., Metzl, N., Monacci, N. M., Munro, D. R., Nakaoka, S.-I., Niwa, Y., O'Brien, K., Ono, T., Palmer, P. I., Pan, N., Pierrot, D., Pocock, K., Poulter, B., Resplandy, L., Robertson, E., Rödenbeck, C., Rodriguez, C., Rosan, T. M., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Shutler, J. D., Skjelvan, I., Steinhoff, T., Sun, Q., Sutton, A. J., Sweeney, C., Takao, S., Tanhua, T., Tans, P. P., Tian, X., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., Tsujino, H., Tubiello, F., van der Werf, G. R., Walker, A. P., Wanninkhof, R., Whitehead, C., Willstrand Wranne, A., Wright, R., Yuan, W., Yue, C., Yue, X., Zaehle, S., Zeng, J., and Zheng, B.: Global Carbon Budget 2022, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 4811–4900, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-4811-2022, 2022. a
Friedlingstein, P., O'Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Bakker, D. C. E., Hauck, J., Landschützer, P., Le Quéré, C., Luijkx, I. T., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Schwingshackl, C., Sitch, S., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Alin, S. R., Anthoni, P., Barbero, L., Bates, N. R., Becker, M., Bellouin, N., Decharme, B., Bopp, L., Brasika, I. B. M., Cadule, P., Chamberlain, M. A., Chandra, N., Chau, T.-T.-T., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Cronin, M., Dou, X., Enyo, K., Evans, W., Falk, S., Feely, R. A., Feng, L., Ford, D. J., Gasser, T., Ghattas, J., Gkritzalis, T., Grassi, G., Gregor, L., Gruber, N., Gürses, O., Harris, I., Hefner, M., Heinke, J., Houghton, R. A., Hurtt, G. C., Iida, Y., Ilyina, T., Jacobson, A. R., Jain, A., Jarníková, T., Jersild, A., Jiang, F., Jin, Z., Joos, F., Kato, E., Keeling, R. F., Kennedy, D., Klein Goldewijk, K., Knauer, J., Korsbakken, J. I., Körtzinger, A., Lan, X., Lefèvre, N., Li, H., Liu, J., Liu, Z., Ma, L., Marland, G., Mayot, N., McGuire, P. C., McKinley, G. A., Meyer, G., Morgan, E. J., Munro, D. R., Nakaoka, S.-I., Niwa, Y., O'Brien, K. M., Olsen, A., Omar, A. M., Ono, T., Paulsen, M., Pierrot, D., Pocock, K., Poulter, B., Powis, C. M., Rehder, G., Resplandy, L., Robertson, E., Rödenbeck, C., Rosan, T. M., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Smallman, T. L., Smith, S. M., Sospedra-Alfonso, R., Sun, Q., Sutton, A. J., Sweeney, C., Takao, S., Tans, P. P., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., Tsujino, H., Tubiello, F., van der Werf, G. R., van Ooijen, E., Wanninkhof, R., Watanabe, M., Wimart-Rousseau, C., Yang, D., Yang, X., Yuan, W., Yue, X., Zaehle, S., Zeng, J., and Zheng, B.: Global Carbon Budget 2023, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5301–5369, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5301-2023, 2023. a, b
Friedlingstein, P., O'Sullivan, M., Jones, M. W., Andrew, R. M., Hauck, J., Landschützer, P., Le Quéré, C., Li, H., Luijkx, I. T., Olsen, A., Peters, G. P., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Schwingshackl, C., Sitch, S., Canadell, J. G., Ciais, P., Jackson, R. B., Alin, S. R., Arneth, A., Arora, V., Bates, N. R., Becker, M., Bellouin, N., Berghoff, C. F., Bittig, H. C., Bopp, L., Cadule, P., Campbell, K., Chamberlain, M. A., Chandra, N., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Colligan, T., Decayeux, J., Djeutchouang, L. M., Dou, X., Duran Rojas, C., Enyo, K., Evans, W., Fay, A. R., Feely, R. A., Ford, D. J., Foster, A., Gasser, T., Gehlen, M., Gkritzalis, T., Grassi, G., Gregor, L., Gruber, N., Gürses, Ö., Harris, I., Hefner, M., Heinke, J., Hurtt, G. C., Iida, Y., Ilyina, T., Jacobson, A. R., Jain, A. K., Jarníková, T., Jersild, A., Jiang, F., Jin, Z., Kato, E., Keeling, R. F., Klein Goldewijk, K., Knauer, J., Korsbakken, J. I., Lan, X., Lauvset, S. K., Lefèvre, N., Liu, Z., Liu, J., Ma, L., Maksyutov, S., Marland, G., Mayot, N., McGuire, P. C., Metzl, N., Monacci, N. M., Morgan, E. J., Nakaoka, S.-I., Neill, C., Niwa, Y., Nützel, T., Olivier, L., Ono, T., Palmer, P. I., Pierrot, D., Qin, Z., Resplandy, L., Roobaert, A., Rosan, T. M., Rödenbeck, C., Schwinger, J., Smallman, T. L., Smith, S. M., Sospedra-Alfonso, R., Steinhoff, T., Sun, Q., Sutton, A. J., Séférian, R., Takao, S., Tatebe, H., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., Torres, O., Tourigny, E., Tsujino, H., Tubiello, F., van der Werf, G., Wanninkhof, R., Wang, X., Yang, D., Yang, X., Yu, Z., Yuan, W., Yue, X., Zaehle, S., Zeng, N., and Zeng, J.: Global Carbon Budget 2024, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 965–1039, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-965-2025, 2025. a, b
Fuglestvedt, J. S. and Berntsen, T. K.: A simple model for scenario studies of changes in global climate: Version 1.0, Working paper, CICERO Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, Oslo, https://pub.cicero.oslo.no/cicero-xmlui/handle/11250/192444 (last access: 26 April 2024), 1999. a, b, c
Fujimori, S., Su, X., Liu, J.-Y., Hasegawa, T., Takahashi, K., Masui, T., and Takimi, M.: Implication of Paris Agreement in the context of long-term climate mitigation goals, SpringerPlus, 5, 1620, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3235-9, 2016. a
Gasser, T.: Attribution régionalisée des causes anthropiques du changement climatique, PhD thesis, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris VI, https://theses.hal.science/tel-01135456 (last access: 31 December 2025), 2014. a
Gasser, T. and Ciais, P.: A theoretical framework for the net land-to-atmosphere CO2 flux and its implications in the definition of “emissions from land-use change”, Earth Syst. Dynam., 4, 171–186, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-4-171-2013, 2013. a
Gasser, T., Kechiar, M., Ciais, P., Burke, E. J., Kleinen, T., Zhu, D., Huang, Y., Ekici, A., and Obersteiner, M.: Path-dependent reductions in CO2 emission budgets caused by permafrost carbon release, Nat. Geosci., 11, 830–835, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-018-0227-0, 2018. a, b, c
Gaucher, Y., Tanaka, K., Johansson, D. J. A., Boucher, O., and Ciais, P.: Potential and costs required for methane removal to compete with BECCS as a mitigation option, Environ. Res. Lett., 20, 024 034, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ada813, 2025a. a
Gaucher, Y., Tanaka, K., Johansson, D. J. A., Goll, D. S., and Ciais, P.: Leveraging ecosystems responses to enhanced rock weathering in mitigation scenarios, Nat. Commun., 16, 3021, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-58284-6, 2025b. a, b
Geoffroy, O., Saint-Martin, D., Bellon, G., Voldoire, A., Olivié, D. J. L., and Tytéca, S.: Transient Climate Response in a Two-Layer Energy-Balance Model. Part II: Representation of the Efficacy of Deep-Ocean Heat Uptake and Validation for CMIP5 AOGCMs, J. Climate, 26, 1859–1876, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00196.1, 2013a. a, b, c, d, e, f, g
Geoffroy, O., Saint-Martin, D., Olivié, D. J. L., Voldoire, A., Bellon, G., and Tytéca, S.: Transient Climate Response in a Two-Layer Energy-Balance Model. Part I: Analytical Solution and Parameter Calibration Using CMIP5 AOGCM Experiments, J. Climate, 26, 1841–1857, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00195.1, 2013b. a
Gitz, V. and Ciais, P.: Amplifying effects of land-use change on future atmospheric CO2 levels, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 17, https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GB001963, 2003. a, b, c
Goodwin, P.: How historic simulation–observation discrepancy affects future warming projections in a very large model ensemble, Clim. Dynam., 47, 2219–2233, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-015-2960-z, 2016. a, b, c, d
Goodwin, P. and Cael, B. B.: Bayesian estimation of Earth's climate sensitivity and transient climate response from observational warming and heat content datasets, Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 709–723, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-709-2021, 2021. a, b, c
Goodwin, P. and Lenton, T. M.: Quantifying the feedback between ocean heating and CO2 solubility as an equivalent carbon emission, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL039247, 2009. a
Goodwin, P., Williams, R. G., Follows, M. J., and Dutkiewicz, S.: Ocean-atmosphere partitioning of anthropogenic carbon dioxide on centennial timescales, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 21, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GB002810, 2007. a
Goodwin, P., Williams, R. G., and Ridgwell, A.: Sensitivity of climate to cumulative carbon emissions due to compensation of ocean heat and carbon uptake, Nat. Geosci., 8, 29–34, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2304, 2015. a
Goodwin, P., Haigh, I. D., Rohling, E. J., and Slangen, A.: A new approach to projecting 21st century sea-level changes and extremes, Earth's Future, 5, 240–253, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000508, 2017. a
Goodwin, P., Katavouta, A., Roussenov, V. M., Foster, G. L., Rohling, E. J., and Williams, R. G.: Pathways to 1.5 °C and 2 °C warming based on observational and geological constraints, Nat. Geosci., 11, 102–107, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-017-0054-8, 2018. a, b, c
Hansen, J., Sato, M., Ruedy, R., Nazarenko, L., Lacis, A., Schmidt, G. A., Russell, G., Aleinov, I., Bauer, M., Bauer, S., Bell, N., Cairns, B., Canuto, V., Chandler, M., Cheng, Y., Del Genio, A., Faluvegi, G., Fleming, E., Friend, A., Hall, T., Jackman, C., Kelley, M., Kiang, N., Koch, D., Lean, J., Lerner, J., Lo, K., Menon, S., Miller, R., Minnis, P., Novakov, T., Oinas, V., Perlwitz, J., Perlwitz, J., Rind, D., Romanou, A., Shindell, D., Stone, P., Sun, S., Tausnev, N., Thresher, D., Wielicki, B., Wong, T., Yao, M., and Zhang, S.: Efficacy of climate forcings, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 110, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD005776, 2005. a, b
Harman, I. N., Trudinger, C. M., and Raupach, M. R.: SCCM – the Simple Carbon-Climate Model: Technical Documentation, Tech. rep., The Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, http://hdl.handle.net/102.100.100/101898?index=1 (last access: 1 January 2026), 2011. a
Hartin, C. A., Patel, P., Schwarber, A., Link, R. P., and Bond-Lamberty, B. P.: A simple object-oriented and open-source model for scientific and policy analyses of the global climate system – Hector v1.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 939–955, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-939-2015, 2015. a, b, c, d, e, f
Hartin, C. A., Bond-Lamberty, B., Patel, P., and Mundra, A.: Ocean acidification over the next three centuries using a simple global climate carbon-cycle model: projections and sensitivities, Biogeosciences, 13, 4329–4342, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-4329-2016, 2016. a, b, c
Harvey, L. D. D.: Global warming: the hard science, Prentice Hall, ISBN 0-582-38167-3, 2000. a
Harvey, L. D. D. and Schneider, S. H.: Transient climate response to external forcing on 100–104 year time scales: 2. Sensitivity experiments with a seasonal, hemispherically averaged, coupled atmosphere, land, and ocean energy balance model, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 90, 2207–2222, https://doi.org/10.1029/JD090iD01p02207, 1985. a, b
Hasselmann, K., Hasselmann, S., Giering, R., Ocana, V., and Storch, H. V.: Sensitivity Study of Optimal CO2 Emission Paths Using a Simplified Structural Integrated Assessment Model (SIAM), Climatic Change, 37, 345–386, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005339625015, 1997. a
Held, I. M., Winton, M., Takahashi, K., Delworth, T., Zeng, F., and Vallis, G. K.: Probing the Fast and Slow Components of Global Warming by Returning Abruptly to Preindustrial Forcing, J. Climate, 23, 2418–2427, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI3466.1, 2010. a, b, c, d
Hoffert, M. I., Callegari, A. J., and Hsieh, C.-T.: The role of deep sea heat storage in the secular response to climatic forcing, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 85, 6667–6679, https://doi.org/10.1029/JC085iC11p06667, 1980. a, b, c
Höhne, N., Blum, H., Fuglestvedt, J., Skeie, R. B., Kurosawa, A., Hu, G., Lowe, J., Gohar, L., Matthews, B., Nioac de Salles, A. C., and Ellermann, C.: Contributions of individual countries' emissions to climate change and their uncertainty, Climatic Change, 106, 359–391, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9930-6, 2011. a
Hooss, G., Voss, R., Hasselmann, K., Maier-Reimer, E., and Joos, F.: A nonlinear impulse response model of the coupled carbon cycle-climate system (NICCS), Clim. Dynam., 18, 189–202, https://doi.org/10.1007/s003820100170, 2001. a, b, c, d
Hope, A. P., Canty, T. P., Salawitch, R. J., Tribett, W. R., and Bennett, B. F.: Forecasting Global Warming, in: Paris Climate Agreement: Beacon of Hope, edited by: Salawitch, R. J., Canty, T. P., Hope, A. P., Tribett, W. R., and Bennett, B. F., Springer International Publishing, Cham, 51–113, ISBN 978-3-319-46939-3, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46939-3_2, 2017. a, b
Hope, A. P., McBride, L. A., Canty, T. P., Bennett, B. F., Tribett, W. R., and Salawitch, R. J.: Examining the human influence on global climate using an empirical model, ESS Open Archive, https://doi.org/10.1002/essoar.10504179.1, 2020. a, b, c, d
Houghton, R. A. and Nassikas, A. A.: Global and regional fluxes of carbon from land use and land cover change 1850–2015, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 31, 456–472, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GB005546, 2017. a
Hulme, M., Raper, S. C., and Wigley, T. M.: An integrated framework to address climate change (ESCAPE) and further developments of the global and regional climate modules (MAGICC), Energy Policy, 23, 347–355, https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-4215(95)90159-5, 1995. a
Huppmann, D., Gidden, M., Fricko, O., Kolp, P., Orthofer, C., Pimmer, M., Kushin, N., Vinca, A., Mastrucci, A., Riahi, K., and Krey, V.: The MESSAGEix Integrated Assessment Model and the ix modeling platform (ixmp): An open framework for integrated and cross-cutting analysis of energy, climate, the environment, and sustainable development, Environ. Model. Soft., 112, 143–156, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.11.012, 2019. a, b
IPCC: CLIMATE CHANGE – The IPCC Scientific Assessment|Contribution of Working Group I to the First Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_first_assessment_1990_wg1.shtml (last access: 31 December 2025), 1990. a
IPCC: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, in: Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), vol. 881, Cambridge University Press, p. 881, ISBN 0521 80767 0 (hardback), ISBN 0521 01495 6 (paperback), 2001. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h
IPCC (Ed.): IPCC special report on safeguarding the ozone layer and the global climate system: issues related to hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, ISBN 978-92-9169-118-0, 2005. a
IPCC: Climate Change 2013 – The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, ISBN 978-1-107-05799-9, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324, 2013. a, b, c, d
IPCC: Global Warming of 1.5 °C: An IPCC Special Report on Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 °C above Pre-industrial Levels in Context of Strengthening Response to Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty, in: 1st Edn., Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1-00-915794-0, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940, 2018. a, b, c
IPCC: Annex VII: Glossary, in: Climate Change 2021 – The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1st Edn., Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1-00-915789-6, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896.022, 2021a. a
IPCC: Climate Change 2021 – The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896, 2021b. a, b, c, d
Iseri, Y., Yoshikawa, S., Kiguchi, M., Tawatari, R., Kanae, S., and Oki, T.: Towards the incorporation of tipping elements in global climate risk management: probability and potential impacts of passing a threshold, Sustain. Sci., 13, 315–328, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0536-7, 2018. a
Johansson, D. J. A.: Temperature stabilization, ocean heat uptake and radiative forcing overshoot profiles, Climatic Change, 108, 107–134, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9969-4, 2011. a
Johansson, D. J. A., Azar, C., Lehtveer, M., and Peters, G. P.: The role of negative carbon emissions in reaching the Paris climate targets: The impact of target formulation in integrated assessment models, Environ. Res. Lett., 15, 124024, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abc3f0, 2020. a
Joint Global Change Research Institute: GCAM Documentation, https://github.com/JGCRI/gcam-doc (last access: 31 December 2025), 2023. a
Joos, F. and Bruno, M.: Pulse response functions are cost-efficient tools to model the link between carbon emissions, atmospheric CO2 and global warming, Phys. Chem. Earth, 21, 471–476, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-1946(97)81144-5, 1996. a, b, c, d
Joos, F., Bruno, M., Fink, R., Siegenthaler, U., Stocker, T. F., Le Quéré, C., and Sarmiento, J. L.: An efficient and accurate representation of complex oceanic and biospheric models of anthropogenic carbon uptake, Tellus B, 48, 397–417, https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0889.1996.t01-2-00006.x, 1996. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q
Joos, F., Prentice, I. C., Sitch, S., Meyer, R., Hooss, G., Plattner, G.-K., Gerber, S., and Hasselmann, K.: Global warming feedbacks on terrestrial carbon uptake under the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Emission Scenarios, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 15, 891–907, https://doi.org/10.1029/2000GB001375, 2001. a, b
Joos, F., Roth, R., Fuglestvedt, J. S., Peters, G. P., Enting, I. G., von Bloh, W., Brovkin, V., Burke, E. J., Eby, M., Edwards, N. R., Friedrich, T., Frölicher, T. L., Halloran, P. R., Holden, P. B., Jones, C., Kleinen, T., Mackenzie, F. T., Matsumoto, K., Meinshausen, M., Plattner, G.-K., Reisinger, A., Segschneider, J., Shaffer, G., Steinacher, M., Strassmann, K., Tanaka, K., Timmermann, A., and Weaver, A. J.: Carbon dioxide and climate impulse response functions for the computation of greenhouse gas metrics: a multi-model analysis, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 2793–2825, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2793-2013, 2013. a, b, c, d
Knox, F. and McElroy, M. B.: Changes in atmospheric CO2: Influence of the marine biota at high latitude, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 89, 4629–4637, https://doi.org/10.1029/JD089iD03p04629, 1984. a
Krivova, N. A., Balmaceda, L., and Solanki, S. K.: Reconstruction of solar total irradiance since 1700 from the surface magnetic flux, Astron. Astrophys., 467, 335–346, https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20066725, 2007. a
Landis, F. and Bernauer, T.: Transfer payments in global climate policy, Nat. Clim. Change, 2, 628–633, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1548,2012. a
Latif, M., Bayr, T., Kjellsson, J., Lübbecke, J. F., Martin, T., Nnamchi, H. C., Park, W., Savita, A., Sun, J., and Dommenget, D.: Strengthening atmospheric circulation and trade winds slowed tropical Pacific surface warming, Commun. Earth Environ., 4, 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-00912-4, 2023. 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, b, c, d
Lenton, T. M.: Land and ocean carbon cycle feedback effects on global warming in a simple Earth system model, Tellus B, 52, 1159–1188, https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v52i5.17097, 2000. a
Le Quéré, C., Andrew, R. M., Friedlingstein, P., Sitch, S., Hauck, J., Pongratz, J., Pickers, P. A., Korsbakken, J. I., Peters, G. P., Canadell, J. G., Arneth, A., Arora, V. K., Barbero, L., Bastos, A., Bopp, L., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Ciais, P., Doney, S. C., Gkritzalis, T., Goll, D. S., Harris, I., Haverd, V., Hoffman, F. M., Hoppema, M., Houghton, R. A., Hurtt, G., Ilyina, T., Jain, A. K., Johannessen, T., Jones, C. D., Kato, E., Keeling, R. F., Goldewijk, K. K., Landschützer, P., Lefèvre, N., Lienert, S., Liu, Z., Lombardozzi, D., Metzl, N., Munro, D. R., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Nakaoka, S.-I., Neill, C., Olsen, A., Ono, T., Patra, P., Peregon, A., Peters, W., Peylin, P., Pfeil, B., Pierrot, D., Poulter, B., Rehder, G., Resplandy, L., Robertson, E., Rocher, M., Rödenbeck, C., Schuster, U., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Skjelvan, I., Steinhoff, T., Sutton, A., Tans, P. P., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., Tubiello, F. N., van der Laan-Luijkx, I. T., van der Werf, G. R., Viovy, N., Walker, A. P., Wiltshire, A. J., Wright, R., Zaehle, S., and Zheng, B.: Global Carbon Budget 2018, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 2141–2194, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-2141-2018, 2018. a
Li, B., Gasser, T., Ciais, P., Piao, S., Tao, S., Balkanski, Y., Hauglustaine, D., Boisier, J.-P., Chen, Z., Huang, M., Li, L. Z., Li, Y., Liu, H., Liu, J., Peng, S., Shen, Z., Sun, Z., Wang, R., Wang, T., Yin, G., Yin, Y., Zeng, H., Zeng, Z., and Zhou, F.: The contribution of China's emissions to global climate forcing, Nature, 531, 357–361, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17165, 2016. a, b
MacCracken, M. C. and Luther, F. M.: Projecting the climatic effects of increasing carbon dioxide, Tech. Rep. DOE/ER-0237, USDOE Office of Energy Research, Carbon Dioxide Research Div., Washington, D.C., LLNL – Lawrence Livermore National Lab., Livermore, CA, USA, https://doi.org/10.2172/5885458, 1985. a
Manabe, S. and Bryan, K.: Climate Calculations with a Combined Ocean-Atmosphere Model, J. Atmos. Sci., 26, 786–789, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1969)026<0786:CCWACO>2.0.CO;2, 1969. a
Mastropierro, M., Tanaka, K., Melnikova, I., and Ciais, P.: Testing GWP* to quantify non-CO2 contributions in the carbon budget framework in overshoot scenarios, npj Clim. Atmos. Sci., 8, 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-025-00980-7, 2025. a
Mathison, C., Burke, E. J., Munday, G., Jones, C. D., Smith, C. J., Steinert, N. J., Wiltshire, A. J., Huntingford, C., Kovacs, E., Gohar, L. K., Varney, R. M., and McNeall, D.: A rapid-application emissions-to-impacts tool for scenario assessment: Probabilistic Regional Impacts from Model patterns and Emissions (PRIME), Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1785–1808, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, 2025. a, b
McBride, L. A., Hope, A. P., Canty, T. P., Bennett, B. F., Tribett, W. R., and Salawitch, R. J.: Comparison of CMIP6 historical climate simulations and future projected warming to an empirical model of global climate, Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 545–579, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-545-2021, 2021. a, b, c, d
Meehl, G., Boer, G., Covey, C., Latif, M., and Ronald, S.: CMIP Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 81, 313–318, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(2000)081<0313:TCMIPC>2.3.CO;2, 2000. a
Meehl, G. A., Boer, G. J., Covey, C., Latif, M., and Stouffer, R. J.: Intercomparison makes for a better climate model, Eos Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 78, 445–451, https://doi.org/10.1029/97EO00276, 1997. a
Meehl, G. A., Covey, C., Delworth, T., Latif, M., McAvaney, B., Mitchell, J. F. B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: THE WCRP CMIP3 Multimodel Dataset: A New Era in Climate Change Research, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 88, 1383–1394, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-88-9-1383, 2007. a
Meinshausen, M., Meinshausen, N., Hare, W., Raper, S. C. B., Frieler, K., Knutti, R., Frame, D. J., and Allen, M. R.: Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C, Nature, 458, 1158–1162, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08017, 2009. a
Meinshausen, M., Raper, S. C. B., and Wigley, T. M. L.: Emulating coupled atmosphere-ocean and carbon cycle models with a simpler model, MAGICC6 – Part 1: Model description and calibration, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 1417–1456, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-1417-2011, 2011a. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j
Meinshausen, M., Smith, S. J., Calvin, K., Daniel, J. S., Kainuma, M. L. T., Lamarque, J.-F., Matsumoto, K., Montzka, S. A., Raper, S. C. B., Riahi, K., Thomson, A., Velders, G. J. M., and van Vuuren, D. P.: The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300, Climatic Change, 109, 213, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0156-z, 2011b. a, b
Meinshausen, M., Nicholls, Z. R. J., Lewis, J., Gidden, M. J., Vogel, E., Freund, M., Beyerle, U., Gessner, C., Nauels, A., Bauer, N., Canadell, J. G., Daniel, J. S., John, A., Krummel, P. B., Luderer, G., Meinshausen, N., Montzka, S. A., Rayner, P. J., Reimann, S., Smith, S. J., van den Berg, M., Velders, G. J. M., Vollmer, M. K., and Wang, R. H. J.: The shared socio-economic pathway (SSP) greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions to 2500, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3571–3605, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3571-2020, 2020. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j
Melnikova, I., Ciais, P., Boucher, O., and Tanaka, K.: Assessing carbon cycle projections from complex and simple models under SSP scenarios, Climatic Change, 176, 168, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-023-03639-5, 2023. a
Millar, R. J., Otto, A., Forster, P. M., Lowe, J. A., Ingram, W. J., and Allen, M. R.: Model structure in observational constraints on transient climate response, Climatic Change, 131, 199–211, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1384-4, 2015. a, b
Millar, R. J., Nicholls, Z. R., Friedlingstein, P., and Allen, M. R.: A modified impulse-response representation of the global near-surface air temperature and atmospheric concentration response to carbon dioxide emissions, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 7213–7228, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-7213-2017, 2017. a, b, c, d
Mitchell, T. D.: Pattern Scaling: An Examination of the Accuracy of the Technique for Describing Future Climates, Climatic Change, 60, 217–242, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026035305597, 2003. a, b
Myhre, G., Fuglestvedt, J. S., Berntsen, T. K., and Lund, M. T.: Mitigation of short-lived heating components may lead to unwanted long-term consequences, Atmos. Environ., 45, 6103–6106, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.08.009, 2011. a
Myhre, G., Shindell, D., Breon, F.-M., Collins, W., Fuglestvedt, J., Huang, J., Koch, D., Lamarque, J.-F., Lee, D., Mendoza, B., Nakajima, T., Robock, A., Stephens, G., Takemura, T., and Zhang, H.: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing: Supplementary Material, 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, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/07/WGI_AR5.Chap_.8_SM.pdf (last access: 31 December 2025), 2013. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k
Nauels, A., Meinshausen, M., Mengel, M., Lorbacher, K., and Wigley, T. M. L.: Synthesizing long-term sea level rise projections – the MAGICC sea level model v2.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 2495–2524, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2495-2017, 2017. a
Naugle, A., Langarudi, S., and Clancy, T.: What is (quantitative) system dynamics modeling? Defining characteristics and the opportunities they create, Syst. Dynam. Rev., 40, e1762, https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1762, 2024. a
Newman, P. A., Daniel, J. S., Waugh, D. W., and Nash, E. R.: A new formulation of equivalent effective stratospheric chlorine (EESC), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 4537–4552, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-4537-2007, 2007. a, b
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, b, c, d, e, f, g
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, b, c, d, e, f, g
Nordhaus, W.: Estimates of the Social Cost of Carbon: Concepts and Results from the DICE-2013R Model and Alternative Approaches, J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ., 1, 273–312, https://doi.org/10.1086/676035, 2014. a
North, G. R., Cahalan, R. F., and Coakley Jr., J. A.: Energy balance climate models, Rev. Geophys., 19, 91–121, https://doi.org/10.1029/RG019i001p00091, 1981. a
Palazzo Corner, S., Siegert, M., Ceppi, P., Fox-Kemper, B., Frölicher, T. L., Gallego-Sala, A., Haigh, J., Hegerl, G. C., Jones, C. D., Knutti, R., Koven, C. D., MacDougall, A. H., Meinshausen, M., Nicholls, Z., Sallée, J. B., Sanderson, B. M., Séférian, R., Turetsky, M., Williams, R. G., Zaehle, S., and Rogelj, J.: The Zero Emissions Commitment and climate stabilization, Front. Sci., 1, https://doi.org/10.3389/fsci.2023.1170744, 2023. a
Prather, M. J., Holmes, C. D., and Hsu, J.: Reactive greenhouse gas scenarios: Systematic exploration of uncertainties and the role of atmospheric chemistry, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051440, 2012. a
Pressburger, L., Dorheim, K., Keenan, T. F., McJeon, H., Smith, S. J., and Bond-Lamberty, B.: Quantifying airborne fraction trends and the destination of anthropogenic CO2 by tracking carbon flows in a simple climate model, Environ. Res. Lett., 18, 054005, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acca35, 2023. a
Purohit, P., Höglund-Isaksson, L., Borgford-Parnell, N., Klimont, Z., and Smith, C. J.: The key role of propane in a sustainable cooling sector, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 119, e2206131119, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2206131119, 2022. a
Randers, J. and Goluke, U.: An earth system model shows self-sustained thawing of permafrost even if all man-made GHG emissions stop in 2020, Sci. Rep., 10, 18456, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-75481-z, 2020. a
Randers, J., Rockström, J., Stoknes, P.-E., Goluke, U., Collste, D., Cornell, S. E., and Donges, J.: Achieving the 17 Sustainable Development Goals within 9 planetary boundaries, Global Sustain., 2, e24, https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2019.22, 2019. a
Raper, S. C. B. and Cubasch, U.: Emulation of the results from a coupled general circulation model using a simple climate model, Geophys. Res. Lett., 23, 1107–1110, https://doi.org/10.1029/96GL01065, 1996. a
Raper, S. C. B., Gregory, J. M., and Osborn, T. J.: Use of an upwelling-diffusion energy balance climate model to simulate and diagnose A/OGCM results, Clim. Dynam., 17, 601–613, https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00007931, 2001. a, b, c, d
Reichle, D. E.: The Global Carbon Cycle and Climate Change, in: The Global Carbon Cycle and Climate Change, 2 Edn., Elsevier, p. xxiii, ISBN 978-0-443-18775-9, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-18775-9.04001-8, 2023. a
Rohrschneider, T., Stevens, B., and Mauritsen, T.: On simple representations of the climate response to external radiative forcing, Clim. Dynam., 53, 3131–3145, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-04686-4, 2019. a
Romero-Prieto, A.: Archive of models reviewed in “Review of climate simulation by simple climate models” by Alejandro Romero-Prieto et al, 2025, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15600556, 2025. a, b, c, d
Romero-Prieto, A., Sandstad, M., Sanderson, B. M., Nicholls, Z. R. J., Steinert, N. J., Gasser, T., Mathison, C., Kikstra, J., Aubry, T. J., and Smith, C.: Reduced Complexity Model Intercomparison Project Phase 3: Experimental protocol for coordinated constraining and evaluation of Reduced-Complexity Models, EGUsphere [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5775, 2025. a, b
Sandstad, M., Aamaas, B., Johansen, A. N., Lund, M. T., Peters, G. P., Samset, B. H., Sanderson, B. M., and Skeie, R. B.: CICERO Simple Climate Model (CICERO-SCM v1.1.1) – an improved simple climate model with a parameter calibration tool, Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6589–6625, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6589-2024, 2024a. a, b, c, d
Sandstad, M., Sanderson, B., AneNJ, and Skeie, R. B.: ciceroOslo/ciceroscm: Paper submission with doi (v1.1.1), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10548720, 2024b. a
Sandstad, M., Steinert, N. J., Baur, S., and Sanderson, B. M.: METEORv1.0.1: a novel framework for emulating multi-timescale regional climate responses, Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 8269–8312, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-8269-2025, 2025. a
Santer, B., Wigley, T. L., Schlesinger, M., and Mitchell, J.: Developing climate scenarios from equilibrium GCM results, Tech. Rep. 47, Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie, Hamburg, https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Developing-climate-scenarios-from-equilibrium-GCM-Santer (last access: 31 December 2025), 1990. a
Sarmiento, J. L., Orr, J. C., and Siegenthaler, U.: A perturbation simulation of CO2 uptake in an ocean general circulation model, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 97, 3621–3645, https://doi.org/10.1029/91JC02849, 1992. a
Sarofim, M. C., Smith, J. B., St. Juliana, A., and Hartin, C.: Improving reduced complexity model assessment and usability, Nat. Clim. Change, 11, 1–3, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00973-9, 2021. a
Schlesinger, M. E., Jiang, X., and Charlson, R. J.: Implication of Anthropogenic Atmospheric Sulphate for the Sensitivity of the Climate System, in: Climate change and energy policy, American Institute of Physics, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA, ISBN 978-1-56396-017-8, https://link.springer.com/book/9781563960178 (last access: 1 January 2026), 1992. a, b, c
Schneider, S. H. and Dickinson, R. E.: Climate modeling, Rev. Geophys., 12, 447–493, https://doi.org/10.1029/RG012i003p00447, 1974. a, b
Schneider von Deimling, T., Meinshausen, M., Levermann, A., Huber, V., Frieler, K., Lawrence, D. M., and Brovkin, V.: Estimating the near-surface permafrost-carbon feedback on global warming, Biogeosciences, 9, 64–665, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-649-2012, 2012. a, b, c
Schwarber, A. K., Smith, S. J., Hartin, C. A., Vega-Westhoff, B. A., and Sriver, R.: Evaluating climate emulation: fundamental impulse testing of simple climate models, Earth Syst. Dynam., 10, 729–739, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-729-2019, 2019. a
Sellers, W. D.: A Global Climatic Model Based on the Energy Balance of the Earth-Atmosphere System, J. Appl. Meteorol. Clim., 8, 392–400, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1969)008<0392:AGCMBO>2.0.CO;2, 1969. a
Siegenthaler, U. and Joos, F.: Use of a simple model for studying oceanic tracer distributions and the global carbon cycle, Tellus B, 44, 186–207, https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v44i3.15441, 1992. a
Skeie, R. B., Fuglestvedt, J., Berntsen, T., Lund, M. T., Myhre, G., and Rypdal, K.: Global temperature change from the transport sectors: Historical development and future scenarios, Atmos. Environ., 43, 6260–6270, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.05.025, 2009. a
Skeie, R. B., Fuglestvedt, J., Berntsen, T., Peters, G. P., Andrew, R., Allen, M., and Kallbekken, S.: Perspective has a strong effect on the calculation of historical contributions to global warming, Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 024022, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa5b0a, 2017. a
Skeie, R. B., Myhre, G., Hodnebrog, O., Cameron-Smith, P. J., Deushi, M., Hegglin, M. I., Horowitz, L. W., Kramer, R. J., Michou, M., Mills, M. J., Olivié, D. J. L., Connor, F. M. O., Paynter, D., Samset, B. H., Sellar, A., Shindell, D., Takemura, T., Tilmes, S., and Wu, T.: Historical total ozone radiative forcing derived from CMIP6 simulations, npj Clim. Atmos. Sci., 3, 1–10, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-020-00131-0, 2020. a
Smith, C.: FaIR calibration data, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10566813, 2024. a
Smith, C., Nicholls, Z. R. J., Armour, K., Collins, W., Forster, P., Meinshausen, M., Palmer, M., and Watanabe, M.: The Earth's Energy Budget, Climate Feedbacks, and Climate Sensitivity Supplementary Material, in: Climate Change 2021 – The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 1st Edn., Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1-00-915789-6, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896, 2021a. a, b, c, d
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, b, c, d
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, c, d
Smith, C. J., Kramer, R. J., Myhre, G., Alterskjær, K., Collins, W., Sima, A., Boucher, O., Dufresne, J.-L., Nabat, P., Michou, M., Yukimoto, S., Cole, J., Paynter, D., Shiogama, H., O'Connor, F. M., Robertson, E., Wiltshire, A., Andrews, T., Hannay, C., Miller, R., Nazarenko, L., Kirkevåg, A., Olivié, D., Fiedler, S., Lewinschal, A., Mackallah, C., Dix, M., Pincus, R., and Forster, P. M.: Effective radiative forcing and adjustments in CMIP6 models, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 9591–9618, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-9591-2020, 2020. a
Smith, C. J., Harris, G. R., Palmer, M. D., Bellouin, N., Collins, W., Myhre, G., Schulz, M., Golaz, J.-C., Ringer, M., Storelvmo, T., and Forster, P. M.: Energy Budget Constraints on the Time History of Aerosol Forcing and Climate Sensitivity, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 126, e2020JD033622, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033622, 2021b. a
Stassen, C., Dommenget, D., and Loveday, N.: A hydrological cycle model for the Globally Resolved Energy Balance (GREB) model v1.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 425–440, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-425-2019, 2019. a, b
Stehfest, E., Vuuren, D., Kram, T., Bouwman, A., Alkemade, R., Bakkenes, M., Biemans, H., Bouwman, A., Elzen, M., Janse, J., Lucas, P., van Minnen, J., Müller, M., and Prins, A.: Integrated Assessment of Global Environmental Change with IMAGE 3.0. Model description and policy applications, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, ISBN 978-94-91506-71-0, https://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/integrated-assessment-of-global-environmental-change-with (last access: 1 January 2026), 2014. a, b
Steinert, N. J. and Sanderson, B. M.: Normalizing the permafrost carbon feedback contribution to the Transient Climate Response to Cumulative Carbon Emissions and the Zero Emissions Commitment, Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 1711–1721, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1711-2025, 2025. a
Sterman, J.: System dynamics at sixty: the path forward, Syst. Dynam. Rev., 34, 5–47, https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1601, 2018. a
Strassmann, K. M. and Joos, F.: The Bern Simple Climate Model (BernSCM) v1.0: an extensible and fully documented open-source re-implementation of the Bern reduced-form model for global carbon cycle–climate simulations, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1887–1908, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1887-2018, 2018. a
Su, X.: Develop a reduced-complexity model – SCM4OPT v3.0 for integrated assessment-optimization, EGU General Assembly 2021, online, 19–30 April 2021, EGU21-14657, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu21-14657, 2021. a
Su, X.: A cost-benefit Integrated Assessment Model (CB-IAM) v1.0, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11928479, 2024. a
Su, X., Shiogama, H., Tanaka, K., Fujimori, S., Hasegawa, T., Hijioka, Y., Takahashi, K., and Liu, J.: How do climate-related uncertainties influence 2 and 1.5 °C pathways?, Sustain. Sci., 13, 291–299, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0525-2, 2018. a
Su, X., Tachiiri, K., Tanaka, K., Watanabe, M., and Kawamiya, M.: Identifying crucial emission sources under low forcing scenarios by a comprehensive attribution analysis, One Earth, 5, 1354–1366, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.10.009, 2022. a, b, c, d
Su, X., Shiogama, H., Tanaka, K., Tachiiri, K., Hajima, T., Watanabe, M., Kawamiya, M., Takahashi, K., and Yokohata, T.: Reductions in atmospheric levels of non-CO2 greenhouse gases explain about a quarter of the 1998–2012 warming slowdown, Commun. Earth Environ., 5, 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01723-x, 2024. a, b, c, d
Tanaka, K. and O'Neill, B. C.: The Paris Agreement zero-emissions goal is not always consistent with the 1.5 °C and 2 °C temperature targets, Nat. Clim. Change, 8, 319–324, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0097-x, 2018. a, b
Tanaka, K. and Raddatz, T.: Correlation between climate sensitivity and aerosol forcing and its implication for the “climate trap”, Climatic Change, 109, 815–825, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0323-2, 2011. a
Tanaka, K., Kriegler, E., Bruckner, T., Hooss, G., Knorr, W., and Raddatz, T.: Aggregated Carbon cycle, atmospheric chemistry and climate model (ACC2): description of forward and inverse mode, Tech. rep., Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie, Hamburg, https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0011-FB8C-3 (last access: 1 January 2026), 2007. a, b, c, d, e
Tanaka, K., O’Neill, B. C., Rokityanskiy, D., Obersteiner, M., and Tol, R. S. J.: Evaluating Global Warming Potentials with historical temperature, Climatic Change, 96, 443–466, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9566-6, 2009a. a, b
Tanaka, K., Raddatz, T., O'Neill, B. C., and Reick, C. H.: Insufficient forcing uncertainty underestimates the risk of high climate sensitivity, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL039642, 2009b. a
Tanaka, K., Johansson, D. J. A., O'Neill, B. C., and Fuglestvedt, J. S.: Emission metrics under the 2 °C climate stabilization target, Climatic Change, 117, 933–941, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0693-8, 2013. a, b
Tanaka, K., Boucher, O., Ciais, P., Johansson, D. J. A., and Morfeldt, J.: Cost-effective implementation of the Paris Agreement using flexible greenhouse gas metrics, Sci. Adv., 7, eabf9020, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abf9020, 2021. 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 Knutti, R.: The use of the multi-model ensemble in probabilistic climate projections, Philos. T. Roy. Soc. A, 365, 2053–2075, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2007.2076, 2007. 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
Tebaldi, C., Selin, N. E., Ferrari, R., and Flierl, G.: Emulators of Climate Model Output, Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 50, 709–737, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012125-085838, 2025. a
Thornhill, G. D., Collins, W. J., Kramer, R. J., Olivié, D., Skeie, R. B., O'Connor, F. M., Abraham, N. L., Checa-Garcia, R., Bauer, S. E., Deushi, M., Emmons, L. K., Forster, P. M., Horowitz, L. W., Johnson, B., Keeble, J., Lamarque, J.-F., Michou, M., Mills, M. J., Mulcahy, J. P., Myhre, G., Nabat, P., Naik, V., Oshima, N., Schulz, M., Smith, C. J., Takemura, T., Tilmes, S., Wu, T., Zeng, G., and Zhang, J.: Effective radiative forcing from emissions of reactive gases and aerosols – a multi-model comparison, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 853–874, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-853-2021, 2021. a
Torvanger, A., Grimstad, A.-A., Lindeberg, E., Rive, N., Rypdal, K., Skeie, R. B., Fuglestvedt, J., and Tollefsen, P.: Quality of geological CO2 storage to avoid jeopardizing climate targets, Climatic Change, 114, 245–260, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0447-z, 2012. a
Trenberth, K. E., Fasullo, J. T., and Balmaseda, M. A.: Earth’s Energy Imbalance, J. Climate, 27, 3129–3144, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00294.1, 2014. a
Tronstad Lund, M., Eyring, V., Fuglestvedt, J., Hendricks, J., Lauer, A., Lee, D., and Righi, M.: Global-Mean Temperature Change from Shipping toward 2050: Improved Representation of the Indirect Aerosol Effect in Simple Climate Models, Environ.Sci. Technol., 46, 8868–8877, https://doi.org/10.1021/es301166e, 2012. a
Tsutsui, J.: Minimal CMIP Emulator (MCE v1.2): a new simplified method for probabilistic climate projections, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 951–970, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-951-2022, 2022. a, b, c, d
tsutsui1872: tsutsui1872/mce: Minimal CMIP Emulator (MCE v1.2.1), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5574895, 2021. a
Tyndall, J.: On the absorption and radiation of heat by gases and vapours, and on the physical connexion of radiation, absorption, and conduction, Philos. T. Roy. Soc. Lond., 151, 1–36, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstl.1861.0001, 1861. a
Vega-Westhoff, B., Sriver, R. L., Hartin, C. A., Wong, T. E., and Keller, K.: Impacts of Observational Constraints Related to Sea Level on Estimates of Climate Sensitivity, Earth's Future, 7, 677–690, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EF001082, 2019. a, b, c
von Schuckmann, K., Minière, A., Gues, F., Cuesta-Valero, F. J., Kirchengast, G., Adusumilli, S., Straneo, F., Ablain, M., Allan, R. P., Barker, P. M., Beltrami, H., Blazquez, A., Boyer, T., Cheng, L., Church, J., Desbruyeres, D., Dolman, H., Domingues, C. M., García-García, A., Giglio, D., Gilson, J. E., Gorfer, M., Haimberger, L., Hakuba, M. Z., Hendricks, S., Hosoda, S., Johnson, G. C., Killick, R., King, B., Kolodziejczyk, N., Korosov, A., Krinner, G., Kuusela, M., Landerer, F. W., Langer, M., Lavergne, T., Lawrence, I., Li, Y., Lyman, J., Marti, F., Marzeion, B., Mayer, M., MacDougall, A. H., McDougall, T., Monselesan, D. P., Nitzbon, J., Otosaka, I., Peng, J., Purkey, S., Roemmich, D., Sato, K., Sato, K., Savita, A., Schweiger, A., Shepherd, A., Seneviratne, S. I., Simons, L., Slater, D. A., Slater, T., Steiner, A. K., Suga, T., Szekely, T., Thiery, W., Timmermans, M.-L., Vanderkelen, I., Wjiffels, S. E., Wu, T., and Zemp, M.: Heat stored in the Earth system 1960–2020: where does the energy go?, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 1675–1709, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-1675-2023, 2023. a
WASP Earth System Model: WASP-ESM/WASP_Earth_System_Model: WASP_Earth_System_Model_v3.0_March2021, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4639491, 2021. a
Watson-Parris, D., Williams, A., Deaconu, L., and Stier, P.: Model calibration using ESEm v1.1.0 – an open, scalable Earth system emulator, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 7659–7672, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7659-2021, 2021. 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
Watt-Meyer, O., Dresdner, G., McGibbon, J., Clark, S. K., Henn, B., Duncan, J., Brenowitz, N. D., Kashinath, K., Pritchard, M. S., Bonev, B., Peters, M. E., and Bretherton, C. S.: ACE: A fast, skillful learned global atmospheric model for climate prediction, arXiv [preprint], arXiv:2310.02074 [physics], https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.02074, 2023. a
Wigley, T. M. L.: A simple inverse carbon cycle model, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 5, 373–382, https://doi.org/10.1029/91GB02279, 1991. a
Wigley, T. M. L.: Balancing the carbon budget. Implications for projections of future carbon dioxide concentration changes, Tellus B, 45, 409–425, https://doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v45i5.15739, 1993. a, b, c
Wigley, T. M. L. and Raper, S. C. B.: Implications for climate and sea level of revised IPCC emissions scenarios, Nature, 357, 293–300, https://doi.org/10.1038/357293a0, 1992. a, b, c
Wigley, T. M. L. and Raper, S. C. B.: Extended scenarios for glacier melt due to anthropogenic forcing, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL021238, 2005. a
Wigley, T. M. L. and Schlesinger, M. E.: Analytical solution for the effect of increasing CO2 on global mean temperature, Nature, 315, 649–652, https://doi.org/10.1038/315649a0, 1985. a
Wigley, T. M. L., Clarke, L. E., Edmonds, J. A., Jacoby, H. D., Paltsev, S., Pitcher, H., Reilly, J. M., Richels, R., Sarofim, M. C., and Smith, S. J.: Uncertainties in climate stabilization, Climatic Change, 97, 85–121, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9585-3, 2009. a
Williams, K. D., Ingram, W. J., and Gregory, J. M.: Time Variation of Effective Climate Sensitivity in GCMs, J. Climate, 21, 5076–5090, https://doi.org/10.1175/2008JCLI2371.1, 2008. a
Williams, R. G., Roussenov, V., Frölicher, T. L., and Goodwin, P.: Drivers of Continued Surface Warming After Cessation of Carbon Emissions, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 10633–10642, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075080, 2017. a, b
Winton, M., Takahashi, K., and Held, I. M.: Importance of Ocean Heat Uptake Efficacy to Transient Climate Change, J. Climate, 23, 2333–2344, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI3139.1, 2010. a, b
WMO: Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 2018, Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project-Report No. 58, Tech. rep., World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, https://csl.noaa.gov/assessments/ozone/2018/ (last access: 1 January 2026), 2018. a
Wong, T. E., Bakker, A. M. R., Ruckert, K., Applegate, P., Slangen, A. B. A., and Keller, K.: BRICK v0.2, a simple, accessible, and transparent model framework for climate and regional sea-level projections, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 2741–2760, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2741-2017, 2017. a
Woodard, D. L., Shiklomanov, A. N., Kravitz, B., Hartin, C., and Bond-Lamberty, B.: A permafrost implementation in the simple carbon–climate model Hector v.2.3pf, Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 4751–4767, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4751-2021, 2021. a
Xie, Z. and Dommenget, D.: Analysis of the simulated feedbacks on large-scale ice sheets from ice-sheet climate interactions, EGUsphere [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-370, 2023. a
Xie, Z., Dommenget, D., McCormack, F. S., and Mackintosh, A. N.: GREB-ISM v1.0: A coupled ice sheet model for the Globally Resolved Energy Balance model for global simulations on timescales of 100 kyr, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 3691–3719, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3691-2022, 2022. a, b, c, d
Xiong, W., Tanaka, K., Ciais, P., Johansson, D. J. A., and Lehtveer, M.: emIAM v1.0: an emulator for integrated assessment models using marginal abatement cost curves, Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1575–1612, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1575-2025, 2025. a
Xu, S., Wang, R., Gasser, T., Ciais, P., Peñuelas, J., Balkanski, Y., Boucher, O., Janssens, I. A., Sardans, J., Clark, J. H., Cao, J., Xing, X., Chen, J., Wang, L., Tang, X., and Zhang, R.: Delayed use of bioenergy crops might threaten climate and food security, Nature, 609, 299–306, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05055-8, 2022. a
Yokohata, T., Saito, K., Ito, A., Ohno, H., Tanaka, K., Hajima, T., and Iwahana, G.: Future projection of greenhouse gas emissions due to permafrost degradation using a simple numerical scheme with a global land surface model, Progr. Earth Planet. Sci., 7, 56, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40645-020-00366-8, 2020. a
Yu, H., Chin, M., West, J. J., Atherton, C. S., Bellouin, N., Bergmann, D., Bey, I., Bian, H., Diehl, T., Forberth, G., Hess, P., Schulz, M., Shindell, D., Takemura, T., and Tan, Q.: A multimodel assessment of the influence of regional anthropogenic emission reductions on aerosol direct radiative forcing and the role of intercontinental transport, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 700–720, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD018148, 2013. a
Executive editor
Simple climate models are the key base component of the climate modelling hierarchy. This is a comprehensive review of the models participating in the Reduced Complexity Model Intercomparison Project (RCMIP) for the AR7 cycle.
Simple climate models are the key base component of the climate modelling hierarchy. This is a...
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.
Simple Climate Models (SCMs) are widely used tools to explore how Earth's climate may change in...
