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]

The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) has proposed multiple model experiments during phases 5 and 6 of the Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), with the latest set of model experiments proposed in 2015. With phase 7 of CMIP in preparation and with multiple efforts ongoing to better explore the potential space of outcomes for different solar radiation modifications (SRMs) both in terms of deployment strategies and scenarios and in terms of potential impacts, the GeoMIP community has identified the need to propose and conduct a new experiment that could serve as a bridge between past iterations and future CMIP7 experiments. Here we report the details of such a proposed experiment, named G6-1.5K-SAI, to be conducted with the current generation of scenarios and models from CMIP6 and clarify the reasoning behind many of the new choices introduced. Namely, compared to the CMIP6 GeoMIP scenario G6sulfur, we decided on (1) an intermediate emission scenario as a baseline (the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2-4.5), (2) a start date set in the future that includes both considerations for the likelihood of exceeding 1.5 °C above preindustrial levels and some considerations for a likely start date for an SRM implementation, and (3) a deployment strategy for stratospheric aerosol injection that does not inject in the tropical pipe in order to obtain a more latitudinally uniform aerosol distribution. We also offer more details regarding the preferred experiment length and number of ensemble members and include potential options for second-tier experiments that some modeling groups might want to run. The specifics of the proposed experiment will further allow for a more direct comparison between results obtained from CMIP6 models and those obtained from future scenarios for CMIP7. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) has proposed multiple model experiments during the phases 5 and 6 of the Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), with the latest set of model experiment proposed in 2015. With phase 7 of CMIP in preparation, and with multiple efforts ongoing to better explore the potential space of outcomes for different Solar Radiation Modification (SRM) both in terms of deployment strategies and scenarios and in terms of potential impacts, the GeoMIP community has identified the need to propose and conduct a new experiment that could serve as a bridge between past iterations and future CMIP7 experiments. Here we report the details of such a proposed experiment, named G6-1.5K-SAI, to be conducted with the current generation of scenarios and models from CMIP6, and clarify the reasoning behind many of the new choices introduced. Namely, compared to the CMIP6 GeoMIP scenario G6sulfur, here we decided on: 1) an intermediate emission scenario as baseline (the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2-4.5); 2) a start date set in the future that includes both considerations around the likelihood of exceeding 1.5 ºC above preindustrial and some considerations around a likely start date for an SRM implementation; 3) a deployment strategy for Stratospheric Aerosol Injection that does not inject in the tropical pipe in order to obtain a more latitudinally uniform aerosol distribution. We also offer more details over the preferred experiment length and number of ensemble members, and include potential options for second-tier experiments some modeling groups might want to run. The specifics of the proposed experiment will further allow for a more direct comparison between results obtained with CMIP6 models and those obtained with future scenarios for CMIP7. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) is a coordinating framework, started in 2010, that includes a series of standardized climate model experiments aimed at understanding the physical processes and projected impacts of solar geoengineering. Numerous experiments have been conducted, and numerous more have been proposed as "test-bed" experiments, spanning a variety of geoengineering techniques aimed at modifying the planetary radiation budget: stratospheric aerosol injection, marine cloud brightening, surface albedo modification, cirrus cloud thinning, and sunshade mirrors. To date, more than 100 studies have been published that used results from GeoMIP simulations. Here we provide a critical assessment of GeoMIP and its experiments. We discuss its successes and missed opportunities, for instance in terms of which experiments elicited more interest from the scientific community and which did not, and the potential reasons why that happened. We also discuss the knowledge that GeoMIP has contributed to the field of geoengineering research and climate science as a whole: what have we learned in terms of intermodel differences, robustness of the projected outcomes for specific geoengineering methods, and future areas of model development that would be necessary in the future? We also offer multiple examples of cases where GeoMIP experiments were fundamental for international assessments of climate change. Finally, we provide a series of recommendations, regarding both future experiments and more general activities, with the goal of continuously deepening our understanding of the effects of potential geoengineering approaches and reducing uncertainties in climate outcomes, important for assessing wider impacts on societies and ecosystems. In doing so, we refine the purpose of GeoMIP and outline a series of criteria whereby GeoMIP can best serve its participants, stakeholders, and the broader science community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) is a coordinating framework, started in 2010, that includes a series of standardized climate model experiments aimed at understanding the physical processes and projected impacts of solar geoengineering. Numerous experiments have been conducted, and numerous more have been proposed as "testbed' experiments, spanning a variety of geoengineering techniques aimed at modifying the planetary radiation budget: stratospheric aerosol injection, marine cloud brightening, surface albedo modification, cirrus cloud thinning and sunshade mirrors. To date, more than one hundred studies have been published that used results from GeoMIP simulations. Here we provide a critical assessment of GeoMIP and its experiments. We discuss its successes and missed opportunities, for instance in terms of which experiments elicited more interest from the scientific community and which didn't, and the potential reasons why that happened. We also discuss the knowledge that GeoMIP has contributed to the field of geoengineering research and climate science as a whole: what have we learned in terms of inter-model differences, robustness of the projected outcomes for specific geoengineering methods and future areas of models' development that would be necessary in the future. We also offer multiple examples of cases where GeoMIP experiments were fundamental for international assessments of climate change. Finally, we provide a series of recommendations, regarding both future experiments and more general activities, with the goal of continuously deepening our understanding of the effects of potential geoengineering approaches, as well as reducing uncertainties in climate outcomes, important for assessing wider impacts on societies and ecosystems. In doing so, we refine the purpose of GeoMIP and outline a series of criteria whereby GeoMIP can best serve its participants, stakeholders, and the broader science community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Paris Agreement of COP21 set a goal of holding global average temperature increases to below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C. This is particularly relevant for the African context where temperatures are likely to warm faster than the global average and where the magnitude of change will be regionally heterogeneous. Most studies that provide information over Africa under specific global warming levels have used data from global models, however global models poorly resolve local scale forcing (e.g. topography) nor the internal climate variability of a region. Although downscaling using regional climate models can address these issues, we found only one paper that had used downscaled data for GWL studies over Africa. During 2018 the CORDEX-Africa campaign investigated the impact of 1.5 and 2 degrees of global warming over many regions of sub-Saharan Africa and compiled the results for a special issue of nine papers in ERL. This paper reports on some of the key regional findings of the analysis of 25 CORDEX downscalings, including the impact of the extra 0.5 degrees of warming between 1.5 and 2 degrees on particular extremes and the differences noted between the driving GCMs and downscaled results. We also briefly discuss the impact of the papers in the IPCC SR15 and their contribution to the development of adaptation and mitigation policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]