Search

The remaining carbon budget represents the total amount of CO2 that can still be emitted in the future while limiting global warming to a given temperature target. Remaining carbon budget estimates range widely, however, and this uncertainty can be used to either trivialize the most ambitious mitigation targets by characterizing them as impossible, or to argue that there is ample time to allow for a gradual transition to a low-carbon economy. Neither of these extremes is consistent with our best understanding of the policy implications of remaining carbon budgets. Understanding the scientific and socio-economic uncertainties affecting the size of the remaining carbon budgets, as well as the methodological choices and assumptions that underlie their calculation, is essential before applying them as a policy tool. Here we provide recommendations on how to calculate remaining carbon budgets in a traceable and transparent way, and discuss their uncertainties and implications for both international and national climate policies.

We present a weighting strategy for use with the CMIP5 multi-model archive in the fourth National Climate Assessment, which considers both skill in the climatological performance of models over North America as well as the inter-dependency of models arising from common parameterizations or tuning practices. The method exploits information relating to the climatological mean state of a number of projection-relevant variables as well as metrics representing long-term statistics of weather extremes. The weights, once computed can be used to simply compute weighted means and significance information from an ensemble containing multiple initial condition members from potentially co-dependent models of varying skill. Two parameters in the algorithm determine the degree to which model climatological skill and model uniqueness are rewarded; these parameters are explored and final values are defended for the assessment. The influence of model weighting on projected temperature and precipitation changes is found to be moderate, partly due to a compensating effect between model skill and uniqueness. However, more aggressive skill weighting and weighting by targeted metrics is found to have a more significant effect on inferred ensemble confidence in future patterns of change for a given projection.

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

Abstract. We present a weighting strategy for use with the CMIP5 multi-model archive in the 4th National Climate Assessment which considers both skill in the climatological performance of models over North America as well as the inter-dependency of models arising from common parameterizations or tuning practices. The method exploits information relating to the climatological mean state of a number of projection-relevant variables as well as metrics representing long term statistics of weather extremes. The weights, once computed can be used to simply compute weighted means and significance information from an ensemble containing multiple initial condition members from co-dependent models of varying skill. Two parameters in the algorithm determine the degree to which model climatological skill and model uniqueness are rewarded; these parameters are explored and final values are defended with respect to the Assessment. The influence of model weighting on projected temperature and precipitation changes is found to be moderate, partly due to a compensating effect between model skill and uniqueness. However, more aggressive skill weighting and weighting by targeted metrics is found to have a more significant effect on inferred ensemble confidence in future patterns of change for a given projection.

Detection and attribution (D and A) simulations were important components of CMIP5 and underpinned the climate change detection and attribution assessments of the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The primary goals of the Detection and Attribution Model Intercomparison Project (DAMIP) are to facilitate improved estimation of the contributions of anthropogenic and natural forcing changes to observed global warming as well as to observed global and regional changes in other climate variables; to contribute to the estimation of how historical emissions have altered and are altering contemporary climate risk; and to facilitate improved observationally constrained projections of future climate change. D and A studies typically require unforced control simulations and historical simulations including all major anthropogenic and natural forcings. Such simulations will be carried out as part of the DECK and the CMIP6 historical simulation. In addition D and A studies require simulations covering the historical period driven by individual forcings or subsets of forcings only: such simulations are proposed here. Key novel features of the experimental design presented here include firstly new historical simulations with aerosols-only, stratospheric-ozone-only, CO2-only, solar-only, and volcanic-only forcing, facilitating an improved estimation of the climate response to individual forcing, secondly future single forcing experiments, allowing observationally constrained projections of future climate change, and thirdly an experimental design which allows models with and without coupled atmospheric chemistry to be compared on an equal footing.

Recent studies have examined the anthropogenic contribution to specific extreme weather events, such as the European (2003) and Russian (2010) heat waves. While these targeted studies examine the attributable risk of an event occurring over a specified temporal and spatial domain, it is unclear how effectively their attribution statements can serve as a proxy for similar events occurring at different temporal and spatial scales. Here we test the sensitivity of attribution results to the temporal and spatial scales of extreme precipitation and temperature events by applying a probabilistic event attribution framework to the output of two global climate models, each run with and without anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Attributable risk tends to be more sensitive to the temporal than spatial scale of the event, increasing as event duration increases. Globally, correlations between attribution statements at different spatial scales are very strong for temperature extremes and moderate for heavy precipitation extremes. © 2014. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.