the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Applying global warming levels of emergence to highlight the increasing population exposure to temperature and precipitation extremes
Clemens Schwingshackl
Andrea Böhnisch
Magdalena Mittermeier
Marit Sandstad
Raul R. Wood
Abstract. Global temperatures exceeded pre-industrial conditions by 1.1 °C during the decade 2011–2020 and further warming is projected by climate models. An increasing number of climate variables exhibit significant changes compared to the past decades, even beyond the noise of internal climate variability. To determine the year when climate change signals can be detected, the concept of time of emergence (ToE) is well established. Additionally, climate projections are communicated increasingly frequently through global warming levels (GWLs) rather than time horizons. Yet, ToE and GWL have barely been combined so far. Here, we apply five Single Model Initial-condition Large Ensembles (SMILEs) to derive global warming levels of emergence (GWLoE) of four temperature and precipitation indices. We show that the concept of GWLoE is particularly promising to constrain temperature projections and proves a viable tool to communicate scientific results. We find that >75 % of the global population is exposed to emerged signals for nighttime temperatures at a GWL of 1.5 °C, increasing to >95 % at 2.0 °C. Daily maximum temperature follows a similar, yet less pronounced path. Emerged signals for mean and extreme precipitation start appearing at current GWLs and increase steadily with further warming (~20 % population exposed at 2.0 °C). Related probability ratios for the occurrence of extremes indicate a strong increase where temperature extremes reach widespread saturation (extremes occur every year) particularly in (sub)tropical regions below 2.5 °C warming. These results indicate that current times are a critical period for climate action as every fraction of additional warming substantially increases the adverse effects on human wellbeing.
David Gampe et al.
Status: open (until 08 Dec 2023)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2126', Anonymous Referee #1, 12 Nov 2023
reply
Review of "Applying global warming levels of emergence to highlight the increasing population exposure to temperature and precipitation extremes"
This study uses large single model ensembles to explore projections of climate extreme indices at global warming levels using an emergence-based methodology. The authors not only look at emergence of climate extremes, but also exposure to emergence and examine effects of methodological choices (order of operations).
This is a robust analysis and a well-presented study. I'm confident that it will make a useful contribution to the literature. I do have three major comments for the authors to consider though:
Major comments:
- A benefit of SMILEs is that they can be used to explore sampling as well as structural uncertainties. I think with Figure 3 in particular it would be useful to show a range of area of emergence as a function of GWL for each SMILE. This could be derived from bootstrapping the simulations and computing a confidence interval based on the resampled ensembles.
- Some SSP population projections aren't particularly compatible with some emissions pathways. As such, SSP1 population projection is unlikely to be compatible with having a high GWL. I would suggest that SSP5 populations are used in Figure 4 and that uncertainty estimation through bootstrapping (as discussed in the previous comment) is shown instead.
- The results shown are applicable to the climate under a very high rate of global warming, but it should be noted that they aren't applicable to slower warming or stabilised climate states (e.g. King et al. 2020 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0658-7) and Mitchell et al. 2016 (https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3055)).
Minor comments:
Figure 1: Could you check that the lines are plotted correctly. For some models the range appears considerably smaller than due to interannual variability alone in the observations. In Maher et al. 2019 (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019MS001639), the MPI range looks larger than is plotted here.
L190: There's a strange space that should be removed.
L200: "less" should be "fewer"
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2126-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', David Gampe, 16 Nov 2023
reply
Thank you for the valuable inputs and comments and for your time and effort to critically review our manuscript. We will prepare a revised version once the discussion period is over. Yet, we want to stimulate the discussion by replying to your points already at this stage.
- Bootstrapping: We highly appreciate your suggestion to use bootstrapping to derive an uncertainty estimation of sampling the GWLs. We will consider this and will update Figure 3 (and related Figs in the SI) accordingly. We will apply bootstrapping to sample the n members of each SMILE from the available ensemble members. While we aim for a large number of samples the final decision on how many samples we will draw is yet to be determined. We will then update the Figures plotting the median/mean and the 5-95 percentile (or inter-quartile) range to indicate uncertainties.
- Compatibility of SSPs: we agree that not all SSPs are compatible with the selected SSP585 scenario. Nevertheless, we argue that one advantage of the application of GWLs is constraining scenario uncertainties. While the selection of the appropriate SSP is certainly a prerequisite we decided to include different spatially explicit estimates of future population distribution here to indicate the related uncertainties. We considered this a more appropriate assessment of uncertainties for these figures. However, we will explore also including the bootstrapped GWLs as suggested.
- Literature suggestions: Thank you for highlighting the aspect of slower warming and/or stabilized climate. We will incorporate the suggested publications and expand the related sections in the discussion.
- GWL range Figure 1: Thank you for critically reviewing this Figure. The GWLs for each ensemble were calculated using a 20-year moving window. This ultimately leads to a smoothening for individual years thus reducing the overall range considerably. As we then apply the GWLs based on the 20-yr window for further calculation of our results we decided to only show these in Fig.1. Nevertheless, we will mention this explicitly in the caption to improve this aspect.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2126-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', David Gampe, 16 Nov 2023
reply
David Gampe et al.
David Gampe et al.
Viewed
Since the preprint corresponding to this journal article was posted outside of Copernicus Publications, the preprint-related metrics are limited to HTML views.
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
102 | 0 | 0 | 102 | 0 | 0 |
- HTML: 102
- PDF: 0
- XML: 0
- Total: 102
- BibTeX: 0
- EndNote: 0
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Since the preprint corresponding to this journal article was posted outside of Copernicus Publications, the preprint-related metrics are limited to HTML views.
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1