Regional Impacts Poorly Constrained by Climate Sensitivity

Abstract Climate risk assessments must account for a wide range of possible futures, so scientists often use simulations made by numerous global climate models to explore potential changes in regional climates and their impacts. Some of the latest‐generation models have high effective climate sensitivities (EffCS). It has been argued these “hot” models are unrealistic and should therefore be excluded from analyses of climate change impacts. Whether this would improve regional impact assessments, or make them worse, is unclear. Here we show there is no universal relationship between EffCS and projected changes in a number of important climatic drivers of regional impacts. Analyzing heavy rainfall events, meteorological drought, and fire weather in different regions, we find little or no significant correlation with EffCS for most regions and climatic drivers. Even when a correlation is found, internal variability and processes unrelated to EffCS have similar effects on projected changes in the climatic drivers as EffCS. Model selection based solely on EffCS appears to be unjustified and may neglect realistic impacts, leading to an underestimation of climate risks.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Earth s Future
Published
2024-12-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1029/2024ef004901
Citations
14
Primary Topic
Climate variability and models
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.96

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Regional Impacts Poorly Constrained by Climate Sensitivity

Ranjini Swaminathan, Chris Jones, Richard Betts, Jeremy Walton et al.
14 citations
Earth s Future
Climate variability and models
3.96
article

Regional Impacts Poorly Constrained by Climate Sensitivity

Ranjini Swaminathan, Chris Jones, Richard Betts, Jeremy Walton, Andrew G. Turner, Chantelle Burton, Christopher Reyer, Matthias Mengel, Klaus Zimmermann, Jacob Schewe, Colin Jones, Katja Weigel
article en
14 citations

Abstract

Abstract Climate risk assessments must account for a wide range of possible futures, so scientists often use simulations made by numerous global climate models to explore potential changes in regional climates and their impacts. Some of the latest‐generation models have high effective climate sensitivities (EffCS). It has been argued these “hot” models are unrealistic and should therefore be excluded from analyses of climate change impacts. Whether this would improve regional impact assessments, or make them worse, is unclear. Here we show there is no universal relationship between EffCS and projected changes in a number of important climatic drivers of regional impacts. Analyzing heavy rainfall events, meteorological drought, and fire weather in different regions, we find little or no significant correlation with EffCS for most regions and climatic drivers. Even when a correlation is found, internal variability and processes unrelated to EffCS have similar effects on projected changes in the climatic drivers as EffCS. Model selection based solely on EffCS appears to be unjustified and may neglect realistic impacts, leading to an underestimation of climate risks.

Earth s FutureVol. 12(12)
Met Office (GB), Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SE), University of Leeds (GB), University of Bremen (DE), University of Exeter (GB), Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e. V. (DLR) (DE), Leibniz Association (DE), University of Bristol (GB), National Centre for Atmospheric Science (GB), National Centre for Earth Observation (GB), Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (DE), University of Reading (GB)
UK Research and Innovation, Sight Research UK, Met Office, Natural Environment Research Council
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 6%
Climate variability and models
3.96
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.