Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This is a summary of: Lutz, A. F. et al. South Asian agriculture increasingly dependent on meltwater and groundwater. Nat. Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01355-z (2022).
Wester, P., Mishra, A., Mukherji, A. & Bhakta Shrestha, A. (eds) The Hindu Kush Himalaya Assessment: Mountains, Climate Change, Sustainability and People (Springer, 2019).
Jain, S. K., Agarwal, P. K. & Singh, V. P. in Hydrology and Water Resources of India (eds Jain, S.K. et al.) 473–511 (Springer, 2007).
Biemans, H., Siderius, C., Mishra, A. & Ahmad, B. Crop-specific seasonal estimates of irrigation-water demand in South Asia. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 20, 1971–1982 (2016).
Farinotti, D. et al. A consensus estimate for the ice thickness distribution of all glaciers on Earth. Nat. Geosci. 12, 168–173 (2019).
Lutz, A. F., Immerzeel, W. W., Shrestha, A. B. & Bierkens, M. F. P. Consistent increase in High Asia’s runoff due to increasing glacier melt and precipitation. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 587–592 (2014).
Khanal, S. et al. Variable 21st century climate change response for rivers in High Mountain Asia at seasonal to decadal time scales. Water Resour. Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020WR029266 (2021).
Immerzeel, W. W. et al. Importance and vulnerability of the world’ s water towers. Nature 577, 364–369 (2019).
Viviroli, D., Kummu, M., Meybeck, M., Kallio, M. & Wada, Y. Increasing dependence of lowland populations on mountain water resources. Nat. Sustain. 3, 917–928 (2020).
Nie, Y. et al. Glacial change and hydrological implications in the Himalaya and Karakoram. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-00124-w (2021).
Biemans, H. et al. Importance of snow and glacier meltwater for agriculture on the Indo-Gangetic Plain. Nat. Sustain. 2, 594–601 (2019).
Gleeson, T., Wada, Y., Bierkens, M. F. P. & van Beek, L. P. H. Water balance of global aquifers revealed by groundwater footprint. Nature 488, 197–200 (2012).
Döll, P., Schmied, H. M., Shuh, C., Portmann, F. T. & Eicker, A. Global-scale assessment of groundwater depletion and related groundwater abstractions: combining hydrological modeling with information from well observations and GRACE satellites. Water Resour. Res. 50, 5698–5720 (2014).
Rodell, M., Velicogna, I. & Famiglietti, J. S. Satellite-based estimates of groundwater depletion in India. Nature 460, 999–1002 (2009).
Pepin, N. et al. Elevation-dependent warming in mountain regions of the world. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 424–430 (2015).
Turner, A. G. & Annamalai, H. Climate change and the South Asian summer monsoon. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 587–595 (2012).
Kirby, M., Mainuddin, M., Khaliq, T. & Cheema, M. Agricultural production, water use and food availability in Pakistan: historical trends, and projections to 2050. Agric. Water 179, 34–46 (2016).
De Stefano, L., Petersen-Perlman, J. D., Sproles, E. A., Eynard, J. & Wolf, A. T. Assessment of transboundary river basins for potential hydro-political tensions. Glob. Environ. Change 45, 35–46 (2017).
Kraaijenbrink, P. D. A., Bierkens, M. F. P., Lutz, A. F. & Immerzeel, W. W. Impact of a global temperature rise of 1.5 degrees Celsius on Asia’s glaciers. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23878 (2017).
Rounce, D. R., Hock, R. & Shean, D. E. Glacier mass change in High Mountain Asia through 2100 using the open-source Python Glacier Evolution Model (PyGEM). Front. Earth Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2019.00331 (2020).
Hugonnet, R. et al. Accelerated global glacier mass loss in the early twenty-first century. Nature 592, 726–731 (2021).
Huss, M. & Hock, R. Global-scale hydrological response to future glacier mass loss. Nat. Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-0049-x (2018).
Kraaijenbrink, P. D. A., Stigter, E. E., Yao, T. & Immerzeel, W. W. Climate change decisive for Asia’s snow meltwater supply. Nat. Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01074-x (2021).
Lutz, A. F. et al. South Asian river basins in a 1.5 °C warmer world. Reg. Environ. Change 19, 833–847 (2019).
Pritchard, H. D. Asia’s shrinking glaciers protect large populations from drought stress. Nature 569, 649–654 (2019).
Wijngaard, R. R. et al. Future changes in hydro-climatogical extremes in the upper Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra river basins. PLoS ONE 12, e0190224 (2017).
Van Tiel, M., Van Loon, A., Seibert, J. & Stahl, K. Hydrological response to warm and dry weather: do glaciers compensate? Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-44 (2021).
Pokhrel, Y. et al. Global terrestrial water storage and drought severity under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 226–233 (2021).
Qin, Y. et al. Agricultural risks from changing snowmelt. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 459–465 (2020).
KC, S. & Lutz, W. The human core of the shared socioeconomic pathways: population scenarios by age, sex and level of education for all countries to 2100. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 181–192 (2017).
Popp, A. et al. Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 331–345 (2017).
Munia, H. A. et al. Future transboundary water stress and its drivers under climate change: a global study. Earth’s Future 8, e2019EF001321 (2020).
Lutz, A. F., Maat, W., Biemans, H. & Shrestha, A. B. Selecting representative climate models for climate change impact studies: an advanced envelope-based selection approach. Int. J. Climatol. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.4608 (2016).
Wijngaard, R. R. et al. Climate change vs. socio-economic development: understanding the South-Asian water gap. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 22, 6297–6321 (2018).
Wen, S. et al. Population exposed to drought under the 1.5 °C and 2.0 °C warming in the Indus River basin. Atmos. Res. 218, 296–305 (2019).
Cheema, M. J. M., Immerzeel, W. W. & Bastiaanssen, W. G. M. Spatial quantification of groundwater abstraction in the irrigated indus basin. Groundwater 52, 25–36 (2014).
Siderius, C. et al. Financial feasibility of water conservation in agriculture. Earth’s Future 9, e2020EF001726 (2021).
Grafton, R. Q. et al. The paradox of irrigation efficiency. Science 361, 748–750 (2018).
Shah, H., Siderius, C. & Hellegers, P. Limitations to adjusting growing periods in different agroecological zones of Pakistan. Agric. Syst. 192, 103184 (2021).
Gernaat, D. E. H. J., Bogaart, P. W., van Vuuren, D. P., Biemans, H. & Niessink, R. High-resolution assessment of global technical and economic hydropower potential. Nat. Energy https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-017-0006-y (2017).
Grill, G. et al. Mapping the world’s free-flowing rivers. Nature 569, 215–221 (2019).
Molden, D. J., Vaidya, R. A., Shrestha, A. B., Rasul, G. & Shrestha, M. S. Water infrastructure for the Hindu Kush Himalayas. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 30, 60–77 (2014).
Vinca, A. et al. Transboundary cooperation a potential route to sustainable development in the Indus basin. Nat. Sustain. 4, 331–339 (2021).
Rasul, G., Neupane, N., Hussain, A. & Pasakhala, B. Beyond hydropower: towards an integrated solution for water, energy and food security in South Asia. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 37, 466–490 (2021).
Wu, X., Jeuland, M., Sadoff, C. & Whittington, D. Interdependence in water resource development in the Ganges: an economic analysis. Water Policy 15, 89–108 (2013).
Gesch, D. B., Verdin, K. L. & Greenlee, S. K. New land surface digital elevation model covers the Earth. Eos Trans. AGU 80, 69–70 (2019).
Lehner, B. & Grill, G. Global river hydrography and network routing: baseline data and new approaches to study the world’s large river systems. Hydrol. Process. 27, 2171–2186 (2013).
Terink, W., Lutz, A. F., Simons, G. W. H., Immerzeel, W. W. & Droogers, P. SPHY v2.0: Spatial processes in HYdrology. Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 2009–2034 (2015).
Paul, F., Huggel, C. & Kääb, A. Combining satellite multispectral image data and a digital elevation model for mapping debris-covered glaciers. Remote Sens. Environ. 89, 510–518 (2004).
Frey, H. et al. Estimating the volume of glaciers in the Himalayan–Karakoram region using different methods. Cryosphere 8, 2313–2333 (2014).
Hock, R. Temperature index melt modelling in mountain areas. J. Hydrol. 282, 104–115 (2003).
Lutz, A. F., Immerzeel, W. W., Kraaijenbrink, P. D. A., Shrestha, A. B. & Bierkens, M. F. P. Climate change impacts on the upper Indus hydrology: sources, shifts and extremes. PLoS ONE 11, e0165630 (2016).
Droogers, P. & Allen, R. G. Estimating reference evapotranspiration under inaccurate data conditions. Irrig. Drain. Syst. 16, 33–45 (2002).
Gerten, D. et al. Global water availability and requirements for future food production. J. Hydrometeorol. 12, 885–899 (2011).
Schaphoff, S. et al. Contribution of permafrost soils to the global carbon budget. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 014026 (2013).
Rost, S. et al. Agricultural green and blue water consumption and its influence on the global water system. Water Resour. Res. 44, W09405 (2008).
Lehner, B. et al. Global Reservoir and Dam Database, v.1 (GRanDv1): Reservoirs, Revision 01 (NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center, 2011); https://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/data/set/grand-v1-dams-rev01
Biemans, H. et al. Impact of reservoirs on river discharge and irrigation water supply during the 20th century. Water Resour. Res. 47, W03509 (2011).
Jägermeyr, J. et al. Water savings potentials of irrigation systems: global simulation of processes and linkages. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 19, 3073–3091 (2015).
Simons, G. W. H., Droogers, P., Contreras, S., Sieber, J. & Bastiaanssen, W. G. M. A novel method to quantify consumed fractions and non-consumptive use of irrigation water: application to the Indus Basin Irrigation System of Pakistan. Agric. Water Manag. 236, 106174 (2020).
Keenan, T. F. et al. A constraint on historic growth in global photosynthesis due to increasing CO2. Nature 600, 253–258 (2021).
Elliott, J. et al. Constraints and potentials of future irrigation water availability on agricultural production under climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3239–3244 (2014).
Bijl, D. L. et al. A global analysis of future water deficit based on different allocation mechanisms. Water Resour. Res. 54, 5803–5824 (2018).
de Vos, L., Biemans, H., Doelman, J. C., Stehfest, E. & Van Vuuren, D. P. Trade-offs between water needs for food, utilities, and the environment—a nexus quantification at different scales. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 115003 (2021).
Alcamo, J. et al. Development and testing of the WaterGAP 2 global model of water use and availability. Hydrol. Sci. J. 48, 317–337 (2003).
Wada, Y. et al. Global depletion of groundwater resources. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L20402 (2010).
Weedon, G. P. et al. The WFDEI meteorological forcing data set: WATCH Forcing Data methodology applied to ERA-Interim reanalysis data. Water Resour. Res. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015638 (2014).
Immerzeel, W. W., Wanders, N., Lutz, A. F., Shea, J. M. & Bierkens, M. F. P. Reconciling high altitude precipitation with glacier mass balances and runoff. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 12, 4755–4784 (2015).
Harmonized World Soil Database (v.1.2) (FAO/IIASA/ISRIC/ISSCAS/JRC, 2012); https://www.fao.org/soils-portal/soil-survey/soil-maps-and-databases/harmonized-world-soil-database-v12/ru/
Boer, F. D. HiHydroSoil: A High Resolution Soil Map of Hydraulic Properties v.1.2 (FutureWater, 2016).
Portmann, F. T., Siebert, S. & Döll, P. MIRCA2000—Global monthly irrigated and rainfed crop areas around the year 2000: a new high-resolution data set for agricultural and hydrological modeling. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 24, GB1011 (2010).
Defourny, P. et al. GLOBCOVER: A 300 m global land cover product for 2005 using ENVISAT MERIS time series. In Proc. ISPRS Commission VII Mid-Term Symposium: Remote Sensing: From Pixels to Processes (eds Kerle, N. & Skidmore, A.) (International Society of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 2007).
Wada, Y., Wisser, D. & Bierkens, M. F. P. Global modeling of withdrawal, allocation and consumptive use of surface water and groundwater resources. Earth Syst. Dyn. 5, 15–40 (2014).
Klein Goldewijk, K., Beusen, A., Van Drecht, G. & De Vos, M. The HYDE 3.1 spatially explicit database of human-induced global land-use change over the past 12,000 years. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 20, 73–86 (2011).
AQUASTAT database (FAO, 2016); https://www.fao.org/aquastat/en/
Arendt, A. et al. Randolph Glacier Inventory [5.0]: A Dataset of Global Glacier Outlines, v.5.0 (Global Land Ice Measurements from Space (GLIMS), 2015); https://www.glims.org/RGI/
van Vuuren, D. P. et al. A new scenario framework for climate change research: scenario matrix architecture. Climatic Change 122, 373–386 (2014).
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J. & Meehl, G. A. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 485–498 (2012).
O’Neill, B. C. et al. The roads ahead: narratives for Shared Socioeconomic Pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 169–180 (2017).
Stehfest, E., et al. Integrated Assessment of Global Environmental Change with IMAGE 3.0.—Model Description and Policy Applications (Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2014).
Bijl, D. L., Bogaart, P. W., Kram, T., de Vries, B. J. M. & van Vuuren, D. P. Long-term water demand for electricity, industry and households. Environ. Sci. Policy 55, 75–86 (2016).
Doelman, J. C. et al. Exploring SSP land-use dynamics using the IMAGE model: regional and gridded scenarios of land-use change and land-based climate change mitigation. Glob. Environ. Change 48, 119–135 (2018).
Hall, D. K. & Riggs, G. A. MODIS/Terra Snow Cover Monthly L3 Global 0.05Deg CMG, v.6. National Snow and Ice Data Center https://doi.org/10.5067/MODIS/MOD10CM.006 (2015).
Kääb, A., Berthier, E., Nuth, C., Gardelle, J. & Arnaud, Y. Contrasting patterns of early twenty-first-century glacier mass change in the Himalayas. Nature 488, 495–498 (2012).
Pellicciotti, F., Buergi, C., Immerzeel, W. W., Konz, M. & Shrestha, A. B. Challenges and uncertainties in hydrological modeling of remote Hindu Kush–Karakoram–Himalayan (HKH) basins: suggestions for calibration strategies. Mt. Res. Dev. 32, 39–50 (2012).
Nash, J. E. & Sutcliffe, J. V. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—a discussion of principles. J. Hydrol. 10, 282–290 (1970).
Moriasi, D. N. et al. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans. ASABE 50, 885–900 (2007).
Food Balance Sheets. A Handbook (FAO, 2001).
Thiery, B. W. et al. Intergenerational inequities in exposure to climate extremes. Science 374, eabi7339 (2021).
Elliott, T. & Earl, J. Organizing the next generation: youth engagement with activism inside and outside of organizations. Soc. Media Soc. 4, 2056305117750722 (2018).
Fisher, D. R. The broader importance of #FridaysForFuture. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 430–431 (2019).
Wahlström, M. et al. (eds) Protest for a Future: Composition, Mobilization and Motives of the Participants in Fridays For Future Climate Protests on 15 March, 2019 in 13 European Cities (Keele Research Repository, 2019); https://eprints.keele.ac.uk/6571/7/20190709_Protest%20for%20a%20future_GCS%20Descriptive%20Report.pdf
Taylor, M., Watts, J. & Bartlett, J. Climate crisis: 6 million people join latest wave of global protests. The Guardian (27 September 2019); https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/sep/27/climate-crisis-6-million-people-join-latest-wave-of-worldwide-protests
Whitmarsh, L., O’Neill, S. & Lorenzoni, I. Public engagement with climate change: what do we know and where do we go from here? Int. J. Media Cult. Polit. 9, 7–25 (2013).
Van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T. & Spears, R. Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: a quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychol. Bull. 134, 504–535 (2008).
Simon, B. & Klandermans, B. Politicized collective identity: a social psychological analysis. Am. Psychol. 56, 319–331 (2001).
Haugestad, C. A. et al. Why do youth participate in climate activism? A mixed-methods investigation of the #FridaysForFuture climate protests. J. Environ. Psychol. 76, 101647 (2021).
Matthews, H. D. et al. National contributions to observed global warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 014010 (2014).
UK Becomes First Major Economy to Pass Net Zero Emissions Law (UK Government, 2019); https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-becomes-first-major-economy-to-pass-net-zero-emissions-law
Walker, C. Uneven solidarity: the school strikes for climate in global and intergenerational perspective. Sustain. Earth 3, 5 (2020).
Nielsen, K. S. et al. The role of high-socioeconomic-status people in locking in or rapidly reducing energy-driven greenhouse gas emissions. Nat. Energy 6, 1011–1016 (2021).
Neville, F. & Reicher, S. The experience of collective participation: shared identity, relatedness and emotionality. Contemp. Soc. Sci. 6, 377–396 (2011).
Bowman, B. ‘They don’t quite understand the importance of what we’re doing today’: the young people’s climate strikes as subaltern activism. Sustain. Earth 3, 16 (2020).
Šerek, J. & Lomičová, L. Adolescents’ transitions between different views on democracy: examining individual-level moderators. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 66, 101104 (2020).
Ojala, M. Regulating worry, promoting hope: how do children, adolescents, and young adults cope with climate change? Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 7, 537–561 (2012).
Ojala, M. Hope and climate change: the importance of hope for environmental engagement among young people. Environ. Educ. Res. 18, 625–642 (2012).
Germaine, C. & Bowman, B. Not (Just) a Protest: The Youth Strike for Climate as Cultural Exchange and Collaborative Text (British Council, 2021).
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. Successful Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide for Beginners (Sage, 2013).
O’Reilly, M. & Parker, N. ‘Unsatisfactory saturation’: a critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qual. Res. 13, 190–197 (2013).
Low, J. A pragmatic definition of the concept of theoretical saturation. Sociol. Focus 52, 131–139 (2019).
Nelson, J. Using conceptual depth criteria: addressing the challenge of reaching saturation in qualitative research. Qual. Res. 17, 554–570 (2017).
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qual. Res. Sport Exerc. Health 13, 201–216 (2021).
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qual. Res. Psychol. 18, 328–352 (2021).
Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
and JavaScript.
Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
and JavaScript.
Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
and JavaScript.
Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
and JavaScript.
The recent IPCC report highlights the importance of demand-side solutions in mitigation strategies. Understanding the motivation and capacity of these solutions is essential, and could help to promote collective and practical actions for this critical decade.
On 4 April 2022, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published the third section (Working Group III) of the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), or the ‘mitigation report’. This is the first full assessment since the Paris Agreement, which provides a comprehensive understanding of the current situation and why we need to act swiftly. In particular, it delivers the strong message that this decade is critical to meet the goal of limiting warming to 1.5 °C, and that the window of action is short. Although the development of mitigation policies has avoided large amounts of emissions in the past, to be in line with the Paris Agreement targets, governments around the world still need to set up more ambitious commitments, as well as to take more accountable implementations.
Credit: Adyna / DigitalVision Vectors / Getty
Previous mitigation policies have focused on the supply-side, such as energy system transitions or land-use changes. The AR6 WG III report, for the first time, includes an independent and full chapter on ‘Demand, services and social aspects of mitigation’, which puts individual needs centre stage of the analysis. With contributions from scholars across the different social-science disciplines, the report shows demand-side solutions, including social-cultural transitions and lifestyle changes, that could have great potential for emissions reductions in almost every sector. It also summarizes the factors of motivations of individuals to adopt low-carbon behaviours and what actions need to be improved.
Beyond reducing carbon emissions in different sectors, the demand-side options could also bring large interacting benefits and enhance human well-being. In their Article, Creutzig and colleagues conducted a systematic literature review and used expert judgments to demonstrate that most demand-side solutions, such as consumption pattern shifts, active and shared mobility, and dietary changes, have positive impacts on human well-being. The most notable improvements can be observed in health, air quality and energy access, which are often framed as co-benefits. These actions could also improve the social aspects of well-being, such as security and stability.
Demand-side mitigation solutions also have important implications for justice. They can be effective tools to reduce emissions and well-being gaps. Income and wealth inequalities are closely linked to inequalities in the average carbon footprint, which are both a cross- and within-country issue (L. Chancel et al. World Inequality Report 2022; https://go.nature.com/37IyiVr). It is estimated that about 0.5% of the wealthiest households account for 13.6% of global lifestyle-related emissions (I. M. Otto et al. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 82–84; 2019), which shows great potential for demand-side solutions to reduce emissions by changing the way of life. On the other side of the spectrum, well-designed demand-side climate-related interventions could help to alleviate the inequality of access to clean and affordable resources, such as renewable energy and services. This is essential for the poorest groups in developing countries, so that their basic needs can be met without compromising mitigation targets (N. D. Rao et al. Nat. Energy 4, 1025–1032; 2019).
Just like mitigation instruments on the supply-side, there are no shortcuts to meaningful demand-side actions. In fact, the demand-side mitigation options require deep and fundamental changes. The WG III report summarizes that such transitions would need actions at different levels, including individual, cultural, corporate, institutional and infrastructure. Both motivation and capacity are necessary for the changes to happen. The complex nature of these changes means that any action with a single dimension or actor is far from being enough. Coordinated and collective efforts are key for such strategies to be successful in practice.
Governance and policy are important to promote the multidimensional societal changes for demands. This requires innovative, effective, feasible and equitable designs that will meet both the mitigation targets as a society and provide people with a decent living. In addition, awareness and willingness of the general public is necessary for such policies to be accepted and even properly implemented. Recently, Sweden’s political parties agreed on a deal to include consumption-based emissions in the national climate target, which makes it the first country to officially address demand-side emissions. It is not hard to conclude that implementing such a policy will be more challenging in countries with more polarized political environments or where people are less concerned about climate issues. There is still a lot of work needed to overcome all of the possible obstacles.
Demand-side solutions aren’t the silver bullet for the climate crisis. Climate action requires systematic transitions from both the supply and demand sides. At the same time, collaboration between researchers, policy professionals and the general public is needed across the world. Rapid and fundamental demand-side shift is in no doubt challenging, yet it is the direction that we cannot dodge or bypass.
Action on demand.
Nat. Clim. Chang. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01369-7
Bindoff, N. L. et al. in IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (eds Pörtner, H.-O. et al.) 447–587 (Cambridge Univ. Press,2019).
Bopp, L. et al. Multiple stressors of ocean ecosystems in the 21st century: projections with CMIP5 models. Biogeosciences 10, 6225–6245 (2013).
Fu, W., Randerson, J. T. & Moore, J. K. Climate Change impacts on net primary production (NPP) and export production (EP) regulated by increasing stratification and phytoplankton community structure in the CMIP5 models. Biogeosciences 13, 5151–5170 (2016).
Kwiatkowski, L. et al. Twenty-first century ocean warming, acidification, deoxygenation, and upper-ocean nutrient and primary production decline from CMIP6 model projections. Biogeosciences 17, 3439–3470 (2020).
Cushing, D. H. in Advances in Marine Biology Vol. 26 (eds Blaxter, J. H. S. & Southward, A. J.) 249–293 (Academic Press, 1990).
Durant, J., Hjermann, D., Ottersen, G. & Stenseth, N. Climate and the match or mismatch between predator requirements and resource availability. Clim. Res. 33, 271–283 (2007).
Edwards, M. & Richardson, A. J. Impact of climate change on marine pelagic phenology and trophic mismatch. Nature 430, 881–884 (2004).
Durant, J. M. et al. Contrasting effects of rising temperatures on trophic interactions in marine ecosystems. Sci. Rep. 9, 15213 (2019).
Penuelas, J., Rutishauser, T. & Filella, I. Phenology feedbacks on climate change. Science 324, 887–888 (2009).
Ruosteenoja, K., Markkanen, T. & Räisänen, J. Thermal seasons in northern Europe in projected future climate. Int. J. Climatol. 40, 4444–4462 (2020).
Jeong, S.-J., Ho, C.-H., Gim, H.-J. & Brown, M. E. Phenology shifts at start vs. end of growing season in temperate vegetation over the Northern Hemisphere for the period 1982–2008. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 2385–2399 (2011).
Zhou, B., Zhai, P., Chen, Y. & Yu, R. Projected changes of thermal growing season over Northern Eurasia in a 1.5 °C and 2 °C warming world. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 035004 (2018).
Chen, M., Melaas, E. K., Gray, J. M., Friedl, M. A. & Richardson, A. D. A new seasonal-deciduous spring phenology submodel in the Community Land Model 4.5: impacts on carbon and water cycling under future climate scenarios. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 3675–3688 (2016).
Kahru, M., Brotas, V., Manzano-Sarabia, M. & Mitchell, B. G. Are phytoplankton blooms occurring earlier in the Arctic?. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 1733–1739 (2011).
Marchese, C. et al. Changes in phytoplankton bloom phenology over the North Water (NOW) polynya: a response to changing environmental conditions. Polar Biol. 40, 1721–1737 (2017).
Friedland, K. D. et al. Phenology and time series trends of the dominant seasonal phytoplankton bloom across global scales. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 27, 551–569 (2018).
Winder, M. & Sommer, U. Phytoplankton response to a changing climate. Hydrobiologia 698, 5–16 (2012).
Asch, R. G., Stock, C. A. & Sarmiento, J. L. Climate change impacts on mismatches between phytoplankton blooms and fish spawning phenology. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 2544–2559 (2019).
Henson, S., Cole, H., Beaulieu, C. & Yool, A. The impact of global warming on seasonality of ocean primary production. Biogeosciences 10, 4357–4369 (2013).
Henson, S. A., Cole, H. S., Hopkins, J., Martin, A. P. & Yool, A. Detection of climate change-driven trends in phytoplankton phenology. Glob. Change Biol. 24, e101–e111 (2018).
Hashioka, T., Sakamoto, T. T. & Yamanaka, Y. Potential impact of global warming on North Pacific spring blooms projected by an eddy-permitting 3-D ocean ecosystem model. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L20604 (2009).
Behrenfeld, M. J. & Boss, E. S. Resurrecting the ecological underpinnings of ocean plankton blooms. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 6, 167–194 (2014).
Behrenfeld, M. J. Climate-mediated dance of the plankton. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 880–887 (2014).
Schlunegger, S. et al. Time of Emergence and Large Ensemble intercomparison for ocean biogeochemical trends. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 34, e2019GB006453 (2020).
Sverdrup, H. U. On conditions for the vernal blooming of phytoplankton. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 18, 287–295 (1953).
Sommer, U. & Lewandowska, A. Climate change and the phytoplankton spring bloom: warming and overwintering zooplankton have similar effects on phytoplankton. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 154–162 (2011).
Behrenfeld, M. J. Abandoning Sverdrup’s critical depth hypothesis on phytoplankton blooms. Ecology 91, 977–989 (2010).
Behrenfeld, M. J., Doney, S. C., Lima, I., Boss, E. S. & Siegel, D. A. Annual cycles of ecological disturbance and recovery underlying the subarctic Atlantic spring plankton bloom. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 27, 526–540 (2013).
Arteaga, L. A., Boss, E., Behrenfeld, M. J., Westberry, T. K. & Sarmiento, J. L. Seasonal modulation of phytoplankton biomass in the Southern Ocean. Nat. Commun. 11, 5364 (2020).
Behrenfeld, M. J. & Boss, E. S. Student’s tutorial on bloom hypotheses in the context of phytoplankton annual cycles. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 55–77 (2018).
Schlunegger, S. et al. Emergence of anthropogenic signals in the ocean carbon cycle. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 719–725 (2019).
Dunne, J. P. et al. GFDL’s ESM2 Global Coupled Climate–Carbon Earth System Models. Part II: Carbon system formulation and baseline simulation characteristics. J. Clim. 26, 2247–2267 (2013).
Dunne, J. P. et al. GFDL’s ESM2 Global Coupled Climate–Carbon Earth System Models. Part I: Physical formulation and baseline simulation characteristics. J. Clim. 25, 6646–6665 (2012).
Rodgers, K. B., Lin, J. & Frölicher, T. L. Emergence of multiple ocean ecosystem drivers in a large ensemble suite with an Earth system model. Biogeosciences 12, 3301–3320 (2015).
Cabré, A., Shields, D., Marinov, I. & Kostadinov, T. S. Phenology of size-partitioned phytoplankton carbon-biomass from ocean color remote sensing and CMIP5 models. Front. Mar. Sci. 3, 39 (2016).
Ji, R., Edwards, M., Mackas, D. L., Runge, J. A. & Thomas, A. C. Marine plankton phenology and life history in a changing climate: current research and future directions. J. Plankton Res. 32, 1355–1368 (2010).
Henson, S. A., Beaulieu, C. & Lampitt, R. Observing climate change trends in ocean biogeochemistry: when and where. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 1561–1571 (2016).
Hegerl, G. C. et al. Detecting greenhouse-gas-induced climate change with an optimal fingerprint method. J. Clim. 9, 2281–2306 (1996).
Massonnet, F. et al. Constraining projections of summer Arctic sea ice. Cryosphere 6, 1383–1394 (2012).
Chemke, R., Zanna, L. & Polvani, L. M. Identifying a human signal in the North Atlantic warming hole. Nat. Commun. 11, 1540 (2020).
Behrenfeld, M. J. et al. Revaluating ocean warming impacts on global phytoplankton. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 323–330 (2016).
Geider, R., MacIntyre, H. & Kana, T. Dynamic model of phytoplankton growth and acclimation: responses of the balanced growth rate and the chlorophyll a:carbon ratio to light, nutrient-limitation and temperature. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 148, 187–200 (1997).
Wassmann, P. & Reigstad, M. Future Arctic Ocean seasonal ice zones and implications for pelagic–benthic coupling. Oceanography 24, 220–231 (2011).
Laufkötter, C. et al. Drivers and uncertainties of future global marine primary production in marine ecosystem models. Biogeosciences 12, 6955–6984 (2015).
Nakamura, Y. & Oka, A. CMIP5 model analysis of future changes in ocean net primary production focusing on differences among individual oceans and models. J. Oceanogr. 75, 441–462 (2019).
Marinov, I., Doney, S. C. & Lima, I. D. Response of ocean phytoplankton community structure to climate change over the 21st century: partitioning the effects of nutrients, temperature and light. Biogeosciences 7, 3941–3959 (2010).
Henson, S. A., Cael, B. B., Allen, S. R. & Dutkiewicz, S. Future phytoplankton diversity in a changing climate. Nat. Commun. 12, 5372 (2021).
Elson, P. et al. SciTools/cartopy: v0.20.2. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1182735 (2022).
Frölicher, T. L. et al. Dominance of the Southern Ocean in anthropogenic carbon and heat uptake in CMIP5 models. J. Clim. 28, 862–886 (2015).
MODIS-Aqua Level 3 Binned Chlorophyll Data Version R2018.0 (NASA Ocean Biology Processing Group, 2017); https://doi.org/10.5067/AQUA/MODIS/L3B/CHL/2018
Fay, A. R. & McKinley, G. A. Global open-ocean biomes: mean and temporal variability. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 6, 273–284 (2014).
Behrenfeld, M. J., Doney, S. C., Lima, I., Boss, E. S. & Siegel, D. A. Reply to a comment by Stephen M. Chiswell on: ‘Annual cycles of ecological disturbance and recovery underlying the subarctic Atlantic spring plankton bloom’ by M. J. Behrenfeld et al. (2013). Global Biogeochem. Cycles 27, 1294–1296 (2013).
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Earth System Model 2 (GFDL-ESM2M) 30-Member Ensemble Simulations, Historical (1950–2005) and RCP8.5 (2006–2010) Scenario (NOAA GFDL, 2019); http://poseidon.princeton.edu
Yamaguchi, R. Notebooks for ‘Trophic level decoupling drives future change in phytoplankton bloom phenology’ by Yamaguchi et al. (2022). Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6301884 (2022).
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This is a summary of: Yamaguchi, R. et al. Trophic level decoupling drives future changes in phytoplankton bloom phenology. Nat. Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01353-1 (2022).
Bauer, N. et al. Global energy sector emission reductions and bioenergy use: overview of the bioenergy demand phase of the EMF-33 model comparison. Climatic Change 163, 1553–1568 (2020).
Kriegler, E. et al. The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: overview of the EMF 27 study on global technology and climate policy strategies. Climatic Change 123, 353–367 (2014).
Riahi, K. et al. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 153–168 (2017).
Roelfsema, M. et al. Taking stock of national climate policies to evaluate implementation of the Paris Agreement. Nat. Commun. 11, 2096 (2020).
Schaeffer, R. et al. Comparing transformation pathways across major economies. Climatic Change 162, 1787–1803 (2020).
Huppmann, D., Rogelj, J., Kriegler, E., Krey, V. & Riahi, K. A new scenario resource for integrated 1.5 °C research. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 1027–1030 (2018).
Auer, C. et al. Climate change scenario services: from science to facilitating action. One Earth 4, 1074–1082 (2021).
Weber, C. et al. Mitigation scenarios must cater to new users. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 845–848 (2018).
Krabbe, O. et al. Aligning corporate greenhouse-gas emissions targets with climate goals. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 1057–1060 (2015).
NGFS Climate Scenarios for Central Banks and Supervisors (Network for Greening the Financial System, 2021); https://www.ngfs.net/sites/default/files/media/2021/08/27/ngfs_climate_scenarios_phase2_june2021.pdf
Final Report: Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD, 2017).
Cointe, B., Cassen, C. & Nadaï, A. Organising policy-relevant knowledge for climate action. Sci. Technol. Stud. 32, 36–57 (2019).
Hausfather, Z. & Peters, G. P. Emissions—the ‘business as usual’ story is misleading. Nature 577, 618–620 (2020).
Skea, J., van Diemen, R., Portugal-Pereira, J. & Khourdajie, A. A. Outlooks, explorations and normative scenarios: approaches to global energy futures compared. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 168, 120736 (2021).
IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios: A Special Report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Nakićenović, N. et al.) (IPCC, 2000).
O’Neill, B. C. et al. The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 3461–3482 (2016).
Clarke, L. & Weyant, J. Introduction to the EMF 22 special issue on climate change control scenarios. Energy Econ. 31, S63 (2009).
Rogelj, J. et al. A new scenario logic for the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal. Nature 573, 357–363 (2019).
Weyant, J. P. The cost of the Kyoto Protocol: a multi-model evaluation. Energy J. Special Issue 20, 1–398 (1999).
van Beek, L., Hajer, M., Pelzer, P., van Vuuren, D. & Cassen, C. Anticipating futures through models: the rise of integrated assessment modelling in the climate science–policy interface since 1970. Glob. Environ. Change 65, 102191 (2020).
Marchau, V. A. W. J., Walker, W. E., Bloemen, P. J. T. M. & Popper, S. W. Decision Making Under Deep Uncertainty: From Theory to Practice (Springer, 2019); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05252-2
Lempert, R. J., Popper, S. W. & Bankes, S. C. Shaping the Next One Hundred Years: New Methods for Quantitative, Long-Term Policy Analysis (RAND Corporation, 2003); https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1626.html
Guivarch, C., Rozenberg, J. & Schweizer, V. The diversity of socio-economic pathways and CO2 emissions scenarios: insights from the investigation of a scenarios database. Environ. Model. Softw. 80, 336–353 (2016).
Lamontagne, J. R. et al. Large ensemble analytic framework for consequence‐driven discovery of climate change scenarios. Earths Future 6, 488–504 (2018).
Giannousakis, A. et al. How uncertainty in technology costs and carbon dioxide removal availability affect climate mitigation pathways. Energy 216, 119253 (2021).
Moksnes, N. et al. Determinants of energy futures—a scenario discovery method applied to cost and carbon emission futures for South American electricity infrastructure. Environ. Res. Commun. 1, 025001 (2019).
Cash, D. W. et al. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 8086–8091 (2003).
Bilogub, M. & Auer, C. Guidelines for Co-Production Workshops with Stakeholders from Policy, Business, and Finance with a Global Perspective (SENSES, 2019); https://climatescenarios.org/share/SENSES_CoproductionManual_Global.pdf
Jaxa-Rozen, M. & Trutnevyte, E. Sources of uncertainty in long-term global scenarios of solar photovoltaic technology. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 266–273 (2021).
Lamboll, R. D., Nicholls, Z. R. J., Kikstra, J. S., Meinshausen, M. & Rogelj, J. Silicone v1.0.0: an open-source Python package for inferring missing emissions data for climate change research. Geosci. Model Dev. 13, 5259–5275 (2020).
Forster, P. et al. in Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) Ch. 2 (IPCC, WMO, 2018).
Huppmann, D. et al. pyam: analysis and visualisation of integrated assessment and macro-energy scenarios. Open Res. Eur. 1, 74 (2021).
Brutschin, E. et al. A multidimensional feasibility evaluation of low-carbon scenarios. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 064069 (2021).
Warszawski, L. et al. All options, not silver bullets, needed to limit global warming to 1.5 °C: a scenario appraisal. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 064037 (2021).
Tavoni, M. & Tol, R. S. J. Counting only the hits? The risk of underestimating the costs of stringent climate policy: a letter. Climatic Change 100, 769–778 (2010).
van Sluisveld, M. A. E. et al. Comparing future patterns of energy system change in 2 °C scenarios to expert projections. Glob. Environ. Change 50, 201–211 (2018).
Christensen, P., Gillingham, K. & Nordhaus, W. Uncertainty in forecasts of long-run economic growth. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 5409–5414 (2018).
Castles, I. & Henderson, D. The IPCC emission scenarios: an economic–statistical critique. Energy Environ. 14, 159–185 (2003).
van Ruijven, B. J. Mind the gap—the case for medium level emission scenarios. Climatic Change 138, 361–367 (2016).
Trutnevyte, E. et al. Societal transformations in models for energy and climate policy: the ambitious next step. One Earth 1, 423–433 (2019).
Millner, A. & McDermott, T. K. J. Model confirmation in climate economics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 8675–8680 (2016).
van der Wijst, K.-I., Hof, A. F. & van Vuuren, D. P. On the optimality of 2 °C targets and a decomposition of uncertainty. Nat. Commun. 12, 2575 (2021).
Sanderson, B. M., Knutti, R. & Caldwell, P. A representative democracy to reduce interdependency in a multimodel ensemble. J. Clim. 28, 5171–5194 (2015).
Tebaldi, C. & Knutti, R. The use of the multi-model ensemble in probabilistic climate projections. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 365, 2053–2075 (2007).
Brunner, L. et al. Reduced global warming from CMIP6 projections when weighting models by performance and independence. Earth Syst. Dyn. 11, 995–1012 (2020).
Harmsen, M. et al. Integrated assessment model diagnostics: key indicators and model evolution. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 054046 (2021).
Xexakis, G. & Trutnevyte, E. Are interactive web-tools for environmental scenario visualization worth the effort? An experimental study on the Swiss electricity supply scenarios 2035. Environ. Model. Softw. 119, 124–134 (2019).
Rogelj, J. et al. in Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) Ch. 2 (IPCC, WMO, 2018).
Clarke, L. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change (eds Edenhofer, O. et al.) Ch. 6 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
Groves, D. G. & Lempert, R. J. A new analytic method for finding policy-relevant scenarios. Glob. Environ. Change 17, 73–85 (2007).
Friedman, J. H. & Fisher, N. I. Bump hunting in high-dimensional data. Stat. Comput. 9, 123–143 (1999).
Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Stone, C. J. & Olshen, R. A. Classification and Regression Trees (Taylor & Francis, 1984).
Elsawah, S. et al. Scenario processes for socio-environmental systems analysis of futures: a review of recent efforts and a salient research agenda for supporting decision making. Sci. Total Environ. 729, 138393 (2020).
Schweizer, V. J. Reflections on cross-impact balances, a systematic method constructing global socio-technical scenarios for climate change research. Climatic Change 162, 1705–1722 (2020).
Weimer-Jehle, W. Cross-impact balances: a system-theoretical approach to cross-impact analysis. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 73, 334–361 (2006).
Schweizer, V. J. & Kriegler, E. Improving environmental change research with systematic techniques for qualitative scenarios. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 044011 (2012).
Alcamo, J. & Ribeiro, T. Scenarios as Tools for International Environmental Assessments (European Environment Agency, 2001).
Auping, W. L., Pruyt, E., de Jong, S. & Kwakkel, J. H. The geopolitical impact of the shale revolution: exploring consequences on energy prices and rentier states. Energy Policy 98, 390–399 (2016).
Tietje, O. Identification of a small reliable and efficient set of consistent scenarios. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 162, 418–432 (2005).
Berntsen, P. B. & Trutnevyte, E. Ensuring diversity of national energy scenarios: bottom-up energy system model with modeling to generate alternatives. Energy 126, 886–898 (2017).
Steinmann, P., Auping, W. L. & Kwakkel, J. H. Behavior-based scenario discovery using time series clustering. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 156, 120052 (2020).
Gerst, M. D., Wang, P. & Borsuk, M. E. Discovering plausible energy and economic futures under global change using multidimensional scenario discovery. Environ. Model. Softw. 44, 76–86 (2013).
Li, P.-H., Pye, S. & Keppo, I. Using clustering algorithms to characterise uncertain long-term decarbonisation pathways. Appl. Energy 268, 114947 (2020).
Alcamo, J. Environmental Futures: The Practice of Environmental Scenario Analysis (Elsevier, 2008).
Kemp-Benedict, E. Telling better stories: strengthening the story in story and simulation. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 041004 (2012).
Carlsen, H., Eriksson, E. A., Dreborg, K. H., Johansson, B. & Bodin, Ö. Systematic exploration of scenario spaces. Foresight 18, 59–75 (2016).
Morgan, M. G. & Keith, D. W. Improving the way we think about projecting future energy use and emissions of carbon dioxide. Climatic Change 90, 189–215 (2008).
Saltelli, A. et al. Global Sensitivity Analysis. The Primer (Wiley, 2007).
Guivarch, C. & Monjon, S. Identifying the main uncertainty drivers of energy security in a low-carbon world: the case of Europe. Energy Econ. 64, 530–541 (2017).
Fisch-Romito, V. & Guivarch, C. Transportation infrastructures in a low carbon world: an evaluation of investment needs and their determinants. Transp. Res. D 72, 203–219 (2019).
Pye, S. et al. Assessing qualitative and quantitative dimensions of uncertainty in energy modelling for policy support in the United Kingdom. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 46, 332–344 (2018).
Kriegler, E. et al. Will economic growth and fossil fuel scarcity help or hinder climate stabilization? Overview of the RoSE multi-model study. Climatic Change 136, 7–22 (2016).
Marangoni, G. et al. Sensitivity of projected long-term CO2 emissions across the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 113–117 (2017).
Alexander, P. et al. Assessing uncertainties in land cover projections. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 767–781 (2017).
van Vuuren, D. et al. The costs of achieving climate targets and the sources of uncertainty. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 329–334 (2020).
Meyer, M., Löschel, A. & Lutz, C. Carbon price dynamics in ambitious climate mitigation scenarios: an analysis based on the IAMC 1.5 °C scenario explorer. Environ. Res. Commun. 3, 081007 (2021).
Diniz Oliveira, T. et al. A mixed‐effect model approach for assessing land‐based mitigation in integrated assessment models: a regional perspective. Glob. Change Biol. 27, 4671–4685 (2021).
Zhou, T., Lu, J., Zhang, W. & Chen, Z. The sources of uncertainty in the projection of global land monsoon precipitation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e88415 (2020).
Ombadi, M., Nguyen, P., Sorooshian, S. & Hsu, K. Retrospective analysis and Bayesian model averaging of CMIP6 precipitation in the Nile River Basin. J. Hydrometeorol. 22, 217–229 (2021).
Grübler, A. & Nakicenovic, N. Identifying dangers in an uncertain climate. Nature 412, 15 (2001).
Schneider, S. H. What is ‘dangerous’ climate change? Nature 411, 17–19 (2001).
Ho, E., Budescu, D. V., Bosetti, V., van Vuuren, D. P. & Keller, K. Not all carbon dioxide emission scenarios are equally likely: a subjective expert assessment. Climatic Change 155, 545–561 (2019).
Kaack, L. H., Apt, J., Morgan, M. G. & McSharry, P. Empirical prediction intervals improve energy forecasting. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 8752–8757 (2017).
Manski, C. F., Sanstad, A. H. & DeCanio, S. J. Addressing partial identification in climate modeling and policy analysis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2022886118 (2021).
Trutnevyte, E., Guivarch, C., Lempert, R. & Strachan, N. Reinvigorating the scenario technique to expand uncertainty consideration. Climatic Change 135, 373–379 (2016).
Moss, R. H. Assessing decision support systems and levels of confidence to narrow the climate information ‘usability gap’. Climatic Change 135, 143–155 (2016).
Lemos, M. C., Kirchhoff, C. J. & Ramprasad, V. Narrowing the climate information usability gap. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 789–794 (2012).
Spiegelhalter, D., Pearson, M. & Short, I. Visualizing uncertainty about the future. Science 333, 1393–1400 (2011).
Strecher, V. J., Greenwood, T., Wang, C. & Dumont, D. Interactive multimedia and risk communication. JNCI Monogr. 1999, 134–139 (1999).
Huppmann, D. et al. IAMC 1.5°C scenario explorer and data hosted by IIASA. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.3363345 (2019).
McCollum, D. L. et al. Energy investment needs for fulfilling the Paris Agreement and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Energy 3, 589–599 (2018).
Parker, A. M., Srinivasan, S. V., Lempert, R. J. & Berry, S. H. Evaluating simulation-derived scenarios for effective decision support. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 91, 64–77 (2015).
Xexakis, G. & Trutnevyte, E. Empirical testing of the visualizations of climate change mitigation scenarios with citizens: a comparison among Germany, Poland, and France. Glob. Environ. Change 70, 102324 (2021).
Gong, M. et al. Testing the scenario hypothesis: an experimental comparison of scenarios and forecasts for decision support in a complex decision environment. Environ. Model. Softw. 91, 135–155 (2017).
McMahon, R., Stauffacher, M. & Knutti, R. The unseen uncertainties in climate change: reviewing comprehension of an IPCC scenario graph. Climatic Change 133, 141–154 (2015).
Bryant, B. P. Scenario Discovery Tools to Support Robust Decision Making, Documentation of the ‘sdtoolkit’ Package for R (RAND Corporation, 2015); https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/sdtoolkit/sdtoolkit.pdf
Hadka, D., Herman, J., Reed, P. & Keller, K. An open source framework for many-objective robust decision making. Environ. Model. Softw. 74, 114–129 (2015).
Kwakkel, J. H. The exploratory modeling workbench: an open source toolkit for exploratory modeling, scenario discovery, and (multi-objective) robust decision making. Environ. Model. Softw. 96, 239–250 (2017).
Wilkinson, M. D. et al. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3, 160018 (2016).
Branger, F., Giraudet, L.-G., Guivarch, C. & Quirion, P. Global sensitivity analysis of an energy–economy model of the residential building sector. Environ. Model. Softw. 70, 45–54 (2015).
New, M. & Hulme, M. Representing uncertainty in climate change scenarios: a Monte-Carlo approach. Integr. Assess. 1, 203–213 (2000).
McJeon, H. C. et al. Technology interactions among low-carbon energy technologies: what can we learn from a large number of scenarios? Energy Econ. 33, 619–631 (2011).
Nature Climate Change, Published online: 05 May 2022; doi:10.1038/s41558-022-01357-x
Anthropogenic climate change is accelerating melting at the surface of the Greenland ice sheet. Evidence now suggests that extensive melting is also occurring at the base of the ice at much faster rates than previously thought.
Source link
IPCC Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).
Weinkle, J. et al. Normalized hurricane damage in the continental United States 1900–2017. Nat. Sustain. 1, 808–813 (2018).
Utsumi, N., Kim, H., Kanae, S. & Oki, T. Relative contributions of weather systems to mean and extreme global precipitation. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 122, 152–167 (2017).
Trenberth, K. E., Dai, A., Rasmussen, R. M. & Parsons, D. B. The changing character of precipitation. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 1205–1217 (2003).
Knutson, T. R. et al. Global projections of intense tropical cyclone activity for the late twenty-first century from dynamical downscaling of CMIP5/RCP4.5 scenarios. J. Clim. 28, 7203–7224 (2015).
Liu, M., Vecchi, G. A., Smith, J. A. & Knutson, T. R. Causes of large projected increases in hurricane precipitation rates with global warming. npj Clim. Atmos. Sci. 2, 38 (2019).
Mori, M. et al. Hindcast prediction and near-future projection of tropical cyclone activity over the Western North Pacific using CMIP5 near-term experiments with MIROC. J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn. II 91, 431–452 (2013).
Yoshida, K., Sugi, M., Mizuta, R., Murakami, H. & Ishii, M. Future changes in tropical cyclone activity in high-resolution large-ensemble simulations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 9910–9917 (2017).
Sugi, M., Murakami, H. & Yoshida, K. Projection of future changes in the frequency of intense tropical cyclones. Clim. Dynam. 49, 619–632 (2017).
Cha, E. J., Knutson, T. R., Lee, T.-C., Ying, M. & Nakaegawa, T. Third assessment on impacts of climate change on tropical cyclones in the Typhoon Committee Region—Part II: Future projections. Trop. Cyclone Res. Rev. 9, 75–86 (2020).
Kossin, J. P., Emanuel, K. A. & Camargo, S. J. Past and projected changes in Western North Pacific tropical cyclone exposure. J. Clim. 29, 5725–5739 (2016).
Wang, C. & Wu, L. Influence of future tropical cyclone track changes on their basin-wide intensity over the western North Pacific: downscaled CMIP5 projections. Adv. Atmos. Sci. 32, 613–623 (2015).
Nguyen-Thi, H. A., Matsumoto, J., Ngo-Duc, T. & Endo, N. Long-term trends in tropical cyclone rainfall in Vietnam. J. Agrofor. Env. 6, 89–92 (2012).
Ying, M., Chen, B. & Wu, G. Climate trends in tropical cyclone-induced wind and precipitation over mainland China. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL045729 (2011).
Zhang, J., Wu, L., Ren, F. & Cui, X. Changes in tropical cyclone rainfall in China. J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn. II 91, 585–595 (2013).
Chang, C.-P., Lei, Y., Sui, C.-H., Lin, X. & Ren, F. Tropical cyclone and extreme rainfall trends in East Asian summer monsoon since mid-20th century. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L18702 (2012).
Tu, J.-Y. & Chou, C. Changes in precipitation frequency and intensity in the vicinity of Taiwan: typhoon versus non-typhoon events. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 014023 (2013).
Kim, J.-H., Ho, C.-H., Lee, M.-H., Jeong, J.-H. & Chen, D. Large increase in heavy rainfall associated with tropical cyclone landfalls in Korea after the late 1970s. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL027430 (2006).
Guzman, O. & Jiang, H. Global increase in tropical cyclone rain rate. Nat. Commun. 12, 5344 (2021).
Lau, W. K. M. & Zhou, Y. P. Observed recent trends in tropical cyclone rainfall over the North Atlantic and the North Pacific. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 117, D03104 (2012).
Pham-Thanh, H., Ngo-Duc, T., Matsumoto, J., Phan-Van, T. & Vo-Van, H. Rainfall trends in Vietnam and their associations with tropical cyclones during 1979–2019. SOLA 16, 169–174 (2020).
Lee, T.-C., Knutson, T. R., Nakaegawa, T., Ying, M. & Cha, E. J. Third assessment on impacts of climate change on tropical cyclones in the Typhoon Committee Region—Part I: Observed changes, detection and attribution. Trop. Cyclone Res. Rev. 9, 1–22 (2020).
Murakami, H. et al. Detected climatic change in global distribution of tropical cyclones. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 10706–10714 (2020).
Kay, J. E. et al. The Community Earth System Model (CESM) large ensemble project: a community resource for studying climate change in the presence of internal climate variability. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 96, 1333–1349 (2015).
Mizuta, R. et al. Over 5,000 years of ensemble future climate simulations by 60-km global and 20-km regional atmospheric models. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 98, 1383–1398 (2017).
Ishii, M. & Mori, N. d4PDF: large-ensemble and high-resolution climate simulations for global warming risk assessment. Prog. Earth Planet. Sci. 7, 58 (2020).
Mitchell, D. et al. Half a degree additional warming, prognosis and projected impacts (HAPPI): background and experimental design. Geosci. Model Dev. 10, 571–583 (2017).
Yatagai, A. et al. APHRODITE: constructing a long-term daily gridded precipitation dataset for Asia based on a dense network of rain gauges. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 1401–1415 (2012).
Knapp, K. R., Kruk, M. C., Levinson, D. H., Diamond, H. J. & Neumann, C. J. The international best track archive for climate stewardship (IBTrACS): unifying tropical cyclone data. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 91, 363–376 (2010).
Park, D.-S. R., Ho, C.-H. & Kim, J.-H. Growing threat of intense tropical cyclones to East Asia over the period 1977–2010. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 014008 (2014).
Lai, Y. et al. Greater flood risks in response to slowdown of tropical cyclones over the coast of China. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 14751–14755 (2020).
Kossin, J. P. A global slowdown of tropical-cyclone translation speed. Nature 558, 104–107 (2018).
Yamaguchi, M. & Maeda, S. Slowdown of typhoon translation speeds in mid-latitudes in September influenced by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and global warming. J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn. II 98, 1321–1334 (2020).
Moon, I.-J., Kim, S.-H. & Chan, J. C. L. Climate change and tropical cyclone trend. Nature 570, E3–E5 (2019).
Lanzante, J. R. Uncertainties in tropical-cyclone translation speed. Nature 570, E6–E15 (2019).
Yamaguchi, M., Chan, J. C. L., Moon, I.-J., Yoshida, K. & Mizuta, R. Global warming changes tropical cyclone translation speed. Nat. Commun. 11, 47 (2020).
Utsumi, N., Seto, S., Kanae, S., Maeda, E. E. & Oki, T. Does higher surface temperature intensify extreme precipitation? Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L16708 (2011).
Ogata, T., Mizuta, R., Adachi, Y., Murakami, H. & Ose, T. Effect of air–sea coupling on the frequency distribution of intense tropical cyclones over the northwestern Pacific. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 10415–10421 (2015).
Eyring, V. et al. Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 1937–1958 (2016).
Mizuta, R. et al. Climate simulations using MRI-AGCM3.2 with 20-km grid. J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn. II 90A, 233–258 (2012).
Utsumi, N., Kim, H., Kanae, S. & Oki, T. Which weather systems are projected to cause future changes in mean and extreme precipitation in CMIP5 simulations?. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 121, 10522–10537 (2016).
Yokoyama, C. & Takayabu, Y. N. A statistical study on rain characteristics of tropical cyclones using TRMM satellite data. Mon. Weather Rev. 136, 3848–3862 (2008).
Prat, O. P. & Nelson, B. R. On the link between tropical cyclones and daily rainfall extremes derived from global satellite observations. J. Clim. 29, 6127–6135 (2016).
Hasselmann, K. Optimal fingerprints for the detection of time-dependent climate change. J. Clim. 6, 1957–1971 (1993).
Hegerl, G. C. et al. Detecting greenhouse-gas-induced climate change with an optimal fingerprint method. J. Clim. 9, 2281–2306 (1996).
Santer, B. D. et al. Contributions of anthropogenic and natural forcing to recent tropopause height changes. Science 301, 479–483 (2003).
Verbesselt, J. et al. Remotely sensed resilience of tropical forests. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 1028–1031 (2016).
Lovejoy, T. E. & Nobre, C. Amazon tipping point. Sci. Adv. 4, eaat2340 (2018).
Hubau, W. et al. Asynchronous carbon sink saturation in African and Amazonian tropical forests. Nature 579, 80–87 (2020).
Hirota, M., Holmgren, M., Van Nes, E. H. & Scheffer, M. Global resilience of tropical forest and savanna to critical transitions. Science 334, 232–235 (2011).
Ciemer, C. et al. Higher resilience to climatic disturbances in tropical vegetation exposed to more variable rainfall. Nat. Geosci. 12, 174–179 (2019).
Boers, N., Marwan, N. & Barbosa, H. M. J. A deforestation-induced tipping point for the South American monsoon system. Sci. Rep. 49, 41489 (2017).
Lasslop, G., Brovkin, V., Reick, C. H., Bathiany, S. & Kloster, S. Multiple stable states of tree cover in a global land surface model due to a fire–vegetation feedback. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 6324–6331 (2016).
Abis, B. & Brovkin, V. Environmental conditions for alternative tree-cover states in high latitudes. Biogeosciences 14, 511–527 (2017).
Bastiaansen, R. et al. Multistability of model and real dryland ecosystems through spatial self-organization. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 11256–11261 (2018).
Lewis, S. L., Wheeler, C. E., Mitchard, E. T. & Koch, A. Restoring natural forests is the best way to remove atmospheric carbon. Nature 568, 25–28 (2019).
Peterson, G., Allen, C. R. & Holling, C. S. Ecological resilience, biodiversity, and scale. Ecosystems 1, 6–18 (1998).
Folke, C. et al. Regime shifts, resilience, in ecosystem management. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 35, 557–581 (2004).
Arani, B. M., Carpenter, S. R., Lahti, L., van Nes, E. H. & Scheffer, M. Exit time as a measure of ecological resilience. Science 372, eaay4895 (2021).
Einstein, A. Über die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der Wärme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen. Ann. der Phys. 322, 549–560 (1905).
Nyquist, H. Thermal agitation of electric charge in conductors. Phys. Rev. 32, 110–113 (1928).
Kubo, R. The fluctuation–dissipation theorem. Rep. Prog. Phys. 29, 255–284 (1966).
Marconi, U. M. B., Puglisi, A., Rondoni, L. & Vulpiani, A. Fluctuation–dissipation: response theory in statistical physics. Phys. Rep. 461, 111–195 (2008).
Groth, A., Ghil, M., Hallegatte, S. & Dumas, P. The role of oscillatory modes in US business cycles. J. Bus. Cycle Meas. Anal. https://doi.org/10.1787/jbcma-2015-5jrs0lv715wl (2015).
Groth, A., Dumas, P., Ghil, M. & Hallegatte, S. in Extreme Events: Observations, Modeling, and Economics (eds Chavez, M. et al.) 343–360 (Wiley, 2015).
Gritsun, A. & Branstator, G. Climate response using a three-dimensional operator based on the fluctuation-dissipation theorem. J. Atmos. Sci. 64, 2558–2575 (2007).
Majda, A. J., Abramov, R. & Gershgorin, B. High skill in low-frequency climate response through fluctuation dissipation theorems despite structural instability. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 581–586 (2010).
Carpenter, S. R. & Brock, W. A. Rising variance: a leading indicator of ecological transition. Ecol. Lett. 9, 311–318 (2006).
Seddon, A. W., Macias-Fauria, M., Long, P. R., Benz, D. & Willis, K. J. Sensitivity of global terrestrial ecosystems to climate variability. Nature 531, 229–232 (2016).
van der Bolt, B., van Nes, E. H., Bathiany, S., Vollebregt, M. E. & Scheffer, M. Climate reddening increases the chance of critical transitions. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 478–484 (2018).
Liu, Y., Kumar, M., Katul, G. G. & Porporato, A. Reduced resilience as an early warning signal of forest mortality. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 880–885 (2019).
Van Nes, E. H. & Scheffer, M. Slow recovery from perturbations as a generic indicator of a nearby catastrophic shift. Am. Nat. 169, 738–747 (2007).
Dakos, V., Van Nes, E. H., d’Odorico, P. & Scheffer, M. Robustness of variance and autocorrelation as indicators of critical slowing down. Ecology 93, 264–271 (2012).
Scheffer, M. et al. Early-warning signals for critical transitions. Nature 461, 53–59 (2009).
Carpenter, S. R. et al. Early warnings of regime shifts: a whole-ecosystem experiment. Science 332, 1079–1082 (2011).
Veraart, A. J. et al. Recovery rates reflect distance to a tipping point in a living system. Nature 481, 357–359 (2012).
Dakos, V. et al. Slowing down as an early warning signal for abrupt climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 14308–14312 (2008).
Rypdal, M. Early-warning signals for the onsets of Greenland interstadials and the Younger Dryas-preboreal transition. J. Clim. 29, 4047–4056 (2016).
Boers, N. Early-warning signals for Dansgaard–Oeschger events in a high-resolution ice core record. Nat. Commun. 9, 2556 (2018).
Lenton, T. M., Livina, V. N., Dakos, V., van Nes, E. H. & Scheffer, M. Early warning of climate tipping points from critical slowing down: comparing methods to improve robustness. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 370, 1185–204 (2012).
Boulton, C. A., Allison, L. C. & Lenton, T. M. Early warning signals of Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation collapse in a fully coupled climate model. Nat. Commun. 5, 5752 (2014).
De Keersmaecker, W. et al. How to measure ecosystem stability? An evaluation of the reliability of stability metrics based on remote sensing time series across the major global ecosystems. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 2149–2161 (2014).
De Keersmaecker, W. et al. A model quantifying global vegetation resistance and resilience to short-term climate anomalies and their relationship with vegetation cover. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 24, 539–548 (2015).
Pinzon, J. E. & Tucker, C. J. A non-stationary 1981–2012 AVHRR NDVI3g time series. Remote Sens. 6, 6929–6960 (2014).
Moesinger, L. et al. The global long-term microwave vegetation optical depth climate archive (vodca). Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12, 177–196 (2020).
Boulton, C. A., Lenton, T. & Boers, N. Pronounced loss of Amazon rainforest resilience since the early 2000s. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 271–278 (2022).
Feng, Y. et al. Reduced resilience of terrestrial ecosystems locally is not reflected on a global scale. Commun. Earth Environ. 2, 88 (2021).
Friedl, M. & Sulla-Menashe, D. MCD12C1 MODIS/Terra+Aqua Land Cover Type Yearly L3 Global 0.05 Deg Version 006 (NASA, 2015).
Wang, W., Chen, Y., Becker, S. & Liu, B. Linear trend detection in serially dependent hydrometeorological data based on a variance correction Spearman rho method. Water 7, 7045–7065 (2015).
Boulton, C. A., Good, P. & Lenton, T. M. Early warning signals of simulated Amazon rainforest dieback. Theor. Ecol. 6, 373–384 (2013).
Box, E. O., Holben, B. N. & Kalb, V. Accuracy of the AVHRR vegetation index as a predictor of biomass, primary productivity and net CO2 flux. Vegetatio 80, 71–89 (1989).
Liu, L., Zhang, Y., Wu, S., Li, S. & Qin, D. Water memory effects and their impacts on global vegetation productivity and resilience. Sci. Rep. 8, 2962 (2018).
Schwalm, C. R. et al. Global patterns of drought recovery. Nature 548, 202–205 (2017).
Hansen, M. C. et al. High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science 342, 850–853 (2013).
Chen, J. et al. A simple method for reconstructing a high-quality NDVI time-series data set based on the Savitzky–Golay filter. Remote Sens. Environ. 91, 332–344 (2004).
Cleveland, R. B., Cleveland, W. S., McRae, J. E. & Terpenning, I. Stl: a seasonal-trend decomposition procedure based on loess. J. Off. Stat. 6, 3–73 (1990).
Donner, R. et al. Spatial patterns of linear and nonparametric long-term trends in Baltic sea-level variability. Nonlinear Process. Geophys. 19, 95–111 (2012).
Smith, T. & Bookhagen, B. Changes in seasonal snow water equivalent distribution in high mountain Asia (1987 to 2009). Sci. Adv. 4, e1701550 (2018).
Smith, T., Boers, N. & Traxl, D. Global vegetation resilience estimation. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5816934 (2022).
Rousseau, D.-D. et al. (MIS3 & 2) millennial oscillations in Greenland dust and Eurasian aeolian records—a paleosol perspective. Quat. Sci. Rev. 196, 99–113 (2017).
Boulton, C. A. & Lenton, T. M. A new method for detecting abrupt shifts in time series. F1000Research 8, 746 (2019).
Savitzky, A. & Golay, M. J. Smoothing and differentiation of data by simplified least squares procedures. Anal. Chem. 36, 1627–1639 (1964).
Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S. R., Dakos, V. & van Nes, E. H. Generic indicators of ecological resilience: inferring the chance of a critical transition. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 46, 145–167 (2015).
Djikstra, H. Nonlinear Climate Dynamics (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
Kendall, M. G. Rank Correlation Methods (Griffin, 1948).
IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013); https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324
IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (eds Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R. K. & Meyer, L. A.) (IPCC, 2014).
IPCC: Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, in the press).
Oliver, E. C. J. et al. Longer and more frequent marine heatwaves over the past century. Nat. Commun. 9, 1324 (2018).
Dupont, S. & Pörtner, H. Get ready for ocean acidification. Nature 498, 429 (2013).
Bindoff, N. L. et al. in Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (eds Pörtner, H.-O. et al.) Ch. 5 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2019).
Broeker, W. The great ocean conveyor. Oceanography 4, 79–89 (1991).
Srokosz, M. et al. Past, present, and future changes in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 1663–1676 (2012).
Frajka-Williams, E. et al. Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation: observed transport and variability. Front. Mar. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00260 (2019).
Zhang, R. et al. A review of the role of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation in Atlantic multidecadal variability and associated climate impacts. Rev. Geophys. 57, 316–375 (2019).
Weijer, W., Cheng, W., Garuba, O. A., Hu, A. & Nadiga, B. T. CMIP6 models predict significant 21st century decline of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL086075 (2020).
Menary, M. B. & Wood, R. A. An anatomy of the projected North Atlantic warming hole in CMIP5 models. Clim. Dyn. 50, 3063–3080 (2018).
Reintges, A., Martin, T., Latif, M. & Keenlyside, N. S. Uncertainty in twenty-first century projections of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation in CMIP3 and CMIP5 models. Clim. Dyn. 49, 1495–1511 (2017).
Schmittner, A., Latif, M. & Schneider, B. Model projections of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation for the 21st century assessed by observations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L23710 (2005).
Liu, W., Fedorov, A. V., Xie, S.-P. & Hu, S. Climate impacts of a weakened Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation in a warming climate. Sci. Adv. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz4876 (2020).
Levermann, A., Griesel, A., Hofmann, M., Montoya, M. & Rahmstorf, S. Dynamic sea level changes following changes in the thermohaline circulation. Clim. Dyn. 24, 347–354 (2005).
Landerer, F. W., Jungclaus, J. H. & Marotzke, J. Regional dynamic and steric sea level change in response to the IPCC-A1B scenario. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 37, 296–312 (2007).
Bryden, H. L., Longworth, H. R. & Cunningham, S. A. Slowing of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation at 25° N. Nature 438, 655–657 (2005).
Latif, M. et al. Is the thermohaline circulation changing? J. Clim. 19, 4631–4637 (2006).
Rahmstorf, S. et al. Exceptional twentieth-century slowdown in Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 475–480 (2015).
Caesar, L., Rahmstorf, S., Robinson, A., Feulner, G. & Saba, V. Observed fingerprint of a weakening Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation. Nature 556, 191–196 (2018).
Fu, Y., Li, F., Karstensen, J. & Wang, C. A stable Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation in a changing North Atlantic Ocean since the 1990s. Sci. Adv. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abc7836 (2020).
Cunningham, S. A. et al. Temporal variability of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation at 26.5° N. Science 317, 935–938 (2007).
Srokosz, M. A. & Bryden, H. L. Observing the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation yields a decade of inevitable surprises. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1255575 (2015).
Toole, J. M., Andres, M., Le Bras, I. A., Joyce, T. M. & McCartney, M. S. Moored observations of the Deep Western Boundary Current in the NW Atlantic: 2004–2014. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 122, 7488–7505 (2017).
Handmann, P. et al. The Deep Western Boundary Current in the Labrador Sea from observations and a high‐resolution model. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 123, 2829–2850 (2018).
Lobelle, D., Beaulieu, C., Livina, V., Sévellec, F. & Frajka‐Williams, E. Detectability of an AMOC decline in current and projected climate changes. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL089974 (2020).
Caesar, L., McCarthy, G. D., Thornalley, D. J. R., Cahill, N. & Rahmstorf, S. Current Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation weakest in last millennium. Nat. Geosci. 14, 118–120 (2021).
Latif, M. et al. Reconstructing, monitoring, and predicting multidecadal-scale changes in the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation with sea surface temperature. J. Clim. 17, 1605–1614 (2004).
Dima, M. & Lohmann, G. Evidence for two distinct modes of large-scale ocean circulation changes over the last century. J. Clim. 23, 5–16 (2010).
Zhu, C. & Liu, Z. Weakening Atlantic overturning circulation causes South Atlantic salinity pile-up. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 998–1003 (2020).
Thornalley, D. J. R. et al. Anomalously weak Labrador Sea convection and Atlantic overturning during the past 150 years. Nature 556, 227–230 (2018).
Knight, J. R. A signature of persistent natural thermohaline circulation cycles in observed climate. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L20708 (2005).
Sutton, R. T. & Hodson, D. L. R. Atlantic Ocean forcing of North American and European summer climate. Science 309, 115–118 (2005).
Zhang, R. & Delworth, T. L. Impact of Atlantic multidecadal oscillations on India/Sahel rainfall and Atlantic hurricanes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L17712 (2006).
Ting, M., Kushnir, Y., Seager, R. & Li, C. Forced and internal twentieth-century SST trends in the North Atlantic. J. Clim. 22, 1469–1481 (2009).
Collins, M. et al. Interannual to decadal climate predictability in the North Atlantic: a multimodel-ensemble study. J. Clim. 19, 1195–1203 (2006).
Menary, M. B. et al. Aerosol‐forced AMOC changes in CMIP6 historical simulations. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL088166 (2020).
Booth, B. B. B., Dunstone, N. J., Halloran, P. R., Andrews, T. & Bellouin, N. Aerosols implicated as a prime driver of twentieth-century North Atlantic climate variability. Nature 484, 228–232 (2012).
Otterå, O. H., Bentsen, M., Drange, H. & Suo, L. External forcing as a metronome for Atlantic multidecadal variability. Nat. Geosci. 3, 688–694 (2010).
Clement, A. et al. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation without a role for ocean circulation. Science 350, 320–324 (2015).
Ba, J. et al. A multi-model comparison of Atlantic multidecadal variability. Clim. Dyn. 43, 2333–2348 (2014).
Delworth, T. L. & Zeng, F. Multicentennial variability of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and its climatic influence in a 4000 year simulation of the GFDL CM2.1 climate model. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL052107 (2012).
Park, W. & Latif, M. Multidecadal and multicentennial variability of the meridional overturning circulation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L22703 (2008).
Folland, C. K., Palmer, T. N. & Parker, D. E. Sahel rainfall and worldwide sea temperatures, 1901–85. Nature 320, 602–607 (1986).
Hurrell, J. W. Decadal trends in the North Atlantic Oscillation: regional temperatures and precipitation. Science 269, 676–679 (1995).
Delworth, T. L. et al. The central role of ocean dynamics in connecting the North Atlantic Oscillation to the extratropical component of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. J. Clim. 30, 3789–3805 (2017).
Mann, M. E., Steinman, B. A. & Miller, S. K. Absence of internal multidecadal and interdecadal oscillations in climate model simulations. Nat. Commun. 11, 49 (2020).
Mann, M. E., Steinman, B. A., Brouillette, D. J. & Miller, S. K. Multidecadal climate oscillations during the past millennium driven by volcanic forcing. Science 371, 1014–1019 (2021).
Klavans, J. M., Clement, A. C. & Cane, M. A. Variable external forcing obscures the weak relationship between the NAO and North Atlantic multidecadal SST variability. J. Clim. 32, 3847–3864 (2019).
Martin, T., Park, W. & Latif, M. Multi-centennial variability controlled by Southern Ocean convection in the Kiel Climate Model. Clim. Dyn. 40, 2005–2022 (2013).
Gervais, M., Shaman, J. & Kushnir, Y. Mechanisms governing the development of the North Atlantic warming hole in the CESM-LE future climate simulations. J. Clim. 31, 5927–5946 (2018).
Sévellec, F., Fedorov, A. V. & Liu, W. Arctic sea-ice decline weakens the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 604–610 (2017).
Drijfhout, S., van Oldenborgh, G. J. & Cimatoribus, A. Is a decline of AMOC causing the warming hole above the North Atlantic in observed and modeled warming patterns? J. Clim. 25, 8373–8379 (2012).
Keil, P. et al. Multiple drivers of the North Atlantic warming hole. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 667–671 (2020).
Hodson, D. L. R., Robson, J. I. & Sutton, R. T. An anatomy of the cooling of the North Atlantic Ocean in the 1960s and 1970s. J. Clim. 27, 8229–8243 (2014).
Cayan, D. R. Latent and sensible heat flux anomalies over the northern oceans: driving the sea surface temperature. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 22, 859–881 (1992).
Lorenz, E. N. Empirical Orthogonal Functions and Statistical Weather Prediction 1 (Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Meteorology, 1956).
Myhre, G. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al) 659–740 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
Thompson, D. W. J. & Solomon, S. Interpretation of recent Southern Hemisphere climate change. Science 296, 895–899 (2002).
Fogt, R. L. & Marshall, G. J. The Southern Annular Mode: variability, trends, and climate impacts across the Southern Hemisphere. WIREs Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.652 (2020).
Park, W. & Latif, M. Ensemble global warming simulations with idealized Antarctic meltwater input. Clim. Dyn. 52, 3223–3239 (2019).
Boer, G. J. & Lambert, S. J. Multi-model decadal potential predictability of precipitation and temperature. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L05706 (2008).
Boer, G. J., Kharin, V. V. & Merryfield, W. J. Decadal predictability and forecast skill. Clim. Dyn. 41, 1817–1833 (2013).
Menary, M. B. et al. A multimodel comparison of centennial Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation variability. Clim. Dyn. 38, 2377–2388 (2012).
Latif, M., Martin, T. & Park, W. Southern Ocean sector centennial climate variability and recent decadal trends. J. Clim. 26, 7767–7782 (2013).
Zhang, L., Delworth, T. L., Cooke, W. & Yang, X. Natural variability of Southern Ocean convection as a driver of observed climate trends. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 59–65 (2019).
Sun, J., Latif, M., Park, W. & Park, T. On the interpretation of the North Atlantic averaged sea surface temperature. J. Clim. 33, 6025–6045 (2020).
Roberts, C. D., Garry, F. K. & Jackson, L. C. A multimodel study of sea surface temperature and subsurface density fingerprints of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. J. Clim. 26, 9155–9174 (2013).
Drijfhout, S. Competition between global warming and an abrupt collapse of the AMOC in Earth’s energy imbalance. Sci. Rep. 5, 14877 (2015).
Eyring, V. et al. Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 1937–1958 (2016).
Ghan, S. et al. Challenges in constraining anthropogenic aerosol effects on cloud radiative forcing using present-day spatiotemporal variability. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, 5804–5811 (2016).
Boucher, O. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 571–658 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013); https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.016
Zhang, J. & Zhang, R. On the evolution of Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation fingerprint and implications for decadal predictability in the North Atlantic. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 5419–5426 (2015).
McCarthy, G. D. et al. Sustainable observations of the AMOC: methodology and technology. Rev. Geophys. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000654 (2020).
Köhl, A. Evaluation of the GECCO2 ocean synthesis: transports of volume, heat and freshwater in the Atlantic. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 141, 166–181 (2015).
Jackson, L. C. et al. The mean state and variability of the North Atlantic circulation: a perspective from ocean reanalyses. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 124, 9141–9170 (2019).
Danabasoglu, G. et al. North Atlantic simulations in Coordinated Ocean–Ice Reference Experiments phase II (CORE-II). Part II: inter-annual to decadal variability. Ocean Model. 97, 65–90 (2016).
Moat, B. I. et al. Pending recovery in the strength of the meridional overturning circulation at 26° N. Ocean Sci. 16, 863–874 (2020).
Rossby, T., Chafik, L. & Houpert, L. What can hydrography tell us about the strength of the Nordic Seas MOC over the last 70 to 100 years? Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL087456 (2020).
Zantopp, R., Fischer, J., Visbeck, M. & Karstensen, J. From interannual to decadal: 17 years of boundary current transports at the exit of the Labrador Sea. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 122, 1724–1748 (2017).
Böning, C. W., Behrens, E., Biastoch, A., Getzlaff, K. & Bamber, J. L. Emerging impact of Greenland meltwater on deepwater formation in the North Atlantic Ocean. Nat. Geosci. 9, 523–527 (2016).
Gent, P. R. A commentary on the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation stability in climate models. Ocean Model. 122, 57–66 (2018).
deYoung, B. et al. An integrated all-Atlantic Ocean observing system in 2030. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 428 (2019).
Huang, B. et al. Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature, version 5 (ERSSTv5): upgrades, validations, and intercomparisons. J. Clim. 30, 8179–8205 (2017).
Kaplan, A. et al. Analyses of global sea surface temperature 1856–1991. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 103, 18567–18589 (1998).
de Boyer Montégut, C. Mixed layer depth over the global ocean: an examination of profile data and a profile-based climatology. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 109, C12003 (2004).
Clementi, E. et al. Mediterranean Sea Analysis and Forecast (CMEMS MED-Currents, EAS5 system) (Version 1) (Copernicus Monitoring Environment Marine Service, 2021); https://doi.org/10.25423/CMCC/MEDSEA_ANALYSIS_FORECAST_PHY_006_013_EAS5
Smith, C. J. et al. Energy budget constraints on the time history of aerosol forcing and climate sensitivity. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JD033622 (2021).
Riahi, K. et al. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 153–168 (2017).
Hasselmann, K. PIPs and POPs: the reduction of complex dynamical systems using principal interaction and oscillation patterns. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 93, 11015–11021 (1988).
Storch, H., Bruns, T., Fischer-Bruns, I., Hasselmann, K. & von Storch, H. Principal oscillation pattern analysis of the 30- to 60-day oscillation in general circulation model equatorial troposphere. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 93, 11022–11036 (1988).
von Storch, H., Bürger, G., Schnur, R. & von Storch, J.-S. Principal oscillation patterns: a review. J. Clim. 8, 377–400 (1995).
Venzke, S., Allen, M. R., Sutton, R. T. & Rowell, D. P. The atmospheric response over the North Atlantic to decadal changes in sea surface temperature. J. Clim. 12, 2562–2584 (1999).
Ebisuzaki, W. A method to estimate the statistical significance of a correlation when the data are serially correlated. J. Clim. 10, 2147–2153 (1997).
Ellis-Petersen, H. Narendra Modi pledges India will reach net zero emissions by 2070. The Guardian (1 November 2021).
Cavcic, M. Nigeria vows to reach net-zero by 2060, highlights key role of gas in energy transition. Offshore Energy (3 November 2021).
McCoy, T. & Pessoa, G. S. Brazil, once a champion of environmentalism, grapples with new role as climate antagonist. Washington Post (2 November 2021).
Hook, L., White, E. & Olcott, E. China hits back at criticism of Xi’s absence from COP26. Financial Times (3 November 2021).
Ritchie, H. & Roser, M. CO2 and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Our World Data, 2020).
Ricciardi, V. et al. Glob. Food Secur. 17, 64–72 (2018).
Sprinkler and Micro Irrigated Area (ICID, 2021).
Amoroso, R. O. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E10275–E10282 (2018).
Magembe, L. The Promise of Restorative Aquaculture Solutions (The Nature Conservancy, 2020).
The Future of Rail – Analysis (IEA, 2019).
On Track to Full Electrification: Low Carbon Railways in India (Rapid Transition Alliance, 2021).
Poushter, J. Car, bike or motorcycle? Depends on where you live. Pew Research Center (16 April 2015).
Roy, E. Renewables provide 37% of India’s power capacity. The Indian Express (15 July 2021).
Transforming Cities with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Systems (UITP, 2019).
Implementation of Bioenergy in Brazil – 2021 Update (IEA, 2021).
Jin, L. et al. Driving a Green Future: A Retrospective Review of China’s Electric Vehicle Development and Outlook for the Future (ICCT, 2021).
High-Speed Databases and Atlas (UIC, 2021).
Electricity Mix in China Q1 2020 – Data & Statistics (IEA, 2020).
O’Meara, S. Nature 584, S1–S3 (2020).
Gillespie, T. & Ritchie, G. Nature bonds may be the next big thing for emerging markets. Bloomberg (25 February 2021).
Chile becomes the first country in the world to issue a sustainability linked bond. GFL (3 February 2022).
Namasivayam, A. et al. Project Drawdown’s Health and Education Solution: The Cascading Benefits of Access to Universal Education and Voluntary Family Planning (Project Drawdown, 2022).
Graetz, N. et al. Nature 577, 235–238 (2020).
Timperley, J. Nature 598, 400–402 (2021).
Frischmann, C. J. et al. in Partnerships for the Goals: Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (eds Leal Filho, W. et al.) 321–344 (Springer International, 2020).
Nature Climate Change, Published online: 14 April 2022; doi:10.1038/s41558-022-01338-0
Climate change is causing more frequent and intense precipitation extremes; however, these changes are difficult to project. This paper shows that observations of the increased frequency of extreme precipitation events over the past four decades can be used to reduce uncertainty in future climate model projections by 20–40%.
Source link
Allen, M. R. & Ingram, W. J. Constraints on future changes in climate and the hydrologic cycle. Nature 419, 224–232 (2002).
Trenberth, K. E., Dai, A., Rasmussen, R. M. & Parsons, D. B. The changing character of precipitation. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 84, 1205–1217 (2003).
Held, I. M. & Soden, B. J. Robust responses of the hydrologic cycle to global warming. J. Clim. 19, 5686–5699 (2006).
Wu, P., Christidis, N. & Stott, P. Anthropogenic impact on Earth’s hydrological cycle. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 807–810 (2013).
Pendergrass, A. G. & Hartmann, D. L. The atmospheric energy constraint on global-mean precipitation change. J. Clim. 27, 757–768 (2014).
Kharin, V. V., Zwiers, F. W., Zhang, X. & Wehner, M. Changes in temperature and precipitation extremes in the CMIP5 ensemble. Climatic Change 119, 345–357 (2013).
Pendergrass, A. G., Lehner, F., Sanderson, B. M. & Xu, Y. Does extreme precipitation intensity depend on the emissions scenario? Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 8767–8774 (2015).
Tebaldi, C. et al. Climate model projections from the Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) of CMIP6. Earth Syst. Dyn. 12, 253–293 (2021).
Pendergrass, A. G. & Hartmann, D. L. Changes in the distribution of rain frequency and intensity in response to global warming. J. Clim. 27, 8372–8383 (2014).
O’Gorman, P. A. & Schneider, T. The physical basis for increases in precipitation extremes in simulations of 21st-century climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 14773–14777 (2009).
O’Gorman, P. A. Precipitation extremes under climate change. Curr. Clim. Change Rep. 1, 49–59 (2015).
Pendergrass, A. G. What precipitation is extreme? Science 360, 1072–1073 (2018).
Myhre, G. et al. Frequency of extreme precipitation increases extensively with event rareness under global warming. Sci. Rep. 9, 16063 (2019).
Scoccimarro, E. & Gualdi, S. Heavy daily precipitation events in the CMIP6 worst-case scenario: projected twenty-first-century changes. J. Clim. 33, 7631–7642 (2020).
Scoccimarro, E., Gualdi, S., Bellucci, A., Zampieri, M. & Navarra, A. Heavy precipitation events in a warmer climate: results from CMIP5 models. J. Clim. 26, 7902–7911 (2013).
Thackeray, C. W., DeAngelis, A. M., Hall, A., Swain, D. L. & Qu, X. On the connection between global hydrologic sensitivity and regional wet extremes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 11343–11351 (2018).
Bador, M. et al. Assessing the robustness of future extreme precipitation intensification in the CMIP5 ensemble. J. Clim. 31, 6505–6525 (2018).
Sun, Y., Solomon, S., Dai, A. & Portmann, R. W. How often will it rain? J. Clim. 20, 4801–4818 (2007).
Allan, R. P. & Soden, B. J. Atmospheric warming and the amplification of precipitation extremes. Science 321, 1481–1484 (2008).
Lau, W. K., Wu, H. & Kim, K. A canonical response of precipitation characteristics to global warming from CMIP5 models. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 3163–3169 (2013).
Giorgi, F. et al. Higher hydroclimatic intensity with global warming. J. Clim. 24, 5309–5324 (2011).
Hall, A., Cox, P., Huntingford, C. & Klein, S. Progressing emergent constraints on future climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 269–278 (2019).
Williamson, M. S. et al. Emergent constraints on climate sensitivities. Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 025004 (2021).
Thackeray, C. W., Hall, A., Zelinka, M. D. & Fletcher, C. G. Assessing prior emergent constraints on surface albedo feedback in CMIP6. J. Clim. 34, 3889–3905 (2021).
DeAngelis, A. M., Qu, X., Zelinka, M. D. & Hall, A. An observational radiative constraint on hydrologic cycle intensification. Nature 528, 249–253 (2015).
Su, H. et al. Tightening of tropical ascent and high clouds key to precipitation change in a warmer climate. Nat. Commun. 8, 15771 (2017).
Watanabe, M., Kamae, Y., Shiogama, H., DeAngelis, A. M. & Suzuki, K. Low clouds link equilibrium climate sensitivity to hydrological sensitivity. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 901–906 (2018).
O’Gorman, P. A. Sensitivity of tropical precipitation extremes to climate change. Nat. Geosci. 5, 697–700 (2012).
Borodina, A., Fischer, E. M. & Knutti, R. Models are likely to underestimate increase in heavy rainfall in the extratropical regions with high rainfall intensity. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 7401–7409 (2017).
Jiménez-de-la-Cuesta, D. & Mauritsen, T. Emergent constraints on Earth’s transient and equilibrium response to doubled CO2 from post-1970s global warming. Nat. Geosci. 12, 902–905 (2019).
Tokarska, K. B. et al. Past warming trend constrains future warming in CMIP6 models. Sci. Adv. 6, eaaz9549 (2020).
Min, S. K., Zhang, X., Zwiers, F. W. & Hegerl, G. C. Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes. Nature 470, 378–381 (2011).
Westra, S., Alexander, L. V. & Zwiers, F. W. Global increasing trends in annual maximum daily precipitation. J. Clim. 26, 3904–3918 (2013).
Fischer, E. M. & Knutti, R. Detection of spatially aggregated changes in temperature and precipitation extremes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 547–554 (2014).
Fischer, E. M. & Knutti, R. Observed heavy precipitation increase confirms theory and early models. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 986–991 (2016).
Donat, M. G., Lowry, A. L., Alexander, L. V., O’Gorman, P. A. & Maher, N. More extreme precipitation in the world’s dry and wet regions. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 508–513 (2016).
Donat, M. G., Angélil, O. & Ukkola, A. M. Intensification of precipitation extremes in the world’s humid and water-limited regions. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 065003 (2019).
Contractor, S., Donat, M. G. & Alexander, L. V. Changes in observed daily precipitation over global land areas since 1950. J. Clim. 34, 3–19 (2021).
Madakumbura, G. D., Thackeray, C. W., Norris, J., Goldenson, N. & Hall, A. Anthropogenic influence on extreme precipitation over global land areas seen in multiple observational datasets. Nat. Commun. 12, 3944 (2021).
Chinita, M. J., Richardson, M., Teixeira, J. & Miranda, P. M. A. Global mean frequency increases of daily and sub-daily heavy precipitation in ERA5. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 074035 (2021).
Trenberth, K. E. Changes in precipitation with climate change. Clim. Res. 47, 123–138 (2011).
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J. & Meehl, G. A. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 485–498 (2012).
Eyring, V. et al. Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 1937–1958 (2016).
Herold, N., Behrangi, A. & Alexander, L. V. Large uncertainties in observed daily precipitation extremes over land. J. Geophys. Res. 122, 668–681 (2017).
Sun, Q. et al. A review of global precipitation data sets: data sources, estimation, and intercomparisons. Rev. Geophys. 56, 79–107 (2018).
Bador, M., Alexander, L. V., Contractor, S. & Roca, R. Diverse estimates of annual maxima daily precipitation in 22 state-of-the-art quasi-global land observation datasets. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 035005 (2020).
Pendergrass, A. G. The global-mean precipitation response to CO2-induced warming in CMIP6 models. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2020GL089964 (2020).
Zelinka, M. D. et al. Causes of higher climate sensitivity in CMIP6 models. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2019GL085782 (2020).
Beck, H. E. et al. MSWEP: 3-hourly 0.25 global gridded precipitation (1979–2015) by merging gauge, satellite, and reanalysis data. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 21, 589–615 (2017).
Alexander, L. V. Global observed long-term changes in temperature and precipitation extremes: a review of progress and limitations in IPCC assessments and beyond. Weather Clim. Extrem. 11, 4–16 (2016).
Pfahl, S., O’Gorman, P. A. & Fischer, E. M. Understanding the regional pattern of projected future changes in extreme precipitation. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 423–427 (2017).
Goldenson, N., Thackeray, C. W., Hall, A. D., Swain, D. L. & Berg, N. Using large ensembles to identify regions of systematic biases in moderate-to-heavy daily precipitation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 48, e2020GL092026 (2021).
Contractor, S. et al. Rainfall Estimates on a Gridded Network (REGEN)—a global land-based gridded dataset of daily precipitation from 1950 to 2016. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 24, 919–943 (2020).
Bowman, K. W., Cressie, N., Qu, X. & Hall, A. A hierarchical statistical framework for emergent constraints: application to snow-albedo feedback. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 13,050–13,059 (2018).
Thackeray, C. W. & Hall, A. An emergent constraint on future Arctic sea-ice albedo feedback. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 972–978 (2019).
Boé, J., Hall, A. & Qu, X. September sea-ice cover in the Arctic Ocean projected to vanish by 2100. Nat. Geosci. 2, 341–343 (2009).
Hoffman, F. M. et al. Causes and implications of persistent atmospheric carbon dioxide biases in Earth System Models. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 119, 141–162 (2014).
Pendergrass, A. G. et al. Nonlinear response of extreme precipitation to warming in CESM1. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 10551–10560 (2019).
Williamson, D. B. & Sansom, P. G. How are emergent constraints quantifying uncertainty and what do they leave behind? Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 100, 2571–2588 (2019).
O’Neill, B. C. et al. The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 3461–3482 (2016).
Tokarska, K. B. et al. Recommended temperature metrics for carbon budget estimates, model evaluation and climate policy. Nat. Geosci. 12, 964–971 (2019).
Huber, M. & Knutti, R. Natural variability, radiative forcing and climate response in the recent hiatus reconciled. Nat. Geosci. 7, 651–656 (2014).
Herold, N., Alexander, L. V., Donat, M. G., Contractor, S. & Becker, A. How much does it rain over land? Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 341–348 (2016).
Gibson, P. B., Waliser, D. E., Lee, H., Tian, B. & Massoud, E. Climate model evaluation in the presence of observational uncertainty: precipitation indices over the contiguous United States. J. Hydrometeorol. 20, 1339–1357 (2019).
Roca, R. et al. FROGS: a daily 1° × 1° gridded precipitation database of rain gauge, satellite and reanalysis products. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 11, 1017–1035 (2019).
Donat, M. G. et al. Consistency of temperature and precipitation extremes across various global gridded in situ and reanalysis datasets. J. Clim. 27, 5019–5035 (2014).
Beck, H. E. et al. Global-scale evaluation of 22 precipitation datasets using gauge observations and hydrological modeling. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 21, 6201–6217 (2017).
Beck, H. E. et al. Daily evaluation of 26 precipitation datasets using Stage-IV gauge-radar data for the CONUS. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 23, 207–224 (2019).
Alexander, L. V. et al. On the use of indices to study extreme precipitation on sub-daily and daily timescales. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 125008 (2019).
Chen, M. et al. Assessing objective techniques for gauge-based analyses of global daily precipitation. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 113, D04110 (2008).
Funk, C. et al. The Climate Hazards Infrared Precipitation with Stations—a new environmental record for monitoring extremes. Sci. Data 2, 150066 (2015).
Musselman, K. N., Addor, N., Vano, J. A. & Molotch, N. P. Winter melt trends portend widespread declines in snow water resources. Nat. Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01014-9 (2021).
Thackeray, C. W. cwthackeray/T22_NCC: Thackeray22 (V1.0). Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6288035 (2022).
Turner, J., Hosking, J. S., Bracegirdle, T. J., Marshall, G. J. & Phillips, T. Recent changes in Antarctic sea ice. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 373, 20140163 (2015).
Parkinson, C. L. A 40-y record reveals gradual Antarctic sea ice increases followed by decreases at rates far exceeding the rates seen in the Arctic. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 14414–14423 (2019).
Fan, T., Deser, C. & Schneider, D. P. Recent Antarctic sea ice trends in the context of Southern Ocean surface climate variations since 1950. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 2419–2426 (2014).
Armour, K. C. & Bitz, C. M. Observed and projected trends in Antarctic sea ice. US CLIVAR Var. 13, 12–19 (2015).
Armour, K. C., Marshall, J., Scott, J. R., Donohoe, A. & Newsom, E. R. Southern Ocean warming delayed by circumpolar upwelling and equatorward transport. Nat. Geosci. 9, 549–554 (2016).
Comiso, J. C. et al. Positive trend in the Antarctic sea ice cover and associated changes in surface temperature. J. Clim. 30, 2251–2267 (2017).
Gagné, M.-É., Gillett, N. P. & Fyfe, J. C. Observed and simulated changes in Antarctic sea ice extent over the past 50 years. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 90–95 (2015).
Chemke, R. & Polvani, L. M. Using multiple large ensembles to elucidate the discrepancy between the 1979–2019 modeled and observed Antarctic sea ice trends. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2020GL088339 (2020).
Roach, L. A. et al. Antarctic sea ice area in CMIP6. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2019GL086729 (2020).
Hobbs, W. R., Bindoff, N. L. & Raphael, M. N. New perspectives on observed and simulated Antarctic sea ice extent trends using optimal fingerprinting techniques. J. Clim. 28, 1543–1560 (2015).
Jones, J. M. et al. Assessing recent trends in high-latitude Southern Hemisphere surface climate. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 917–926 (2016).
Schneider, D. P. & Deser, C. Tropically driven and externally forced patterns of Antarctic sea ice change: reconciling observed and modeled trends. Clim. Dynam. 50, 4599–4618 (2018).
IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
Menviel, L., Timmermann, A., Timm, O. E. & Mouchet, A. Climate and biogeochemical response to a rapid melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet during interglacials and implications for future climate. Paleoceanography 25, PA4231 (2010).
Bintanja, R., van Oldenborgh, G. J., Drijfhout, S. S., Wouters, B. & Katsman, C. A. Important role for ocean warming and increased ice-shelf melt in Antarctic sea-ice expansion. Nat. Geosci. 6, 376–379 (2013).
Swart, N. C. & Fyfe, J. C. The influence of recent Antarctic ice sheet retreat on simulated sea ice area trends. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 4328–4332 (2013).
Pauling, A. G., Bitz, C. M., Smith, I. J. & Langhorne, P. J. The response of the Southern Ocean and Antarctic sea ice to freshwater from ice shelves in an Earth system model. J. Clim. 29, 1655–1672 (2016).
Bronselaer, B. et al. Change in future climate due to Antarctic meltwater. Nature 564, 53–58 (2018).
Park, W. & Latif, M. Ensemble global warming simulations with idealized Antarctic meltwater input. Clim. Dyn. 52, 3223–3239 (2019).
Schloesser, F. et al. Antarctic iceberg impacts on future Southern Hemisphere climate. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 672–677 (2019).
Rye, C. D. et al. Antarctic glacial melt as a driver of recent Southern Ocean climate trends. Geophys. Res. Lett. 47, e2019GL086892 (2020).
Goosse, H., Lefebvre, W., de Montety, A., Crespin, E. & Orsi, A. H. Consistent past half-century trends in the atmosphere, the sea ice and the ocean at high southern latitudes. Clim. Dyn. 33, 999–1016 (2009).
Polvani, L. M., Waugh, D. W., Correa, G. J. P. & Son, S. W. Stratospheric ozone depletion: the main driver of twentieth-century atmospheric circulation changes in the Southern Hemisphere. J. Clim. 24, 795–812 (2011).
Thompson, D. W. J. et al. Signatures of the Antarctic ozone hole in Southern Hemisphere surface climate change. Nat. Geosci. 4, 741–749 (2011).
Kostov, Y. et al. Fast and slow responses of Southern Ocean sea surface temperature to SAM in coupled climate models. Clim. Dyn. 48, 1595–1609 (2017).
Blanchard-Wrigglesworth, E., Roach, L. A., Donohoe, A. & Ding, Q. Impact of winds and Southern Ocean SSTs on Antarctic sea ice trends and variability. J. Clim. 34, 949–965 (2021).
Zhang, X., Deser, C. & Sun, L. Is there a tropical response to recent observed Southern Ocean cooling? Geophys. Res. Lett. 48, e2020GL091235 (2021).
Rosenblum, E. & Eisenman, I. Sea ice trends in climate models only accurate in runs with biased global warming. J. Clim. 30, 6265–6278 (2017).
Sun, S. & Eisenman, I. Observed Antarctic sea ice expansion reproduced in a climate model after correcting biases in sea ice drift velocity. Nat. Commun. 12, 1060 (2021).
Polvani, L. M. & Smith, K. L. Can natural variability explain observed Antarctic sea ice trends? New modeling evidence from CMIP5. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 3195–3199 (2013).
Zunz, V., Goosse, H. & Massonnet, F. How does internal variability influence the ability of CMIP5 models to reproduce the recent trend in Southern Ocean sea ice extent? Cryosphere 7, 451–468 (2013).
Ding, Q., Steig, E. J., Battisti, D. S. & Küttel, M. Winter warming in West Antarctica caused by central tropical Pacific warming. Nat. Geosci. 4, 398–403 (2011).
Li, X., Holland, D. M., Gerber, E. P. & Yoo, C. Impacts of the north and tropical Atlantic Ocean on the Antarctic Peninsula and sea ice. Nature 505, 538–542 (2014).
Simpkins, G. R., McGregor, S., Taschetto, A. S., Ciasto, L. M. & England, M. H. Tropical connections to climatic change in the extratropical Southern Hemisphere: the role of Atlantic SST trends. J. Clim. 27, 4923–4936 (2014).
Schneider, D. P., Deser, C. & Fan, T. Comparing the impacts of tropical SST variability and polar stratospheric ozone loss on the Southern Ocean westerly winds. J. Clim. 28, 9350–9372 (2015).
Meehl, G. A., Arblaster, J. M., Bitz, C. M., Chung, C. T. Y. & Teng, H. Antarctic sea-ice expansion between 2000 and 2014 driven by tropical Pacific decadal climate variability. Nat. Geosci. 9, 590–595 (2016).
Purich, A. et al. Tropical Pacific SST drivers of recent Antarctic sea ice trends. J. Clim. 29, 8931–8948 (2016).
Clem, K. R. et al. Record warming at the South Pole during the past three decades. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 762–770 (2020).
Li, X., Holland, D. M., Gerber, E. P. & Yoo, C. Rossby waves mediate impacts of tropical oceans on west Antarctic atmospheric circulation in austral winter. J. Clim. 28, 8151–8164 (2015).
Wang, G. et al. Compounding tropical and stratospheric forcing of the record low Antarctic sea-ice in 2016. Nat. Commun. 10, 13 (2019).
Stuecker, M. F., Bitz, C. M. & Armour, K. C. Conditions leading to the unprecedented low Antarctic sea ice extent during the 2016 austral spring season. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 9008–9019 (2017).
Meehl, G. A. et al. Sustained ocean changes contributed to sudden Antarctic sea ice retreat in late 2016. Nat. Commun. 10, 14 (2019).
Eayrs, C., Li, X., Raphael, M. N. & Holland, D. M. Rapid decline in Antarctic sea ice in recent years hints at future change. Nat. Geosci. 14, 460–464 (2021).
Sigmond, M. & Fyfe, J. C. Has the ozone hole contributed to increased Antarctic sea ice extent? Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L18502 (2010).
Bitz, C. M. & Polvani, L. M. Antarctic climate response to stratospheric ozone depletion in a fine resolution ocean climate model. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L20705 (2012).
Ferreira, D., Marshall, J., Bitz, C. M., Solomon, S. & Plumb, A. Antarctic ocean and sea ice response to ozone depletion: a two-time-scale problem. J. Clim. 28, 1206–1226 (2015).
Seviour, W. J. M. et al. The Southern Ocean sea surface temperature response to ozone depletion: a multimodel comparison. J. Clim. 32, 5107–5121 (2019).
Holland, P. R. & Kwok, R. Wind-driven trends in Antarctic sea-ice drift. Nat. Geosci. 5, 872–875 (2012).
Chung, E.-S. et al. Reconciling opposing Walker circulation trends in observations and model projections. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 405–412 (2019).
Kosaka, Y. & Xie, S.-P. Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling. Nature 501, 403–407 (2013).
Li, X. et al. Tropical teleconnection impacts on Antarctic climate changes. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 2, 680–698 (2021).
Handcock, M. S. & Raphael, M. N. Modeling the annual cycle of daily Antarctic sea ice extent. Cryosphere 14, 2159–2172 (2020).
Chung, E.-S. & Soden, B. J. Hemispheric climate shifts driven by anthropogenic aerosol–cloud interactions. Nat. Geosci. 10, 566–571 (2017).
Lee, S.-K. et al. Wind-driven ocean dynamics impact on the contrasting sea-ice trends around West Antarctica. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 122, 4413–4430 (2017).
Depoorter, M. A. et al. Calving fluxes and basal melt rates of Antarctic ice shelves. Nature 502, 89–92 (2013).
Fetterer, F., Knowles, K., Meier, W. N., Savoie, M. & Windnagel, A. K. Sea Ice Index Version 3: Sea ice extent (NSIDC, 2017); https://doi.org/10.7265/N5K072F8
Stroeve, J. & Meier, W. N. Sea Ice Trends and Climatologies from SMMR and SSM/I-SSMIS Version 3 (NASA National Snow and Ice Data Center Distributed Active Archive Center, 2018); https://doi.org/10.5067/IJ0T7HFHB9Y6
Ropelewski, C. F. NOAA/NMC/CAC Arctic and Antarctic Monthly Sea Ice Extent, 1973–1990 Version 1: Sea ice extent (NSIDC, 1990); https://doi.org/10.7265/N5Z60KZ1
Meier, W. N., Gallaher, D. & Campbell, G. G. New estimates of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent during September 1964 from recovered Nimbus 1 satellite imagery. Cryosphere 7, 699–705 (2013).
Kukla, G. & Gavin, J. Summer ice and carbon dioxide. Science 214, 497–503 (1981).
Zwally, H. J., Parkinson, C. L. & Comiso, J. C. Variability of Antarctic sea ice and changes in carbon dioxide. Science 220, 1005–1012 (1983).
Curran, M. A. J. et al. Ice core evidence for Antarctic sea ice decline since the 1950s. Science 302, 1203–1206 (2003).
Rayner, N. A. et al. Global analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice, and night marine air temperature since the late nineteenth century. J. Geophys. Res. 108, 4407 (2003).
Huang, B. et al. Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature Version 5 (ERSST v.5): Upgrades, validations, and intercomparisons. J. Clim. 30, 8179–8205 (2017).
Hirahara, S., Ishii, M. & Fukuda, Y. Centennial-scale sea surface temperature analysis and its uncertainty. J. Clim. 27, 57–75 (2014).
Hersbach, H. et al. The ERA5 global reanalysis. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 146, 1999–2049 (2020).
Kennedy, J. J., Rayner, N. A., Atkinson, C. P. & Killick, R. E. An ensemble data set of sea surface temperature change from 1850: the Met Office Hadley Centre HadSST.4.0.0.0 data set. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 124, 7719–7763 (2019).
Morice, C. P., Kennedy, J. J., Rayner, N. A. & Jones, P. D. Quantifying uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an ensemble of observational estimates: the HadCRUT4 data set. J. Geophys. Res. 117, D08101 (2012).
GISTEMP Team GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) Version 4 (NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2022); https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Lenssen, N. J. L. et al. Improvements in the GISTEMP uncertainty model. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 124, 6307–6326 (2019).
Rohde, R. et al. Berkeley Earth temperature averaging process. Geoinform. Geostat. Overv. https://doi.org/10.4172/2327-4581.1000103 (2013).
Vose, R. S. et al. NOAA’s merged land–ocean surface temperature analysis. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 1677–1685 (2012).
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J. & Meehl, G. A. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 485–498 (2012).
Kirchmeier-Young, M. C., Zwiers, F. W., Gillett, N. P. & Cannon, A. J. Attributing extreme fire risk in western Canada to human emissions. Climatic Change 144, 365–379 (2017).
Kay, J. E. et al. The Community Earth System Model (CESM) Large Ensemble Project: a community resource for studying climate change in the presence of internal climate variability. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 96, 1333–1349 (2015).
Eyring, V. et al. Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 1937–1958 (2016).
Rodgers, K. B. et al. Ubiquity of human-induced changes in climate variability. Earth Syst. Dyn. 12, 1393–1411 (2021).
Boer, G. J. et al. The Decadal Climate Prediction Project (DCPP) contribution to CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 3751–3777 (2016).
Trenberth, K. E. & Shea, D. J. Atlantic hurricanes and natural variability in 2005. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L12704 (2006).
Delworth, T. L. & Mann, M. E. Observed and simulated multidecadal variability in the Northern Hemisphere. Clim. Dynam. 16, 661–676 (2000).
Lapointe, F. et al. Annually resolved Atlantic sea surface temperature variability over the past 2,900 y. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 27171–27178 (2020).
Booth, B. B. B., Dunstone, N. J., Halloran, P. R., Andrews, T. & Bellouin, N. Aerosols implicated as a prime driver of twentieth-century North Atlantic climate variability. Nature 484, 228–232 (2012).
Henley, B. J. et al. A tripole index for the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation. Clim. Dyn. 45, 3077–3090 (2015).
Chung, E.-S. et al. Code for Antarctic sea ice expansion and Southern Ocean cooling linked to tropical variability. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6330284 (2022).
Recent Comments