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
30 Own interpretation · 22 No basis given · 6 Supported · 6 Sources not found · 5 Partly supported · 5 No full text of the sources · 2 Not checked yet · 2 Own method · 2 Own result · 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)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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:
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a 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
“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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In 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.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a 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
“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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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:
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a 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
“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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a 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
“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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a 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 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)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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
“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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a 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
“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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a 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
“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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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, 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)?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably 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)?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably 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
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 2,901–3,000 of 5,246
Kant, C., Meena, R. S., Singh, S. K., Thakur, P. K., & Sharma, A. (2026) · Progress in Physical Geography Earth and Environment · doi:10.1177/03091333261428549 · Cited by 4
Çalışır, E., Amarouche, K., Çakmak, R. E., et al. (2026) · Environmental Earth Sciences · doi:10.1007/s12665-026-12885-6 · Cited by 4
Pereira, L. M., Gibson, M., Abrams, J. F., Brutschin, E., Cárdenas, J.-C., Cheung, W. W. L., Claudet, J., Cornell, S., Daioglou, V., Durán, A. P., et al. (2026) · One Earth · doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2026.101710 · Cited by 6
“47,128 These adjustments to modeling and the SSP-RCP scenario matrix account better for more diverse areas of interest—for instance, food system transformation pathways toward 1.5 ◦ C that have environmental and social improvements.”
InfluentialSelf-citationRising global hail damage potential in a warming world
Zhang, S., Zhang, Q., Allen, J. T., et al. (2026) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-026-10543-2 · Cited by 4
“…in equation (2) are generated using interannually averaged monthly outputs for the period 1985–2014 for the historical reference and 2071–2100 for the SSP245, SSP370 and SSP585 experiments from EC-Earth3 to examine the response of hail growth to varying magnitudes of climate change signal 53 .”
Mehling, O., Bellomo, K., Fabiano, F., Devilliers, M., Petrini, M., Corti, S., & von Hardenberg, J. (2025) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aed2633 · Cited by 3
“5 scenario [80], the strongest global warming scenario considered by the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report with unabated greenhouse gas emissions beyond the 21 st century [81].”
Prasertsri, N., Littidej, P., Pumhirunroj, B., & Slack, D. C. (2026) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su18157550 · Cited by 6
The past and future impact of climate change on childhood malaria in Africa
Carlson, C. J., Carleton, T. A., Odoulami, R. C., Molitor, C. D., & Trisos, C. H. (2026) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-026-10840-w · Cited by 24
“…2015 and 2100, we analysed three CMIP6 future climate change simulations from each of the 10 GCMs. SSPs refer to the level of potential future global development (social, economic and technological) and the implication for climate change mitigation and/ or adaptation actions or policy 63,64 .”
Projections of drought characteristics based on combined drought index under CMIP6 models
Shafiei, M., Moghaddasi, M., & Naderi, K. (2023) · Water Practice & Technology · doi:10.2166/wpt.2023.175 · Cited by 4
Larabi, S., Schnorbus, M., & Zwiers, F. W. (2023) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-023-03632-y · Cited by 4
“5 assumes a continuation of historical socioeconomic trends that produces intermediate levels of radiative forcing (O’Neill et al. 2016).”
BackgroundUnderstanding climate changes in East Asia and Europe based on spatial climate analogs
Paik, S., An, S., King, A. D., et al. (2024) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ad32e9 · Cited by 4
“5; 2015–2100; O’Neill et al 2016) simulations, we selected a 20 year period, when their averages are mostly close to 1.5, 2.0, and 3.0 ◦ C global warming levels relative to the pre-industrial period (1850–1900 average) in each CMIP6 model simulation (figure S11).”
MethodInfluentialAssessment of CMIP6 GCMs’ Simulation of Southwest Monsoon Rainfall over Indian Monsoon Core Region
Kesavavarthini, T., Sabarinath, A., Nair, M. M., & Rajesh, A. N. (2024) · Theoretical and Applied Climatology · doi:10.1007/s00704-024-04974-y · Cited by 4
“…projections, which are driven by a set of emission and land use scenarios that have relevance to societal concern called the SSP (Riahi et al. 2017, O'Neill et al. 2016), with the radiative forcing of 2.6, 4.5, 7.0, and 8.5 W/m 2 , instead of choosing multimodel mean approach of all forty-one…”
InfluentialGlobal potential distributions and conservation status of rice wild relatives
Lin, Y., Chen, Y., Wang, H., et al. (2024) · Plants People Planet · doi:10.1002/ppp3.10522 · Cited by 4
Controlling factors of wildfires in Australia and their changes under global warming
Bui, H. X., Li, Y., & Dommenget, D. (2024) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ad69a9 · Cited by 4
“The historical and the shared socioeconomic pathways (SSP) with fossil-fueled development combined with an 8.5 W m − 2 forcing scenario (SSP585; O’Neill et al 2016) are used in our analysis.”
InfluentialProjected changes of runoff in the Upper Yellow River Basin under shared socioeconomic pathways
Chen, Z., Su, B., Zhao, M., et al. (2024) · Frontiers of Earth Science · doi:10.1007/s11707-022-1032-z · Cited by 4
Wei, M., Jiao, L., Zhang, P., Xue, R., Wang, X., & Li, Q. (2024) · International Journal of Biometeorology · doi:10.1007/s00484-024-02786-3 · Cited by 4
“5 (high emission scenario) (O’Neill et al. 2016; Riahi et al. 2017).”
Sheng, Y., Shen, C., Li, Y., et al. (2024) · Regional Environmental Change · doi:10.1007/s10113-024-02327-z · Cited by 4
Tulowiecki, S. J., & LaDuke, N. (2024) · Scientia Horticulturae · doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2024.113837 · Cited by 4
Erazo, C. R. R., Frey, C., Armijos-Arcos, F., et al. (2024) · Diversity · doi:10.3390/d16120736 · Cited by 4
Gao, Y., Zhou, M., Yu, Z., Ju, Q., Wen, L., Jin, J., & Zhang, D. (2024) · Atmospheric Research · doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2024.107832 · Cited by 7
Wang, X., Jia, H., Nakao, K., Zhu, D., Hu, C., & Kikumoto, H. (2025) · Sustainable Cities and Society · doi:10.1016/j.scs.2025.106138 · Cited by 4
Decline of Antarctic Circumpolar Current due to polar ocean freshening
Sohail, T., Gayen, B., & Klocker, A. (2025) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/adb31c · Cited by 4
Song, S., Yan, X., Zhang, X., Gao, Z., & Xie, W. (2025) · npj Climate and Atmospheric Science · doi:10.1038/s41612-025-00915-2 · Cited by 4
Chamberland, L., Campos, M., Corrêa, M., Pinto, J., Cornel, A. J., Viegas, J., & Lanzaro, G. C. (2025) · Landscape Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10980-025-02059-3 · Cited by 5
“Projections were built under an ‘optimistic’ scenario (SSP2 4.5) and ‘pessimistic’ or ‘business-as-usual’ (SSP5 8.5) scenario, which were models built under projected carbon dioxide emission data (O’Neill et al. 2016).”
InfluentialHe, C. (2025) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-24-0177.1 · Cited by 4
Climate change impacts and the reshaping of Canadian viticulture
Lippa, M. N., Tarolli, P., & Straffelini, E. (2025) · iScience · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2025.111941 · Cited by 4
The response of tropical cyclone hazard to natural and forced patterns of warming
Lin, J., Lee, C., Camargo, S. J., Sobel, A. H., & Zhuo, J. (2025) · npj Climate and Atmospheric Science · doi:10.1038/s41612-025-00997-y · Cited by 14
“CESM2-LENS2 simulations cover the time period of 1850-2100, using historical forcing and SSP370 future radiative forcing, following CMIP6 protocol 14 .”
Microbially‐Mediated Soil Carbon‐Nitrogen Dynamics in Response to Future Soil Moisture Change
Li, W., Wang, G., Mu, Z., Qi, S., Zhou, S., & Xiang, D. (2025) · Earth s Future · doi:10.1029/2024ef005521 · Cited by 5
“…forcing sustainability pathway), SSP2‐4.5 ( + 4.5 W m 2 ; medium forcing middle of the road pathway), SSP3‐7.0 ( + 7.0 W m 2 ; medium to high forcing regional rivalry pathway), and SSP5‐8.5 ( + 8.5 W m 2 ; high forcing fossil‐fueled development pathway) (Cook et al., 2020; O'Neill et al., 2016).”
InfluentialRutkowska, A., Willems, P., Paz, S. M., & Ziernicka‐Wojtaszek, A. (2025) · International Journal of Climatology · doi:10.1002/joc.8822 · Cited by 4
Семенов, В. А., & Черенкова, Е. А. (2025) · Doklady Earth Sciences · doi:10.1134/s1028334x24604164 · Cited by 4
Wind-Driven Ocean Circulation Changes Can Amplify Future Cooling of the North Atlantic Warming Hole
McMonigal, K., Larson, S. M., & Gervais, M. (2025) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-24-0227.1 · Cited by 4
Changes in historical and future precipitation patterns across the contiguous United States
Sharif, R. B., Maggioni, V., & Dollan, I. J. (2025) · Frontiers in Earth Science · doi:10.3389/feart.2025.1542536 · Cited by 4
Wu, S., Zikalala, P., Alba, S., Jarvis-Shean, K. S., Kisekka, I., Segaran, M. A., Snyder, R. L., & Monier, E. (2025) · Earth s Future · doi:10.1029/2024ef005033 · Cited by 4
Chen, G., Liu, X., & Li, X. (2025) · Earth s Future · doi:10.1029/2024ef005873 · Cited by 4
“…SSP5‐8.5 until 2040, after which strong emission reduction measures are implemented, achieving zero emissions and net negative emissions around 2070 through large‐scale bioenergy crop cultivation for carbon capture, with farmland expansion primarily from grassland reduction (O'Neill et al., 2016).”
InfluentialAerosol mitigation matters to future water availability in the global monsoon region
Jiang, J., Zhou, T., & Zhang, W. (2025) · 中国科学通报：英文版 · doi:10.1016/j.scib.2025.05.023 · Cited by 4
Aparecido, L. E. D. O., Torsoni, G. B., de Lima, R. F., Rolim, G. D. S., & Mesquita, D. Z. (2025) · New Forests · doi:10.1007/s11056-025-10106-9 · Cited by 5
“0 represents a moderate temperature increase of approximately 3 degrees Celsius.”
InfluentialLiu, L., Xu, H., Zhu, J., et al. (2025) · Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy · doi:10.1007/s12061-025-09664-4 · Cited by 4
“This scenario is characterized by low vulnerability and mitigation challenges (O’Neill et al., 2016).”
InfluentialHošeková, L., Friedrich, T., Powell, B., & Sabine, C. L. (2025) · Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans · doi:10.1029/2024jc021903 · Cited by 4
Zhang, K., Sun, Y., Jiang, Y., Guo, H., Lin, J., Chen, J., & Wang, X. (2025) · Global and Planetary Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2025.104941 · Cited by 4
Kim, D., Choi, M., & Kang, M. (2025) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2025.133760 · Cited by 5
On the role of AMOC weakening in shaping wintertime Euro-Atlantic atmospheric circulation
Vacca, A. V., Bellomo, K., Fabiano, F., & von Hardenberg, J. (2025) · Climate Dynamics · doi:10.1007/s00382-025-07747-z · Cited by 5
“…of emissions and land use changes during the 21st century, where the SSP5 − 8.5 represents the strongest forcing scenario, producing a radiative forcing of 8.5 W/m 2 in 2100, and SSP2 − 4.5 an intermediate forcing scenario, producing a radiative forcing of 4.5 W/m 2 in 2100 (O’Neill et al. 2016).”
InfluentialHeat Storage Pattern Linked to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation Slowdown
Ren, Q., Li, Y., Hu, S., et al. (2025) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2025gl116801 · Cited by 4
“We analyzed outputs of 35 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) models (Table S1 in Supporting Information S1), covering the historical (1850–2014) and Shared Socioeconomic Pathways 5–8.5 (2015–2100) scenarios (Eyring et al., 2016; O’Neill et al., 2016).”
InfluentialMalla, S., & OHGUSHI, K. (2025) · Water Cycle · doi:10.1016/j.watcyc.2025.08.004 · Cited by 6
Freitas, T. R., Santos, J. A. C., Fernandes, A., Menz, C., Paredes, P., & Fraga, H. (2025) · Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change · doi:10.1007/s11027-025-10247-4 · Cited by 4
Xiao, F., Wu, Y., Wang, X., et al. (2025) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su17177901 · Cited by 4
Benti, K. K., Dinka, M. O., Rwanga, S. S., et al. (2025) · Hydrology · doi:10.3390/hydrology12090244 · Cited by 4
“Detailed descriptions of these scenarios, which combine SSP storylines with radiative forcing levels, were provided by the authors of [32].”
A Theory on Regional Impacts of Global Warming
Eltahir, E. A. B., & Choi, Y. (2025) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2025gl118808 · Cited by 4
Liu, K., Wang, R., Samir, K. C., Goujon, A., Kiesewetter, G., & Hoekstra, R. (2025) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2025.109817 · Cited by 4
Xu, K., Yu, M., Chen, Y., et al. (2025) · 2012 International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis · doi:10.1145/3712285.3771788 · Cited by 4
“Earth system models (ESMs) that integrate the processes of the atmosphere, ocean, land, and sea ice are indispensable tools for unveiling the complexities of climate change [27, 48].”
Future drought patterns in Southwest China: A CMIP6-based analysis using multiple drought indices
Long, Y., Huang, Y., Ma, Q., Yu, W., & Tan, C. (2025) · Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ejrh.2025.102702 · Cited by 9
Liu, H., Chen, Y., Zhang, L., et al. (2021) · Biology · doi:10.3390/biology10080780 · Cited by 4
“These data were downloaded from the Climate Data Store [40].”
MethodTang, S., Song, Y., Zeng, B., & Dong, M. (2021) · Forests · doi:10.3390/f12101366 · Cited by 4
“5 represent the low and high radiative forcing by the end of the 21st century, respectively [68,69].”
BackgroundAn Integrated Approach for Evaluating Climate Change Risks: A Case Study in Suriname
Antich-Homar, H., Hess, K., Solaun, K., Alleng, G. P., & Flores, A. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su14031463 · Cited by 4
Lu, Z. (2022) · Advances in Climate Change Research · doi:10.1016/j.accre.2022.05.002 · Cited by 5
Harrop, B. E., Burrows, S. M., Calvin, K., Kooperman, G. J., Leung, L.-Y. R., Maltrud, M. E., Shi, X., Tang, J., Tang, Q., Wang, H., et al. (2022) · Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/2021jd036148 · Cited by 4
“5 scenario (O'Neill et al., 2016) prescribed land use land cover change projection (as well as the same aerosol and non-CO2 greenhouse gas concentrations) to avoid conflating land use land cover change with the CO2 impacts we wish to explore.”
BackgroundInter‐Model Differences in Future Summer Onset Over the Northern High Latitudes
Park, B., Min, S., & Ryu, Y. (2022) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2022gl100739 · Cited by 4
Rapid shift in greenhouse forcing of emerging arctic peatlands
Christensen, T. R., Scheller, J. H., Scheel, M., Rudd, D. A., Jackowicz-Korczyński, M., Mastepanov, M., & López‐Blanco, E. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-29859-4 · Cited by 4
Extreme temperatures detection and attribution related to external forcing in Madagascar
Randriamarolaza, L. Y. A., Aguilar, E., & Skrynyk, O. (2023) · International Journal of Climatology · doi:10.1002/joc.8065 · Cited by 4
“CMIP6 models with ALL, GHG and ANT forcings correspond well with the observations for the frequency indices than the intensity indices.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialClimate envelope modeling for ocelot conservation planning: peering inside the black box
Lehnen, S. E., & Lombardi, J. V. (2023) · Ecosphere · doi:10.1002/ecs2.4477 · Cited by 4
Wang, S., Yao, T., Pu, J., et al. (2023) · Journal of Hydrology Regional Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ejrh.2023.101403 · Cited by 4
Bayesian assessment of CMIP6 surface net radiation predictions for Köppen–Geiger climate zones
Liu, Z. (2023) · International Journal of Climatology · doi:10.1002/joc.8152 · Cited by 4
“Therefore, assessing the estimation accuracy of surface net radiation is very crucial for correctly understanding the mechanism of the energy cycles on the earth system and the land – atmosphere interactions (Pendergrass, 2020).”
BackgroundPotential impacts of rapidly changing european use of fossil fuels on global warming
Huntingford, C., Lowe, J. A., Gohar, L., et al. (2023) · Environmental Research Communications · doi:10.1088/2515-7620/acf3d7 · Cited by 4
Self-citationIkeda, K., Tanimoto, H., Kanaya, Y., et al. (2023) · SOLA · doi:10.2151/sola.2023-031 · Cited by 4
“6 scenarios (O’Neill et al. 2016).”
Mesgari, E., Hosseini, S. A., هوشیار, م., et al. (2023) · Natural Hazards · doi:10.1007/s11069-023-06155-y · Cited by 4
“5) represent the low end of the range of future forcing pathways, medium part of the range of future forcing pathways, medium to the high end of the range of future forcing pathways and high end of the range of future pathways, respectively (O’Neill et al. 2016).”
Precipitation Sensitivity to Soil Moisture Changes in Multiple Global Climate Models
Zou, X., Wang, G., Hagan, D. F. T., et al. (2023) · Atmosphere · doi:10.3390/atmos14101531 · Cited by 4
Nair, M. M., Rajesh, A. N., Sahai, A. K., & Kumar, T. V. L. (2023) · International Journal of Climatology · doi:10.1002/joc.8269 · Cited by 7
“SSP scenarios consider changes in socioeconomic conditions such as populations, ecosystems, resources and institutions in the future (O'Neill et al., 2016).”
BackgroundFuso, F., Bombelli, G. M., & Bocchiola, D. (2023) · Theoretical and Applied Climatology · doi:10.1007/s00704-023-04698-5 · Cited by 4
Xu, Z., Chen, L., Peng, Q., et al. (2023) · Water · doi:10.3390/w15203595 · Cited by 4
Fard, F. N., Siuki, A. K., Hashemi, S. R., et al. (2023) · Environmental Monitoring and Assessment · doi:10.1007/s10661-023-11872-9 · Cited by 4
“The models of the 6th report have more clarity and use the common social and economic release scenarios of SSP/RCP to predict climate change in the future (O’Neill et al., 2016).”
MethodA Statistical Approach on Estimations of Climate Change Indices by Monthly Instead of Daily Data
Hasel, K., Bügelmayer‐Blaschek, M., & Formayer, H. (2023) · Atmosphere · doi:10.3390/atmos14111634 · Cited by 4
Monte Carlo drift correction – quantifying the drift uncertainty of global climate models
Grandey, B. S., Koh, Z. Y., Samanta, D., et al. (2023) · Geoscientific model development · doi:10.5194/gmd-16-6593-2023 · Cited by 4
“Net downward top-of-atmosphere radiative flux ( E (cid:48) ) is calculated as E (cid:48) = rsdt − rsut − rlut, where rsdt is the in-coming shortwave radiation, rsut is the outgoing short-wave radiation, and rlut is the outgoing longwave radiation.”
Phuong, D., Vu, N., & Loi, N. (2024) · Climate Research · doi:10.3354/cr01736 · Cited by 4
Beech, N., Rackow, T., Semmler, T., et al. (2024) · Geoscientific model development · doi:10.5194/gmd-17-529-2024 · Cited by 4
Modulations of ocean-atmosphere interactions on squid abundance over Southwest Atlantic
Ko, C., Lee, Y., Wang, Y., et al. (2024) · Environmental Research · doi:10.1016/j.envres.2024.118444 · Cited by 4
Colston, J. M., Fang, B., Houpt, E. R., Chernyavskiy, P., Swarup, S., Gardner, L., Nong, M. K., Badr, H. S., Zaitchik, B. F., Lakshmi, V., et al. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0297775 · Cited by 4
Variability of the M2 internal tides in the Luzon Strait under climate change
Guo, Z., Wang, S., Cao, A., et al. (2024) · Climate Dynamics · doi:10.1007/s00382-024-07148-8 · Cited by 4
“5 where climate change mitigation challenges dominate and a radiative forcing of 8.5 W m −2 in 2100 is produced (O’Neill et al. 2016).”
InfluentialKenar, N. (2024) · Nordic Journal of Botany · doi:10.1111/njb.04250 · Cited by 6
Spatiotemporal patterns of groundwater over South Korea
Park, C.-K., & Kam, J. (2024) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.172221 · Cited by 4
Wang, K., Zhu, X., & Dong, W. (2024) · Weather and Climate Extremes · doi:10.1016/j.wace.2024.100674 · Cited by 4
Mazaheri, E., Koupai, J. A., Heidarpour, M., Zareian, M., & Gohari, A. (2024) · Theoretical and Applied Climatology · doi:10.1007/s00704-024-05064-9 · Cited by 4
“Due to the limits and shortcoming of the fifth phase of the coupled model intercomparison project (CMIP5), the sixth phase of the coupled model inter-comparison project (CMIP6) was published (O'Neill et al. 2016; Stouffer et al. 2017).”
Increasing concurrent exposure of global breadbaskets to reproductive heat extremes
Zhang, H., Yu, X.-G., Qiao, F., & Li, C. (2024) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ad6467 · Cited by 3
“5 (O’Neill et al 2016), respectively.”
Changes in the SST Seasonal Cycle in a Warmer North Pacific without Ocean Dynamical Feedbacks
Yu, W.-X., Liu, F., Luo, Y., et al. (2024) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-24-0029.1 · Cited by 4
Milano, F., Casazza, G., Galimberti, A., et al. (2024) · BMC Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1186/s12862-024-02295-2 · Cited by 4
He, Y., Wang, G., Ren, Y., Gao, S., Chu, D., & McKirdy, S. (2024) · Journal of Integrative Agriculture · doi:10.1016/j.jia.2024.08.001 · Cited by 4
Projection of a winter ice-free Barents-Kara Sea by CMIP6 models with the CCHZ-DISO method
Peng, Y., Duan, A., Shen, Z., et al. (2024) · Atmospheric Research · doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2024.107631 · Cited by 4
Liang, Y., & Fedorov, A. V. (2024) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-23-0681.1 · Cited by 4
Shan, Y., Lu, Z., Yan, L., Rohani, E. R., Du, F., Zhiwei, F., Han, R., & Tong, X. (2024) · Nordic Journal of Botany · doi:10.1111/njb.04502 · Cited by 4
Evaluating NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 performance in complex terrain for forecasting key freezing rain factors
Zou, W., Cao, S., & Tan, W. (2024) · Theoretical and Applied Climatology · doi:10.1007/s00704-024-05159-3 · Cited by 4
“5, respectively(O’Neill et al. 2016).”
Fallah, B., Rostami, M., Didovets, I., et al. (2024) · Meteorological Applications · doi:10.1002/met.70001 · Cited by 4
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) extensively reviews literature using SSP scenarios' outcomes (Eyring et al., 2016; O'neill et al., 2016).”
Eastern Tropical Pacific atmospheric and oceanic projected changes based on CMIP6 models
Parra, R. R. T., Usta, D. F. B., Otero, L., & Moreno-Ardila, M. P. (2024) · Progress In Oceanography · doi:10.1016/j.pocean.2024.103362 · Cited by 9
Description and Evaluation of the CNRM‐Cerfacs Climate Prediction System (C3PS)
Sánchez-Gómez, E., Séférian, R., Batté, L., et al. (2024) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1029/2023ms004193 · Cited by 4
Centennial‐Scale Recovery of the North Atlantic Summer Storm Track Weakening
Chemke, R. (2024) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2024gl109801 · Cited by 5
“To examine whether the CESM results are evident also under a realistic scenario and in a different model, I also make use of the CanESM5 five‐member ensemble under the historical (through 2014), SSP5‐8.5 (through 2040) and SSP5‐3.4OS (through 2099) forcings (O’Neill et al., 2016).”
InfluentialVerification of Seasonal Ensemble Forecasts Based on the INM-CM5 Earth System Model
Хан, В. М., Kruglova, E. N., Tishchenko, V. A., et al. (2024) · Russian Meteorology and Hydrology · doi:10.3103/s1068373924070033 · Cited by 4
Inadequacy of agricultural best management practices under warmer climates
Zammali, M. K., Nazemi, A., Hassanzadeh, E., & Lindenschmidt, K. (2024) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ad928e · Cited by 3
“On the other hand, we use an ensemble of downscaled projections from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6; Eyring et al 2016, O’Neill et al 2016) to identify new combinations of BMPs that can improve water quality under future climate (hereafter adapted BMPs).”
Lai, T., & Toumi, R. (2024) · Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society · doi:10.1002/qj.4895 · Cited by 4
Zhang, S., Naïk, V., Paynter, D. J., Tilmes, S., & John, J. G. (2024) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2024gl113532 · Cited by 4
“For instance, the Coupled Model Intercomparision Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 5 (SSP5) overshoot scenario SSP5‐34‐OS (O’Neill et al., 2016) assumes a high forcing following the SSP5‐85 scenario until 2040, when aggressive mitigation efforts are made to reduce GHG emissions.”
InfluentialCui, M., Ji, D., Moore, J. C., Zhang, H., Jin, J., Fei, K., Wu, C., Zhu, J., He, J., Chai, Z., et al. (2025) · Advances in Atmospheric Sciences · doi:10.1007/s00376-024-4177-8 · Cited by 4
“…Evaluation and Characterization of Klima (DECK) experiments (Eyring et al., 2016), the Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (Scenari-oMIP; O'Neill et al., 2016), the Ocean Model Intercomparison Project Phase 1 (OMIP1; Griffies et al., 2016), the Flux-Anomaly-Forced Model Intercomparison…”
Ali, Z., Muhammad, M. K. I., Almazroui, M., & Shahid, S. (2025) · Atmospheric Research · doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2025.107957 · Cited by 4
Sugarcane Distribution Simulation and Climate Change Impact Analysis in China
Zhou, Z., Liu, X., Liu, R., et al. (2025) · Agriculture · doi:10.3390/agriculture15050491 · Cited by 4
Oyama, T., Takakura, J., Hosokawa, Y., et al. (2025) · Environmental Research Health · doi:10.1088/2752-5309/adbb11 · Cited by 4
“The projections are derived from an existing high-resolution and bias-corrected daily climate scenario data over Japan (NIES2020) [12] based on the latest CMIP6 [13] GCM outputs [14].”
Wang, J., Kudagama, B. J., Perera, U. S., Li, S., & Zhang, X. (2025) · Physics of Fluids · doi:10.1063/5.0254669 · Cited by 4
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
