The DOI matches its Crossref record; 82 of the 82 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 12 of the 29 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Abstract. Projections of future climate change play a fundamental role in improving understanding of the climate system as well as characterizing societal risks and response options. The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) is the primary activity within Phase 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) that will provide multi-model climate projections based on alternative scenarios of future emissions and land use changes produced with integrated assessment models. In this paper, we describe ScenarioMIP's objectives, experimental design, and its relation to other activities within CMIP6. The ScenarioMIP design is one component of a larger scenario process that aims to facilitate a wide range of integrated studies across the climate science, integrated assessment modeling, and impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability communities, and will form an important part of the evidence base in the forthcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments. At the same time, it will provide the basis for investigating a number of targeted science and policy questions that are especially relevant to scenario-based analysis, including the role of specific forcings such as land use and aerosols, the effect of a peak and decline in forcing, the consequences of scenarios that limit warming to below 2 °C, the relative contributions to uncertainty from scenarios, climate models, and internal variability, and long-term climate system outcomes beyond the 21st century. To serve this wide range of scientific communities and address these questions, a design has been identified consisting of eight alternative 21st century scenarios plus one large initial condition ensemble and a set of long-term extensions, divided into two tiers defined by relative priority. Some of these scenarios will also provide a basis for variants planned to be run in other CMIP6-Endorsed MIPs to investigate questions related to specific forcings. Harmonized, spatially explicit emissions and land use scenarios generated with integrated assessment models will be provided to participating climate modeling groups by late 2016, with the climate model simulations run within the 2017–2018 time frame, and output from the climate model projections made available and analyses performed over the 2018–2020 period.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
ScenarioMIP is CMIP6’s primary scenario activity, providing multi-model climate projections driven by SSP-based emissions and land-use scenarios from integrated assessment models. It defines eight 21st-century scenarios plus a large initial-condition ensemble and long-term extensions, organized into two priority tiers.
Key findings
- The design comprises eight alternative 21st-century scenarios plus one large initial-condition ensemble and long-term extensions, split into Tier 1 (required) and Tier 2; Tier 1 includes SSP5-8.5, SSP3-7.0, SSP2-4.5, and SSP1-2.6, while Tier 2 adds SSP4-6.0, SSP4-3.4, SSP5-3.4-OS, and SSPa-b (around or below 2.0 W m⁻²).
- Forcing levels span updated RCPs (2.6, 4.5, 6.0, 8.5 W m⁻²) and gap scenarios (7.0, 3.4, below 2.6 W m⁻², overshoot); SSP1-2.6 is expected to produce 1.7 °C warming by 2100, and SSPa-b is designed to likely stay below 1.5 °C by 2100.
- Statistically significant local temperature differences over more than half the land surface require at least 0.3 °C global mean temperature separation, roughly equivalent to about 0.75 W m⁻² in an idealized 1 % yr⁻¹ CO₂ increase experiment; regional precipitation requires a much wider separation.
- Long-term extensions to 2300 include SSP5-8.5 extension equilibrating just above 12 W m⁻², SSP1-2.6 extension stabilizing around 2.0 W m⁻² and ~1.25 °C, and the overshoot extension peaking at ~2.4 °C and equilibrating at ~1.25 °C.
Methods
- Design/protocol paper: describes ScenarioMIP objectives, experimental design, and relation to other CMIP6 activities; scenarios are selected from SSP-based IAM marker scenarios, with harmonized spatially explicit emissions and land use to be provided to climate modeling groups by late 2016 and simulations run in 2017–2018.
- Experiments are concentration-driven for long-lived greenhouse gases, while aerosols and ozone use either ScenarioMIP emissions or CMIP-provided concentrations; output is distributed through the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF).
- Figures use the simple climate model MAGICC version 6.8.01 BETA to calculate concentration, forcing, and temperature outcomes; no new climate model simulations are analyzed in this paper.
Limitations
- The paper states that IAM feasibility is not the same as real-world feasibility; not all scenarios may be equally attainable, and under limited technology availability or delayed mitigation some models find the 2.6 W m⁻² target unattainable.
- The paper states an open question is whether different SSPs reaching the same global forcing produce different climate outcomes; if sensitivity is larger than assumed, ESM simulations specific to each SSP–forcing combination would be required. It also notes concentration-driven scenarios cannot assess amplification effects of biogeochemical feedbacks beyond the provided GHG concentrations.
- Evident from the text: this is a design paper without a comprehensive analysis plan or results; it also notes pattern scaling and other emulators are not yet demonstrated to reliably replace climate model projections.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
12 of 29 cited sources checked · 7 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“More recent work (Tebaldi et al., 2015) has refined this view, indicating that regional temperature outcomes that are statistically significantly different at a 5 % level for more than half the land surface area, and robustly so across the multi-model ensemble, require a separation of at least 0.3 • C in global average temperature.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > CMIP6 science question
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Tebaldi et al., 2015 source
The Sensitivity of regional climate section states that a ΔGAT of about 0.3 °C is needed for a majority of models to show significant temperature change over at least half the land surface. The Methods define temperature significance using a one-sided test at the 5% level; figure 3 describes the multi-model results at the 0.05 level. Page numbers are not supplied in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.93)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Results from major international IAM comparison projects (Clarke et al., 2009;Kriegler et al., 2014b;Riahi et al., 2015) indicate that not all scenarios considered in ScenarioMIP may be equally attainable.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 3.1.1 Choosing forcing levels for CMIP6 scenarios
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Clarke et al., 2009 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Sections 3 and 8 (page numbers not provided) show that the EMF 22 climate-action cases differed in difficulty: no team produced all ten, and some targets could not be met by any model under delayed participation. That supports the general point that scenarios may differ in attainability, but this paper examines EMF 22 cases, not the scenarios considered in ScenarioMIP. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not matchedcites Kriegler et al., 2014b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Riahi et al., 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 5, “Mitigation costs and feasibility,” reports that some modeled pathways were infeasible and that feasibility varied with near-term emissions and technology assumptions. This supports the general point that scenarios may differ in attainability, but the paper studies AMPERE pathways, not the scenarios considered in ScenarioMIP. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The latter hinges on a number of additional factors, such as political and social concerns, which might render feasible model solutions unattainable in the real world (see, e.g, Riahi et al., 2015).”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 3.1.1 Choosing forcing levels for CMIP6 scenarios
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Riahi et al., 2015 source
Section 5, “Mitigation costs and feasibility,” explicitly distinguishes feasibility in a model from feasibility in the real world. It says political and social concerns may make feasible model solutions unattainable in practice. (LLM, conf=0.95)
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“For regional precipitation, a much wider separation is required to ensure that scenarios are statistically different.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > CMIP6 science question
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Tebaldi et al., 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Sensitivity of regional climate section finds that precipitation changes require a much larger difference in global average temperature than regional temperature changes to become statistically significant over much of the land surface. But the Discussion and conclusions says the authors cannot establish an absolute criterion for scenario separation; the results do not show that any particular separation will ensure statistically different precipitation outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, SSP3 (combined with this forcing pathway) is especially relevant to IAM/IAV studies because it combines relatively high societal vulnerability (SSP3) with relatively high forcing.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 3.2.2 Description of each scenario and its rationale
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CMIP5 RCP2.6 projections, which have a median outcome across models of about 1.6 • C global mean surface temperature in 2100, and the SSP1-2.6 scenario and its long-term extension, which is estimated to decline to 1.5 • C warm- ing in the 22nd century (Fig. 5), can inform analyses of the implications of the 1.5 • C target.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > SSP5-3.4-OS:
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and also because it is relevant to IAM/IAV research as a scenario that combines intermediate societal vulnerability with an intermediate forcing level.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 3.2.2 Description of each scenario and its rationale
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“This emissions pathway is estimated to produce equilibrated radiative forcing over the period 2200-2300 at a level similar to the level reached in the long-term extension of RCP8.5 designed for CMIP5 (Meinshausen et al., 2011c; just above 12 W m -2 in the simple climate model used in Fig. 5).”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Tier 2: long-term extensions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Meinshausen et al., 2011c
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This extension is expected to achieve a long-term equilibrium temperature of 1.25 • C above pre-industrial temperatures, based on the simple climate model used in Fig. 5.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Tier 2: long-term extensions
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For SSP1-2.6 the rate of negative carbon emissions from fossil fuels reached in 2100 is extended to 2140 and then increases linearly to zero in 2185, with all other emissions (including CO 2 from land use) held constant at 2100 levels, leading to slowly declining forcing that approximately stabilizes beyond 2200 around 2.0 W m -2 .”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Tier 2: long-term extensions
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes
- Probably not a substantial claim. 29
- It may state two separate claims as one. 25
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The RCPs were the basis for climate model projections in CMIP5 (Taylor et al., 2012) and their assessment in the IPCC AR5 (IPCC, 2013).”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Abstract
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Taylor et al., 2012 source
The Long-term experiments section states that CMIP5 climate-change projections were driven by scenarios consistent with the RCPs. The Taylor et al. citation is attached to the CMIP5-projections part of the sentence; the IPCC AR5 assessment has a separate citation. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not matchedcites IPCC, 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“SSPs 1 and 5 envision relatively optimistic trends for human development, with substantial investments in education and health, rapid economic growth, and well-functioning institutions.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Moss
What the sources say
- Supportedcites O'Neill et al., 2015 source
Section 3.1 describes SSP1’s education and health investments and strong institutions; section 3.5 describes strong investments in health, education, and institutions in SSP5. Section 4 says economic development is rapid and broad-based in both, although growth is somewhat slower in SSP1 than in SSP5. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.92)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Initial studies indicate that scenario differences of at least 0.3 • C in global average surface temperature are likely necessary to generate statistically significant differences in local temperature over a substantial fraction of the surface, and substantially larger differences are required to produce similarly significant and extensive differences in precipitation outcomes (Tebaldi et al., 201”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 2.1 ScenarioMIP process
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Tebaldi et al., 2015 source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Unlike in CMIP3 and CMIP5, where climate model projections were part of the core experiments, in CMIP6 they are part of a dedicated CMIP6-Endorsed MIP (Eyring et al., 2016).”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Abstract
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Eyring et al., 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Impacts section says future scenario experiments were part of the CMIP5 core experiments and will instead be run through ScenarioMIP in CMIP6. The passage does not establish the claim that projections were also core experiments in CMIP3. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“However, SSP5 assumes an energy intensive, fossilbased economy, while in SSP1 there is an increasing shift toward sustainable practices.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Moss
What the sources say
- Supportedcites O'Neill et al., 2015 source
Section 4 says SSP5 has rapidly growing energy demand and an energy system that continues to rely heavily on fossil fuels. Section 3.1 describes SSP1 as increasing environmental awareness and a gradual move toward less resource-intensive lifestyles, supporting the contrast in the claim. (LLM, conf=0.94)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“SSP2 envisions a central pathway in which trends continue their historical patterns without substantial deviations.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Moss
What the sources say
- Supportedcites O'Neill et al., 2015 source
Section 3.2, “SSP2: Middle of the road,” says that social, economic, and technological trends do not shift markedly from historical patterns. It also describes SSP2 as consistent with typical historical patterns, while clarifying that it is not a simple extrapolation of recent experience. (LLM, conf=0.94)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“SSPs 3 and 4 envision more pessimistic development trends, with little investment in education or health, fast growing population, and increasing inequalities.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Moss
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites O'Neill et al., 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 4 says SSPs 3 and 4 have high population growth, slow economic growth and compounded inequality. Sections 3.3–3.4 describe declining or unequal investment in education and difficulty providing health care to disadvantaged groups. They do not establish uniformly little investment in health, or little education investment across all groups in SSP4. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Multiple IAM groups producing SSP-based scenarios have been able to produce preliminary scenarios based on SSP1 that reach about 1.9 W m -2 in 2100, leading to a likely (> 66 %) probability of staying below 1.5 • C in 2100 (but a lower probability around mid-century).”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > SSP5-3.4-OS:
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Like the SSP1-2.6 extension, this pathway also produces a global mean temperature that equilibrates at about 1.25 • C above pre-industrial temperatures beyond 2200, but with a higher peak temperature (about 2.4 • C) during the 21st century.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Tier 2: long-term extensions
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The level of negative CO2 emissions from fossil fuels reached in 2100 remains constant until 2140, and then increases linearly to reach zero by 2190.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“SSP3-7.0 has relatively strong land use change and high emissions of NTCFs (unlike the SSP5-8.5 scenario), and therefore has been identified as an important experiment on which variants will be conducted by LU-MIP and AerChemMIP”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > B. C. O'Neill et al.: The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From the IAM/IAV perspective this scenario is highly relevant since it combines low vulnerability with low challenges for mitigation as well as a low forcing signal.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 3.2.2 Description of each scenario and its rationale
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“SSP3 was chosen because SSP3-7.0 is a scenario with both substantial land use change (in particular decreased global forest cover) and high NTCF emissions (particularly SO 2 ) and therefore will play an important role in LUMIP and AerChemMIP”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 3.2.2 Description of each scenario and its rationale
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two scenarios would differ both in forcing levels, spanning a range of approximately 4.5 W m -2 by 2100, and in land use change, with substantial deforestation in the SSP3-7.0scenario and net afforestation in SSP1-2.6.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Land Use MIP (LUMIP)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (Scenar-ioMIP) is the primary activity within Phase 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) that will provide multi-model climate projections based on alternative scenarios of future emissions and land use changes produced with integrated assessment models.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CMIP6 climate projections will differ from those in CMIP5 not only because they are produced with updated versions of climate models, but also because they are driven with SSP-based scenarios produced with updated versions of IAMs and based on updated data on recent emissions trends.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a design has been identified consisting of eight alternative 21st century scenarios plus one large initial condition ensemble and a set of long-term extensions, divided into two tiers defined by relative priority.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In short, the SSPs describe alternative evolutions of future society in the absence of climate change or climate policy.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Moss
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“A workshop held for this purpose concluded that pattern scaling has currently not yet been demonstrated to be able to reli-ably replace the need for climate model projections to generate information for impact studies”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 2.1 ScenarioMIP process
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tebaldi and Arblaster, 2014 source
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“IAM scenarios were then developed based on the SSPs by elaborating on their implications for energy systems (Bauer et al., 2016) and land use changes (Popp et al., 2016) and quantifying resulting greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric concentrations (Riahi et al., 2016).”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Moss
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bauer et al., 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Popp et al., 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Riahi et al., 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These CMIP6 simulations will allow integrated analyses to be carried out using climate simulations based on the latest versions of climate models, for a larger set of concentration pathways based on the most recent versions of IAMs.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Moss
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Differences in climate outcomes between land use and emissions pathways that achieve the same global average radiative forcing level in 2100 but have different patterns of regional forcing are likely to be small relative to the overall uncertainty in applications of these simulations to integrated analyses (including impact assessments).
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There might also be feasible developments in the real world that are not anticipated by the IAM.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 3.1.1 Choosing forcing levels for CMIP6 scenarios
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“These SSP-based IAM scenarios consist of a set of baseline scenarios, which provide a description of future developments in the absence of climate change impacts or new climate policies beyond those in place today, as well as mitigation scenarios which explore the implications of climate change mitigation policies applied to the baseline scenarios.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Moss
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Riahi et al., 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Climate model emulators have the potential to provide a computationally efficient means of generating climate outcomes for arbitrary scenarios and, in so doing, facilitate the representation of uncertainty in applications to impact studies (Tebaldi and Arblaster, 2014).”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > What are the effects of declines in forcing (overshoot scenarios)?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tebaldi and Arblaster, 2014 source
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However in addition, ScenarioMIP simulations will be key to addressing two of the three CMIP6 science questions that have informed the overall CMIP6 design and the endorsement of proposed MIPs, related to the effects of external forcings on the Earth system and to the confounding effects of different sources of uncertainty on future anthropogenic climate change outcomes.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 2.4 Scientific questions addressed by ScenarioMIP
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Multiple IAMs were used for the quantification of the SSP scenarios, and a single”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Moss
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Riahi et al., 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Feasibility in an IAM model needs to be strictly differentiated, however, from the feasibility of a scenario in the real world, i.e. whether or not the scenario is capable of being attained.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 3.1.1 Choosing forcing levels for CMIP6 scenarios
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This difference in global temperature is roughly equivalent to about 0.75 W m -2 of global average forcing in an idealized 1 % yr -1 CO 2 increase experiment, although the equivalent value is sensitive to the forcing pathway.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > CMIP6 science question
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ScenarioMIP experimental design consists of a set of eight pathways of future emissions, concentrations and land use, with additional ensemble members and long-term extensions, grouped into two tiers of priority (of which only the first constitutes a required set for modeling centers participating in ScenarioMIP).”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 3 Overview of ScenarioMIP experiment design
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The ScenarioMIP design will include an updated and expanded set of forcing pathways directly derived from SSPs.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Moss
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The scenario simulations specified in ScenarioMIP are to be performed in the same configuration as the one used in the CMIP6 historical simulations, ensuring continuity in the climate simulations.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 3.3 Other design features 3.3.1 Emissions driven vs. concentration driven
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this way, the scenario can be seen as an overshoot of the 3.4 W m -2 level (which it exceeds and then returns to by about 2100) and of the 2.6 W m -2 level, which it returns to in the first half of the 22nd century.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Tier 2: long-term extensions
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CMIP6 climate projections will differ from those for CMIP5 due to a new generation of climate models, a new start year for the future scenarios (2015 for CMIP6 vs. 2006 for CMIP5), as well as a new set of scenarios of concentrations, emissions, and land use (Figs. 3 and 4).”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 3.3.2 Relation to CMIP5
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the state of development of such emulators is such that many situations remain where they are not suitable, their behavior deviating significantly from the more computationally complex, physically based models that they seek to emulate, or falling short of producing temporally coherent projections, or projections of multiple variables physically inter-related.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > What are the effects of declines in forcing (overshoot scenarios)?
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The lowest RCP (RCP2.6), and the low SSP scenarios, already exhibit a limited degree of concentration overshoot.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > What are the effects of declines in forcing (overshoot scenarios)?
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ScenarioMIP will carry out climate model simulations for one particular land use and concentration pathway that leads to this level of radiative forcing.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > CMIP6 science question
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The multi-model approach will allow for a better characterization of uncertainty in climate outcomes than would otherwise be possible”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 5 Conclusions
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Researchers examining the consequences of climate change and potential adaptations are a key user group of CMIP outputs and products.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Vulnerability, impacts, adaptation and climate services (VIACS) advisory board
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Integrating climate simulations from ScenarioMIP with the SSPs or other characterizations of societal futures will allow for analyses of future mitigation, adaptation, and impacts that account for both climate and societal change in a coherent fashion.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 5 Conclusions
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and the design also calls for a large initial condition ensemble that will allow for representation of internal variability in impact studies as well as improved signal detection in experiments in other MIPs that will carry out variants of this scenario.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 5 Conclusions
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Future simulations will also require specification of natural forcings, in particular solar forcing and volcanic emissions.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 4 Inputs (forcings) and outputs
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In particular ScenarioMIP will link with the VIACS Advisory Board to ensure that the climate model output from the scenarios allows for sector-specific indices being derived (e.g., heat damage degree days for ecosystems, consecutive dry days for agriculture and water resources).”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Vulnerability, impacts, adaptation and climate services (VIACS) advisory board
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In order to run the experiments, data sets for future natural and anthropogenic forcings are required.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > Data availability
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Multi-model climate model projections from ScenarioMIP will also provide the basis for investigating a number of targeted scientific questions regarding the role of specific forcings and the contribution of forcing uncertainty to the total uncertainty budget, the effect of a peak and decline in forcing, and longterm climate system outcomes beyond the 21st century.”
§ The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 > 5 Conclusions
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Differences in climate change projections between RCP-based and SSPx-y simulations following a similar global forcing pathway would be small enough to still warrant integration of the two sets of information into mitigation, impacts and adaptation analysis.
“An enabling hypothesis of the parallel process is that differences in climate change projections would be small enough to still warrant integration of the two sets of information into mitigation, impacts and adaptation analysis.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Differences in climate outcomes between land use and emissions pathways that achieve the same global average radiative forcing level in 2100 but have different patterns of regional forcing are likely to be small relative to the overall uncertainty in applications of these simulations to integrated analyses (including impact assessments).
“An assumption underlying the parallel process (Moss et al., 2010) and the SSP scenario framework is that these differences in climate outcomes are likely to be small relative to the overall uncertainty in applications of these simulations to integrated analyses (including impact assessments).”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Variability estimated for one scenario can be applied to outcomes for others.
“based on the assumption that variability estimated for one scenario can be applied to outcomes for others.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The level of negative CO2 emissions from fossil fuels reached in 2100 remains constant until 2140, and then increases linearly to reach zero by 2190.
“The extension assumes that the level of negative CO 2 emissions from fossil fuels reached in 2100 remains constant until 2140, and then increase linearly to reach zero by 2190.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Differences in climate outcomes produced by different scenarios for the same global forcing pathway are likely small relative to regional climate variability, uncertainty across climate models, and uncertainty in impact models used to investigate outcomes of interest to the IAV community.
“The prevailing hypothesis is that differences in climate outcomes produced by different scenarios for the same global forcing pathway are likely small relative to regional climate variability, uncertainty across climate models, and uncertainty in impact models used to investigate outcomes of interest to the IAV community (see Sect. 2.4.2).”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The temperature projections in Figure 3 assume zero volcanic forcing and maintain 11-year solar forcing cycles, consistent with the CMIP5 approach.
“projections assume zero volcanic forcing and maintain 11-year solar forcing cycles, consistent with the CMIP5 approach(Meinshausen et al., 2011c).”
Citations
Cites
Climate change 2007: the physical science basis
Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Marquis, M. C., Averyt, K. B., Tignor, M., Miller, H. L., & Chen, Z. (2007) · Cited by 23,398
An Overview of CMIP5 and the Experiment Design
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., & Meehl, G. A. (2012) · Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society · doi:10.1175/bams-d-11-00094.1 · Cited by 14,052 · cited 7×
“The climate model output from ScenarioMIP experiments described in this paper will be distributed through the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) with DOIs assigned. in CMIP5, the model output will be freely accessible through data portals after registration.”
InfluentialSelf-citationEyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., & Taylor, K. E. (2016) · Geoscientific Model Development · doi:10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016 · Cited by 11,981 · cited 1×
“ScenarioMIP has three primary objectives Eyring et al., 2016) and allows for the quantification of uncertainties on different timescales.”
Self-citationThe representative concentration pathways: an overview
van Vuuren, D. P., Edmonds, J., Kainuma, M., Riahi, K., Thomson, A., Hibbard, K., Hurtt, G. C., Kram, T., Krey, V., Lamarque, J.-F., et al. (2011) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z · Cited by 7,741 · cited 2×
“This process will basically be done using the methods applied earlier for the RCPs (Van Vuuren et al., 2011a).”
Self-citationRiahi, K., van Vuuren, D. P., Kriegler, E., Edmonds, J., O’Neill, B. C., Fujimori, S., Bauer, N., Calvin, K., Dellink, R., Fricko, O., et al. (2017) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.009 · Cited by 6,607
Self-citationThe next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment
Moss, R. H., Edmonds, J. A., Hibbard, K. A., Manning, M. R., Rose, S. K., van Vuuren, D. P., Carter, T. R., Emori, S., Kainuma, M., Kram, T., et al. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature08823 · Cited by 6,467 · cited 3×
“Early in the design of the scenario framework, a criterion for selecting RCPs was that they be well separated in terms of radiative forcing (Moss et al., 2008).”
InfluentialSelf-citationSpecial report on emissions scenarios
Nakićenović, N., Alcamo, J., Davis, G. R., de Vries, B. J. M., Fenhann, J. V., Gaffin, S., Gregory, K., Grübler, A., Jung, T. Y., Kram, T., et al. (2000) · Cited by 6,089
Self-citationAnthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing
Myhre, G., Shindell, D., & Pongratz, J. (2014) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781107415324.018 · Cited by 4,634 · cited 1×
“Forcing is reported as global average radiative forcing, not effective radiative forcing (Myhre et al., 2013).”
The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300
Meinshausen, M. A., Smith, S. J., Calvin, K., Daniel, J. S., Kainuma, M., Lamarque, J., Matsumoto, K., Montzka, S. A., Raper, S. C. B., Riahi, K., et al. (2011) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0156-z · Cited by 3,781
Self-citationClimate change 2007 - mitigation of climate change
Metz, B., Davidson, O. R., Bösch, P., Dave, R., & Meyer, L. (2007) · Cited by 3,484
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- IPCC: Climate Change 2001: Mitigation of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Davidson, O. R. and Mertz, B., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2001.
- IPCC: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S. K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and Midgley, P. M., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp., 2013.
- IPCC: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Field, C. B., Barros, V. R., Dokken, D. J., Mach, K. J., Mastrandrea, M. D., Bilir, T. E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K. L., Estrada, Y. O., Genova, R. C., Girma, B., Kissel, E. S., Levy, A. N., MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea, P. R., and White, L. L., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1132 pp., 2014a.
- IPCC: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Barros, V. R., Field, C. B., Dokken, D. J., Mastrandrea, M. D., Mach, K. J., Bilir, T. E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K. L., Estrada, Y. O., Genova, R. C., Girma, B., Kissel, E. S., Levy, A. N., MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea, P. R., and White, L. L., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 688 pp., 2014b.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 401–500 of 5,246
Non-linear effects of meteorological variables on cooling efficiency of African urban trees
Cheng, X., Peng, J., Dong, J., Liu, Y., & Wang, Y. (2022) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2022.107489 · Cited by 82
Meucci, A., Young, I. R., Hemer, M., Trenham, C., & Watterson, I. G. (2022) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-21-0929.1 · Cited by 81
Assessing the efforts of coal phaseout for carbon neutrality in China
Zhang, B., Niu, N., Li, H., & Wang, Z. (2023) · Applied Energy · doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.121924 · Cited by 83
The Zero Emissions Commitment and climate stabilization
Corner, S. P., Siegert, M. J., Ceppi, P., Fox‐Kemper, B., Frölicher, T. L., Gallego-Sala, A. V., Haigh, J. D., Hegerl, G. C., JONES, C. D., Knutti, R., et al. (2023) · Frontiers in Science · doi:10.3389/fsci.2023.1170744 · Cited by 94
Self-citationTran, T., Do, S. K., Nguyen, B. Q., Tran, V. N., Grodzka-Łukaszewska, M., Sinicyn, G., & Lakshmi, V. (2024) · IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing · doi:10.1109/jstars.2024.3380514 · Cited by 79
“In addition, ScenarioMIP provides a database essential for water resource inquiries [11], incorporating projected scenarios into hydrological models to enhance our understanding of the physical impact of climate and societal factors on water regimes.”
BackgroundGerber, E. P., & Manzini, E. (2016) · Geoscientific model development · doi:10.5194/gmd-9-3413-2016 · Cited by 87
“We ask for the temperature tendency due to all parameterized physics (e.g., all diabatic processes: radiation, convection, boundary layer, stratiform condensation/evaporation, vertical diffusion).”
BackgroundBai, H., Xiao, D., Wang, B., Liu, D. L., Feng, P., & Tang, J. (2020) · International Journal of Climatology · doi:10.1002/joc.6674 · Cited by 78
Kodama, C., Ohno, T., Seiki, T., Yashiro, H., Noda, A., Nakano, M., Yamada, Y., Roh, W., Satoh, M., Nitta, T., et al. (2021) · Geoscientific model development · doi:10.5194/gmd-14-795-2021 · Cited by 77
Long-term sea-level rise necessitates a commitment to adaptation: A first order assessment
Haasnoot, M., Winter, G., Brown, S. A., Dawson, R., Ward, P. J., & Eilander, D. (2021) · Climate Risk Management · doi:10.1016/j.crm.2021.100355 · Cited by 77
Process-explicit models reveal the structure and dynamics of biodiversity patterns
Pilowsky, J., Colwell, R. K., Rahbek, C., & Fordham, D. A. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abj2271 · Cited by 77
“Climate projections are currently made using models characterized by complex system dynamics, including interactions and feedbacks between the atmosphere, ocean, land, and society (129).”
The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project for CMIP7 (ScenarioMIP-CMIP7)
van Vuuren, D. P., O’Neill, B. C., Tebaldi, C., Sanderson, B. M., Chini, L. P., Friedlingstein, P., Hasegawa, T., Riahi, K., Bala, G., Bauer, N., et al. (2026) · Geoscientific model development · doi:10.5194/gmd-19-2627-2026 · Cited by 84
“Before discussing the design of the current scenario round, it is useful to briefly evaluate the role of ScenarioMIP in CMIP6 (Tebaldi et al., 2021; O'neill et al., 2016).”
Self-citationObservationally constrained projection of Afro-Asian monsoon precipitation
Chen, Z., Zhou, T., Chen, X., Zhang, W., Zhang, L., Wu, M., & Zou, L. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-30106-z · Cited by 88
Contrasting Fate of Western Third Pole's Water Resources Under 21st Century Climate Change
Su, F., Pritchard, H. D., Yao, T., Huang, J., Ou, T., Meng, F., Sun, H., Li, Y., Xu, B., Zhu, M., et al. (2022) · Earth s Future · doi:10.1029/2022ef002776 · Cited by 76
Rapid attribution of the record-breaking heatwave event in North China in June 2023 and future risks
Qian, C., Ye, Y., Jiang, J., Zhong, Y., Zhang, Y., Pinto, I., Huang, C., Li, S., & Wei, K. (2023) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ad0dd9 · Cited by 79
“9) [17]) in the future projections to show the situation in this optimistic scenario and to discuss measures to adapt to heatwaves.”
BackgroundInfluentialTwelve months at 1.5 °C signals earlier than expected breach of Paris Agreement threshold
Cannon, A. J. (2025) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-025-02247-8 · Cited by 89
“…model projections 9 are conditioned on the amount of time the 1.5 °C threshold has been reached in observations: the first time global temperatures reach 1.5 °C for 12 consecutive months in a given CMIP6 simulation 10 is noted, followed by the time when the 20-year centred mean crosses 1.5 °C.”
InfluentialAssessment of CMIP6 and CMIP5 model performance for extreme temperature in China
Luo, N., Guo, Y., Gao, Z., Kexin, C. H. E. N., & Chou, J. (2020) · Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Letters · doi:10.1080/16742834.2020.1808430 · Cited by 73
Possibility for strong northern hemisphere high-latitude cooling under negative emissions
Schwinger, J., Asaadi, A., Goris, N., & Lee, H. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-28573-5 · Cited by 75
What Does Global Land Climate Look Like at 2°C Warming?
Park, T., Hashimoto, H., Wang, W., Thrasher, B. L., Michaelis, A., Lee, T. J., Brosnan, I. G., & Nemani, R. (2022) · Earth s Future · doi:10.1029/2022ef003330 · Cited by 75
Cooperative adaptive management of the Nile River with climate and socio-economic uncertainties
Basheer, M., Nechifor, V., Calzadilla, A., Gebrechorkos, S. H., Pritchard, D. M. W., Forsythe, N. D., Cabrera, J. G., Sheffield, J., Fowler, H. J., & Harou, J. (2023) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-022-01556-6 · Cited by 89
Serious underestimation of reduced carbon uptake due to vegetation compound droughts
Song, J., Zhou, S., Yu, B., Li, Y., Liu, Y., Yao, Y., Wang, S., & Fu, B. (2024) · npj Climate and Atmospheric Science · doi:10.1038/s41612-024-00571-y · Cited by 76
Reducing uncertainty in local temperature projections
Qasmi, S., & Ribes, A. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abo6872 · Cited by 82
“(11), this method is applied to the analysis of time series from climate simulations of CMIP5 and CMIP6 models and is used for several purposes: (i) reducing model uncertainty on past and future global warming estimated by CMIP and ScenarioMIP (9) simulations, (ii) reducing uncertainty on warming attributed to several…”
MethodInfluentialMerrifield, A. L., Brunner, L., Lorenz, R., Humphrey, V., & Knutti, R. (2023) · Geoscientific model development · doi:10.5194/gmd-16-4715-2023 · Cited by 76
“…condition/perturbed physics ensemble members therein) with historical simulations and the highest emissions projection pathways: Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 5-8.5 (SSP585) for CMIP6 model projections (Eyring et al., 2016; O’Neill et al., 2016) and Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.”
InfluentialSelf-citationWang, K., Liu, J., Xia, J., Wang, Z., Meng, Y., Chen, H., Mao, G., & Ye, B. (2021) · Resources Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105390 · Cited by 77
“Five scenarios of CMIP6 were adopted to quantify the impact on rice yield, energy generation, water withdrawal, and FEW Nexus.”
MethodInfluentialDivergence in Climate Model Projections of Future Arctic Atlantification
Muilwijk, M., Nummelin, A., Heuzé, C., Polyakov, I. V., Zanowski, H., & Smedsrud, L. H. (2022) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-22-0349.1 · Cited by 73
Siabi, E. K., Awafo, E. A., Kabo-bah, A. T., Derkyi, N. S. A., Akpoti, K., Mortey, E. M., & Yazdanie, M. (2023) · Urban Climate · doi:10.1016/j.uclim.2023.101432 · Cited by 74
Zhao, R., Wang, S., & Chen, S. (2024) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.143552 · Cited by 73
Climate Change Determines Future Population Exposure to Summertime Compound Dry and Hot Events
Zhang, G., Wang, H., Gan, T. Y., Zhang, S., Shi, L., Zhao, J., Su, X., & Song, S. (2022) · Earth s Future · doi:10.1029/2022ef003015 · Cited by 76
“CMIP6 can better simulate climate extremes than the CMIP5, due to its finer resolution and parameterization improvements (Bourdeau-Goulet & Hassanzadeh, 2021; Chen et al., 2020; Eyring et al., 2016; Grose et al., 2020; O'Neill et al., 2016).”
BackgroundSun, P., Zou, Y., Yao, R., Ma, Z., Bian, Y., Ge, C., & Lv, Y. (2023) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.162980 · Cited by 77
Meta‐analysis of multiple driver effects on marine phytoplankton highlights modulating role ofpCO2
Seifert, M., Rost, B., Trimborn, S., & Hauck, J. (2020) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.15341 · Cited by 79
Rao, J., & Garfinkel, C. I. (2020) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/abd4fe · Cited by 71
Outlooks, explorations and normative scenarios: Approaches to global energy futures compared
Skea, J., van Diemen, R., Portugal‐Pereira, J., & Khourdajie, A. A. (2021) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120736 · Cited by 72
Hamed, M. M., Nashwan, M. S., Shiru, M. S., & Shahid, S. (2022) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su141610375 · Cited by 72
“The CMIP6 models also more accurately represent Earth’s physics [37].”
BackgroundQuilcaille, Y., Batıbeniz, F., Ribeiro, A. F. S., Padrón, R. S., & Seneviratne, S. I. (2023) · Earth system science data · doi:10.5194/essd-15-2153-2023 · Cited by 80
CLIMBra - Climate Change Dataset for Brazil
Ballarin, A. S., Sone, J. S., Gesualdo, G. C., Schwamback, D., Reis, A., Almagro, A., & Wendland, E. C. (2023) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-023-01956-z · Cited by 81
Malavelle, F. F., Haywood, J., Mercado, L. M., Folberth, G., Bellouin, N., Sitch, S. A., & Artaxo, P. E. (2019) · Atmospheric chemistry and physics · doi:10.5194/acp-19-1301-2019 · Cited by 74
Multi-Decadal Variability and Future Changes in Precipitation over Southern Africa
Sian, K. T. C. L. K., Wang, J., Ayugi, B. O., Nooni, I. K., & Ongoma, V. (2021) · Atmosphere · doi:10.3390/atmos12060742 · Cited by 73
Cook, B. I., Mankin, J., Williams, P., Marvel, K., Smerdon, J. E., & Liu, H. (2021) · Earth s Future · doi:10.1029/2021ef002014 · Cited by 79
Srikrishnan, V., Lafferty, D. C., Wong, T. E., Lamontagne, J., Quinn, J. D., Sharma, S., Molla, N., Herman, J. D., Sriver, R. L., Morris, J., et al. (2022) · Earth s Future · doi:10.1029/2021ef002644 · Cited by 72
Dual impact of global urban overheating on mortality
Wang, S., Zhan, W., Zhou, B., Tong, S., Chakraborty, T., Wang, Z., Huang, K., Du, H., Middel, A., Li, J., et al. (2025) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-025-02303-3 · Cited by 82
“Our data were obtained from the ERA5-Daily and monthly ERA5-Land reanalysis datasets and the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) dataset 51,52 .”
The importance of calibrating climate change projections to local conditions at aquaculture sites
Falconer, L., Hjøllo, S. S., Telfer, T. C., et al. (2019) · Aquaculture · doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2019.734487 · Cited by 70
“Consequently, new scenarios and updated projections (O'Neill et al., 2016) should be used for aquaculture when available and impact assessments and adaptation plans should be regularly evaluated and”
BackgroundMethodGao, H., Feng, Z., Zhang, T., Wang, Y., He, X., Li, H., Pan, X., Ren, Z., Chen, X., Zhang, W., et al. (2020) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142774 · Cited by 69
KrigR—a tool for downloading and statistically downscaling climate reanalysis data
Kusch, E., & Davy, R. (2022) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac48b3 · Cited by 70
Agricultural breadbaskets shift poleward given adaptive farmer behavior under climate change
Franke, J., Müller, C., Minoli, S., Elliott, J. W., Folberth, C., Gardner, C., Hank, T., Izaurralde, R. C., Jägermeyr, J., Jones, C. D., et al. (2021) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.15868 · Cited by 76
Bai, H., Xiao, D., Tang, J., & Liu, D. L. (2024) · Computers and Electronics in Agriculture · doi:10.1016/j.compag.2024.108651 · Cited by 72
Mapping global floods with 10 years of satellite radar data
Misra, A., White, K. H., Nsutezo, S. F., Straka, W. C., & Ferres, J. L. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-60973-1 · Cited by 97
“Second, the mask identi fi es areas where we expect a high rate of false negatives, speci fi cally areas marked as “ Built-Up ” in the ESA land cover map, which typically indicates urban areas where building interference makes fl ood detection challenging.”
Arnell, N., Lowe, J., Bernie, D., Nicholls, R., Brown, S., Challinor, A., & Osborn, T. (2019) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab35a6 · Cited by 59
Self-citationFujimori, S., Hasegawa, T., Ito, A., Takahashi, K., & Masui, T. (2018) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/sdata.2018.210 · Cited by 57
Annex III: Scenarios and Modelling Methods
Change, I. P. O. C. (2023) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009157926.022 · Cited by 106
Arctic Sea Ice in Two Configurations of the CESM2 During the 20th and 21st Centuries
DeRepentigny, P., Jahn, A., Holland, M. M., & Smith, A. (2020) · Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans · doi:10.1029/2020jc016133 · Cited by 74
“Notably, the SSP5‐8.5 scenario reaches higher atmospheric CO2 concentration by the end of the century (see Figure 3 of O'Neill et al., 2016).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialProjected climate change impacts on soil erosion over Iran
Doulabian, S., Toosi, A. S., Calbimonte, G. H., Tousi, E. G., & Alaghmand, S. (2021) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126432 · Cited by 68
Docquier, D., Vannitsem, S., Ragone, F., Wyser, K., & Liang, X. S. (2022) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2021gl095892 · Cited by 74
Das, S., Kamruzzaman, M., & Islam, A. R. M. T. (2022) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128002 · Cited by 68
The call of the emperor penguin: Legal responses to species threatened by climate change
Jenouvrier, S., Che‐Castaldo, J. P., Wolf, S. G., Holland, M. M., Labrousse, S., Larue, M. A., Wienecke, B. C., Fretwell, P. T., Barbraud, C., Greenwald, N., et al. (2021) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.15806 · Cited by 67
Suppressed Late‐20th Century Warming in CMIP6 Models Explained by Forcing and Feedbacks
Smith, C., & Forster, P. M. D. F. (2021) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2021gl094948 · Cited by 73
Projected Aerosol Changes Driven by Emissions and Climate Change Using a Machine Learning Method
Li, H., Yang, Y., Wang, H., Wang, P., Yue, X., & Liao, H. (2022) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.1c04380 · Cited by 69
Assessment of CMIP6 models' performance in simulating present-day climate in Brazil
Firpo, M. Â. F., Guimarães, B. S., Dantas, L. G., Guatura, M., Alves, L. M., Chadwick, R. S., Llopart, M., & de Oliveira, G. S. (2022) · Frontiers in Climate · doi:10.3389/fclim.2022.948499 · Cited by 80
Emerging unprecedented lake ice loss in climate change projections
Huang, L., Timmermann, A., Lee, S., Rodgers, K. B., Yamaguchi, R., & Chung, E. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-33495-3 · Cited by 75
Feyissa, T. A., Demissie, T. A., Saathoff, F., & Gebissa, A. (2023) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su15086507 · Cited by 72
Ai, X., Zheng, X., Zhang, Y., Liu, Y., Ou, X., Xia, C., & Liu, L. (2024) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.173828 · Cited by 72
Linking sea level rise and socioeconomic indicators under the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways
Nauels, A., Rogelj, J., Schleussner, C., Meinshausen, M. A., & Mengel, M. (2017) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa92b6 · Cited by 67
“The SSP framework will also be the basis for the Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) [O'Neill et al. 2016] of Phase 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) [Eyring et al.”
MethodPascoe, C., Lawrence, B., Guilyardi, É., Juckes, M. N., & Taylor, K. E. (2020) · Geoscientific model development · doi:10.5194/gmd-13-2149-2020 · Cited by 67
Guilyardi, É., Capotondi, A. M., Lengaigne, M., Thual, S., & Wittenberg, A. T. (2020) · Geophysical monograph · doi:10.1002/9781119548164.ch9 · Cited by 74
Lamboll, R., JONES, C. D., Skeie, R. B., Fiedler, S., Samset, B. H., Gillett, N. P., Rogelj, J., & Forster, P. M. D. F. (2021) · Geoscientific model development · doi:10.5194/gmd-14-3683-2021 · Cited by 74
“Tier one scenario, meaning that all groups involved in CMIP6 ScenarioMIP have run the baseline scenario O’Neill et al. (2016). Of these, it is the most middle-of-the-road in terms of assumptions, both about future political and economic developments, 55 because it is SSP2 (Riahi et al.”
BackgroundGlobal decline in ocean memory over the 21st century
Shi, H., Jin, F., Wills, R. C. J., Jacox, M. G., Amaya, D. J., Black, B. A., Rykaczewski, R. R., Bograd, S. J., García‐Reyes, M., & Sydeman, W. J. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abm3468 · Cited by 67
Optimizing the Land Use and Land Cover Pattern to Increase Its Contribution to Carbon Neutrality
Wang, K., Li, X., Lyu, X., Dang, D., Dou, H., Li, M., Liu, S., & Cao, W. (2022) · Remote Sensing · doi:10.3390/rs14194751 · Cited by 67
“Based on retaining the four typical representative concentration pathways of CMIP5, it adds three new pathways and emphasizes the consistency of each RCP scenario and SSP scenario, thus forming eight combined scenarios [44].”
BackgroundTebaldi, C., Snyder, A. C., & Dorheim, K. (2022) · Earth System Dynamics · doi:10.5194/esd-13-1557-2022 · Cited by 48
Self-citationÁvila-Díaz, Á. J., Torres, R. R., Zuluaga, C. F., Cerón, W. L., Oliveira, L. R., Benezoli, V. H., Rivera, I. A., Marengo, J. A., Wilson, A. B., & de Medeiros, F. J. (2022) · Earth Systems and Environment · doi:10.1007/s41748-022-00337-7 · Cited by 69
Projecting Global Drought Risk Under Various SSP‐RCP Scenarios
Zhou, Z., Zhang, L., Chen, J., She, D., Wang, G., Zhang, Q., Xia, J., & Zhang, Y. (2023) · Earth s Future · doi:10.1029/2022ef003420 · Cited by 76
Important distinctiveness of SSP3–7.0 for use in impact assessments
Shiogama, H., Fujimori, S., Hasegawa, T., et al. (2023) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-023-01883-2 · Cited by 66
Harrington, L. J., & Otto, F. E. L. (2018) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aaaa99 · Cited by 78
McBride, L. A., Hope, A. P., Canty, T. P., Bennett, B. F., Tribett, W. R., & Salawitch, R. J. (2021) · Earth System Dynamics · doi:10.5194/esd-12-545-2021 · Cited by 73
Bourdeau-Goulet, S.-C., & Hassanzadeh, E. (2021) · Earth s Future · doi:10.1029/2021ef001995 · Cited by 74
Future Changes in Wet and Dry Season Characteristics in CMIP5 and CMIP6 simulations
Wainwright, C. M., Black, E. C. L., & Allan, R. P. (2021) · Journal of Hydrometeorology · doi:10.1175/jhm-d-21-0017.1 · Cited by 70
Holbrook, N. J., Hernaman, V., Koshiba, S., Lako, J., Kajtar, J. B., Amosa, P., & Singh, A. (2021) · Global and Planetary Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2021.103680 · Cited by 77
Anthropogenic and atmospheric variability intensifies flash drought episodes in South Asia
Ullah, I., Mukherjee, S., Syed, S., Mishra, A. K., Ayugi, B. O., & Aadhar, S. (2024) · Communications Earth & Environment · doi:10.1038/s43247-024-01390-y · Cited by 72
“SSP245 was selected as the future projection in the study that extrapolates past and current global developments into the future based on moderate emission scenarios 66 .”
Future greening of the Earth may not be as large as previously predicted
Zhao, Q., Zhu, Z., Zeng, H., Zhao, W., & Myneni, R. B. (2020) · Agricultural and Forest Meteorology · doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2020.108111 · Cited by 67
Snow on Arctic Sea Ice in a Warming Climate as Simulated in CESM
Webster, M. A., DuVivier, A. K., Holland, M. M., & Bailey, D. A. (2020) · Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans · doi:10.1029/2020jc016308 · Cited by 65
Arctic Ocean Freshwater in CMIP6 Ensembles: Declining Sea Ice, Increasing Ocean Storage and Export
Zanowski, H., Jahn, A., & Holland, M. M. (2021) · Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans · doi:10.1029/2020jc016930 · Cited by 64
“We assess the performance of their historical simulations compared to late 20th century observations and compare their 21st century projections in two future emissions scenarios (O'Neill et al., 2016) from ScenarioMIP, SSP1-2.”
Co‐occurrence of California Drought and Northeast Pacific Marine Heatwaves Under Climate Change
Shi, H., García‐Reyes, M., Jacox, M. G., Rykaczewski, R. R., Black, B. A., Bograd, S. J., & Sydeman, W. J. (2021) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2021gl092765 · Cited by 67
“5, which represents a fossil-fuel reliant future (O'Neill et al., 2016).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialGao, X., Liu, J., & Huang, Z. (2022) · Ecology and Evolution · doi:10.1002/ece3.9165 · Cited by 64
The trend and spatial spread of multisectoral climate extremes in CMIP6 models
Adeyeri, O. E., Zhou, W., Wang, X., et al. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-25265-4 · Cited by 64
Wang, M., Liu, M., Zhang, D., et al. (2023) · Sustainable Cities and Society · doi:10.1016/j.scs.2023.104436 · Cited by 64
Extreme Heat and Occupational Health Risks
Gibb, K., Beckman, S., Vergara, X. P., Heinzerling, A., & Harrison, R. (2024) · Annual Review of Public Health · doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-060222-034715 · Cited by 88
Regional variations in relative sea-level changes influenced by nonlinear vertical land motion
Oelsmann, J., Marcos, M., Passaro, M., Sanchez, L. A., Dettmering, D., Dangendorf, S., & Seitz, F. (2024) · Nature Geoscience · doi:10.1038/s41561-023-01357-2 · Cited by 66
“We explore different scenarios (SSP2–4.5, SSP3–7.0 and SSP5–8.5 46 ), each relying on different emission scenarios.”
BackgroundInfluentialSouth American fires and their impacts on ecosystems increase with continued emissions
Burton, C., Kelley, D. I., Jones, C. D., Betts, R. A., Cardoso, M., & Anderson, L. (2022) · Climate Resilience and Sustainability · doi:10.1002/cli2.8 · Cited by 66
Jones, A., Haywood, J., Jones, A. C., Tilmes, S., Kravitz, B., & Robock, A. D. (2021) · Atmospheric chemistry and physics · doi:10.5194/acp-21-1287-2021 · Cited by 76
Yool, A., Palmiéri, J., Jones, C., de Mora, L., Kuhlbrodt, T., Popova, E. E., Nurser, A. J. G., Hirschi, J., Blaker, A. T., Coward, A. C., et al. (2021) · Geoscientific model development · doi:10.5194/gmd-14-3437-2021 · Cited by 77
Anthropogenic influence on extreme Meiyu rainfall in 2020 and its future risk
Zhou, T., Ren, L., & Zhang, W. (2021) · Science China Earth Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11430-020-9771-8 · Cited by 63
“For event attribution, we used multi-model simulations from the Detection and Attribution Model Intercomparison Project (DAMIP) from the CMIP6 archive (Gillett et al., 2016; Qian and Zhang, 2019; Table 1).”
MethodAerosol absorption has an underappreciated role in historical precipitation change
Samset, B. H. (2022) · Communications Earth & Environment · doi:10.1038/s43247-022-00576-6 · Cited by 63
Global Climate Change Increases Terrestrial Soil CH4 Emissions
Guo, J., Feng, H., Peng, C. H., Chen, H., Xu, X., Ma, X., Li, L., Kneeshaw, D., Ruan, H., Yang, H., et al. (2023) · Global Biogeochemical Cycles · doi:10.1029/2021gb007255 · Cited by 64
Climate migration amplifies demographic change and population aging
Hauer, M. E., Jacobs, S. A., & Kulp, S. (2024) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2206192119 · Cited by 70
Yue, H., He, C., Huang, Q., Zhang, D., Shi, P., Moallemi, E. A., Xu, F., Yang, Y., Qi, X., Ma, Q., et al. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-46969-3 · Cited by 67
“In ScenarioMIP, eight representative scenarios were provided to describe possible futures, which can be further divided into Tier 1 and Tier 2 based on relative priority 62 .”
The need for carbon-emissions-driven climate projections in CMIP7
Sanderson, B. M., Booth, B. B. B., Dunne, J. P. P., Eyring, V., Fisher, R. A., Friedlingstein, P., Gidden, M., Hajima, T., JONES, C. D., Jones, C., et al. (2024) · Geoscientific model development · doi:10.5194/gmd-17-8141-2024 · Cited by 95
Self-citationSaha, U., & Sateesh, M. (2022) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.127682 · Cited by 64
Beusch, L., Nicholls, Z., Gudmundsson, L., Hauser, M., Meinshausen, M. A., & Seneviratne, S. I. (2022) · Geoscientific model development · doi:10.5194/gmd-15-2085-2022 · Cited by 69
Climate Transition from Warm-Dry to Warm-Wet in Eastern Northwest China
Yang, J., Zhang, Q., Lu, G., Liu, X., Wang, Y., Wang, D., Liu, W., Yue, P., Zhu, B., & Duan, X. (2021) · Atmosphere · doi:10.3390/atmos12050548 · Cited by 63
A compound event-oriented framework to tropical fire risk assessment in a changing climate
Ribeiro, A. F. S., Brando, P. M., Santos, L. R. S., Rattis, L., Hirschi, M., Hauser, M., Seneviratne, S. I., & Jakob Zscheischler, A. (2022) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac7342 · Cited by 65
“We only analyse simulations from the shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) projection [44] SSP5-8.”
MethodGlobal risk of heat stress to cattle from climate change
North, M. A., Franke, J., Ouweneel, B., & Trisos, C. H. (2023) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aceb79 · Cited by 73
Global vegetation, moisture, thermal and climate interactions intensify compound extreme events
Adeyeri, O. E., Zhou, W., Ndehedehe, C. E., & Wang, X. (2023) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.169261 · Cited by 67
“It suggests a radiative force of 4.5 W/m 2 by 2100 (O'Neill et al., 2016), while SSP585 is the only SSP with emissions sufficient to deliver the 8.5 W/m 2 level of forcing in 2100.”
BackgroundInfluentialTowards an increasingly biased view on Arctic change
López‐Blanco, E., Topp-Jorgensen, E. J., Christensen, T. R., Rasch, M., Skov, H., Arndal, M. F., Bret-Harte, M. S., Callaghan, T. V., & Schmidt, N. M. (2024) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-023-01903-1 · Cited by 62
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
