CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 5,246Climate variability and modelsClimate Change Policy and EconomicsClimate Change and Geoengineering

The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6

Open access
O'Neill, Brian C., Tebaldi, Claudia, van Vuuren, Detlef P., Eyring, Veronika, Friedlingstein, Pierre, Hurtt, George, Knutti, Reto, Kriegler, Elmar +6 more·2016·Geoscientific Model Development
DOI 10.5194/gmd-9-3461-2016

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Abstract. Projections of future climate change play a fundamental role in improving understanding of the climate system as well as characterizing societal risks and response options. The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) is the primary activity within Phase 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) that will provide multi-model climate projections based on alternative scenarios of future emissions and land use changes produced with integrated assessment models. In this paper, we describe ScenarioMIP's objectives, experimental design, and its relation to other activities within CMIP6. The ScenarioMIP design is one component of a larger scenario process that aims to facilitate a wide range of integrated studies across the climate science, integrated assessment modeling, and impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability communities, and will form an important part of the evidence base in the forthcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments. At the same time, it will provide the basis for investigating a number of targeted science and policy questions that are especially relevant to scenario-based analysis, including the role of specific forcings such as land use and aerosols, the effect of a peak and decline in forcing, the consequences of scenarios that limit warming to below 2 °C, the relative contributions to uncertainty from scenarios, climate models, and internal variability, and long-term climate system outcomes beyond the 21st century. To serve this wide range of scientific communities and address these questions, a design has been identified consisting of eight alternative 21st century scenarios plus one large initial condition ensemble and a set of long-term extensions, divided into two tiers defined by relative priority. Some of these scenarios will also provide a basis for variants planned to be run in other CMIP6-Endorsed MIPs to investigate questions related to specific forcings. Harmonized, spatially explicit emissions and land use scenarios generated with integrated assessment models will be provided to participating climate modeling groups by late 2016, with the climate model simulations run within the 2017–2018 time frame, and output from the climate model projections made available and analyses performed over the 2018–2020 period.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

ScenarioMIP is CMIP6’s primary scenario activity, providing multi-model climate projections driven by SSP-based emissions and land-use scenarios from integrated assessment models. It defines eight 21st-century scenarios plus a large initial-condition ensemble and long-term extensions, organized into two priority tiers.

Key findings

  • The design comprises eight alternative 21st-century scenarios plus one large initial-condition ensemble and long-term extensions, split into Tier 1 (required) and Tier 2; Tier 1 includes SSP5-8.5, SSP3-7.0, SSP2-4.5, and SSP1-2.6, while Tier 2 adds SSP4-6.0, SSP4-3.4, SSP5-3.4-OS, and SSPa-b (around or below 2.0 W m⁻²).
  • Forcing levels span updated RCPs (2.6, 4.5, 6.0, 8.5 W m⁻²) and gap scenarios (7.0, 3.4, below 2.6 W m⁻², overshoot); SSP1-2.6 is expected to produce 1.7 °C warming by 2100, and SSPa-b is designed to likely stay below 1.5 °C by 2100.
  • Statistically significant local temperature differences over more than half the land surface require at least 0.3 °C global mean temperature separation, roughly equivalent to about 0.75 W m⁻² in an idealized 1 % yr⁻¹ CO₂ increase experiment; regional precipitation requires a much wider separation.
  • Long-term extensions to 2300 include SSP5-8.5 extension equilibrating just above 12 W m⁻², SSP1-2.6 extension stabilizing around 2.0 W m⁻² and ~1.25 °C, and the overshoot extension peaking at ~2.4 °C and equilibrating at ~1.25 °C.

Methods

  • Design/protocol paper: describes ScenarioMIP objectives, experimental design, and relation to other CMIP6 activities; scenarios are selected from SSP-based IAM marker scenarios, with harmonized spatially explicit emissions and land use to be provided to climate modeling groups by late 2016 and simulations run in 2017–2018.
  • Experiments are concentration-driven for long-lived greenhouse gases, while aerosols and ozone use either ScenarioMIP emissions or CMIP-provided concentrations; output is distributed through the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF).
  • Figures use the simple climate model MAGICC version 6.8.01 BETA to calculate concentration, forcing, and temperature outcomes; no new climate model simulations are analyzed in this paper.

Limitations

  • The paper states that IAM feasibility is not the same as real-world feasibility; not all scenarios may be equally attainable, and under limited technology availability or delayed mitigation some models find the 2.6 W m⁻² target unattainable.
  • The paper states an open question is whether different SSPs reaching the same global forcing produce different climate outcomes; if sensitivity is larger than assumed, ESM simulations specific to each SSP–forcing combination would be required. It also notes concentration-driven scenarios cannot assess amplification effects of biogeochemical feedbacks beyond the provided GHG concentrations.
  • Evident from the text: this is a design paper without a comprehensive analysis plan or results; it also notes pattern scaling and other emulators are not yet demonstrated to reliably replace climate model projections.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5194/gmd-9-3461-2016

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

12 of 29 cited sources checked · 7 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Premisecitation

    More recent work has refined this view, indicating that regional temperature outcomes that are statistically significantly different at a 5 % level for more than half the land surface area, and robustly so across the multi-model ensemble, require a separation of at least 0.3°C in global average temperature.

    “More recent work (Tebaldi et al., 2015) has refined this view, indicating that regional temperature outcomes that are statistically significantly different at a 5 % level for more than half the land surface area, and robustly so across the multi-model ensemble, require a separation of at least 0.3 • C in global average temperature.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Tebaldi et al., 2015 source
  • Premisecitation

    Not all scenarios considered in ScenarioMIP may be equally attainable.

    “Results from major international IAM comparison projects (Clarke et al., 2009;Kriegler et al., 2014b;Riahi et al., 2015) indicate that not all scenarios considered in ScenarioMIP may be equally attainable.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Clarke et al., 2009 source

      Sections 3 and 8 (page numbers not provided) show that the EMF 22 climate-action cases differed in difficulty: no team produced all ten, and some targets could not be met by any model under delayed participation. That supports the general point that scenarios may differ in attainability, but this paper examines EMF 22 cases, not the scenarios considered in ScenarioMIP. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Kriegler et al., 2014b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Riahi et al., 2015 source

      Section 5, “Mitigation costs and feasibility,” reports that some modeled pathways were infeasible and that feasibility varied with near-term emissions and technology assumptions. This supports the general point that scenarios may differ in attainability, but the paper studies AMPERE pathways, not the scenarios considered in ScenarioMIP. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Premisecitation

    The feasibility of a scenario in the real world hinges on additional factors, such as political and social concerns, which might render feasible model solutions unattainable.

    “The latter hinges on a number of additional factors, such as political and social concerns, which might render feasible model solutions unattainable in the real world (see, e.g, Riahi et al., 2015).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Riahi et al., 2015 source
  • Premisecitation

    For regional precipitation, a much wider separation is required to ensure that scenarios are statistically different.

    “For regional precipitation, a much wider separation is required to ensure that scenarios are statistically different.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Tebaldi et al., 2015 source

      The Sensitivity of regional climate section finds that precipitation changes require a much larger difference in global average temperature than regional temperature changes to become statistically significant over much of the land surface. But the Discussion and conclusions says the authors cannot establish an absolute criterion for scenario separation; the results do not show that any particular separation will ensure statistically different precipitation outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.83)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Findingreasoning

    SSP3-7.0 combines relatively high societal vulnerability (SSP3) with relatively high forcing.

    “In addition, SSP3 (combined with this forcing pathway) is especially relevant to IAM/IAV studies because it combines relatively high societal vulnerability (SSP3) with relatively high forcing.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 29
  • May combine two claims. 25

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The RCPs were the basis for climate model projections in CMIP5 and their assessment in the IPCC AR5.

    “The RCPs were the basis for climate model projections in CMIP5 (Taylor et al., 2012) and their assessment in the IPCC AR5 (IPCC, 2013).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Taylor et al., 2012 source
    • cites IPCC, 2013

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    SSPs 1 and 5 envision relatively optimistic trends for human development, with substantial investments in education and health, rapid economic growth, and well-functioning institutions.

    “SSPs 1 and 5 envision relatively optimistic trends for human development, with substantial investments in education and health, rapid economic growth, and well-functioning institutions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites O'Neill et al., 2015 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Initial studies indicate that scenario differences of at least 0.3°C in global average surface temperature are likely necessary to generate statistically significant differences in local temperature over a substantial fraction of the surface, and substantially larger differences are required to produce similarly significant and extensive differences in precipitation outcomes.

    “Initial studies indicate that scenario differences of at least 0.3 • C in global average surface temperature are likely necessary to generate statistically significant differences in local temperature over a substantial fraction of the surface, and substantially larger differences are required to produce similarly significant and extensive differences in precipitation outcomes (Tebaldi et al., 201”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Tebaldi et al., 2015 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Unlike in CMIP3 and CMIP5, where climate model projections were part of the core experiments, in CMIP6 they are part of a dedicated CMIP6-Endorsed MIP.

    “Unlike in CMIP3 and CMIP5, where climate model projections were part of the core experiments, in CMIP6 they are part of a dedicated CMIP6-Endorsed MIP (Eyring et al., 2016).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Eyring et al., 2016 source

      The Impacts section says future scenario experiments were part of the CMIP5 core experiments and will instead be run through ScenarioMIP in CMIP6. The passage does not establish the claim that projections were also core experiments in CMIP3. (LLM, conf=0.87)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    SSP5 assumes an energy intensive, fossil-based economy, while in SSP1 there is an increasing shift toward sustainable practices.

    “However, SSP5 assumes an energy intensive, fossilbased economy, while in SSP1 there is an increasing shift toward sustainable practices.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites O'Neill et al., 2015 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    SSP2 envisions a central pathway in which trends continue their historical patterns without substantial deviations.

    “SSP2 envisions a central pathway in which trends continue their historical patterns without substantial deviations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites O'Neill et al., 2015 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    SSPs 3 and 4 envision more pessimistic development trends, with little investment in education or health, fast growing population, and increasing inequalities.

    “SSPs 3 and 4 envision more pessimistic development trends, with little investment in education or health, fast growing population, and increasing inequalities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites O'Neill et al., 2015 source

      Section 4 says SSPs 3 and 4 have high population growth, slow economic growth and compounded inequality. Sections 3.3–3.4 describe declining or unequal investment in education and difficulty providing health care to disadvantaged groups. They do not establish uniformly little investment in health, or little education investment across all groups in SSP4. (LLM, conf=0.85)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning

    Multiple IAM groups producing SSP-based scenarios have been able to produce preliminary scenarios based on SSP1 that reach about 1.9 W m-2 in 2100, leading to a likely (>66%) probability of staying below 1.5 °C in 2100, but a lower probability around mid-century.

    “Multiple IAM groups producing SSP-based scenarios have been able to produce preliminary scenarios based on SSP1 that reach about 1.9 W m -2 in 2100, leading to a likely (> 66 %) probability of staying below 1.5 • C in 2100 (but a lower probability around mid-century).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    The SSP5-3.4-OS extension produces a global mean temperature that equilibrates at about 1.25 °C above pre-industrial temperatures beyond 2200, but with a higher peak temperature of about 2.4 °C during the 21st century.

    “Like the SSP1-2.6 extension, this pathway also produces a global mean temperature that equilibrates at about 1.25 • C above pre-industrial temperatures beyond 2200, but with a higher peak temperature (about 2.4 • C) during the 21st century.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The level of negative CO2 emissions from fossil fuels reached in 2100 remains constant until 2140, and then increases linearly to reach zero by 2190.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    SSP3-7.0 has relatively strong land use change and high emissions of NTCFs, unlike SSP5-8.5.

    “SSP3-7.0 has relatively strong land use change and high emissions of NTCFs (unlike the SSP5-8.5 scenario), and therefore has been identified as an important experiment on which variants will be conducted by LU-MIP and AerChemMIP”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    SSP1-2.6 combines low vulnerability with low challenges for mitigation as well as a low forcing signal.

    “From the IAM/IAV perspective this scenario is highly relevant since it combines low vulnerability with low challenges for mitigation as well as a low forcing signal.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    SSP3-7.0 has both substantial land use change, in particular decreased global forest cover, and high NTCF emissions, particularly SO2.

    “SSP3 was chosen because SSP3-7.0 is a scenario with both substantial land use change (in particular decreased global forest cover) and high NTCF emissions (particularly SO 2 ) and therefore will play an important role in LUMIP and AerChemMIP”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    The two LUMIP scenarios, SSP3-7.0 and SSP1-2.6, differ both in forcing levels, spanning a range of approximately 4.5 W m-2 by 2100, and in land use change, with substantial deforestation in SSP3-7.0 and net afforestation in SSP1-2.6.

    “The two scenarios would differ both in forcing levels, spanning a range of approximately 4.5 W m -2 by 2100, and in land use change, with substantial deforestation in the SSP3-7.0scenario and net afforestation in SSP1-2.6.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    ScenarioMIP is the primary activity within CMIP6 that will provide multi-model climate projections based on alternative scenarios of future emissions and land use changes produced with integrated assessment models.

    “The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (Scenar-ioMIP) is the primary activity within Phase 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) that will provide multi-model climate projections based on alternative scenarios of future emissions and land use changes produced with integrated assessment models.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    CMIP6 climate projections will differ from those in CMIP5 not only because they are produced with updated versions of climate models, but also because they are driven with SSP-based scenarios produced with updated versions of IAMs and based on updated data on recent emissions trends.

    “CMIP6 climate projections will differ from those in CMIP5 not only because they are produced with updated versions of climate models, but also because they are driven with SSP-based scenarios produced with updated versions of IAMs and based on updated data on recent emissions trends.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The ScenarioMIP design consists of eight alternative 21st century scenarios plus one large initial condition ensemble and a set of long-term extensions, divided into two tiers defined by relative priority.

    “a design has been identified consisting of eight alternative 21st century scenarios plus one large initial condition ensemble and a set of long-term extensions, divided into two tiers defined by relative priority.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisenone given

    The SSPs describe alternative evolutions of future society in the absence of climate change or climate policy.

    “In short, the SSPs describe alternative evolutions of future society in the absence of climate change or climate policy.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    A workshop concluded that pattern scaling has currently not yet been demonstrated to be able to reliably replace the need for climate model projections to generate information for impact studies.

    “A workshop held for this purpose concluded that pattern scaling has currently not yet been demonstrated to be able to reli-ably replace the need for climate model projections to generate information for impact studies”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Tebaldi and Arblaster, 2014 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    IAM scenarios were developed based on the SSPs by elaborating on their implications for energy systems and land use changes and quantifying resulting greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric concentrations.

    “IAM scenarios were then developed based on the SSPs by elaborating on their implications for energy systems (Bauer et al., 2016) and land use changes (Popp et al., 2016) and quantifying resulting greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric concentrations (Riahi et al., 2016).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bauer et al., 2016

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Popp et al., 2016

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Riahi et al., 2016

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    These CMIP6 simulations will allow integrated analyses to be carried out using climate simulations based on the latest versions of climate models, for a larger set of concentration pathways based on the most recent versions of IAMs.

    “These CMIP6 simulations will allow integrated analyses to be carried out using climate simulations based on the latest versions of climate models, for a larger set of concentration pathways based on the most recent versions of IAMs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Differences in climate outcomes between land use and emissions pathways that achieve the same global average radiative forcing level in 2100 but have different patterns of regional forcing are likely to be small relative to the overall uncertainty in applications of these simulations to integrated analyses (including impact assessments).

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given

    There might be feasible developments in the real world that are not anticipated by the IAM.

    “There might also be feasible developments in the real world that are not anticipated by the IAM.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    These SSP-based IAM scenarios consist of a set of baseline scenarios, which provide a description of future developments in the absence of climate change impacts or new climate policies beyond those in place today, as well as mitigation scenarios which explore the implications of climate change mitigation policies applied to the baseline scenarios.

    “These SSP-based IAM scenarios consist of a set of baseline scenarios, which provide a description of future developments in the absence of climate change impacts or new climate policies beyond those in place today, as well as mitigation scenarios which explore the implications of climate change mitigation policies applied to the baseline scenarios.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Riahi et al., 2016

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Climate model emulators have the potential to provide a computationally efficient means of generating climate outcomes for arbitrary scenarios and, in so doing, facilitate the representation of uncertainty in applications to impact studies.

    “Climate model emulators have the potential to provide a computationally efficient means of generating climate outcomes for arbitrary scenarios and, in so doing, facilitate the representation of uncertainty in applications to impact studies (Tebaldi and Arblaster, 2014).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Tebaldi and Arblaster, 2014 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    ScenarioMIP simulations will be key to addressing two of the three CMIP6 science questions that have informed the overall CMIP6 design and the endorsement of proposed MIPs, related to the effects of external forcings on the Earth system and to the confounding effects of different sources of uncertainty on future anthropogenic climate change outcomes.

    “However in addition, ScenarioMIP simulations will be key to addressing two of the three CMIP6 science questions that have informed the overall CMIP6 design and the endorsement of proposed MIPs, related to the effects of external forcings on the Earth system and to the confounding effects of different sources of uncertainty on future anthropogenic climate change outcomes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Multiple IAMs were used for the quantification of the SSP scenarios, and a single marker scenario was selected as representative in each case.

    “Multiple IAMs were used for the quantification of the SSP scenarios, and a single”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Riahi et al., 2016

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Feasibility in an IAM model needs to be strictly differentiated from the feasibility of a scenario in the real world.

    “Feasibility in an IAM model needs to be strictly differentiated, however, from the feasibility of a scenario in the real world, i.e. whether or not the scenario is capable of being attained.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This difference in global temperature is roughly equivalent to about 0.75 W m -2 of global average forcing in an idealized 1 % yr -1 CO 2 increase experiment, although the equivalent value is sensitive to the forcing pathway.

    “This difference in global temperature is roughly equivalent to about 0.75 W m -2 of global average forcing in an idealized 1 % yr -1 CO 2 increase experiment, although the equivalent value is sensitive to the forcing pathway.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The ScenarioMIP experimental design consists of a set of eight pathways of future emissions, concentrations and land use, with additional ensemble members and long-term extensions, grouped into two tiers of priority (of which only the first constitutes a required set for modeling centers participating in ScenarioMIP).

    “The ScenarioMIP experimental design consists of a set of eight pathways of future emissions, concentrations and land use, with additional ensemble members and long-term extensions, grouped into two tiers of priority (of which only the first constitutes a required set for modeling centers participating in ScenarioMIP).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    The ScenarioMIP design will include an updated and expanded set of forcing pathways directly derived from SSPs.

    “The ScenarioMIP design will include an updated and expanded set of forcing pathways directly derived from SSPs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The scenario simulations specified in ScenarioMIP are to be performed in the same configuration as the one used in the CMIP6 historical simulations, ensuring continuity in the climate simulations.

    “The scenario simulations specified in ScenarioMIP are to be performed in the same configuration as the one used in the CMIP6 historical simulations, ensuring continuity in the climate simulations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The SSP5-3.4-OS extension can be seen as an overshoot of the 3.4 W m-2 level and of the 2.6 W m-2 level.

    “In this way, the scenario can be seen as an overshoot of the 3.4 W m -2 level (which it exceeds and then returns to by about 2100) and of the 2.6 W m -2 level, which it returns to in the first half of the 22nd century.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    CMIP6 climate projections will differ from those for CMIP5 due to a new generation of climate models, a new start year for the future scenarios (2015 for CMIP6 vs. 2006 for CMIP5), as well as a new set of scenarios of concentrations, emissions, and land use.

    “CMIP6 climate projections will differ from those for CMIP5 due to a new generation of climate models, a new start year for the future scenarios (2015 for CMIP6 vs. 2006 for CMIP5), as well as a new set of scenarios of concentrations, emissions, and land use (Figs. 3 and 4).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The state of development of such emulators is such that many situations remain where they are not suitable, their behavior deviating significantly from the more computationally complex, physically based models that they seek to emulate, or falling short of producing temporally coherent projections, or projections of multiple variables physically inter-related.

    “However, the state of development of such emulators is such that many situations remain where they are not suitable, their behavior deviating significantly from the more computationally complex, physically based models that they seek to emulate, or falling short of producing temporally coherent projections, or projections of multiple variables physically inter-related.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    The lowest RCP (RCP2.6), and the low SSP scenarios, already exhibit a limited degree of concentration overshoot.

    “The lowest RCP (RCP2.6), and the low SSP scenarios, already exhibit a limited degree of concentration overshoot.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given

    ScenarioMIP will carry out climate model simulations for one particular land use and concentration pathway that leads to this level of radiative forcing.

    “ScenarioMIP will carry out climate model simulations for one particular land use and concentration pathway that leads to this level of radiative forcing.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The multi-model approach will allow for a better characterization of uncertainty in climate outcomes than would otherwise be possible.

    “The multi-model approach will allow for a better characterization of uncertainty in climate outcomes than would otherwise be possible”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisenone given

    Researchers examining the consequences of climate change and potential adaptations are a key user group of CMIP outputs and products.

    “Researchers examining the consequences of climate change and potential adaptations are a key user group of CMIP outputs and products.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Integrating climate simulations from ScenarioMIP with the SSPs or other characterizations of societal futures will allow for analyses of future mitigation, adaptation, and impacts that account for both climate and societal change in a coherent fashion.

    “Integrating climate simulations from ScenarioMIP with the SSPs or other characterizations of societal futures will allow for analyses of future mitigation, adaptation, and impacts that account for both climate and societal change in a coherent fashion.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The ScenarioMIP design calls for a large initial condition ensemble that will allow for representation of internal variability in impact studies and improved signal detection in experiments in other MIPs that carry out variants of this scenario.

    “and the design also calls for a large initial condition ensemble that will allow for representation of internal variability in impact studies as well as improved signal detection in experiments in other MIPs that will carry out variants of this scenario.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisenone given

    Future climate model simulations require specification of natural forcings, in particular solar forcing and volcanic emissions.

    “Future simulations will also require specification of natural forcings, in particular solar forcing and volcanic emissions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The climate model output from the scenarios allows for sector-specific indices being derived.

    “In particular ScenarioMIP will link with the VIACS Advisory Board to ensure that the climate model output from the scenarios allows for sector-specific indices being derived (e.g., heat damage degree days for ecosystems, consecutive dry days for agriculture and water resources).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisenone given

    Data sets for future natural and anthropogenic forcings are required in order to run the ScenarioMIP experiments.

    “In order to run the experiments, data sets for future natural and anthropogenic forcings are required.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Multi-model climate model projections from ScenarioMIP will provide the basis for investigating targeted scientific questions regarding the role of specific forcings, the contribution of forcing uncertainty to the total uncertainty budget, the effect of a peak and decline in forcing, and long-term climate system outcomes beyond the 21st century.

    “Multi-model climate model projections from ScenarioMIP will also provide the basis for investigating a number of targeted scientific questions regarding the role of specific forcings and the contribution of forcing uncertainty to the total uncertainty budget, the effect of a peak and decline in forcing, and longterm climate system outcomes beyond the 21st century.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
43 of 43

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Differences in climate change projections between RCP-based and SSPx-y simulations following a similar global forcing pathway would be small enough to still warrant integration of the two sets of information into mitigation, impacts and adaptation analysis.

    “An enabling hypothesis of the parallel process is that differences in climate change projections would be small enough to still warrant integration of the two sets of information into mitigation, impacts and adaptation analysis.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Differences in climate outcomes between land use and emissions pathways that achieve the same global average radiative forcing level in 2100 but have different patterns of regional forcing are likely to be small relative to the overall uncertainty in applications of these simulations to integrated analyses (including impact assessments).

    “An assumption underlying the parallel process (Moss et al., 2010) and the SSP scenario framework is that these differences in climate outcomes are likely to be small relative to the overall uncertainty in applications of these simulations to integrated analyses (including impact assessments).”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Variability estimated for one scenario can be applied to outcomes for others.

    “based on the assumption that variability estimated for one scenario can be applied to outcomes for others.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The level of negative CO2 emissions from fossil fuels reached in 2100 remains constant until 2140, and then increases linearly to reach zero by 2190.

    “The extension assumes that the level of negative CO 2 emissions from fossil fuels reached in 2100 remains constant until 2140, and then increase linearly to reach zero by 2190.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Differences in climate outcomes produced by different scenarios for the same global forcing pathway are likely small relative to regional climate variability, uncertainty across climate models, and uncertainty in impact models used to investigate outcomes of interest to the IAV community.

    “The prevailing hypothesis is that differences in climate outcomes produced by different scenarios for the same global forcing pathway are likely small relative to regional climate variability, uncertainty across climate models, and uncertainty in impact models used to investigate outcomes of interest to the IAV community (see Sect. 2.4.2).”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The temperature projections in Figure 3 assume zero volcanic forcing and maintain 11-year solar forcing cycles, consistent with the CMIP5 approach.

    “projections assume zero volcanic forcing and maintain 11-year solar forcing cycles, consistent with the CMIP5 approach(Meinshausen et al., 2011c).”
6 of 6

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. IPCC: Climate Change 2001: Mitigation of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Davidson, O. R. and Mertz, B., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2001.
  2. IPCC: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S. K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and Midgley, P. M., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp., 2013.
  3. IPCC: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Field, C. B., Barros, V. R., Dokken, D. J., Mach, K. J., Mastrandrea, M. D., Bilir, T. E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K. L., Estrada, Y. O., Genova, R. C., Girma, B., Kissel, E. S., Levy, A. N., MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea, P. R., and White, L. L., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1132 pp., 2014a.
  4. IPCC: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Barros, V. R., Field, C. B., Dokken, D. J., Mastrandrea, M. D., Mach, K. J., Bilir, T. E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K. L., Estrada, Y. O., Genova, R. C., Girma, B., Kissel, E. S., Levy, A. N., MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea, P. R., and White, L. L., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 688 pp., 2014b.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
O'Neill, B. C., Tebaldi, C., van Vuuren, D. P., Eyring, V., Friedlingstein, P., Hurtt, G., Knutti, R., Kriegler, E., Lamarque, J.-F., Lowe, J., Meehl, G. A., Moss, R., Riahi, K., & Sanderson, B. M.
Affiliations
  • NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research (US)
  • Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e. V. (DLR) (DE)
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (DE)
  • Met Office (GB)
  • Joint Global Change Research Institute (US)
  • International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (AT)
Corresponding author
  • Tebaldi, Claudia
  • Eyring, Veronika
  • Friedlingstein, Pierre
  • Hurtt, George
  • Knutti, Reto
  • Kriegler, Elmar
  • Lowe, Jason
  • Meehl, Gerald A.
  • Moss, Richard
  • Riahi, Keywan
  • Sanderson, Benjamin M.
ORCID
Venue
Geoscientific Model Development
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Published
2016-09-28
Volume
9
Issue
9
Pages
3461-3482
ISSN
  • 1991-959X (ISSN-L)
  • 1991-9603
DOI
10.5194/gmd-9-3461-2016
OpenAlex
W2337225114
Semantic Scholar
f71367b378592324c4f7aed362e542e4c901a111
Cited by
5,241
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 835 · 2025: 1024 · 2024: 974 · 2023: 897 · 2022: 727 · 2021: 480 · 2020: 206 · 2019: 48 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 15 · 2014: 1
FWCI
23.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Geoscientific model development (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • IIASA PURE (International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis) (acceptedVersion)
  • elib (German Aerospace Center) (submittedVersion)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • RENATE (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Publication Database PIK (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RENATE (cc-by)
  • ETH Zürich Research Collection (cc-by)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Energy (DEFC0297ER62402, FC02-97ER62402)
  • European Commission (641816, HORIZON2020)
  • Office of Science (FC02-97ER62402, Cooperative Agreement DE-FC02-97ER62402, DEFC0297ER62402)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate Change and Geoengineering
Keywords
ScenarioMIP, CMIP6, climate change projections, emission scenarios, land use change, integrated assessment models, multi-model intercomparison, scenario-based assessment, 2 °C warming limit, long-term climate projections, natural climate variability, IPCC assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-16.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-16.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review