loading page

Reduced Complexity Model Intercomparison Project Phase 2: Synthesising Earth system knowledge for probabilistic climate projections
  • +20
  • Zebedee R.J. Nicholls,
  • Malte Alexander Meinshausen,
  • Jared Lewis,
  • Maisa Rojas Corradi,
  • Kalyn Dorheim,
  • Thomas Gasser,
  • Robert Gieseke,
  • Austin Patrick Hope,
  • Nicholas Leach,
  • Laura Anne McBride,
  • Yann Quilcaille,
  • Joeri Rogelj,
  • Ross J. Salawitch,
  • Bjørn Hallvard Samset,
  • Marit Sandstad,
  • Alexey N Shiklomanov,
  • Ragnhild Bieltvedt Skeie,
  • Christopher J Smith,
  • Steven Smith,
  • Xuanming SU,
  • Junichi Tsutsui,
  • Benjamin Aaron Vega-Westhoff,
  • Dawn Woodard
Zebedee R.J. Nicholls
University of Melbourne, University of Melbourne

Corresponding Author:[email protected]

Author Profile
Malte Alexander Meinshausen
University of Melbourne, University of Melbourne
Author Profile
Jared Lewis
Climate & Energy College, School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Climate & Energy College, School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne
Author Profile
Maisa Rojas Corradi
University of Chile, University of Chile
Author Profile
Kalyn Dorheim
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Author Profile
Thomas Gasser
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
Author Profile
Robert Gieseke
Independent Researcher, Independent Researcher
Author Profile
Austin Patrick Hope
University of Maryland, College Park, University of Maryland, College Park
Author Profile
Nicholas Leach
University of Oxford, University of Oxford
Author Profile
Laura Anne McBride
University of Maryland, College Park, University of Maryland, College Park
Author Profile
Yann Quilcaille
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
Author Profile
Joeri Rogelj
Imperial College London, Imperial College London
Author Profile
Ross J. Salawitch
University of Maryland, College Park, University of Maryland, College Park
Author Profile
Bjørn Hallvard Samset
CICERO Center for International Climate and Environmental Research - Oslo, CICERO Center for International Climate and Environmental Research - Oslo
Author Profile
Marit Sandstad
CICERO, CICERO
Author Profile
Alexey N Shiklomanov
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Author Profile
Ragnhild Bieltvedt Skeie
Center for International Climate and Environmental Research - Oslo (CICERO), Center for International Climate and Environmental Research - Oslo (CICERO)
Author Profile
Christopher J Smith
University of Leeds, University of Leeds
Author Profile
Steven Smith
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (DOE), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (DOE)
Author Profile
Xuanming SU
National Institute for Environmental Studies, National Institute for Environmental Studies
Author Profile
Junichi Tsutsui
Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry
Author Profile
Benjamin Aaron Vega-Westhoff
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Author Profile
Dawn Woodard
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Author Profile

Abstract

Over the last decades, climate science has evolved rapidly across multiple expert domains. Our best tools to capture state-of-the-art knowledge in an internally self-consistent modelling framework are the increasingly complex fully coupled Earth System Models (ESMs). However, computational limitations and the structural rigidity of ESMs mean that the full range of uncertainties across multiple domains are difficult to capture with ESMs alone. The tools of choice are instead more computationally efficient reduced complexity models (RCMs), which are structurally flexible and can span the response dynamics across a range of domain-specific models and ESM experiments. Here we present Phase 2 of the Reduced Complexity Model Intercomparison Project (RCMIP Phase 2), the first comprehensive intercomparison of RCMs that are probabilistically calibrated with key benchmark ranges from specialised research communities. Unsurprisingly, but crucially, we find that models which have been constrained to reflect the key benchmarks better reflect the key benchmarks. Under the low-emissions SSP1-1.9 scenario, across the RCMs, median peak warming projections range from 1.3 to 1.7{degree sign}C (relative to 1850-1900, using an observationally-based historical warming estimate of 0.8{degree sign}C between 1850-1900 and 1995-2014). Further developing methodologies to constrain these projection uncertainties seems paramount given the international community’s goal to contain warming to below 1.5{degree sign}C above pre-industrial in the long-term. Our findings suggest that users of RCMs should carefully evaluate their RCM, specifically its skill against key benchmarks and consider the need to include projections benchmarks either from ESM results or other assessments to reduce divergence in future projections.