Reduced Complexity Model Intercomparison Project Phase 2: Synthesizing Earth System Knowledge for Probabilistic Climate Projections

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 modeling 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 specialized 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°C (relative to 1850-1900, using an observationally based historical warming estimate of 0.8°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°C above preindustrial 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.Plain Language Summary Our best tools to capture state-of-the-art knowledge are complex, fully coupled Earth System Models (ESMs). However, ESMs are expensive to run and no single ESM can easily produce responses which represent the full range of uncertainties. Instead, for some applications, computationally efficient reduced complexity climate models (RCMs) are used in a probabilistic setup. An example of these applications is estimating the likelihood that an emissions scenario will stay below a certain global-mean temperature change. Here we present a study (referred to as the Reduced Complexity NICHOLLS ET AL.

Errors in Simple Climate Model Emulations of Past and Future Global Temperature Change

“…Opposing errors in the emulation of GHG and aerosol forcings give a misleading impression of emulator performance. Many climate model emulators do not reliably emulate AOGCM projections for high emissions scenarios (Z. Nicholls et al., 2021); our results suggest that strong mitigation scenarios may not be reliably emulated.…”

Institutional decarbonization scenarios evaluated against the Paris Agreement 1.5 °C goal

“…We also explore the difference in results between MAGICC6 and FaIR (the second simple climate model used in the SR1.5 assessment) in Supplementary Information Section 5 , and our results agree with the SR1.5 assessed differences in climatic outcomes between the models. With updated model versions, and calibrations that will be used in the upcoming WGIII contribution to the IPCC’s 6th Assessment Report, the simple climate models are likely to show a higher degree of agreement on the magnitude of warming 30 .…”

An emission pathway classification reflecting the Paris Agreement climate objectives

“…To average out natural variability and approximate the anthropogenic warming only, we deploy a centered 11-yr centered running mean assuming a constant trajectory after 2100. We apply this running mean to the exceedance probabilities and median temperature outcomes for the MAGICC7 simple climate model 35,36 , as reported in the scenario database. Based on these time-averaged outcomes, we reclassify the AR6 WGIII scenarios according to the category criteria set out in the report 17 .…”