Engineering topics

Martin Dix

Publications and source records attributed to Martin Dix.

4 records

NASA NTRS2024

Aera-Mip: Emission Pathways, Remaining Budgets, and Carbon Cycle Dynamics Compatible With 1.5 and 2 °C Global Warming Stabilization

While international climate policies now focus on limiting global warming to well below 2 °C or pursuing a 1.5 °C level of global warming, the climate modelling community has not provided an experimental design in which all Earth system models (ESMs) converge and stabilize at the same prescribed global warming levels. This gap hampers accurate estimations based on comprehensive ESMs of the carbon emission pathways and budgets needed to meet such agreed warming levels and of the associated climate impacts under temperature stabilization. Here, we apply the Adaptive Emission Reduction Approach (AERA) with ESMs to provide such simulations in which all models converge at 1.5 and 2.0 °C warming levels by adjusting their emissions over time. These emission-driven simulations provide a wide range of emission pathways and resulting atmospheric CO 2 projections for a given warming level, uncovering uncertainty ranges that were previously missing in the traditional Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) scenarios with prescribed greenhouse gas concentration pathways. Meeting the 1.5 °C warming level requires a 40 % (full model range: 7 % to 76 %) reduction in multi-model mean CO 2 -forcing-equivalent (CO 2 -fe) emissions from 2025 to 2030, a 98 % (57 % to 127 %) reduction from 2025 to 2050, and a stabilization at 1.0 (−1.7 to 2.9) PgC yr−1 from 2100 onward after the 1.5 °C global warming level is reached. Meeting the 2.0 °C warming level requires a 47 % (8 % to 92 %) reduction in multi-model mean CO 2 -fe emissions until 2050 and a stabilization at 1.7 (−1.5 to 2.7) PgC yr−1 from 2100 onward. The on-average positive emissions under stabilized global temperatures are the result of a decreasing transient climate response to cumulative CO 2 -fe emissions over time under stabilized global warming. This evolution is consistent with a slightly negative zero emissions commitment – initially assumed to be zero – and leads to an increase in the post-2025 CO 2 -fe emission budget by a factor of 2.2 (−0.8 to 6.9) by 2150 for the 1.5 °C warming level and a factor of 1.4 (0.9 to 2.4) for the 2.0 °C warming level compared to its first estimate in 2025. The median CO 2 -only carbon budget by 2150, relative to 2020, is 800 GtCO 2 for the 1.5 °C warming level and 2250 GtCO 2 for the 2.0 °C warming level. These median values exceed the median IPCC AR6 estimates by 60 % for the 1.5 °C warming level and 67 % for 2.0 °C. Some of the differences may be explained by the choice of the mitigation scenario for non-CO 2 radiative agents. Our simulations highlight shifts in carbon uptake dynamics under stabilized temperature, such as a cessation of the carbon sinks in the North Atlantic and in tropical forests. On the other hand, the Southern Ocean remains a carbon sink centuries after temperatures stabilize. Overall, this new type of warming-level-based emission-driven simulation offers a more coherent assessment across climate models and opens up a wide range of possibilities for studying both the carbon cycle and climate impacts, such as extreme events, under climate stabilization.

Adaptive Emission Reduction Approach↗

NASA NTRS2021

The Climate Response to Emissions Reductions due to COVID-19: Initial Results from CovidMIP

Many nations responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by restricting travel and other activities during 2020, resulting in temporarily reduced emissions of CO2, other greenhouse gases and ozone and aerosol precursors. We present the initial results from a coordinated Intercomparison, CovidMIP, of Earth system model simulations which assess the impact on climate of these emissions reductions. Twelve models performed multiple initial-condition ensembles to produce over 300 simulations spanning both initial condition and model structural uncertainty. We find model consensus on reduced aerosol amounts (particularly over southern and eastern Asia) and associated increases in surface shortwave radiation levels. However, any impact on near-surface temperature or rainfall during 2020-2024 is extremely small and is not detectable in this initial analysis. Regional analyses on a finer scale, and closer attention to extremes (especially linked to changes in atmospheric composition and air quality) are required to test the impact of COVID- 19-related emission reductions on near-term climate.

Chris D. Jones↗

NASA NTRS2021

Climate model projections from the Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) of CMIP6

The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) defines and coordinates the main set of future climate projections, based on concentration-driven simulations, within the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6). This paper presents a range of its outcomes by synthesizing results from the participating global coupled Earth system models. We limit our scope to the analysis of strictly geophysical outcomes: mainly global averages and spatial patterns of change for surface air temperature and precipitation. We also compare CMIP6 projections to CMIP5 results, especially for those scenarios that were designed to provide continuity across the CMIP phases, at the same time highlighting important differences in forcing composition, as well as in results. The range of future temperature and precipitation changes by the end of the century (2081–2100) encompassing the Tier 1 experiments based on the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) scenarios (SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5) and SSP1-1.9 spans a larger range of outcomes compared to CMIP5, due to higher warming (by close to 1.5 °C) reached at the upper end of the 5 %–95 % envelope of the highest scenario (SSP5-8.5). This is due to both the wider range of radiative forcing that the new scenarios cover and the higher climate sensitivities in some of the new models compared to their CMIP5 predecessors. Spatial patterns of change for temperature and precipitation averaged over models and scenarios have familiar features, and an analysis of their variations confirms model structural differences to be the dominant source of uncertainty. Models also differ with respect to the size and evolution of internal variability as measured by individual models' initial condition ensemble spreads, according to a set of initial condition ensemble simulations available under SSP3-7.0. These experiments suggest a tendency for internal variability to decrease along the course of the century in this scenario, a result that will benefit from further analysis over a larger set of models. Benefits of mitigation, all else being equal in terms of societal drivers, appear clearly when comparing scenarios developed under the same SSP but to which different degrees of mitigation have been applied. It is also found that a mild overshoot in temperature of a few decades around mid-century, as represented in SSP5-3.4OS, does not affect the end outcome of temperature and precipitation changes by 2100, which return to the same levels as those reached by the gradually increasing SSP4-3.4 (not erasing the possibility, however, that other aspects of the system may not be as easily reversible). Central estimates of the time at which the ensemble means of the different scenarios reach a given warming level might be biased by the inclusion of models that have shown faster warming in the historical period than the observed. Those estimates show all scenarios reaching 1.5 °C of warming compared to the 1850–1900 baseline in the second half of the current decade, with the time span between slow and fast warming covering between 20 and 27 years from present. The warming level of 2 °C of warming is reached as early as 2039 by the ensemble mean under SSP5-8.5 but as late as the mid-2060s under SSP1-2.6. The highest warming level considered (5 °C) is reached by the ensemble mean only under SSP5-8.5 and not until the mid-2090s.d-2090s.

Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMI↗

NASA NTRS2020

Effective radiative forcing and adjustments in CMIP6 models

The effective radiative forcing, which includes the instantaneous forcing plus adjustments from the atmosphere and surface, has emerged as the key metric of evaluating human and natural influence on the climate. We evaluate effective radiative forcing and adjustments in 17 contemporary climate models that are participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) and have contributed to the Radiative Forcing Model Intercomparison Project (RFMIP). Present-day (2014) global-mean anthropogenic forcing relative to pre-industrial (1850) levels from climate models stands at 2.00 (±0.23) W/sq. m, comprised of 1.81 (±0.09) W/sq. m from CO2, 1.08 (± 0.21) W/sq. m from other well-mixed greenhouse gases, −1.01 (± 0.23) W/sq. m from aerosols and −0.09 (±0.13) W/sq. m from land use change. Quoted uncertainties are 1 standard deviation across model best estimates, and 90 % confidence in the reported forcings, due to internal variability, is typically within 0.1 W/sq. m. The majority of the remaining 0.21 W/sq. m is likely to be from ozone. In most cases, the largest contributors to the spread in effective radiative forcing (ERF) is from the instantaneous radiative forcing (IRF) and from cloud responses, particularly aerosol–cloud interactions to aerosol forcing. As determined in previous studies, cancellation of tropospheric and surface adjustments means that the stratospherically adjusted radiative forcing is approximately equal to ERF for greenhouse gas forcing but not for aerosols, and consequentially, not for the anthropogenic total. The spread of aerosol forcing ranges from −0.63 to −1.37 W/sq. m, exhibiting a less negative mean and narrower range compared to 10 CMIP5 models. The spread in 4×CO2 forcing has also narrowed in CMIP6 compared to 13 CMIP5 models. Aerosol forcing is uncorrelated with climate sensitivity. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that the increasing spread in climate sensitivity in CMIP6 models, particularly related to high-sensitivity models, is a consequence of a stronger negative present-day aerosol forcing and little evidence that modelling groups are systematically tuning climate sensitivity or aerosol forcing to recreate observed historical warming.

effective radiative forcing↗