Global emissions pathways under different socioeconomic scenarios for use in CMIP6: a dataset of harmonized emissions trajectories through the end of the century

Gidden, Matthew; Riahi, Keywan; Smith, Steve; Fujimori, Shinichiro; Luderer, Gunnar; Kriegler, Elmar; Vuuren, Detlef P. van; Berg, Maarten van den; Feng, Leyang; Klein, David; Calvin, Katherine; Doelman, Jonathan C.; Frank, Stefan; Fricko, Oliver; Harmsen, Mathijs; Hasegawa, Tomoko; Havlík, Petr; Hilaire, Jérôme; Hoesly, Rachel; Horing, Jill; Popp, Alexander; Stehfest, Elke; Toko, Kiyoshi

doi:10.5194/gmd-12-1443-2019

Cited by 669 publications

(498 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

492

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The new SSPs in CMIP6 have been created in a manner that their instantaneous radiative forcing matches that of the corresponding RCPs in CMIP5. Gidden et al (2019) find that the radiative forcings of the SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5 scenarios track those from RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 pathways nearly exactly while there is a slight deviation in mid-century between SSP1-2.6 and RCP2.6. Despite the match in the instantaneous radiative forcing there are substantial changes in the emissions of individual greenhouse gases (GHG) between RCPs and SSPs (see figure 3 in Gidden et al 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…Gidden et al (2019) find that the radiative forcings of the SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5 scenarios track those from RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 pathways nearly exactly while there is a slight deviation in mid-century between SSP1-2.6 and RCP2.6. Despite the match in the instantaneous radiative forcing there are substantial changes in the emissions of individual greenhouse gases (GHG) between RCPs and SSPs (see figure 3 in Gidden et al 2019). This change in emissions translates into changes of GHG concentrations in the forcing datasets (Meinshausen et al 2019) compared to the GHG concentrations that have been used in CMIP5.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 73%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Warmer climate projections in EC-Earth3-Veg: the role of changes in the greenhouse gas concentrations from CMIP5 to CMIP6

Wyser

Kjellström

Köenigk

et al. 2020

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate projections for the 21st century for CMIP6 are warmer than those for CMIP5 despite nominally identical instantaneous radiative forcing. Many climate modeling groups attribute the stronger warming in the CMIP6 projections to the higher climate sensitivity of the new generation of climate models, but here we demonstrate that also changes in the forcing datasets can play an important role, in particular the prescribed concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHG) that are used to force the models. In the EC-Earth3-Veg model the effective radiative forcing (ERF) is reduced by 1.4 W m −2 when the GHG concentrations from SSP5-8.5 (used in CMIP6) are replaced by the GHG concentrations from RCP8.5 (used in CMIP5), and similar yet smaller reductions are seen for the SSP2-4.5/RCP4.5 and SSP1-2.6/RCP2.6 scenario pairs. From the reduced ERF we can estimate the temperature at the end of the century in a full climate simulation with the CMIP6 version of the EC-Earth model but using CMIP5 GHG concentrations instead. For the new SSP5-8.5 and SSP2-4.5 scenarios we find that 50% or more of the temperature increase from CMIP5 to CMIP6 at the end of the century is due to changes in the prescribed GHG concentrations. The implication is that CMIP5 and CMIP6 projections for the 21st century are difficult to compare with each other not only as models differ but also as the forcing conditions are not equal. Therefore, the communication of CMIP6 results to the impact, mitigation and adaptation communities has to be carefully formulated, taking into account the role of the updated GHG concentrations when interpreting the warmer climate projections for the 21st century.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 73%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 73%

Warmer climate projections in EC-Earth3-Veg: the role of changes in the greenhouse gas concentrations from CMIP5 to CMIP6

Wyser

Kjellström

Köenigk

et al. 2020

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Global anthropogenic emissions in the GEOS-Chem model are from the Community Emissions Data System (Hoesly et al, 2018). For emissions in China, the emissions from Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (Gidden et al, 2019) for year 2015 are used and the annual scaling factors from Zheng et al (2018) are applied to obtain emissions for other years during 2012-2017. Biomass burning emissions follow the Global Fire Emissions Database Version 4 (van der Werf et al, 2017), and biogenic volatile organic compounds emissions are calculated online by Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from Nature Version 2 (Guenther et al, 2006).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Radiative Forcing and Health Impact of Aerosols and Ozone in China as the Consequence of Clean Air Actions over 2012–2017

Dang

Liao

2019

Geophysical Research Letters

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We applied the chemical transport model GEOS‐Chem to examine the changes in aerosols and tropospheric O3 in China from 2012–2017 and the associated radiative forcing and health impact. Simulated surface layer concentrations and column burdens of aerosols and O3 were evaluated by comparing with ground‐based and satellite‐retrieved measurements. Between 2012 and 2017, simulated annual mean concentrations of PM2.5 decreased by 21.0%, while O3 increased by 11.9% over eastern China (20–45°N, 105–122.5°E). Changes in aerosols and O3 over 2012–2017 jointly exerted a positive radiative forcing of 1.26 W/m2 over eastern China, which was dominated by the less cooling from PM2.5 reductions (1.18 W/m2). The Global Exposure Mortality Model predicted 268.3 (247.3–291.6) thousand (9.6%) fewer deaths in eastern China in 2017 relative to 2012. These results suggest an appreciable health benefit and a potential warming as a consequence of clean air actions.

show abstract

“…For the projections, the parallel RCP8.5 and the SSP5-8.5 are used for CMIP5 and CMIP6, respectively. Even if the CO 2 and CH 4 emissions are respectively higher and lower in the SSP5-8.5 compared to the RCP8.5 (Gidden et al, 2019), the evolution of global mean temperature is comparable between the two scenarios (not shown). We thus consider that the two families of scenarios are relatively close to each other (O'Neill et al, 2016) and that mixing them in the present study is not an issue.…”

Section: Cmip5 and Cmip6 Modelsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Drivers of the Northern Extratropical Eddy‐Driven Jet Change in CMIP5 and CMIP6 Models

Oudar

Cattiaux

Douville

2020

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The wintertime midlatitude atmospheric circulation is evaluated in CMIP6 models. The biases have been reduced since CMIP5 although the low-level flow is still too zonal. CMIP5 and CMIP6 projections of 850 hPa zonal wind are then analyzed and are consistent under the RCP8.5 and the SSP5-8.5 scenarios, respectively. A poleward shift is identified in the Pacific, while a tripole structure is found in the North Atlantic: The zonal wind strengthens over Western Europe and decreases north and south. A multiple linear regression allows us to quantify the contribution of different drivers to the intermodel spread in zonal wind projections. It supports the importance of projected tropical warming and changes in the stratospheric vortex but also suggests a contribution of the asymmetry in the projected surface warming of the equatorial Pacific and of the present-day biases in the eddy-driven jet position. The North Atlantic warming hole plays a weaker role. Plain Language SummaryThe projection of the midlatitude atmospheric circulation is highly uncertain. Climate models exhibit a significant ensemble dispersion although some robust signals seem to emerge at the end of the 21st century: a poleward shift of the 850 hPa zonal wind in the Pacific and a strengthening over Northern Europe. This response is consistent between the former and current-generation global climate models. Several drivers have been proposed to explain this response. Here, it is confirmed that the amplified warming of the tropical high troposphere and variation of the stratospheric vortex play a more important role than the amplified warming over the Arctic. In addition, it is suggested that the West-East temperature gradient in the tropical Pacific and the biases of the jet position have a significant contribution, as opposed to the minimum warming in the North Atlantic.

show abstract

Global emissions pathways under different socioeconomic scenarios for use in CMIP6: a dataset of harmonized emissions trajectories through the end of the century

Cited by 669 publications

References 52 publications

Warmer climate projections in EC-Earth3-Veg: the role of changes in the greenhouse gas concentrations from CMIP5 to CMIP6

Warmer climate projections in EC-Earth3-Veg: the role of changes in the greenhouse gas concentrations from CMIP5 to CMIP6

Radiative Forcing and Health Impact of Aerosols and Ozone in China as the Consequence of Clean Air Actions over 2012–2017

Drivers of the Northern Extratropical Eddy‐Driven Jet Change in CMIP5 and CMIP6 Models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About