Climate-carbon cycle uncertainties and the Paris Agreement

The Paris Agreement aims to address the gap between existing climate policies and policies consistent with ‘holding the increase in global average temperature to well below 2C’. The feasibility of meeting the target has been questioned both in terms of the possible requirement for negative emissions, and ongoing debate on the sensitivity of the climate-carbon cycle system. Using a sequence of ensembles of a fully dynamic three-dimensional climate-carbon cycle model, forced by emissions from an integrated assessment model of regional-level climate policy, economy, and technological transformation, we show that a reasonable interpretation of the Paris Agreement is still technically achievable. Specifically, limiting peak (decadal) warming to less than 1.7°C, or end-century warming to less than 1.54°C, occurs in 50% of our simulations in a policy scenario without net negative emissions or excessive stringency in any policy domain. We evaluate two mitigation scenarios, with 200 GTC and 307 GTC post-2017 emissions, quantifying spatio-temporal variability of warming, precipitation, ocean acidification and marine productivity. Under rapid decarbonisation decadal variability dominates the mean response in critical regions, with significant implications for decision making, demanding impact methodologies that address non-linear spatio-temporal responses. Ignoring carbon-cycle feedback uncertainties (explaining 47% of peak warming uncertainty) becomes unreasonable under strong mitigation conditions.We acknowledge C-EERNG and Cambridge Econometrics for support, and funding from EPSRC (to J.-F.M., fellowship number EP/ K007254/1); the Newton Fund (to J.-F.M., P.S. and J.E.V., EPSRC grant number EP/N002504/1 and ESRC grant number ES/N013174/1), NERC (to N.R.E., P.H. and H.P., grant number NE/P015093/1), CONICYT (to P.S.), the Philomathia Foundation (to J.E.V.) and Horizon 2020 (to H.E.P. and J.-F.M., the Sim4Nexus project)

Prevalence, overlap, and predictors of functional somatic syndromes in a student sample

Background Although at least 20 different functional somatic syndromes (FSS) have been described, and overlaps between individual FSS and a high comorbidity with depressive and anxiety disorders have been suggested, barely any studies have examined a broad array of FSS within one study. Moreover, information on psychosocial risk factors gained from prospective studies is scarce. Purpose This study aimed to determine prevalence rates, overlap, and comorbidity in 17 FSS and to estimate the influence of psychosocial risk factors on the development of FSS. Methods In total, 3,054 students (73.4 % women) completed a Web survey containing questions on FSS, comorbidity, and psychosocial risk factors at baseline. Of these, 429 completed the survey again 6 months later. Results The prevalence of any FSS was 9.5 %, with 227 (78.6 %) subjects fulfilling criteria for only one FSS, 49 (17.0 %) reporting two, and 12 (4.2 %) reporting three syndromes simultaneously. Only one person suffered from four FSS at the same time. “Major depressive syndrome” (15.6 %), “panic syndrome” (4.8 %), and “other anxiety syndromes” (19.7 %) frequently occurred among persons with FSS. Significant predictors of FSS were number of somatic symptoms (OR = 1.15), impairment in daily activities (OR = 3.17), depression (OR = 1.13), and somatization (OR = 1.15). Conclusions Our findings indicate that FSS are common in nonclinical samples. The frequency of overlap and comorbidity in FSS was lower compared with previous research. A consideration of psychosocial risk factors is warranted in the prevention and management of FSS