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 3,301–3,400 of 5,246
Quagraine, K. A., Tye, M. R., Quagraine, K. T., Tilmes, S., Simpson, I. R., Nkrumah, F., Egbebiyi, T. S., Odoulami, R. C., & Klutse, N. A. B. (2025) · Environmental Research Climate · doi:10.1088/2752-5295/adee3c · Cited by 5
Ventura, S., Miró, J. R., Segura, R., Chen, F., Martilli, A., Liu, C., Ikeda, K., & Villalba, G. (2025) · Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/2025jd043559 · Cited by 3
Das, M. L., Chandran, S., & Subrahmanyam, S. (2025) · Diversity · doi:10.3390/d17070476 · Cited by 2
gaia: An R package to estimate crop yield responses to temperature and precipitation
Zhao, M., Morris, S. T., Tebaldi, C., et al. (2025) · The Journal of Open Source Software · doi:10.21105/joss.07538 · Cited by 2
Self-citationOlson, E. M., John, J. G., Dunne, J. P. P., Stock, C. A. A., & Drenkard, E. J. (2025) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.70360 · Cited by 4
“4-OS, an overshoot scenario that switches from an un-mitigated baseline to strong mitigation in 2040, reaching net zero emissions in 2070 (O'Neill et al. 2016; Riahi et al. 2022).”
Machine learning projections of Iran’s water scarcity response to climate-land use synergies
Bayat-Afshary, N., Danesh‐Yazdi, M., & Shakeri, F. (2025) · Journal of Hydrology Regional Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ejrh.2025.102638 · Cited by 2
Zhang, L., Rubin, H. J., Chien, R., Fu, J. S., Rastogi, D., Kao, S., & Ashfaq, M. (2025) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/adf4f9 · Cited by 2
“…Phase 6 (CMIP6) global climate model (GCM) outputs provide standardized future projections, incorporating shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) with representative concentration pathways to assess climate impacts under different radiative forcing levels (Eyring et al 2016, O’Neill et al 2016).”
Heterogeneous impacts of climate change on morbidity
Hajdu, T. (2025) · Economics & Human Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ehb.2025.101517 · Cited by 3
Ali, S., Reboita, M. S., Bhutta, Z. A., et al. (2025) · Acta Geophysica · doi:10.1007/s11600-025-01642-1 · Cited by 2
“Moreover, the uncertainty of GCMs is further influenced by future climate scenarios, as they rely on assumptions about greenhouse gas emissions in the future (O’Neill et al. 2014, 2016; Yang and Cui 2019, Giddens et al. 2019).”
Life cycle assessment of batteries for maritime propulsion: A prospective perspective
Ravi, R., Iordan, C.-M., Jafarzadeh, S., et al. (2025) · Procedia CIRP · doi:10.1016/j.procir.2024.12.144 · Cited by 2
Climate effects of a future net forestation scenario in CMIP6 models
Gomez, J. L., Allen, R. J., Horowitz, L. W., et al. (2025) · npj Climate and Atmospheric Science · doi:10.1038/s41612-025-01127-4 · Cited by 2
“6 is characterized by global mean forestation and prevented deforestation (Supplement Figure S1) 42 – 45 .”
InfluentialZhu, L., Dong, S., Yan, X., et al. (2025) · International Journal of Climatology · doi:10.1002/joc.70074 · Cited by 2
“Extensive research has confirmed that the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) possesses a commendable ability to reproduce climate change (O'neill et al. 2016; Thrasher et al. 2022; Zheng et al. 2025).”
Omwoyo, A. M., Onwonga, R. N., Wasonga, O. V., & Mwangi, K. J. (2025) · Discover Soil. · doi:10.1007/s44378-025-00101-z · Cited by 2
“The Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) are trajectories of four possible futures in climate that are dependent on the amount of anthropogenic GHGs that will be emitted in the years to come [17].”
Future drought projections with CMIP6 in Eğirdir Lake basin (Türkiye)
Şener, E., & Davraz, A. (2025) · Natural Hazards · doi:10.1007/s11069-025-07573-w · Cited by 2
Wang, G., Jing, C., Yuan, X., et al. (2025) · International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation · doi:10.1016/j.jag.2025.104806 · Cited by 2
Evaluation of Leading Modes of North American Summer Heatwave Variability in CMIP6 Models
Jeong, D. I., Yu, B., & Cannon, A. J. (2025) · Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/2024jd042826 · Cited by 2
“…Research Programme's Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) coordinates multi‐model ensembles of historical and future GCM simulations, providing standardized experimental protocols to evaluate historical model performance and assess responses to climate forcings (O'Neill et al., 2016).”
Zarei, A., & Khoorani, A. (2025) · Theoretical and Applied Climatology · doi:10.1007/s00704-025-05722-6 · Cited by 2
Haridas, S., Manoj, M. G., Joseph, D., Sunil, R. M., Shaji, A., Faisal, F., D’cruz, A., Christy, A. A., & Sabin, T. P. (2025) · Climate Dynamics · doi:10.1007/s00382-025-07838-x · Cited by 2
Climate projections and the future of invasive plants in the Caatinga
Silva, C. L. C., Dechoum, M. S., Lucena, R. L., & Lopes, P. F. M. (2025) · Biological Invasions · doi:10.1007/s10530-025-03660-y · Cited by 2
“This leads to a substantial increase in greenhouse gas emissions (8.5 watts per square meter of radiative forcing in 2100), resulting in a significant increase in global average temperatures from 4.1 to 4.8 °C above pre-industrial levels by 2100 (Brooks et al. 2014; O’Neill et al. 2016).”
InfluentialAssessing future changes in Baltic sea extreme wave heights using a machine learning approach
Dubois, K., Nilsson, E. O., & Rutgersson, A. (2025) · Theoretical and Applied Climatology · doi:10.1007/s00704-025-05758-8 · Cited by 2
“This transformation facilitates a 2016).”
Kebede, S. K., Nigatu, Z. M., & Aklilu, H. (2025) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su17188165 · Cited by 2
Aragon, C. M., Hill, D. F., & Crumley, R. (2025) · Hydrological Processes · doi:10.1002/hyp.70199 · Cited by 2
Duan, Y., Li, J., Fang, X., Shen, J., Shen, H., & Du, S. (2025) · Chinese Geographical Science · doi:10.1007/s11769-025-1555-9 · Cited by 2
Cheng, J., Zhou, C., Yuan, C., et al. (2025) · Industrial Crops and Products · doi:10.1016/j.indcrop.2025.121892 · Cited by 2
Mitigating agricultural risk under future climate: assessing maize cycle and yield in Brazil
Dias, T. S. D. S., Fattori, I. M., de Melo, M. L. A., et al. (2025) · Theoretical and Applied Climatology · doi:10.1007/s00704-025-05732-4 · Cited by 2
Paudel, B. R., Subedi, C. K., Rajbhandari, M., et al. (2025) · Trees Forests and People · doi:10.1016/j.tfp.2025.101016 · Cited by 2
Kebede, M. H., Ahmed, A. M., Birhan, D. A., Damot, G. A., & Legesse, S. A. (2025) · Journal of Agriculture and Food Research · doi:10.1016/j.jafr.2025.102375 · Cited by 2
Climate Change and Population Aging Exacerbate Flood Risk to the Elderly in European Regions
Yang, W., Zhao, Z., Wang, Z., Wang, X., Li, R., Hua, P., Cheng, X., Liu, Y., Wang, H., Krebs, P., et al. (2025) · Earth s Future · doi:10.1029/2025ef006366 · Cited by 2
“5, which indicate the radiative forcing levels from 2.6 to 8.5 W m 2 by 2100 (O'Neill et al., 2016).”
InfluentialScheuerer, M., Byermoen, E., de Oliveira, J. R., Roksvåg, T., & Schuler, D. V. (2025) · Hydrology and earth system sciences · doi:10.5194/hess-29-5099-2025 · Cited by 2
Yılmaz, M., Alemdar, K. D., & Tosunoğlu, F. (2025) · Theoretical and Applied Climatology · doi:10.1007/s00704-025-05805-4 · Cited by 2
“…of CMIP6 include increased spatial resolution, improved parameterizations, better representation of the carbon-nitrogen cycle, and more realistic simulation of aerosol models (Eyring et al. 2016; O’Neill et al. 2016; Sellar et al. 2019 ; Lovino et al. 2021; Gier et al. 2024; Tullu and Tumsa 2025).”
Farago, E. Z., McBride, L., Hope, A., Canty, T., Bennett, B., & Salawitch, R. (2025) · Earth System Dynamics · doi:10.5194/esd-16-1739-2025 · Cited by 5
Scenarios of Köppen-Trewartha climate types in Europe based on GCM-RCM combined projections
Holtanová, E., Belda, M., Randriatsara, H. H. H., et al. (2025) · Theoretical and Applied Climatology · doi:10.1007/s00704-025-05806-3 · Cited by 2
“The most recent sets of these scenarios are the Representative Concentration Pathways (Moss et al. 2010) and Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs, O’Neill et al. 2016).”
Liu, T., McGuire, L. A., Youberg, A., Abolt, C. J., & Atchley, A. L. (2025) · Natural hazards and earth system sciences · doi:10.5194/nhess-25-4135-2025 · Cited by 2
North Atlantic fingerprint on severe heatwaves over the Indian region
Marathe, S., Swapna, P., Sandeep, N., Aswale, A. M., Rohini, P., & Sreejith, O. P. (2025) · Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society · doi:10.1002/qj.70061 · Cited by 2
Woldemariam, Y. A., Alamirew, T., & Woldesenbet, T. A. (2025) · Theoretical and Applied Climatology · doi:10.1007/s00704-025-05834-z · Cited by 2
Liu, Y., Geng, Y., Pan, Y., Zeng, H., Huang, Z., Taylor, P. J., & Jiang, T. (2025) · Biology · doi:10.3390/biology14111528 · Cited by 3
Mondal, K., Gupta, V. K., Chatterjee, C., & Singh, R. P. (2025) · Energy and Climate Change · doi:10.1016/j.egycc.2025.100221 · Cited by 2
Nair, M. M., Rajesh, A. N., Sabarinath, A., et al. (2025) · Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics · doi:10.1007/s00703-025-01099-3 · Cited by 2
Zhao, K., Shao, Z., Li, L., Xu, X., Liu, Y., & Hu, G. (2025) · Environmental and Sustainability Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.indic.2025.101023 · Cited by 2
He, J., Madaniyazi, L., Chua, P. L., et al. (2025) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2025.109921 · Cited by 2
Jay, K. R., Wieder, W. R., Elmendorf, S. C., Spasojevic, M. J., & Suding, K. N. (2025) · New Phytologist · doi:10.1111/nph.70740 · Cited by 2
“0 scenarios (O’Neill et al ., 2016).”
Lee, W., Visioni, D., Wagman, B., Wentland, C. R., Kravitz, B., Watanabe, S., Sekiya, T., Jones, A., Haywood, J., Henry, M., et al. (2026) · Atmospheric chemistry and physics · doi:10.5194/acp-26-7463-2026 · Cited by 8
“The configurations of CESM and E3SM used in this study both use updated versions of the Modal Aerosol Module version 3 (MAM3), first presented by Liu et al. (2012); MAM3 represents sulfate aerosols using Aitken, accumulation, and coarse modes.”
Transformer-based soil moisture simulation for understanding future drying trend globally
Liu, Y., Tian, Y., Xin, Y., et al. (2025) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2025.134709 · Cited by 2
Managed retreat in the face of sea level rise: A multi-dimensional framework for climate resilience
Rashid, M. S., & Sutley, E. J. (2025) · International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction · doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105952 · Cited by 3
Climate mitigation outcomes from China-led emission reductions toward global carbon neutrality
Lei, Y., Wang, Z., Zhong, J., Yu, X., Guo, L., Tian, C., Li, L., Lu, Y., Zhang, D., Liu, L., et al. (2025) · National Science Review · doi:10.1093/nsr/nwaf545 · Cited by 3
“The climate change projections depend on future emission scenarios [13 ].”
Efficacy of individual and combined terrestrial and marine carbon dioxide removal
Sathyanadh, A., Esfandiari, H., Bourgeois, T., Schwinger, J., Bergman, T., Partanen, A., Debolskiy, M., Seifert, M., Keller, D. P., & Muri, H. (2025) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ae2af5 · Cited by 2
“4 scenario from ScenarioMIP (O’Neill et al 2016), which includes aggressive mitigation (including CDR by BECCS and afforestation) after 2040, to rapidly reduce CO 2 emissions to net zero by about 2070 and to net negative levels thereafter.”
Sawadogo, I., Jean, K. K., Da, S. S., Dembélé, J. B., Traoré, I. C. E., Kouassi, F. A., Bayen, P., & Worou, O. N. (2026) · Discover Sustainability · doi:10.1007/s43621-026-03250-5 · Cited by 3
“Its leaves are compound, typically bifoliate, with broad leaflets, [41].”
InfluentialZhu, J., Ding, B., Chen, Y., et al. (2025) · Agricultural Water Management · doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2025.109717 · Cited by 2
Bañares, E. N., & Mehboob, M. S. (2025) · Results in Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.rineng.2025.107228 · Cited by 2
Jin, L., Lu, Y.-X., Hua, W., 仲, 峻., Zhang, D., Wang, Z.-L., 辛晓歌, Zhang, J., Wu, T., Wang, D.-Y., et al. (2025) · Advances in Climate Change Research · doi:10.1016/j.accre.2025.10.008 · Cited by 2
Cascading impacts of compound drought-heat extremes on global gross primary production
Zhu, X., Zhang, S., Zhang, Q., Lu, D., Tang, M., & Guo, C. (2025) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-025-04052-w · Cited by 2
“Based on the CMIP6 monthly near-surface temperature data, the area-weighted averaging method was firstly applied to calculate the annual global mean surface temperature.”
InfluentialRahnama, S., & Yaghoobzadeh, M. (2025) · Journal of Water and Climate Change · doi:10.2166/wcc.2025.202 · Cited by 2
Fine-Resolution Multivariate Drought Analysis for Southwestern Türkiye Under SSP3-7.0 Scenario
Sonuç, C. Y., Yaylacı, N., Keske, B., Kapan, N., Başayiğit, L., & Ünal, Y. (2025) · Agriculture · doi:10.3390/agriculture15242605 · Cited by 2
Xu, Y., Li, J., Chang, L., et al. (2025) · Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1002/ece3.72753 · Cited by 2
“…species distribution modeling framework (MaxEnt) to quantify the relative importance of environmental predictors, map current potential suitability, and project mid-and late-century changes under SSP126, SSP245, SSP370, and SSP585 (Phillips et al. 2006; Elith et al. 2011; O'Neill et al. 2016).”
Brunetti, H. B., Fattori, I. M., Dias, T. S. S., de Melo, M. L. A., Santos, P. M., PEZZOPANE, J. R. M., Boote, K. J., & Marin, F. R. (2025) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2025.104615 · Cited by 3
Hernández-Arizaga, A., Garro-Aguilar, M., & Perez, A. P. (2026) · Energy · doi:10.1016/j.energy.2025.139892 · Cited by 2
Future water stress in arid landscapes projected with GeoAI
Rahman, M., Hossain, M. A., Rahman, M., Patwary, A. I., Rahman, M. M., Benaafi, M., & Aljundi, I. H. (2026) · Theoretical and Applied Climatology · doi:10.1007/s00704-025-05976-0 · Cited by 2
“The coupled model intercomparison project phase 6 (CMIP6) provides the latest generation of global climate models (GCMs), incorporating updated physical param-eterizations and scenario-based projections under shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) (Maharjan et al. 2025b, c ; O’Neill et al. 2016 ).”
Meng, L., Li, Z., Su, L., et al. (2026) · Frontiers in Agronomy · doi:10.3389/fagro.2025.1736278 · Cited by 2
Bachofer, F., Wang, Z., Huth, J., Eisfelder, C., Reimuth, A., & Kuenzer, C. (2026) · Anthropocene Coasts · doi:10.1007/s44218-025-00109-6 · Cited by 2
“In CMIP6 (IPCC Sixth Assessment Report), RCPs are integrated with SSPs to provide a more comprehensive assessment of socioeconomic changes and climatic effects (O’Neill et al. 2016).”
InfluentialGlobal perspectives on nitrate aerosol dynamics: a comprehensive sensitivity analysis
Milousis, A., Scholz, S. M. C., Fuchs, H., et al. (2026) · Atmospheric chemistry and physics · doi:10.5194/acp-26-571-2026 · Cited by 2
Adsul, R., Singh, V. K., Parekh, A., et al. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-026-35482-w · Cited by 2
“5 high fossil fuel usage scenario 66 .”
Projecting the future of aquaculture in Egypt under climate and socio-economic scenarios
Oyinlola, M. A., Shaheen, H. H., Habashi, N., et al. (2026) · Aquaculture · doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2026.743677 · Cited by 2
Maimaiti, Y., Li, S., & Zhao, J. (2026) · Chaos An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science · doi:10.1063/5.0285845 · Cited by 2
Fu, R. C., Zheng, J., Wang, L., et al. (2026) · Forests · doi:10.3390/f17020158 · Cited by 2
Zhu, H., Wu, X., Dai, C., et al. (2026) · Regional Environmental Change · doi:10.1007/s10113-025-02485-8 · Cited by 2
“These SSPs scenarios incorporate socio-economic changes alongside strategies for mitigation, adaptation, and response to climate change, and offer improved spatial and temporal resolutions (O’Neill et al. 2016; Zhang et al. 2019).”
Ghasemi, M., & Dariane, A. B. (2026) · Results in Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.rineng.2026.109347 · Cited by 2
Global stratospheric methane loss from satellite observations
Fu, Q., & Dong, C. (2026) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2529774123 · Cited by 2
Steensen, B. M., Myhre, G., Byrom, R., Gjermundsen, A., Jouan, C., & Stjern, C. W. (2026) · Atmospheric chemistry and physics · doi:10.5194/acp-26-2041-2026 · Cited by 4
Hamdouni, Y. E., Briak, H., Khalki, E. M. E., et al. (2026) · Environmental Challenges · doi:10.1016/j.envc.2026.101430 · Cited by 2
Muilwijk, M., Hattermann, T., Beadling, R., Swart, N. C., Nummelin, A., Guo, C.-C., Chandler, D., Langebroek, P., Zhou, S., Dutrieux, P., et al. (2026) · The Cryosphere · doi:10.5194/tc-20-1087-2026 · Cited by 2
Wells, C., Ramme, L., Smith, C., Breier, J., Muralidhar, A., Li, C., Gjermundsen, A., Schoenberg, W. A., Blanz, B., & Mauritzen, C. (2026) · Geoscientific model development · doi:10.5194/gmd-19-1429-2026 · Cited by 2
Tilmes, S., Visioni, D., Quaglia, I., Zhu, Y., Bardeen, C., Vitt, F. M., & Yu, P. (2026) · Atmospheric chemistry and physics · doi:10.5194/acp-26-2649-2026 · Cited by 2
“5 future scenario (O’Neill et al., 2016).”
Climate-aware capacity expansion planning for power grids exposed to heat waves
Sahin, B., & Kutanoğlu, E. (2026) · Applied Energy · doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2026.127575 · Cited by 2
Enyew, F. B., Sahlu, D., Tarekegn, G. B., & Alaminie, A. A. (2026) · Natural Hazards · doi:10.1007/s11069-026-07998-x · Cited by 2
Tadase, A. T., & Tekile, A. K. (2026) · Journal of Water and Climate Change · doi:10.2166/wcc.2026.103 · Cited by 4
Dong, W., Ma, D., Zhang, M., Wang, X., Zhou, H., Huang, D., Yang, B., Jin, X., Zhang, J., Shi, Y., et al. (2026) · Urban forestry & urban greening · doi:10.1016/j.ufug.2026.129385 · Cited by 3
Yang, X., Tian, J., Ciais, P., Liming Zhou, B., Reich, P. B., Wu, J., Shang, J., Chave, J., Lamour, J., Maréchaux, I., et al. (2026) · Nature Plants · doi:10.1038/s41477-026-02240-9 · Cited by 3
“6) 41 .”
Deep ocean control of global temperature after net-zero emissions
Lee, Y., Yeh, S.-W., Wang, G., et al. (2026) · Nature Geoscience · doi:10.1038/s41561-026-01934-1 · Cited by 2
Baasanmunkh, S., Tsegmed, Z., Nyamgerel, N., et al. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-026-45263-0 · Cited by 2
Chen, B., Tang, J., Nan, L., et al. (2026) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.5c09516 · Cited by 2
Zhang, T., Chen, S., Zhang, Y., & Ma, W. (2026) · Air Quality Atmosphere & Health · doi:10.1007/s11869-026-01972-z · Cited by 3
Tamimi, M. F., Alshboul, O., Shehadeh, Alhmoud, L., & Tamimi, L. (2026) · Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment · doi:10.1007/s00477-026-03203-4 · Cited by 2
Xia, Y., Dai, W., Lin, Q., et al. (2026) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2026.135444 · Cited by 2
Rajni, Prakash, C., Sharma, M., et al. (2026) · Earth Systems and Environment · doi:10.1007/s41748-026-01160-0 · Cited by 2
“According to O’Neill et al. (2016) and Riahi et al. (2017), these are two widely used scenarios to assess future climate-induced hazards in mountainous environments(Owen et al. 2006).”
Shi, J., Xu, M., Sun, N., Li, D., & Wu, L. (2026) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2026.104765 · Cited by 2
Suarez, L. G., Fennel, K., Mehendale, N., et al. (2026) · Ocean science · doi:10.5194/os-22-1183-2026 · Cited by 2
Ullah, H., Samman, F. M. A., Hussain, I., Niaz, R., Cheng, H., Albasheir, N. A., & Almazah, M. M. A. (2026) · Physics and Chemistry of the Earth Parts A/B/C · doi:10.1016/j.pce.2026.104477 · Cited by 2
Melo‐Merino, S. M., Lira-Noriega, A., Martínez‐Meyer, E., Reyes‐Bonilla, H., & Álvarez‐Filip, L. (2026) · Conservation Biology · doi:10.1111/cobi.70302 · Cited by 3
“Projections of future climate change under the SSPs were based on alternative scenarios relevant to societal concerns, spanning a range of challenges to climate change mitigation and adaptation (O’Neill et al., 2016).”
Navigating future climate of the Ethiopian Abay Basin: Projections from an ensemble of CMIP6 Models
Ayalew, D. W., Kumar, N., Tischbein, B., Bharati, L., & Borgemeister, C. (2026) · Theoretical and Applied Climatology · doi:10.1007/s00704-026-06294-9 · Cited by 2
“Details of these scenarios are presented in O’Neill et al. ( 2016).”
Yin, G., Xie, J., Wang, Y., et al. (2026) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.70911 · Cited by 2
“We did not use the CMIP6 projections directly due to the inherent uncertainties in projections by climatic models.”
InfluentialCastellanos, I., Ménégoz, M., Blanchet, J., Beaumet, J., Gallée, H., Moreno‐Chamarro, E., Staquet, C., & Fettweis, X. (2026) · Earth System Dynamics · doi:10.5194/esd-17-581-2026 · Cited by 3
The TIPMIP Earth system model experiment protocol: phase 1
Jones, C., Bossert, I., Dennis, D., Jeffery, H. A., JONES, C. D., Koenigk, T., Loriani, S., Sanderson, B. M., Séférian, R., Wyser, K., et al. (2026) · Geoscientific model development · doi:10.5194/gmd-19-6941-2026 · Cited by 10
Self-citationGauvain, A., Abhervé, R., Boivin, B., et al. (2026) · Hydrology and earth system sciences · doi:10.5194/hess-30-5571-2026 · Cited by 2
Committed Antarctic Ice Sheet mass loss by the end of the twenty-first century
Lin, Y., Zhang, X., Golledge, N. R., Kopp, R. E., Church, J. A., Jin, Y., Zhao, C., & Stokes, C. R. (2026) · Nature Geoscience · doi:10.1038/s41561-026-02102-1 · Cited by 2
Davis, S., Ball, W. T., Jia, Y., Chiodo, G., Alsing, J., Keeble, J., Akiyoshi, H., Arosio, C., Bednarz, E., Chrysanthou, A., et al. (2026) · Atmospheric chemistry and physics · doi:10.5194/acp-26-13817-2026 · Cited by 2
Heimburger, B., Maurer, S. S., Schardt, L., et al. (2022) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/evo.14573 · Cited by 2
Projections of moisture conditions in the Sevastopol region for grapes growing
Vyshkvarkova, E. V., Rybalko, E. A., Владимировна, М. О., & Baranova, N. V. (2022) · RUDN Journal of Ecology and Life Safety · doi:10.22363/2313-2310-2022-30-3-300-311 · Cited by 2
“при таком сценарии составляет 8,5 Вт/м2, а концентрация парниковых газов – 1100 ppm [17], инновации и технологии растут за счет интенсивного использования природного ископаемого топлива [18].”
周, 嘉., 卢, 麾., 阳, 坤., et al. (2022) · SCIENTIA SINICA Terrae · doi:10.1360/sste-2022-0065 · Cited by 2
Evaluation of the CAS-ESM2-0 Performance in Simulating the Global Ocean Salinity Change
Li, G., Cheng, L., & Wang, X. (2023) · Atmosphere · doi:10.3390/atmos14010107 · Cited by 2
Mathew, S. S., & Kumar, K. K. (2023) · Theoretical and Applied Climatology · doi:10.1007/s00704-023-04397-1 · Cited by 2
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
