Search

In every Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment cycle, a multitude of scenarios are assessed, with different scope and emphasis throughout the various Working Group reports and special reports, as well as their respective chapters. Within the reports, the ambition is to integrate knowledge on possible climate futures across the Working Groups and scientific research domains based on a small set of "framing pathways" such as the so-called representative concentration pathways (RCPs) in the Fifth IPCC Assessment Report (AR5) and the shared socioeconomic pathway (SSP) scenarios in the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). This perspective, initiated by discussions at the IPCC Bangkok workshop in April 2023 on the "Use of Scenarios in AR6 and Subsequent Assessments", is intended to serve as one of the community contributions to highlight the needs for the next generation of framing pathways that is being advanced under the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) umbrella, which will influence or even predicate the IPCC AR7 consideration of framing pathways. Here we suggest several policy research objectives that such a set of framing pathways should ideally fulfil, including mitigation needs for meeting the Paris Agreement objectives, the risks associated with carbon removal strategies, the consequences of delay in enacting that mitigation, guidance for adaptation needs, loss and damage, and for achieving mitigation in the wider context of societal development goals. Based on this context, we suggest that the next generation of climate scenarios for Earth system models should evolve towards representative emission pathways (REPs) and suggest key categories for such pathways. These framing pathways should address the most critical mitigation policy and adaptation plans that need to be implemented over the next 10 years. In our view, the most important categories are those relevant in the context of the Paris Agreement long-term goal, specifically an immediate action (low overshoot) 1.5 °C pathway and a delayed action (high overshoot) 1.5 °C pathway. Two other key categories are a pathway category approximately in line with current (as expressed by 2023) near- and long-term policy objectives, as well as a higher-emission category that is approximately in line with "current policies" (as expressed by 2023). We also argue for the scientific and policy relevance in exploring two "worlds that could have been". One of these categories has high-emission trajectories well above what is implied by current policies and the other has very-low-emission trajectories which assume that global mitigation action in line with limiting warming to 1.5 °C without overshoot had begun in 2015. Finally, we note that the timely provision of new scientific information on pathways is critical to inform the development and implementation of climate policy. Under the Paris Agreement, for the second global stocktake, which will occur in 2028, and to inform subsequent development of nationally determined contributions (NDCs) up to 2040, scientific inputs are required by 2027. These needs should be carefully considered in the development timeline of community modelling activities, including those under CMIP7. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite being a well-established research field, the detection and attribution of observed climate change to anthropogenic forcing is not yet provided as a climate service. One reason for this is the lack of a methodology for performing tailored detection and attribution assessments on a rapid time scale. Here we develop such an approach, based on the translation of quantitative analysis into the “confidence” language employed in recent Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. While its systematic nature necessarily ignores some nuances examined in detailed expert assessments, the approach nevertheless goes beyond most detection and attribution studies in considering contributors to building confidence such as errors in observational data products arising from sparse monitoring networks. When compared against recent expert assessments, the results of this approach closely match those of the existing assessments. Where there are small discrepancies, these variously reflect ambiguities in the details of what is being assessed, reveal nuances or limitations of the expert assessments, or indicate limitations of the accuracy of the sort of systematic approach employed here. Deployment of the method on 116 regional assessments of recent temperature and precipitation changes indicates that existing rules of thumb concerning the detectability of climate change ignore the full range of sources of uncertainty, most particularly the importance of adequate observational monitoring.

Impacts of recent regional changes in climate on natural and human systems are documented across the globe, yet studies explicitly linking these observations to anthropogenic forcing of the climate are scarce. Here we provide a systematic assessment of the role of anthropogenic climate change for the range of impacts of regional climate trends reported in the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report. We find that almost two-thirds of the impacts related to atmospheric and ocean temperature can be confidently attributed to anthropogenic forcing. In contrast, evidence connecting changes in precipitation and their respective impacts to human influence is still weak. Moreover, anthropogenic climate change has been a major influence for approximately three-quarters of the impacts observed on continental scales. Hence the effects of anthropogenic emissions can now be discerned not only globally, but also at more regional and local scales for a variety of natural and human systems.

Assessing past impacts of observed climate change on natural, human and managed systems requires detailed knowledge about the effects of both climatic and other drivers of change, and their respective interaction. Resulting requirements with regard to system understanding and long-term observational data can be prohibitive for quantitative detection and attribution methods, especially in the case of human systems and in regions with poor monitoring records. To enable a structured examination of past impacts in such cases, we follow the logic of quantitative attribution assessments, however, allowing for qualitative methods and different types of evidence. We demonstrate how multiple lines of evidence can be integrated in support of attribution exercises for human and managed systems. Results show that careful analysis can allow for attribution statements without explicit end-to-end modeling of the whole climate-impact system. However, care must be taken not to overstate or generalize the results and to avoid bias when the analysis is motivated by and limited to observations considered consistent with climate change impacts.

There is growing interest in assessing the role of climate change in observed extreme weather events. Recent work in this area has focused on estimating a measure called attributable risk. A statistical formulation of this problem is described and used to construct a confidence interval for attributable risk. The resulting confidence is shown to be surprisinglywide even in the case where the event of interest is unprecedented in the historical record.

Anthropogenic climate change has triggered impacts on natural and human systems world-wide, yet the formal scientific method of detection and attribution has been only insufficiently described. Detection and attribution of impacts of climate change is a fundamentally cross-disciplinary issue, involving concepts, terms, and standards spanning the varied requirements of the various disciplines. Key problems for current assessments include the limited availability of long-term observations, the limited knowledge on processes and mechanisms involved in changing environmental systems, and the widely different concepts applied in the scientific literature. In order to facilitate current and future assessments, this paper describes the current conceptual framework of the field and outlines a number of conceptual challenges. Based on this, it proposes workable cross-disciplinary definitions, concepts, and standards. The paper is specifically intended to serve as a baseline for continued development of a consistent cross-disciplinary framework that will facilitate integrated assessment of the detection and attribution of climate change impacts. © 2013 The Author(s).

In every IPCC Assessment cycle, a multitude of scenarios are assessed, with different scope and emphasis throughout the various Working Group and Special Reports and their respective chapters. Within the reports, the ambition is to integrate knowledge on possible climate futures across the Working Groups and scientific research domains based on a small set of 'framing pathways', such as the so-called RCP pathways from the Fifth IPCC Assessment report (AR5) and the SSP-RCP scenarios in the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). This perspective, initiated by discussions at the IPCC Bangkok workshop in April 2023 on the "Use of Scenarios in AR6 and Subsequent Assessments", is intended to serve as one of the community contributions to highlight needs for the next generation of framing pathways that is being advanced under the CMIP umbrella for use in the IPCC AR7. Here we suggest a number of policy research objectives that such a set of framing pathways should ideally fulfil, including mitigation needs for meeting the Paris Agreement objectives, the risks associated with carbon removal strategies, the consequences of delay in enacting that mitigation, guidance for adaptation needs, loss and damage, and for achieving mitigation in the wider context of Societal Development goals. Based on this context we suggest that the next generation of climate scenarios for Earth System Models should evolve towards 'Representative Emission Pathways' (REPs) and suggest key categories for such pathways. These 'framing pathways' should address the most critical mitigation policy and adaptation needs over the next 5-10 years. In our view the most important categories are those relevant in the context of the Paris Agreement long-term goal, specifically an immediate action (low overshoot) 1.5°C pathway, and a delayed action (high overshoot) 1.5°C pathway. Two other key categories are a pathway category approximately in line with current (as expressed by 2023) near- and long-term policy objectives, and a higher emissions category that is approximately in line with "current policies" (as expressed by 2023). We also argue for the scientific and policy relevance in exploring two 'worlds that could have been'. One of these categories has high emission trajectories well above what is implied by current policies, and the other has very low emission trajectories that assume that global mitigation action in line with limiting warming to 1.5°C without overshoot had begun in 2015. Finally, we note that timely provision of new scientific information on pathways is critical to inform the development and implementation of climate policy. For the second Global Stocktake under the Paris Agreement in 2028, and to inform subsequent development of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) up to 2040, scientific inputs are required well before 2028. These needs should be carefully considered in the development timeline of community modelling activities including those under CMIP7. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]