The DOI matches its Crossref record; 82 of the 82 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 12 of the 29 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
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.
Overview
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
12 of 29 cited sources checked · 7 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > CMIP6 science question
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Tebaldi et al., 2015 source
The Sensitivity of regional climate section states that a ΔGAT of about 0.3 °C is needed for a majority of models to show significant temperature change over at least half the land surface. The Methods define temperature significance using a one-sided test at the 5% level; figure 3 describes the multi-model results at the 0.05 level. Page numbers are not supplied in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.93)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 3.1.1 Choosing forcing levels for CMIP6 scenarios
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Clarke et al., 2009 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
- Not matchedcites Kriegler et al., 2014b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Riahi et al., 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“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).”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 3.1.1 Choosing forcing levels for CMIP6 scenarios
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Riahi et al., 2015 source
Section 5, “Mitigation costs and feasibility,” explicitly distinguishes feasibility in a model from feasibility in the real world. It says political and social concerns may make feasible model solutions unattainable in practice. (LLM, conf=0.95)
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“For regional precipitation, a much wider separation is required to ensure that scenarios are statistically different.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > CMIP6 science question
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Tebaldi et al., 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 3.2.2 Description of each scenario and its rationale
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CMIP5 RCP2.6 projections, which have a median outcome across models of about 1.6 • C global mean surface temperature in 2100, and the SSP1-2.6 scenario and its long-term extension, which is estimated to decline to 1.5 • C warm- ing in the 22nd century (Fig. 5), can inform analyses of the implications of the 1.5 • C target.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > SSP5-3.4-OS:
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and also because it is relevant to IAM/IAV research as a scenario that combines intermediate societal vulnerability with an intermediate forcing level.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 3.2.2 Description of each scenario and its rationale
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“This emissions pathway is estimated to produce equilibrated radiative forcing over the period 2200-2300 at a level similar to the level reached in the long-term extension of RCP8.5 designed for CMIP5 (Meinshausen et al., 2011c; just above 12 W m -2 in the simple climate model used in Fig. 5).”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Tier 2: long-term extensions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Meinshausen et al., 2011c
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This extension is expected to achieve a long-term equilibrium temperature of 1.25 • C above pre-industrial temperatures, based on the simple climate model used in Fig. 5.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Tier 2: long-term extensions
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For SSP1-2.6 the rate of negative carbon emissions from fossil fuels reached in 2100 is extended to 2140 and then increases linearly to zero in 2185, with all other emissions (including CO 2 from land use) held constant at 2100 levels, leading to slowly declining forcing that approximately stabilizes beyond 2200 around 2.0 W m -2 .”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Tier 2: long-term extensions
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
- Probably not a substantial claim. 29
- It may state two separate claims as one. 25
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The RCPs were the basis for climate model projections in CMIP5 (Taylor et al., 2012) and their assessment in the IPCC AR5 (IPCC, 2013).”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Abstract
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Taylor et al., 2012 source
The Long-term experiments section states that CMIP5 climate-change projections were driven by scenarios consistent with the RCPs. The Taylor et al. citation is attached to the CMIP5-projections part of the sentence; the IPCC AR5 assessment has a separate citation. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not matchedcites IPCC, 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Moss
What the sources say
- Supportedcites O'Neill et al., 2015 source
Section 3.1 describes SSP1’s education and health investments and strong institutions; section 3.5 describes strong investments in health, education, and institutions in SSP5. Section 4 says economic development is rapid and broad-based in both, although growth is somewhat slower in SSP1 than in SSP5. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.92)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“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”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 2.1 ScenarioMIP process
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Tebaldi et al., 2015 source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“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).”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Abstract
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Eyring et al., 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“However, SSP5 assumes an energy intensive, fossilbased economy, while in SSP1 there is an increasing shift toward sustainable practices.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Moss
What the sources say
- Supportedcites O'Neill et al., 2015 source
Section 4 says SSP5 has rapidly growing energy demand and an energy system that continues to rely heavily on fossil fuels. Section 3.1 describes SSP1 as increasing environmental awareness and a gradual move toward less resource-intensive lifestyles, supporting the contrast in the claim. (LLM, conf=0.94)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“SSP2 envisions a central pathway in which trends continue their historical patterns without substantial deviations.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Moss
What the sources say
- Supportedcites O'Neill et al., 2015 source
Section 3.2, “SSP2: Middle of the road,” says that social, economic, and technological trends do not shift markedly from historical patterns. It also describes SSP2 as consistent with typical historical patterns, while clarifying that it is not a simple extrapolation of recent experience. (LLM, conf=0.94)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“SSPs 3 and 4 envision more pessimistic development trends, with little investment in education or health, fast growing population, and increasing inequalities.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Moss
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites O'Neill et al., 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
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)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > SSP5-3.4-OS:
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Tier 2: long-term extensions
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- 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 paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > B. C. O'Neill et al.: The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 3.2.2 Description of each scenario and its rationale
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 3.2.2 Description of each scenario and its rationale
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Land Use MIP (LUMIP)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In short, the SSPs describe alternative evolutions of future society in the absence of climate change or climate policy.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Moss
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 2.1 ScenarioMIP process
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tebaldi and Arblaster, 2014 source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“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).”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Moss
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bauer et al., 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Popp et al., 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Riahi et al., 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Moss
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial 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).
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There might also be feasible developments in the real world that are not anticipated by the IAM.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 3.1.1 Choosing forcing levels for CMIP6 scenarios
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Moss
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Riahi et al., 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“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).”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > What are the effects of declines in forcing (overshoot scenarios)?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tebaldi and Arblaster, 2014 source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 2.4 Scientific questions addressed by ScenarioMIP
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Multiple IAMs were used for the quantification of the SSP scenarios, and a single”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Moss
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Riahi et al., 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 3.1.1 Choosing forcing levels for CMIP6 scenarios
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > CMIP6 science question
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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 Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 3 Overview of ScenarioMIP experiment design
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ScenarioMIP design will include an updated and expanded set of forcing pathways directly derived from SSPs.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Moss
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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 Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 3.3 Other design features 3.3.1 Emissions driven vs. concentration driven
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Tier 2: long-term extensions
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 3.3.2 Relation to CMIP5
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > What are the effects of declines in forcing (overshoot scenarios)?
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The lowest RCP (RCP2.6), and the low SSP scenarios, already exhibit a limited degree of concentration overshoot.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > What are the effects of declines in forcing (overshoot scenarios)?
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ScenarioMIP will carry out climate model simulations for one particular land use and concentration pathway that leads to this level of radiative forcing.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > CMIP6 science question
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The multi-model approach will allow for a better characterization of uncertainty in climate outcomes than would otherwise be possible”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 5 Conclusions
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Researchers examining the consequences of climate change and potential adaptations are a key user group of CMIP outputs and products.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Vulnerability, impacts, adaptation and climate services (VIACS) advisory board
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 5 Conclusions
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 5 Conclusions
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Future simulations will also require specification of natural forcings, in particular solar forcing and volcanic emissions.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 4 Inputs (forcings) and outputs
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Vulnerability, impacts, adaptation and climate services (VIACS) advisory board
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In order to run the experiments, data sets for future natural and anthropogenic forcings are required.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Data availability
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 5 Conclusions
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
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).”
Citations
Cites
Climate change 2007: the physical science basis
Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Marquis, M. C., Averyt, K. B., Tignor, M., Miller, H. L., & Chen, Z. (2007) · Cited by 23,398
An Overview of CMIP5 and the Experiment Design
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., & Meehl, G. A. (2012) · Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society · doi:10.1175/bams-d-11-00094.1 · Cited by 14,052 · cited 7×
“The climate model output from ScenarioMIP experiments described in this paper will be distributed through the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) with DOIs assigned. in CMIP5, the model output will be freely accessible through data portals after registration.”
InfluentialSelf-citationEyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., & Taylor, K. E. (2016) · Geoscientific Model Development · doi:10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016 · Cited by 11,981 · cited 1×
“ScenarioMIP has three primary objectives Eyring et al., 2016) and allows for the quantification of uncertainties on different timescales.”
Self-citationThe representative concentration pathways: an overview
van Vuuren, D. P., Edmonds, J., Kainuma, M., Riahi, K., Thomson, A., Hibbard, K., Hurtt, G. C., Kram, T., Krey, V., Lamarque, J.-F., et al. (2011) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z · Cited by 7,741 · cited 2×
“This process will basically be done using the methods applied earlier for the RCPs (Van Vuuren et al., 2011a).”
Self-citationRiahi, K., van Vuuren, D. P., Kriegler, E., Edmonds, J., O’Neill, B. C., Fujimori, S., Bauer, N., Calvin, K., Dellink, R., Fricko, O., et al. (2017) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009 · Cited by 6,607
Self-citationThe next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment
Moss, R. H., Edmonds, J. A., Hibbard, K. A., Manning, M. R., Rose, S. K., van Vuuren, D. P., Carter, T. R., Emori, S., Kainuma, M., Kram, T., et al. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature08823 · Cited by 6,467 · cited 3×
“Early in the design of the scenario framework, a criterion for selecting RCPs was that they be well separated in terms of radiative forcing (Moss et al., 2008).”
InfluentialSelf-citationSpecial report on emissions scenarios
Nakićenović, N., Alcamo, J., Davis, G. R., de Vries, B. J. M., Fenhann, J. V., Gaffin, S., Gregory, K., Grübler, A., Jung, T. Y., Kram, T., et al. (2000) · Cited by 6,089
Self-citationAnthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing
Myhre, G., Shindell, D., & Pongratz, J. (2014) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781107415324.018 · Cited by 4,634 · cited 1×
“Forcing is reported as global average radiative forcing, not effective radiative forcing (Myhre et al., 2013).”
The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300
Meinshausen, M. A., Smith, S. J., Calvin, K., Daniel, J. S., Kainuma, M., Lamarque, J., Matsumoto, K., Montzka, S. A., Raper, S. C. B., Riahi, K., et al. (2011) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0156-z · Cited by 3,781
Self-citationClimate change 2007 - mitigation of climate change
Metz, B., Davidson, O. R., Bösch, P., Dave, R., & Meyer, L. (2007) · Cited by 3,484
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
Items 101–200 of 5,246
Davini, P., & D’Andrea, F. (2020) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-19-0862.1 · Cited by 252
Simulations for CMIP6 With the AWI Climate Model AWI‐CM‐1‐1
Semmler, T., Danilov, S. D., Gierz, P., Goessling, H., Hegewald, J., Hinrichs, C., Koldunov, N., Khosravi, N., Mu, L., Rackow, T., et al. (2020) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1029/2019ms002009 · Cited by 243
“The AWI‐CM model data are available through the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) and include not only the DECK and ScenarioMIP experiments (Eyring et al., 2016; O'Neill et al., 2016) with AWI‐CM‐1‐1‐MR (Semmler et al.”
MethodHuang, J., Zhang, Y., Arhonditsis, G. B., Gao, J., Chen, Q., & Peng, J. X. (2020) · Water Research · doi:10.1016/j.watres.2020.115902 · Cited by 231
Zanchettin, D., Khodri, M., Timmreck, C., Toohey, M., Schmidt, A., Gerber, E. P., Hegerl, G. C., Robock, A. D., Pausata, F. S. R., Ball, W. T., et al. (2016) · Geoscientific model development · doi:10.5194/gmd-9-2701-2016 · Cited by 248
“5 scenario experiment of ScenarioMIP.”
BackgroundInfluentialDiverging future surface mass balance between the Antarctic ice shelves and grounded ice sheet
Kittel, C., Amory, C., Agosta, C., Jourdain, N. C., Hofer, S., Delhasse, A., Doutreloup, S., Huot, P.-V., Lang, C., Fichefet, T., et al. (2021) · The Cryosphere · doi:10.5194/tc-15-1215-2021 · Cited by 250
Temperature dataset of CMIP6 models over China: evaluation, trend and uncertainty
You, Q., Cai, Z., Wu, F., Jiang, Z., Pepin, N., & Shen, S. S. P. (2021) · Climate Dynamics · doi:10.1007/s00382-021-05691-2 · Cited by 230
What would it take to achieve the Paris temperature targets?
Sanderson, B. M., O’Neill, B. C., & Tebaldi, C. (2016) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1002/2016gl069563 · Cited by 251
“…overshoot of 1.5 degrees requires net zero emissions by 2060 Supporting Information: • Supporting Information S1 Correspondence to: B. M. Sanderson, bsander@ucar.edu Citation: Sanderson B., C. Tebaldi, and B. O’Neill (2016), What would it take to achieve the Paris temperature targets?, Geophys.”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationGlobal land use for 2015–2100 at 0.05° resolution under diverse socioeconomic and climate scenarios
Chen, M., Vernon, C., Graham, N. T., Hejazi, M. I., Huang, M., Cheng, Y., & Calvin, K. (2020) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-020-00669-x · Cited by 226
Business risk and the emergence of climate analytics
Fiedler, T., Pitman, A. J., Mackenzie, K., Wood, N., Jakob, C., & Perkins-Kirkpatrick, S. E. (2021) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-020-00984-6 · Cited by 248
Bauer, S. E., Tsigaridis, K., Faluvegi, G., Kelley, M., Lo, K. K., Miller, R. L., Nazarenko, L., Schmidt, G. A., & Wu, J. (2020) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1029/2019ms001978 · Cited by 222
“2006)(Schulz et al,, 2009) Phase 3 experiments, and as the starting point for the ScenarioMIP simulations (O’Neill et al., 2016).”
MethodInfluentialPoleward expansion of tropical cyclone latitudes in warming climates
Studholme, J., Fedorov, A. V., Gulev, S., Emanuel, K., & Hodges, K. I. (2021) · Nature Geoscience · doi:10.1038/s41561-021-00859-1 · Cited by 256
Globally unequal effect of extreme heat on economic growth
Callahan, C. W., & Mankin, J. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.add3726 · Cited by 233
“…(“tasmax_day”), daily average temperature (“tas_day”), and monthly average temperature (“tas_Amon”) data from the “historical,” “historical-nat” (hereafter “natural”), and “ssp245” experiments ( 56 , 73 ) for all available realizations of eight models, for a total of 80 simulations (table S3).”
Burke, E., Zhang, Y., & Krinner, G. (2020) · The Cryosphere · doi:10.5194/tc-14-3155-2020 · Cited by 220
Global gridded GDP data set consistent with the shared socioeconomic pathways
Wang, T., & Sun, F. (2022) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-022-01300-x · Cited by 220
Volcanic Radiative Forcing From 1979 to 2015
Schmidt, A., Mills, M. J., Ghan, S. J., Gregory, J. M., Allan, R. P., Andrews, T., Bardeen, C., Conley, A., Forster, P. M. D. F., Gettelman, A., et al. (2018) · Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/2018jd028776 · Cited by 216
Avoiding ocean mass extinction from climate warming
Penn, J. L., & Deutsch, C. A. (2022) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abe9039 · Cited by 226
Future changes in the extratropical storm tracks and cyclone intensity, wind speed, and structure
Priestley, M. D. K., & Catto, J. L. (2022) · Weather and Climate Dynamics · doi:10.5194/wcd-3-337-2022 · Cited by 211
Simulations With the Marine Biogeochemistry Library (MARBL)
Long, M. C., Moore, J. K., Lindsay, K., Levy, M. N., Doney, S. C., Luo, J. Y., Krumhardt, K. M., Letscher, R. T., Grover, M. A., & Sylvester, Z. T. (2021) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1029/2021ms002647 · Cited by 235
Nicholls, Z., Meinshausen, M. A., Lewis, J., Gieseke, R., Dommenget, D., Dorheim, K., Fan, C.-S., Fuglestvedt, J. S., Gasser, T., Golüke, U., et al. (2020) · Geoscientific model development · doi:10.5194/gmd-13-5175-2020 · Cited by 224
“The SSP-based scenarios (O’Neill et al., 2016; Riahi et al., 2017) are the cornerstone of CMIP6’s ScenarioMIP and are an update of CMIP5’s RCP scenarios (van Vuuren et al., 2011a).”
InfluentialSelf-citationChen, G., Li, X., & Liu, X. (2022) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-022-01208-6 · Cited by 211
Hanna, E., Cappelen, J., Fettweis, X., et al. (2020) · International Journal of Climatology · doi:10.1002/joc.6771 · Cited by 206
“5) scenario (SSP5-8.5; O'Neill et al., 2016) until 2100 are used here to estimate warming rates over Greenland for the next decades.”
BackgroundInfluentialProjection of climate extremes in China, an incremental exercise from CMIP5 to CMIP6
Zhu, H., Jiang, Z., & Li, L. (2021) · 中国科学通报：英文版 · doi:10.1016/j.scib.2021.07.026 · Cited by 208
Impacts of Urban Expansion on Terrestrial Carbon Storage in China
Liu, X., Wang, S., Pei-jun, W., Feng, K., Hubacek, K., Li, X., & Sun, L. (2019) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.9b00103 · Cited by 206
Historical and Projected Changes in the Southern Hemisphere Surface Westerlies
Goyal, R., Gupta, A. S., Jucker, M., & England, M. H. (2021) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2020gl090849 · Cited by 206
Minx, J. C., Lamb, W. F., Andrew, R. M., Canadell, J. G., Crippa, M., Döbbeling-Hildebrandt, N., Forster, P. M. D. F., Guizzardi, D., Olivier, J. G. J., Peters, G. P., et al. (2021) · Earth system science data · doi:10.5194/essd-13-5213-2021 · Cited by 230
Wu, J., Luo, J., Zhang, H., et al. (2022) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157491 · Cited by 201
Changes to Carbon Isotopes in Atmospheric CO2 Over the Industrial Era and Into the Future
Graven, H., Keeling, R. F., & Rogelj, J. (2020) · Global Biogeochemical Cycles · doi:10.1029/2019gb006170 · Cited by 223
“Only one model, CESM2, has so far included carbon isotopes in their CMIP6 simulations.”
BackgroundInfluentialKosaka, Y., Kobayashi, S., Harada, Y., KOBAYASHI, C., Naoe, H., Yoshimoto, K., HARADA, M., Goto, N., Chiba, J., Miyaoka, K., et al. (2023) · Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan Ser II · doi:10.2151/jmsj.2024-004 · Cited by 262
Size, distribution, and vulnerability of the global soil inorganic carbon
Huang, Y., Song, X., Wang, Y., Canadell, J. G., Luo, Y., Ciais, P., Chen, A., Hong, S., Wang, Y., Tao, F., et al. (2024) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adi7918 · Cited by 207
Hysteresis of tropical forests in the 21st century
Staal, A., Fetzer, I., Wang-Erlandsson, L., Bosmans, J. H. C., Dekker, S. C., van Nes, E. H., Rockström, J., & Tuinenburg, O. A. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-18728-7 · Cited by 200
Global drought and severe drought-affected populations in 1.5 and 2 °C warmer worlds
Liu, W., Sun, F., Lim, W. H., Zhang, J., Wang, H., Shiogama, H., & Zhang, Y. (2018) · Earth System Dynamics · doi:10.5194/esd-9-267-2018 · Cited by 210
Zhang, S., Yang, P., Xia, J., Wang, W., Cai, W., Chen, N., Hu, S., Luo, X., Li, J., & Zhan, C. (2022) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.155238 · Cited by 198
Mitigation of China’s carbon neutrality to global warming
Li, L., Zhang, Y., Zhou, T., Wang, K., Wang, C., Wang, T., Yuan, L., An, K., Zhou, C., & Lü, G. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-33047-9 · Cited by 202
Ascencio‐Vásquez, J., Brecl, K., & Topič, M. (2019) · Solar Energy · doi:10.1016/j.solener.2019.08.072 · Cited by 195
“The details of this world scenario are presented in (Kriegler et al., 2017; O’Neill et al., 2016; Riahi et al., 2011).”
BackgroundFuture temperature extremes threaten land vertebrates
Murali, G., Iwamura, T., Meiri, S., & Roll, U. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05606-z · Cited by 204
Bağçacı, S. Ç., Yücel, İ., Düzenli, E., & Yılmaz, M. T. (2021) · Atmospheric Research · doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2021.105576 · Cited by 194
Schwingshackl, C., Sillmann, J., Vicedo‐Cabrera, A. M., Sandstad, M., & Aunan, K. (2021) · Earth s Future · doi:10.1029/2020ef001885 · Cited by 207
“5 scenarios (O'Neill et al., 2016) and covering the time span 1981–2100.”
BackgroundElguindi, N., Granier, C., Stavrakou, T., Darras, S., Bauwens, M., Cao, H., Chen, C., van der Gon, H. D., Dubovik, О., Fu, T., et al. (2020) · Earth s Future · doi:10.1029/2020ef001520 · Cited by 201
Global warming accelerates soil heterotrophic respiration
Nissan, A., Alcolombri, U., Peleg, N., Galili, N., Jiménez‐Martínez, J., Molnár, P., & Holzner, M. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-38981-w · Cited by 201
Atmospheric dynamic constraints on Tibetan Plateau freshwater under Paris climate targets
Wang, T., Zhao, Y., Xu, C., Ciais, P., Liu, D., Yang, H., Piao, S. L., & Yao, T. (2021) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-020-00974-8 · Cited by 190
How Interpretable Machine Learning Can Benefit Process Understanding in the Geosciences
Jiang, S., Sweet, L., Blougouras, G., Brenning, A., Li, W., Reichstein, M., Denzler, J., Shangguan, W., Yu, G., Huang, F., et al. (2024) · Earth s Future · doi:10.1029/2024ef004540 · Cited by 209
The global power sector’s low-carbon transition may enhance sustainable development goal achievement
Peng, K., Feng, K., Chen, B., Shan, Y., Zhang, N., Wang, P., Fang, K., Bai, Y., Zou, X., Wei, W., et al. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-38987-4 · Cited by 192
“The GCAM isused to simulate the power transition pathways in a scenario framework 33 – 35 , in line with the shared socio-economic pathways (SSPs, e.g., SSP1, SSP2, and SSP5) 36,37 and representative concentration pathways (RCPs, e.g., RCP2.”
Observationally-constrained projections of an ice-free Arctic even under a low emission scenario
Kim, Y., Min, S., Gillett, N. P., Notz, D., & Malinina, E. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-38511-8 · Cited by 199
Co-benefits of carbon neutrality in enhancing and stabilizing solar and wind energy
Lei, Y., Wang, Z., Wang, D., Zhang, X., Che, H., Yue, X., Tian, C., Zhong, J., Guo, L., Li, L., et al. (2023) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-023-01692-7 · Cited by 206
The role of climate and population change in global flood exposure and vulnerability
Rogers, J. S., Maneta, M., Sain, S. R., Madaus, L. E., & Hacker, J. P. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-56654-8 · Cited by 223
“The fl uvial fl ood model is a cascading sequence of hydrologic and hydraulic simulators that derive depths within a river network by routingdailyrunofffromasuiteof27simulationsoftheCMIP6suiteof GCMs 37,38 downscaled to one km 2 resolution.”
Burrows, S. M., Maltrud, M. E., Yang, X., Zhu, Q., Jeffery, N., Shi, X., Ricciuto, D. M., Wang, S., Bisht, G., Tang, J., et al. (2020) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1029/2019ms001766 · Cited by 190
“1-BGC simulations in greater detail and document additional simulations (e.g., model behavior under future socioeconomic scenarios; O'Neill et al., 2016).”
Overconfidence in climate overshoot
Schleussner, C., Ganti, G., Lejeune, Q., Zhu, B., Pfleiderer, P., Prütz, R., Ciais, P., Frölicher, T. L., Fuss, S., Gasser, T., et al. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08020-9 · Cited by 183
Self-citationExperimental protocol for sea level projections from ISMIP6 stand-alone ice sheet models
Nowicki, S., Goelzer, H., Seroussi, H. L., Payne, A. J., Lipscomb, W. H., Abe‐Ouchi, A., Agosta, C., Alexander, P., Asay‐Davis, X., Barthel, A. M., et al. (2020) · The Cryosphere · doi:10.5194/tc-14-2331-2020 · Cited by 177
Arctic Ocean Amplification in a warming climate in CMIP6 models
Shu, Q., Wang, Q., Årthun, M., Wang, S., Song, Z., Zhang, M., & Qiao, F. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abn9755 · Cited by 177
“The CMIP6 projections for 2015–2100 are driven by external forcings under the SSP framework (60).”
BackgroundArunrat, N., Sereenonchai, S., Chaowiwat, W., & Wang, C. (2021) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150741 · Cited by 175
Hamed, M. M., Nashwan, M. S., Shahid, S., Ismail, T., Wang, X., Dewan, A. M., & Asaduzzaman, M. (2021) · Atmospheric Research · doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2021.105927 · Cited by 179
Increase in Arctic coastal erosion and its sensitivity to warming in the twenty-first century
Nielsen, D. M., Pieper, P., Barkhordarian, A., Overduin, P. P., Ilyina, T., Brovkin, V. A., Baehr, J., & Dobrynin, M. (2022) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-022-01281-0 · Cited by 176
Global water gaps under future warming levels
Rosa, L., & Sangiorgio, M. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-56517-2 · Cited by 198
“Tocapturearangeof potentialoutcomes, we utilize outputs from fi ve distinct climate models from the Coupled-Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) archive 47 to evaluate water gaps under both baseline and futurewarming conditions.”
Leduc, M., Mailhot, A., Frigon, A., Martel, J., Ludwig, R., Brietzke, G. B., Giguère, M., Brissette, F. P., Turcotte, R., Braun, M., et al. (2019) · Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology · doi:10.1175/jamc-d-18-0021.1 · Cited by 171
Zhang, Q., Yang, J., Wang, W., Peng-li, M., Lu, G., Liu, X., Yu, H., & Fang, F. (2021) · 气象学报：英文版 · doi:10.1007/s13351-021-0105-3 · Cited by 180
The Arctic Surface Climate in CMIP6: Status and Developments since CMIP5
Davy, R., & Outten, S. (2020) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-19-0990.1 · Cited by 170
FIO‐ESM Version 2.0: Model Description and Evaluation
Bao, Y., Song, Z., & Qiao, F. (2020) · Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans · doi:10.1029/2019jc016036 · Cited by 170
Growing impact of wildfire on western US water supply
Williams, P., Livneh, B., McKinnon, K. A., Hansen, W. D., Mankin, J., Cook, B. I., Smerdon, J. E., Varuolo‐Clarke, A. M., Bjarke, N. R., Juang, C. S., et al. (2022) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2114069119 · Cited by 179
Chakraborty, D., Alam, A., Chaudhuri, S., Başağaoğlu, H., Sulbaran, T., & Langar, S. (2021) · Applied Energy · doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116807 · Cited by 169
Ha, K., Moon, S., Timmermann, A., & Kim, D. (2020) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2020gl087492 · Cited by 165
“More details about the SSP scenarios can be found in O'Neill et al. (2016).”
InfluentialGreater Greenland Ice Sheet contribution to global sea level rise in CMIP6
Hofer, S., Lang, C., Amory, C., Kittel, C., Delhasse, A., Tedstone, A., & Fettweis, X. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-20011-8 · Cited by 176
Usable Science for Managing the Risks of Sea‐Level Rise
Kopp, R. E., Gilmore, E., Little, C. M., Lorenzo‐Trueba, J., Ramenzoni, V. C., & Sweet, W. (2019) · Earth s Future · doi:10.1029/2018ef001145 · Cited by 175
Northern Hemisphere drought risk in a warming climate
Balting, D. F., AghaKouchak, A., Lohmann, G., & Ionita-Scholz, M. (2021) · npj Climate and Atmospheric Science · doi:10.1038/s41612-021-00218-2 · Cited by 178
Wang, C., Song, J., Shi, D., Reyna, J., Horsey, R., Feron, S. C., Zhou, Y., Ouyang, Z., Li, Y., & Jackson, R. B. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-41458-5 · Cited by 183
“These four future scenarios have been prioritized as the Tier 1 scenarios in the CMIP6 ’ s Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) 54 and are also part of the core set of illustrative scenarios in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) ’ s Sixth Assessment Report.”
van Noije, T., Bergman, T., Sager, P. L., O’Donnell, D., Makkonen, R., Ageitos, M. G., Döscher, R., Fladrich, U., von Hardenberg, J., Keskinen, J., et al. (2021) · Geoscientific model development · doi:10.5194/gmd-14-5637-2021 · Cited by 184
Madakumbura, G. D., Thackeray, C. W., Norris, J., Goldenson, N., & Hall, A. D. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-24262-x · Cited by 179
Liang, Y., Gillett, N. P., & Monahan, A. H. (2020) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2019gl086757 · Cited by 162
“Historical model simulations (1850–2014) and projections (2015–2100) of climate change under each of the Tier 1 SSP scenarios are used in this study (O'Neill et al., 2016; Riahi et al., 2017).”
MethodA globally consistent local-scale assessment of future tropical cyclone risk
Bloemendaal, N., de Moel, H., Martinez, A. B., Muis, S., Haigh, I. D., van der Wiel, K., Haarsma, R., Ward, P., Roberts, M. J., Dullaart, J., et al. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abm8438 · Cited by 161
“The variable from the observational TC dataset (IBTrACS; this dataset served as input for STORM-B) is denoted as ( ∙ ) IBTrACS , and the variables resulting from adding the delta to the IBTrACS data are denoted as ( ∙ ) IBTrACS, .”
Precipitation regime changes in High Mountain Asia driven by cleaner air
Jiang, J., Zhou, T., Qian, Y., Li, C., Song, F., Li, H., Chen, X., Zhang, W., & Chen, Z. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06619-y · Cited by 173
“Future projections covering a period from 2015 to 2100 under the SSP2–4.5 and SSP5–8.5 scenarios are used to investigate future changes in HMA precipitation 64 .”
MethodInfluentialGe, F., Zhu, S., Luo, H., Zhi, X., & Wang, H. (2020) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/abd7ad · Cited by 160
Present‐day and future climate over central and South America according to CMIP5 / CMIP6 models
Ortega, G., Arias, P. A., Villegas, J. C., Marquet, P. A., & Nobre, P. (2021) · International Journal of Climatology · doi:10.1002/joc.7221 · Cited by 176
“5, resulting in a different radiative forcing and CO2-equivalent concentration at the end of the 21st century (Moss et al., 2010; O'Neill et al., 2016; Kriegler et al., 2017; O'Neill et al., 2017).”
BackgroundSoil moisture–atmosphere coupling accelerates global warming
Qiao, L., Zuo, Z., Zhang, R., et al. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-40641-y · Cited by 159
Xiao, L., Wang, G., Wang, E., Liu, S., Chang, J., Zhang, P., Zhou, H., Wei, Y., Zhang, H., Zhu, Y. P., et al. (2024) · Nature Food · doi:10.1038/s43016-023-00891-x · Cited by 164
Increasing aridity causes larger and more severe forest fires across Europe
Grünig, M., Seidl, R., & Senf, C. (2022) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.16547 · Cited by 175
“To characterize future climate, we used CMIP6 data (O'Neill et al., 2016).”
MethodHow Does El Niño–Southern Oscillation Change Under Global Warming—A First Look at CMIP6
Fredriksen, H., Berner, J., Subramanian, A. C., & Capotondi, A. (2020) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2020gl090640 · Cited by 153
“The four SSP scenarios are expected to have an approximate forcing of 2.6, 4.5, 7.0, and 8.5 W/m2 in the year 2100, as denoted by the last two digits of the names of the scenarios.”
MethodInfluentialMüller, C., Franke, J., Jägermeyr, J., Ruane, A. C., Elliott, J. W., Moyer, E. J., Heinke, J., Falloon, P., Folberth, C., François, L., et al. (2021) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/abd8fc · Cited by 170
Surface warming–induced global acceleration of upper ocean currents
Peng, Q., Xie, S., Wang, D., Huang, R. X., Chen, G., Shu, Y., Shi, J., & Liu, W. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abj8394 · Cited by 158
“B. C. O'Neill, C. Tebaldi, D. P. van Vuuren, V. Eyring, P. Friedlingstein, G. Hurtt, R. Knutti, E. Kriegler, J. F. Lamarque, J. Lowe, G. A. Meehl, R. Moss, K. Riahi, B. M. Sanderson, The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6.”
MethodInfluentialTian, L., Yu, T., Fu, W., Li, T., Ren, F., & Li, M. (2022) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs14102330 · Cited by 160
Mahdian, M., Hosseinzadeh, M., Siadatmousavi, S. M., Chalipa, Z., Delavar, M., Guo, M., Abolfathi, S., & Noori, R. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-32343-8 · Cited by 155
Yue, Y., Yan, D., Yue, Q., Ji, G., & Wang, Z. (2021) · Atmospheric Research · doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2021.105828 · Cited by 153
Future changes in monsoon duration and precipitation using CMIP6
Moon, S., & Ha, K. (2020) · npj Climate and Atmospheric Science · doi:10.1038/s41612-020-00151-w · Cited by 151
Amplified Drought and Flood Risk Under Future Socioeconomic and Climatic Change
Tabari, H., Hosseinzadehtalaei, P., Thiery, W., & Willems, P. (2021) · Earth s Future · doi:10.1029/2021ef002295 · Cited by 164
“The Regional rivalry scenario describes pessimistic human development with a lack of investments in education and health, a fast-growing population, and more inequality (O'Neill et al., 2016).”
BackgroundA global climate model ensemble for downscaled monthly climate normals over North America
Mahony, C. R., Wang, T., Hamann, A., & Cannon, A. J. (2022) · International Journal of Climatology · doi:10.1002/joc.7566 · Cited by 151
High Sensitivity of Compound Drought and Heatwave Events to Global Warming in the Future
Zhang, Q., Zhang, L., She, D., Wang, G., Chen, J., & Hao, Z. (2022) · Earth s Future · doi:10.1029/2022ef002833 · Cited by 156
“5 W m 2; high forcing fossil-fueled development pathway) (Cook et al., 2020; O’Neill et al., 2016; Riahi et al., 2017).”
BackgroundMethodLin, Q., Steger, S., Pittore, M., Zhang, J., Wang, L., Jiang, T., & Wang, Y. (2022) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.158049 · Cited by 150
Zhang, Y., You, Q., Ullah, S., Chen, C., Shen, L., & Liu, Z. (2023) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162822 · Cited by 154
Projections of an ice-free Arctic Ocean
Jahn, A., Holland, M. M., & Kay, J. E. (2024) · Nature Reviews Earth & Environment · doi:10.1038/s43017-023-00515-9 · Cited by 191
“This consistency arises owing to the short lead time and resulting small difference between emission trajectories 103,104 .”
Liu, Q., Dongwei, G. U. I., Zhang, L., Niu, J., Dai, H., Wei, G., & Hu, B. X. (2022) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154902 · Cited by 151
Abrupt, climate-induced increase in wildfires in British Columbia since the mid-2000s
Parisien, M., Barber, Q. E., Bourbonnais, M., Daniels, L. D., Flannigan, M., Gray, R. W., Hoffman, K. M., Jain, P., Stephens, S. L., Taylor, S. W., et al. (2023) · Communications Earth & Environment · doi:10.1038/s43247-023-00977-1 · Cited by 150
Sea-ice-free Arctic during the Last Interglacial supports fast future loss
Guarino, M. V., Sime, L. C., Schröder, D., Malmierca‐Vallet, I., Rosenblum, E., Ringer, M. A., Ridley, J., Feltham, D. L., Bitz, C. M., Steig, E. J., et al. (2020) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-020-0865-2 · Cited by 144
Projections of precipitation over China based on CMIP6 models
Tian, J., Zhang, Z., Ahmed, Z., Zhang, L., Su, B., Tao, H., & Jiang, T. (2021) · Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment · doi:10.1007/s00477-020-01948-0 · Cited by 144
“5 was a scenario that stabilizes radiative forcing at 8.5 Wm- 2 in 2100, and considered to be a high radiative forcing scenario (O’Neill et al. 2016).”
BackgroundInfluentialOn the Projected Decline in Droughts Over South Asia in CMIP6 Multimodel Ensemble
Aadhar, S., & Mishra, V. K. (2020) · Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/2020jd033587 · Cited by 145
“SSPs describe the possible range of future greenhouse gas emissions with assumptions of economic and population growth, investment in health and education, and climate mitigation efforts from the ScenarioMIP (O'Neill et al., 2016).”
BackgroundEvaluation and Projection of Surface Wind Speed Over China Based on CMIP6 GCMs
Wu, J., Shi, Y., & Xu, Y. (2020) · Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/2020jd033611 · Cited by 143
Significant loss of soil inorganic carbon at the continental scale
Song, X., Yang, F., Wu, H., Zhang, J., Li, C., Liu, F., Zhao, Y.-G., Yang, J., Ju, B., Cai, C., et al. (2021) · National Science Review · doi:10.1093/nsr/nwab120 · Cited by 147
“0, representing the low and medium/high radiative forcing, respectively [32].”
Hydrological Intensification Will Increase the Complexity of Water Resource Management
Ficklin, D. L., Null, S. E., Abatzoglou, J. T., Novick, K. A., & Myers, D. T. (2022) · Earth s Future · doi:10.1029/2021ef002487 · Cited by 146
Nicholls, Z., Meinshausen, M., Lewis, J., Corradi, M. R., Dorheim, K., Gasser, T., Gieseke, R., Hope, A., Leach, N., McBride, L., et al. (2021) · Earth's Future · doi:10.1029/2020ef001900 · Cited by 79
Paik, S., Min, S., Zhang, X., Donat, M. G., King, A. D., & Sun, Q. (2020) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2019gl086875 · Cited by 143
Climate change in the High Mountain Asia in CMIP6
Lalande, M., Ménégoz, M., Krinner, G., Naegeli, K., & Wunderle, S. (2021) · Earth System Dynamics · doi:10.5194/esd-12-1061-2021 · Cited by 151
Qinghai‐Tibet Plateau Permafrost at Risk in the Late 21st Century
Zhang, G., Nan, Z., Hu, N., Yin, Z., Zhao, L., Cheng, G., & Mu, C. (2022) · Earth s Future · doi:10.1029/2022ef002652 · Cited by 140
“CMIP6 provides multi-model climate projections based on scenarios that combine SSP and representative concentration pathway forcing levels (O'Neill et al., 2016).”
BackgroundImpacts of record-breaking compound heatwave and drought events in 2022 China on vegetation growth
Xu, W., Yuan, W., Wu, D., Zhang, Y., Shen, R., Xia, X., Ciais, P., & Liu, J. (2023) · Agricultural and Forest Meteorology · doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2023.109799 · Cited by 148
Metadata
- 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
- 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
- FWCI
- 23.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-16, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-16 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (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
