@article{SchleussnerLissnerFischeretal.2016, author = {Schleussner, Carl-Friedrich and Lissner, Tabea K. and Fischer, Erich M. and Wohland, Jan and Perrette, Mahe and Golly, Antonius and Rogelj, Joeri and Childers, Katelin and Schewe, Jacob and Frieler, Katja and Mengel, Matthias and Hare, William and Schaeffer, Michiel}, title = {Differential climate impacts for policy-relevant limits to global warming: the case of 1.5 degrees C and 2 degrees C}, series = {Earth system dynamics}, volume = {7}, journal = {Earth system dynamics}, publisher = {Copernicus}, address = {G{\"o}ttingen}, issn = {2190-4979}, doi = {10.5194/esd-7-327-2016}, pages = {327 -- 351}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Robust appraisals of climate impacts at different levels of global-mean temperature increase are vital to guide assessments of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. The 2015 Paris Agreement includes a two-headed temperature goal: "holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees C". Despite the prominence of these two temperature limits, a comprehensive overview of the differences in climate impacts at these levels is still missing. Here we provide an assessment of key impacts of climate change at warming levels of 1.5 degrees C and 2 degrees C, including extreme weather events, water availability, agricultural yields, sea-level rise and risk of coral reef loss. Our results reveal substantial differences in impacts between a 1.5 degrees C and 2 degrees C warming that are highly relevant for the assessment of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. For heat-related extremes, the additional 0.5 degrees C increase in global-mean temperature marks the difference between events at the upper limit of present-day natural variability and a new climate regime, particularly in tropical regions. Similarly, this warming difference is likely to be decisive for the future of tropical coral reefs. In a scenario with an end-of-century warming of 2 degrees C, virtually all tropical coral reefs are projected to be at risk of severe degradation due to temperature-induced bleaching from 2050 onwards. This fraction is reduced to about 90\% in 2050 and projected to decline to 70\% by 2100 for a 1.5 degrees C scenario. Analyses of precipitation-related impacts reveal distinct regional differences and hot-spots of change emerge. Regional reduction in median water availability for the Mediterranean is found to nearly double from 9\% to 17\% between 1.5 degrees C and 2 degrees C, and the projected lengthening of regional dry spells increases from 7 to 11\%. Projections for agricultural yields differ between crop types as well as world regions. While some (in particular high-latitude) regions may benefit, tropical regions like West Africa, South-East Asia, as well as Central and northern South America are projected to face substantial local yield reductions, particularly for wheat and maize. Best estimate sea-level rise projections based on two illustrative scenarios indicate a 50cm rise by 2100 relative to year 2000-levels for a 2 degrees C scenario, and about 10 cm lower levels for a 1.5 degrees C scenario. In a 1.5 degrees C scenario, the rate of sea-level rise in 2100 would be reduced by about 30\% compared to a 2 degrees C scenario. Our findings highlight the importance of regional differentiation to assess both future climate risks and different vulnerabilities to incremental increases in global-mean temperature. The article provides a consistent and comprehensive assessment of existing projections and a good basis for future work on refining our understanding of the difference between impacts at 1.5 degrees C and 2 degrees C warming.}, language = {en} } @misc{SchleussnerLissnerFischeretal.2016, author = {Schleussner, Carl-Friedrich and Lissner, Tabea Katharina and Fischer, Erich M. and Wohland, Jan and Perrette, Mah{\´e} and Golly, Antonius and Rogelj, Joeri and Childers, Katelin and Schewe, Jacob and Frieler, Katja and Mengel, Matthias and Hare, William and Schaeffer, Michiel}, title = {Differential climate impacts for policy-relevant limits to global warming}, series = {Earth System Dynamics}, journal = {Earth System Dynamics}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-410258}, pages = {25}, year = {2016}, abstract = {Robust appraisals of climate impacts at different levels of global-mean temperature increase are vital to guide assessments of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. The 2015 Paris Agreement includes a two-headed temperature goal: "holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees C". Despite the prominence of these two temperature limits, a comprehensive overview of the differences in climate impacts at these levels is still missing. Here we provide an assessment of key impacts of climate change at warming levels of 1.5 degrees C and 2 degrees C, including extreme weather events, water availability, agricultural yields, sea-level rise and risk of coral reef loss. Our results reveal substantial differences in impacts between a 1.5 degrees C and 2 degrees C warming that are highly relevant for the assessment of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. For heat-related extremes, the additional 0.5 degrees C increase in global-mean temperature marks the difference between events at the upper limit of present-day natural variability and a new climate regime, particularly in tropical regions. Similarly, this warming difference is likely to be decisive for the future of tropical coral reefs. In a scenario with an end-of-century warming of 2 degrees C, virtually all tropical coral reefs are projected to be at risk of severe degradation due to temperature-induced bleaching from 2050 onwards. This fraction is reduced to about 90\% in 2050 and projected to decline to 70\% by 2100 for a 1.5 degrees C scenario. Analyses of precipitation-related impacts reveal distinct regional differences and hot-spots of change emerge. Regional reduction in median water availability for the Mediterranean is found to nearly double from 9\% to 17\% between 1.5 degrees C and 2 degrees C, and the projected lengthening of regional dry spells increases from 7 to 11\%. Projections for agricultural yields differ between crop types as well as world regions. While some (in particular high-latitude) regions may benefit, tropical regions like West Africa, South-East Asia, as well as Central and northern South America are projected to face substantial local yield reductions, particularly for wheat and maize. Best estimate sea-level rise projections based on two illustrative scenarios indicate a 50cm rise by 2100 relative to year 2000-levels for a 2 degrees C scenario, and about 10 cm lower levels for a 1.5 degrees C scenario. In a 1.5 degrees C scenario, the rate of sea-level rise in 2100 would be reduced by about 30\% compared to a 2 degrees C scenario. Our findings highlight the importance of regional differentiation to assess both future climate risks and different vulnerabilities to incremental increases in global-mean temperature. The article provides a consistent and comprehensive assessment of existing projections and a good basis for future work on refining our understanding of the difference between impacts at 1.5 degrees C and 2 degrees C warming.}, language = {en} } @misc{ClarkMixEbyetal.2018, author = {Clark, Peter U. and Mix, Alan C. and Eby, Michael and Levermann, Anders and Rogelj, Joeri and Nauels, Alexander and Wrathall, David J.}, title = {Sea-level commitment as a gauge for climate policy}, series = {Nature climate change}, volume = {8}, journal = {Nature climate change}, number = {8}, publisher = {Nature Publ. Group}, address = {London}, issn = {1758-678X}, doi = {10.1038/s41558-018-0226-6}, pages = {653 -- 655}, year = {2018}, abstract = {A well-defined relationship between global mean sea-level rise and cumulative carbon emissions can be used to inform policy about emission limits to prevent dangerous and essentially permanent anthropogenic interference with the climate system.}, language = {en} } @article{SchleussnerRogeljSchaefferetal.2016, author = {Schleussner, Carl-Friedrich and Rogelj, Joeri and Schaeffer, Michiel and Lissner, Tabea and Licker, Rachel and Fischer, Erich M. and Knutti, Reto and Levermann, Anders and Frieler, Katja and Hare, William}, title = {Science and policy characteristics of the Paris Agreement temperature goal}, series = {Nature climate change}, volume = {6}, journal = {Nature climate change}, publisher = {Nature Publ. Group}, address = {London}, issn = {1758-678X}, doi = {10.1038/NCLIMATE3096}, pages = {827 -- 835}, year = {2016}, language = {en} } @article{KikstraNichollsSmithetal.2022, author = {Kikstra, Jarmo S. and Nicholls, Zebedee R. J. and Smith, Christopher J. and Lewis, Jared and Lamboll, Robin D. and Byers, Edward and Sandstad, Marit and Meinshausen, Malte and Gidden, Matthew J. and Rogelj, Joeri and Kriegler, Elmar and Peters, Glen P. and Fuglestvedt, Jan S. and Skeie, Ragnhild B. and Samset, Bj{\o}rn H. and Wienpahl, Laura and van Vuuren, Detlef P. and van der Wijst, Kaj-Ivar and Al Khourdajie, Alaa and Forster, Piers M. and Reisinger, Andy and Schaeffer, Roberto and Riahi, Keywan}, title = {The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report WGIII climate assessment of mitigation pathways}, series = {Geoscientific model development}, volume = {15}, journal = {Geoscientific model development}, number = {24}, publisher = {Copernicus}, address = {Katlenburg-Lindau}, issn = {1991-959X}, doi = {10.5194/gmd-15-9075-2022}, pages = {9075 -- 9109}, year = {2022}, abstract = {While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) physical science reports usually assess a handful of future scenarios, the Working Group III contribution on climate mitigation to the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report (AR6 WGIII) assesses hundreds to thousands of future emissions scenarios. A key task in WGIII is to assess the global mean temperature outcomes of these scenarios in a consistent manner, given the challenge that the emissions scenarios from different integrated assessment models (IAMs) come with different sectoral and gas-to-gas coverage and cannot all be assessed consistently by complex Earth system models. In this work, we describe the "climate-assessment" workflow and its methods, including infilling of missing emissions and emissions harmonisation as applied to 1202 mitigation scenarios in AR6 WGIII. We evaluate the global mean temperature projections and effective radiative forcing (ERF) characteristics of climate emulators FaIRv1.6.2 and MAGICCv7.5.3 and use the CICERO simple climate model (CICERO-SCM) for sensitivity analysis. We discuss the implied overshoot severity of the mitigation pathways using overshoot degree years and look at emissions and temperature characteristics of scenarios compatible with one possible interpretation of the Paris Agreement. We find that the lowest class of emissions scenarios that limit global warming to "1.5 ∘C (with a probability of greater than 50 \%) with no or limited overshoot" includes 97 scenarios for MAGICCv7.5.3 and 203 for FaIRv1.6.2. For the MAGICCv7.5.3 results, "limited overshoot" typically implies exceedance of median temperature projections of up to about 0.1 ∘C for up to a few decades before returning to below 1.5 ∘C by or before the year 2100. For more than half of the scenarios in this category that comply with three criteria for being "Paris-compatible", including net-zero or net-negative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, median temperatures decline by about 0.3-0.4 ∘C after peaking at 1.5-1.6 ∘C in 2035-2055. We compare the methods applied in AR6 with the methods used for SR1.5 and discuss their implications. This article also introduces a "climate-assessment" Python package which allows for fully reproducing the IPCC AR6 WGIII temperature assessment. This work provides a community tool for assessing the temperature outcomes of emissions pathways and provides a basis for further work such as extending the workflow to include downscaling of climate characteristics to a regional level and calculating impacts.}, language = {en} } @article{RiahiBertramHuppmannetal.2021, author = {Riahi, Keywan and Bertram, Christoph and Huppmann, Daniel and Rogelj, Joeri and Bosetti, Valentina and Cabardos, Anique-Marie and Deppermann, Andre and Drouet, Laurent and Frank, Stefan and Fricko, Oliver and Fujimori, Shinichiro and Harmsen, Mathijs and Hasegawa, Tomoko and Krey, Volker and Luderer, Gunnar and Paroussos, Leonidas and Schaeffer, Roberto and Weitzel, Matthias and van der Zwaan, Bob and Vrontisi, Zoi and Longa, Francesco Dalla and Despr{\´e}s, Jacques and Fosse, Florian and Fragkiadakis, Kostas and Gusti, Mykola and Humpen{\"o}der, Florian and Keramidas, Kimon and Kishimoto, Paul and Kriegler, Elmar and Meinshausen, Malte and Nogueira, Larissa Pupo and Oshiro, Ken and Popp, Alexander and Rochedo, Pedro R. R. and {\"U}nl{\"u}, Gamze and van Ruijven, Bas and Takakura, Junya and Tavoni, Massimo and van Vuuren, Detlef P. and Zakeri, Behnam}, title = {Cost and attainability of meeting stringent climate targets without overshoot}, series = {Nature climate change}, volume = {11}, journal = {Nature climate change}, number = {12}, publisher = {Nature Publishing Group}, address = {London}, issn = {1758-678X}, doi = {10.1038/s41558-021-01215-2}, pages = {1063 -- 1069}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Global emissions scenarios play a critical role in the assessment of strategies to mitigate climate change. The current scenarios, however, are criticized because they feature strategies with pronounced overshoot of the global temperature goal, requiring a long-term repair phase to draw temperatures down again through net-negative emissions. Some impacts might not be reversible. Hence, we explore a new set of net-zero CO2 emissions scenarios with limited overshoot. We show that upfront investments are needed in the near term for limiting temperature overshoot but that these would bring long-term economic gains. Our study further identifies alternative configurations of net-zero CO2 emissions systems and the roles of different sectors and regions for balancing sources and sinks. Even without net-negative emissions, CO2 removal is important for accelerating near-term reductions and for providing an anthropogenic sink that can offset the residual emissions in sectors that are hard to abate.}, language = {en} } @article{SchultesPiontekSoergeletal.2021, author = {Schultes, Anselm and Piontek, Franziska and Soergel, Bjoern and Rogelj, Joeri and Baumstark, Lavinia and Kriegler, Elmar and Edenhofer, Ottmar and Luderer, Gunnar}, title = {Economic damages from on-going climate change imply deeper near-term emission cuts}, series = {Environmental research letters}, volume = {16}, journal = {Environmental research letters}, number = {10}, publisher = {IOP Publishing}, address = {Bristol}, issn = {1748-9326}, doi = {10.1088/1748-9326/ac27ce}, pages = {11}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Pathways toward limiting global warming to well below 2 ∘C, as used by the IPCC in the Fifth Assessment Report, do not consider the climate impacts already occurring below 2 ∘C. Here we show that accounting for such damages significantly increases the near-term ambition of transformation pathways. We use econometric estimates of climate damages on GDP growth and explicitly model the uncertainty in the persistence time of damages. The Integrated Assessment Model we use includes the climate system and mitigation technology detail required to derive near-term policies. We find an optimal carbon price of \$115 per tonne of CO2 in 2030. The long-term persistence of damages, while highly uncertain, is a main driver of the near-term carbon price. Accounting for damages on economic growth increases the gap between the currently pledged nationally determined contributions and the welfare-optimal 2030 emissions by two thirds, compared to pathways considering the 2 ∘C limit only.}, language = {en} }