Search

The era of anthropogenic climate change can be described by defined climate milestones. These milestones mark changes in the historic trajectory of change, and include peak greenhouse gas emissions, peak greenhouse gas concentration, deceleration of warming, net-zero emissions, and a transition to global cooling. However, given internal variability in the Earth system and measurement uncertainty, definitively saying that a milestone has passed requires rigour. Here CMIP6 simulations of peak-and-decline scenarios are used to examine the time needed to robustly detect three climate milestones: (1) the slowdown of global warming; (2) the end of global surface temperature increase; and (3) peak concentration of CO2. It is estimated that it will take 40 to 60 years after a simulated slowdown in warming rate, to robustly detect ( change) the signal in the global average temperature record. Detecting when warming has stopped will also be difficult and it takes until the mid 22nd century to have enough data to conclude warming has stopped. Detecting that CO2 concentration has peaked is far easier and a drop in CO2 concentration of 3 ppm is consistent with a greater than 99% chance that CO2 has peaked in all scenarios examined. Thus it is likely that as the rate of CO2 emissions is reduced, and net-zero emissions is approached, interpreting the global temperature record will become difficult—with a high potential to create confusion amongst policy makers and the general public.

Earth System Models (ESMs) continue to diagnose a wide range of carbon budgets for each level of global warming. Here, we present emergent constraints on the carbon budget as a function of global warming, which combine the available ESM historical simulations and future projections for a range of scenarios, with observational estimates of global warming and anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the present day. We estimate mean and likely ranges for cumulative carbon budgets for the Paris targets of 1.5 °C and 2 °C of global warming of 812 [691, 933] PgC and 1048 [881, 1216] PgC, which are more than 10% larger than the ensemble mean values from the CMIP6 models. The linearity between cumulative emissions and global warming is found to be maintained at least until 4 °C, and is consistent with an effective Transient Climate Response to Emissions (eTCRE) of 2.1 [1.8, 2.6] °C/1000PgC, from a global warming of 1.2 °C onwards.

Projections of future carbon sinks and stocks are important because they show how the world's ecosystems will respond to elevated CO2 and changes in climate. Moreover, they are crucial to inform policy decisions around emissions reductions to stay within the global warming levels identified by the Paris Agreement. However, Earth System Models from the 6th Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) show substantial spread in future projections—especially of the terrestrial carbon cycle, leading to a large uncertainty in our knowledge of any remaining carbon budget (RCB). Here we evaluate the global terrestrial carbon cycle projections on a region-by-region basis and compare the global models with regional assessments made by the REgional Carbon Cycle Assessment and Processes, Phase 2 activity. Results show that for each region, the CMIP6 multi-model mean is generally consistent with the regional assessment, but substantial cross-model spread exists. Nonetheless, all models perform well in some regions and no region is without some well performing models. This gives confidence that the CMIP6 models can be used to look at future changes in carbon stocks on a regional basis with appropriate model assessment and benchmarking. We find that most regions of the world remain cumulative net sources of CO2 between now and 2100 when considering the balance of fossil-fuels and natural sinks, even under aggressive mitigation scenarios. This paper identifies strengths and weaknesses for each model in terms of its performance over a particular region including how process representation might impact those results and sets the agenda for applying stricter constraints at regional scales to reduce the uncertainty in global projections.

Previous phases of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) have primarily focused on simulations driven by atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs), both for idealized model experiments, and for climate projections of different emissions scenarios. We argue that although this approach was pragmatic to allow parallel development of Earth System Model simulations and detailed socioeconomic futures, carbon cycle uncertainty as represented by diverse, process-resolving Earth System Models (ESMs) is not manifested in the scenario outcomes, thus omitting a dominant source of uncertainty in meeting the Paris Agreement. Mitigation policy is defined in terms of human activity (including emissions), with strategies varying in their timing of net-zero emissions, the balance of mitigation effort between short-lived and long-lived climate forcers, their reliance on land use strategy and the extent and timing of carbon removals. To explore the response to these drivers, ESMs need to explicitly represent complete cycles of major GHGs, including natural processes and anthropogenic influences. Carbon removal and sequestration strategies, which rely on proposed human management of natural systems, are currently represented upstream of ESMs in an idealized fashion during scenario development. However, proper accounting of the coupled system impacts of and feedback on such interventions requires explicit process representation in ESMs to build self-consistent physical representations of their potential effectiveness and risks under climate change. We propose that CMIP7 efforts prioritize simulations driven by CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use, projected deployment of carbon dioxide removal technologies, as well as land use and management, using the process resolution allowed by state-of-the-art ESMs to resolve carbon-climate feedbacks. Post-CMIP7 ambitions should aim to incorporate modeling of non-CO2 GHGs (in particular sources and sinks of methane) and process

Commitments to net-zero carbon dioxide (CO2) or greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions targets now cover 88% of countries’ emissions. Underlying the accounting behind net-zero frameworks is the assumption that emissions can be balanced with removals such that their net climate effect is zero. However, when considering the full climate impacts of CO2 emissions and removals, there are reasons to expect that the two are not equivalent in terms of their climate outcomes. We identify potential contributors to non-equivalence, including impermanence, biogeophysical and non-CO2 GHG effects, and argue that these non-equivalencies need to be accounted for to achieve climate goals. Given key uncertainties about the full climate impact of CO2 removal, it is prudent to prioritize emission reductions over removals.

Modern food production is spatially concentrated in global "breadbaskets". A major unresolved question is whether these peak production regions will shift poleward as the climate warms, allowing some recovery of potential climaterelated losses. While agricultural impacts studies to date have focused on currently cultivated land, the Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison Project (GGCMI) Phase 2 experiment allows us to assess changes in both yields and the location of peak productivity regions under warming. We examine crop responses under projected end-of-century warming using 7 process-based models simulating 5 major crops (maize, rice, soybeans, and spring and winter wheat) with a variety of adaptation strategies. We find that in no-adaptation cases, when planting date and cultivar choices are held fixed, regions of peak production remain stationary and yield losses can be severe, since growing seasons contract strongly with warming. When adaptations in management practices are allowed (cultivars that retain growing season length under warming and modified planting dates), peak productivity zones shift poleward and yield losses are largely recovered. While most growing-zone shifts are ultimately limited by geography, breadbaskets studied here move poleward over 600 km on average by end of the century under RCP8.5. These results suggest that agricultural impacts assessments can be strongly biased if restricted in spatial area or in the scope of adaptive behavior considered. Accurate evaluation of food security under climate change requires global modeling and careful treatment of adaptation strategies.

Lockdowns to avoid the spread of COVID-19 have created an unprecedented reduction in human emissions. While the country-level scale of emissions changes can be estimated in near real time, the more detailed, gridded emissions estimates that are required to run general circulation models (GCMs) of the climate will take longer to collect. In this paper we use recorded and projected country-and-sector activity levels to modify gridded predictions from the MESSAGE-GLOBIOM SSP2-4.5 scenario. We provide updated projections for concentrations of greenhouse gases, emissions fields for aerosols, and precursors and the ozone and optical properties that result from this. The code base to perform similar modifications to other scenarios is also provided. We outline the means by which these results may be used in a model intercomparison project (CovidMIP) to investigate the impact of national lockdown measures on climate, including regional temperature, precipitation, and circulation changes. This includes three strands: an assessment of short-term effects (5-year period) and of longer-term effects (30 years) and an investigation into the separate effects of changes in emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols. This last strand supports the possible attribution of observed changes in the climate system; hence these simulations will also form part of the Detection and Attribution Model Intercomparison Project (DAMIP).

Many nations responded to the corona virus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic by restricting travel and other activities during 2020, resulting in temporarily reduced emissions of CO2, other greenhouse gases and ozone and aerosol precursors. We present the initial results from a coordinated Intercomparison, CovidMIP, of Earth system model simulations which assess the impact on climate of these emissions reductions. 12 models performed multiple initial-condition ensembles to produce over 300 simulations spanning both initial condition and model structural uncertainty. We find model consensus on reduced aerosol amounts (particularly over southern and eastern Asia) and associated increases in surface shortwave radiation levels. However, any impact on near-surface temperature or rainfall during 2020–2024 is extremely small and is not detectable in this initial analysis. Regional analyses on a finer scale, and closer attention to extremes (especially linked to changes in atmospheric composition and air quality) are required to test the impact of COVID-19-related emission reductions on near-term climate. © 2021. Crown Copyright. © 2021. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. This article is published with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

The Zero Emissions Commitment (ZEC) is the change in global mean temperature expected to occur following the cessation of net CO2 emissions and as such is a critical parameter for calculating the remaining carbon budget. The Zero Emissions Commitment Model Intercomparison Project (ZECMIP) was established to gain a better understanding of the potential magnitude and sign of ZEC, in addition to the processes that underlie this metric. A total of 18 Earth system models of both full and intermediate complexity participated in ZECMIP. All models conducted an experiment where atmospheric CO2 concentration increases exponentially until 1000 PgC has been emitted. Thereafter emissions are set to zero and models are configured to allow free evolution of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Many models conducted additional second-priority simulations with different cumulative emission totals and an alternative idealized emissions pathway with a gradual transition to zero emissions. The inter-model range of ZEC 50 years after emissions cease for the 1000 PgC experiment is −0.36 to 0.29 ∘C, with a model ensemble mean of −0.07 ∘C, median of −0.05 ∘C, and standard deviation of 0.19 ∘C. Models exhibit a wide variety of behaviours after emissions cease, with some models continuing to warm for decades to millennia and others cooling substantially. Analysis shows that both the carbon uptake by the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere are important for counteracting the warming effect from the reduction in ocean heat uptake in the decades after emissions cease. This warming effect is difficult to constrain due to high uncertainty in the efficacy of ocean heat uptake. Overall, the most likely value of ZEC on multi-decadal timescales is close to zero, consistent with previous model experiments and simple theory.

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.

The global response to the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a sudden reduction of both GHG emissions and air pollutants. Here, using national mobility data, we estimate global emission reductions for ten species during the period February to June 2020. We estimate that global NOx emissions declined by as much as 30% in April, contributing a short-term cooling since the start of the year. This cooling trend is offset by ~20% reduction in global SO2 emissions that weakens the aerosol cooling effect, causing short-term warming. As a result, we estimate that the direct effect of the pandemic-driven response will be negligible, with a cooling of around 0.01 ± 0.005 °C by 2030 compared to a baseline scenario that follows current national policies. In contrast, with an economic recovery tilted towards green stimulus and reductions in fossil fuel investments, it is possible to avoid future warming of 0.3 °C by 2050.

The amount of additional future temperature change following a complete cessation of CO2 emissions is a measure of the unrealized warming to which we are committed due to CO2 already emitted to the atmosphere. This "zero emissions commitment" (ZEC) is also an important quantity when estimating the remaining carbon budget - a limit on the total amount of CO2 emissions consistent with limiting global mean temperature at a particular level. In the recent IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C, the carbon budget framework used to calculate the remaining carbon budget for 1.5°C included the assumption that the ZEC due to CO2 emissions is negligible and close to zero. Previous research has shown significant uncertainty even in the sign of the ZEC. To close this knowledge gap, we propose the Zero Emissions Commitment Model Intercomparison Project (ZECMIP), which will quantify the amount of unrealized temperature change that occurs after CO2 emissions cease and investigate the geophysical drivers behind this climate response. Quantitative information on ZEC is a key gap in our knowledge, and one that will not be addressed by currently planned CMIP6 simulations, yet it is crucial for verifying whether carbon budgets need to be adjusted to account for any unrealized temperature change resulting from past CO2 emissions. We request only one top-priority simulation from comprehensive general circulation Earth system models (ESMs) and Earth system models of intermediate complexity (EMICs) - a branch from the 1% CO2 run with CO2 emissions set to zero at the point of 1000PgC of total CO2 emissions in the simulation - with the possibility for additional simulations, if resources allow. ZECMIP is part of CMIP6, under joint sponsorship by C4MIP and CDRMIP, with associated experiment names to enable data submissions to the Earth System Grid Federation. All data will be published and made freely available.

The Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 dataset of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) provides an unprecedentedly large dataset of crop model simulations covering the global ice-free land surface. The dataset consists of annual data fields at a spatial resolution of 0.5 arc-degree longitude and latitude. Fourteen crop modeling groups provided output for up to 11 historical input datasets spanning 1901 to 2012, and for up to three different management harmonization levels. Each group submitted data for up to 15 different crops and for up to 14 output variables. All simulations were conducted for purely rainfed and near-perfectly irrigated conditions on all land areas irrespective of whether the crop or irrigation system is currently used there. With the publication of the GGCMI phase 1 dataset we aim to promote further analyses and understanding of crop model performance, potential relationships between productivity and environmental impacts, and insights on how to further improve global gridded crop model frameworks. We describe dataset characteristics and individual model setup narratives.

Efforts to limit global warming to below 2°C in relation to the pre-industrial level are under way, in accordance with the 2015 Paris Agreement. However, most impact research on agriculture to date has focused on impacts of warming >2°C on mean crop yields, and many previous studies did not focus sufficiently on extreme events and yield interannual variability. Here, with the latest climate scenarios from the Half a degree Additional warming, Prognosis and Projected Impacts (HAPPI) project, we evaluated the impacts of the 2015 Paris Agreement range of global warming (1.5°C and 2.0°C warming above the pre-industrial period) on global wheat production and local yield variability. A multi-crop and multi-climate model ensemble over a global network of sites developed by the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) for Wheat was used to represent major rainfed and irrigated wheat cropping systems. Results show that projected global wheat production will change by -2.3% to 7.0% under the 1.5 °C scenario and -2.4% to 10.5% under the 2.0 °C scenario, compared to a baseline of 1980-2010, when considering changes in local temperature, rainfall and global atmospheric CO2 concentration, but no changes in management or wheat cultivars. The projected impact on wheat production varies spatially; a larger increase is projected for temperate high rainfall regions than for moderate hot low rainfall and irrigated regions. Grain yields in warmer regions are more likely to be reduced than in cooler regions. Despite mostly positive impacts on global average grain yields, the frequency of extremely low yields (bottom 5 percentile of baseline distribution) and yield inter-annual variability will increase under both warming scenarios for some of the hot growing locations, including locations from the second largest global wheat producer -India, which supplies more than 14% of global wheat. The projected global impact of warming <2°C on wheat production are therefor

Global gridded crop models (GGCMs) combine agronomic or plant growth models with gridded spatial input data to estimate spatially explicit crop yields and agricultural externalities at the global scale. Differences in GGCM outputs arise from the use of different biophysical models, setups, and input data. GGCM ensembles are frequently employed to bracket uncertainties in impact studies without investigating the causes of divergence in outputs. This study explores differences in maize yield estimates from five GGCMs based on the public domain field-scale model Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC) that participate in the AgMIP Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison initiative. Albeit using the same crop model, the GGCMs differ in model version, input data, management assumptions, parameterization, and selection of subroutines affecting crop yield estimates via cultivar distributions, soil attributes, and hydrology among others. The analyses reveal inter-annual yield variability and absolute yield levels in the EPIC-based GGCMs to be highly sensitive to soil parameterization and crop management. All GGCMs show an intermediate performance in reproducing reported yields with a higher skill if a static soil profile is assumed or sufficient plant nutrients are supplied. An in-depth comparison of setup domains for two EPIC-based GGCMs shows that GGCM performance and plant stress responses depend substantially on soil parameters and soil process parameterization, i.e. hydrology and nutrient turnover, indicating that these often neglected domains deserve more scrutiny. For agricultural impact assessments, employing a GGCM ensemble with its widely varying assumptions in setups appears the best solution for coping with uncertainties from lack of comprehensive global data on crop management, cultivar distributions and coefficients for agro-environmental processes. However, the underlying assumptions require systematic specifications to cover representative agricultu

The terrestrial biosphere shows substantial inertia in its response to environmental change. Hence, assessments of transient changes in ecosystem properties to 2100 do not capture the full magnitude of the response realized once ecosystems reach an effective equilibrium with the changed environmental boundary conditions. This equilibrium state can be termed the ‘committed state’, in contrast to a ‘transient state’ in which the ecosystem is in disequilibrium. The difference in ecosystem properties between the transient and committed states represents the ‘committed change’ yet to be realized. Here an ensemble of Dynamic Global Vegetation Model (DGVM) simulations was used to assess the changes in tree cover and carbon storage for a variety of committed states, relative to a pre‐industrial baseline, and to attribute the drivers of uncertainty. Using a subset of simulations, the committed changes in these variables post‐2100, assuming climate stabilization, were calculated. The results show large committed changes in tree cover and carbon storage, with model disparities driven by residence time in the tropics, and residence time and productivity in the boreal. Large changes remain on‐going well beyond the end of the 21st century. In boreal ecosystems, the simulated increase in vegetation carbon storage above pre‐industrial levels was 20‐95 Pg C at 2 K of warming, and 45‐201 Pg C at 5 K, of which 38‐155 Pg C was due to expansion in tree cover. Reducing the large uncertainties in long‐term commitment and rate‐of‐change of terrestrial carbon uptake will be crucial for assessments of emissions budgets consistent with limiting climate change.

Agricultural production must increase to feed a growing and wealthier population, as well as to satisfy increasing demands for biomaterials and biomass-based energy. At the same time, deforestation and land-use change need to be minimized in order to preserve biodiversity and maintain carbon stores in vegetation and soils. Consequently, agricultural land use needs to be intensified in order to increase food production per unit area of land. Here we use simulations of AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 to assess implications of input-driven intensification (water, nutrients) on crop yield and yield stability, which is an important aspect in food security. We find region- and crop-specific responses for the simulated period 1980-2009 with broadly increasing yield variability under additional nitrogen inputs and stabilizing yields under additional water inputs (irrigation), reflecting current patterns of water and nutrient limitation. The different models of the GGCMI ensemble show similar response patterns, but model differences warrant further research on management assumptions, such as variety selection and soil management, and inputs as well as on model implementation of different soil and plant processes, such as on heat stress, and parameters. Higher variability in crop productivity under higher fertilizer input will require adequate buffer mechanisms in trade and distribution/storage networks to avoid food price volatility.

In the light of daunting global sustainability challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss and food security, improving our understanding of the complex dynamics of the Earth system is crucial. However, large knowledge gaps related to the effects of land management persist, in particular those human-induced changes in terrestrial ecosystems that do not result in land-cover conversions. Here, we review the current state of knowledge of ten common land management activities for their biogeochemical and biophysical impacts, the level of process understanding and data availability. Our review shows that ca. one-tenth of the ice-free land surface is under intense human management, half under medium and one-fifth under extensive management. Based on our review, we cluster these ten management activities into three groups: (i) management activities for which data sets are available, and for which a good knowledge base exists (cropland harvest and irrigation); (ii) management activities for which sufficient knowledge on biogeochemical and biophysical effects exists but robust global data sets are lacking (forest harvest, tree species selection, grazing and mowing harvest, N fertilization); and (iii) land management practices with severe data gaps concomitant with an unsatisfactory level of process understanding (crop species selection, artificial wetland drainage, tillage and fire management and crop residue management, an element of crop harvest). Although we identify multiple impediments to progress, we conclude that the current status of process understanding and data availability is sufficient to advance with incorporating management in, for example, Earth system or dynamic vegetation models in order to provide a systematic assessment of their role in the Earth system. This review contributes to a strategic prioritization of research efforts across multiple disciplines, including land system research, ecological research and Earth system modelling.

The aggregation of simulated gridded crop yields to national or regional scale requires information on temporal and spatial patterns of crop-specific harvested areas. This analysis estimates the uncertainty of simulated gridded yield time series related to the aggregation with four different harvested area data sets. We compare aggregated yield time series from the Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison project for four crop types from 14 models at global, national, and regional scale to determine aggregation-driven differences in mean yields and temporal patterns as measures of uncertainty. The quantity and spatial patterns of harvested areas differ for individual crops among the four data sets applied for the aggregation. Also simulated spatial yield patterns differ among the 14 models. These differences in harvested areas and simulated yield patterns lead to differences in aggregated productivity estimates, both in mean yield and in the temporal dynamics. Among the four investigated crops, wheat yield (17% relative difference) is most affected by the uncertainty introduced by the aggregation at the global scale. The correlation of temporal patterns of global aggregated yield time series can be as low as for soybean (r = 0.28). For the majority of countries, mean relative differences of nationally aggregated yields account for 10% or less. The spatial and temporal difference can be substantial higher for individual countries. Of the top-10 crop producers, aggregated national multi-annual mean relative difference of yields can be up to 67% (maize, South Africa), 43% (wheat, Pakistan), 51% (rice, Japan), and 427% (soybean, Bolivia). Correlations of differently aggregated yield time series can be as low as r = 0.56 (maize, India), r = 0.05 (wheat, Russia), r = 0.13 (rice, Vietnam), and r = −0.01 (soybean, Uruguay). The aggregation to sub-national scale in comparison to country scale shows that spatial uncertainties can cancel out in countries with large harvested