2012
DOI: 10.1029/2012gl052848
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Aerosol contribution to the rapid warming of near‐term climate under RCP 2.6

Abstract: [1] The importance of aerosol emissions for near term climate projections is investigated by analysing simulations with the HadGEM2-ES model under two different emissions scenarios: RCP2.6 and RCP4.5. It is shown that the near term warming projected under RCP2.6 is greater than under RCP4.5, even though the greenhouse gas forcing is lower. Rapid and substantial reductions in sulphate aerosol emissions due to a reduction of coal burning in RCP2.6 lead to a reduction in the negative shortwave forcing due to aero… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

8
48
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(58 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
8
48
1
Order By: Relevance
“…1), and this is reflected in the lack of a clear difference in impact, for a given Table 3). The differences between these three RCPs for a given model in 2050 reflect the effects of both year-to-year climatic variability on 30-year mean climate and the different aerosol scenarios: Chalmers et al (2012) show that for the HadGEM2-ES model, for example, average temperature increase is greater under RCP2.6 than under RCP4.5 to at least 2040 because of the substantial reductions in aerosols, and that the spatial pattern of change in climate is different. Impacts under RCP8.5 in 2050 are typically larger than those under the other RCPs-but not always.…”
Section: Indicators Of Impactmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…1), and this is reflected in the lack of a clear difference in impact, for a given Table 3). The differences between these three RCPs for a given model in 2050 reflect the effects of both year-to-year climatic variability on 30-year mean climate and the different aerosol scenarios: Chalmers et al (2012) show that for the HadGEM2-ES model, for example, average temperature increase is greater under RCP2.6 than under RCP4.5 to at least 2040 because of the substantial reductions in aerosols, and that the spatial pattern of change in climate is different. Impacts under RCP8.5 in 2050 are typically larger than those under the other RCPs-but not always.…”
Section: Indicators Of Impactmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The effect of past and future changes in emissions on aerosols and their associated climate impacts is uncertain (Penner et al, 2010;Chalmers et al, 2012). In addition, emission inventories of aerosols and their precursor species account for large uncertainty in models (de Meij et al, 2006).…”
Section: S T Turnock Et Al: Modelled and Observed Changes In Europmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They stated that regional model in impact assessment studies need to be conducted carefully, because models with small and large biases can produce substantially different results. This explains our consideration of all projected climates by RCA, driven by different GCMs, in our analysis, while keeping in mind the high level of uncertainty associated with the response of West Africa climate to anthropogenic GHG emissions [46] [47] [50].…”
Section: Far Termmentioning
confidence: 99%