Radiative forcing in the 21st century due to ozone changes in the troposphere and the lower stratosphere

Radiative forcing due to changes in ozone is expected for the 21st century. An assessment on changes in the tropospheric oxidative state through a model intercomparison ("OxComp'') was conducted for the IPCC Third Assessment Report (IPCC-TAR). OxComp estimated tropospheric changes in ozone and other oxidants during the 21st century based on the "SRES'' A2p emission scenario. In this study we analyze the results of 11 chemical transport models (CTMs) that participated in OxComp and use them as input for detailed radiative forcing calculations. We also address future ozone recovery in the lower stratosphere and its impact on radiative forcing by applying two models that calculate both tropospheric and stratospheric changes. The results of OxComp suggest an increase in global-mean tropospheric ozone between 11.4 and 20.5 DU for the 21st century, representing the model uncertainty range for the A2p scenario. As the A2p scenario constitutes the worst case proposed in IPCC-TAR we consider these results as an upper estimate. The radiative transfer model yields a positive radiative forcing ranging from 0.40 to 0.78 W m(-2) on a global and annual average. The lower stratosphere contributes an additional 7.5-9.3 DU to the calculated increase in the ozone column, increasing radiative forcing by 0.15-0.17 W m(-2). The modeled radiative forcing depends on the height distribution and geographical pattern of predicted ozone changes and shows a distinct seasonal variation. Despite the large variations between the 11 participating models, the calculated range for normalized radiative forcing is within 25%, indicating the ability to scale radiative forcing to global-mean ozone column change

Half a degree additional warming, prognosis and projected impacts (HAPPI): Background and experimental design

Abstract. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has accepted the invitation from the UNFCCC to provide a special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels and on related global greenhouse-gas emission pathways. Many current experiments in, for example, the Coupled Model Inter-comparison Project (CMIP), are not specifically designed for informing this report. Here, we document the design of the half a degree additional warming, projections, prognosis and impacts (HAPPI) experiment. HAPPI provides a framework for the generation of climate data describing how the climate, and in particular extreme weather, might differ from the present day in worlds that are 1.5 and 2.0 °C warmer than pre-industrial conditions. Output from participating climate models includes variables frequently used by a range of impact models. The key challenge is to separate the impact of an additional approximately half degree of warming from uncertainty in climate model responses and internal climate variability that dominate CMIP-style experiments under low-emission scenarios.Large ensembles of simulations (&gt;  50 members) of atmosphere-only models for three time slices are proposed, each a decade in length: the first being the most recent observed 10-year period (2006–2015), the second two being estimates of a similar decade but under 1.5 and 2 °C conditions a century in the future. We use the representative concentration pathway 2.6 (RCP2.6) to provide the model boundary conditions for the 1.5 °C scenario, and a weighted combination of RCP2.6 and RCP4.5 for the 2 °C scenario. </jats:p

Carbon dioxide and climate impulse response functions for the computation of greenhouse gas metrics: a multi-model analysis

The responses of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other climate variables to an emission pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere are often used to compute the Global Warming Potential (GWP) and Global Temperature change Potential (GTP), to characterize the response timescales of Earth System models, and to build reduced-form models. In this carbon cycle-climate model intercomparison project, which spans the full model hierarchy, we quantify responses to emission pulses of different magnitudes injected under different conditions. The CO2 response shows the known rapid decline in the first few decades followed by a millennium-scale tail. For a 100 Gt-C emission pulse added to a constant CO2 concentration of 389 ppm, 25 ± 9% is still found in the atmosphere after 1000 yr; the ocean has absorbed 59 ± 12% and the land the remainder (16 ± 14%). The response in global mean surface air temperature is an increase by 0.20 ± 0.12 °C within the first twenty years; thereafter and until year 1000, temperature decreases only slightly, whereas ocean heat content and sea level continue to rise. Our best estimate for the Absolute Global Warming Potential, given by the time-integrated response in CO2 at year 100 multiplied by its radiative efficiency, is 92.5 × 10−15 yr W m−2 per kg-CO2. This value very likely (5 to 95% confidence) lies within the range of (68 to 117) × 10−15 yr W m−2 per kg-CO2. Estimates for time-integrated response in CO2 published in the IPCC First, Second, and Fourth Assessment and our multi-model best estimate all agree within 15% during the first 100 yr. The integrated CO2 response, normalized by the pulse size, is lower for pre-industrial conditions, compared to present day, and lower for smaller pulses than larger pulses. In contrast, the response in temperature, sea level and ocean heat content is less sensitive to these choices. Although, choices in pulse size, background concentration, and model lead to uncertainties, the most important and subjective choice to determine AGWP of CO2 and GWP is the time horizon

Science for loss and damage. Findings and propositions

The debate on “Loss and Damage” (L&D) has gained traction over the last few years. Supported by growing scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change amplifying frequency, intensity and duration of climate-related hazards as well as observed increases in climate-related impacts and risks in many regions, the “Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage” was established in 2013 and further supported through the Paris Agreement in 2015. Despite advances, the debate currently is broad, diffuse and somewhat confusing, while concepts, methods and tools, as well as directions for policy remain vague and often contested. This book, a joint effort of the Loss and Damage Network—a partnership effort by scientists and practitioners from around the globe—provides evidence-based insight into the L&D discourse by highlighting state-of-the-art research conducted across multiple disciplines, by showcasing applications in practice and by providing insight into policy contexts and salient policy options. This introductory chapter summarises key findings of the twenty-two book chapters in terms of five propositions. These propositions, each building on relevant findings linked to forward-looking suggestions for research, policy and practice, reflect the architecture of the book, whose sections proceed from setting the stage to critical issues, followed by a section on methods and tools, to chapters that provide geographic perspectives, and finally to a section that identifies potential policy options. The propositions comprise (1) Risk management can be an effective entry point for aligning perspectives and debates, if framed comprehensively, coupled with climate justice considerations and linked to established risk management and adaptation practice; (2) Attribution science is advancing rapidly and fundamental to informing actions to minimise, avert, and address losses and damages; (3) Climate change research, in addition to identifying physical/hard limits to adaptation, needs to more systematically examine soft limits to adaptation, for which we find some evidence across several geographies globally; (4) Climate risk insurance mechanisms can serve the prevention and cure aspects emphasised in the L&D debate but solidarity and accountability aspects need further attention, for which we find tentative indication in applications around the world; (5) Policy deliberations may need to overcome the perception that L&D constitutes a win-lose negotiation “game” by developing a more inclusive narrative that highlights collective ambition for tackling risks, mutual benefits and the role of transformation

Introduction to “Binary Binds”: Deconstructing Sex and Gender Dichotomies in Archaeological Practice

YesGender archaeology has made significant strides toward deconstructing the hegemony of binary categorizations. Challenging dichotomies such as man/woman, sex/gender, and biology/culture, approaches informed by poststructuralist, feminist, and queer theories have moved beyond essentialist and universalist identity constructs to more nuanced configurations. Despite the theoretical emphasis on context, multiplicity, and fluidity, binary starting points continue to streamline the spectrum of variability that is recognized, often reproducing normative assumptions in the evidence. The contributors to this special issue confront how sex, gender, and sexuality categories condition analytical visibility, aiming to develop approaches that respond to the complexity of theory in archaeological practice. The papers push the ontological and epistemological boundaries of bodies, personhood, and archaeological possibility, challenging a priori assumptions that contain how sex, gender, and sexuality categories are constituted and related to each other. Foregrounding intersectional approaches that engage with ambiguity, variability, and difference, this special issue seeks to “de-contain” categories, assumptions, and practices from “binding” our analytical gaze toward only certain kinds of persons and knowledges, in interpretations of the past and practices in the present

Intercomparison of the capabilities of simplified climate models to project the effects of aviation CO2 on climate

This study evaluates the capabilities of the carbon cycle and energy balance treatments relative to the effect of aviation CO emissions on climate in several existing simplified climate models (SCMs) that are either being used or could be used for evaluating the effects of aviation on climate. Since these models are used in policy-related analyses, it is important that the capabilities of such models represent the state of understanding of the science. We compare the Aviation Environmental Portfolio Management Tool (APMT) Impacts climate model, two models used at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research-Oslo (CICERO-1 and CICERO-2), the Integrated Science Assessment Model (ISAM) model as described in Jain etal. (1994), the simple Linear Climate response model (LinClim) and the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change version 6 (MAGICC6). In this paper we select scenarios to illustrate the behavior of the carbon cycle and energy balance models in these SCMs. This study is not intended to determine the absolute and likely range of the expected climate response in these models but to highlight specific features in model representations of the carbon cycle and energy balance models that need to be carefully considered in studies of aviation effects on climate. These results suggest that carbon cycle models that use linear impulse-response-functions (IRF) in combination with separate equations describing air-sea and air-biosphere exchange of CO can account for the dominant nonlinearities in the climate system that would otherwise not have been captured with an IRF alone, and hence, produce a close representation of more complex carbon cycle models. Moreover, results suggest that an energy balance model with a 2-box ocean sub-model and IRF tuned to reproduce the response of coupled Earth system models produces a close representation of the globally-averaged temperature response of more complex energy balance models

Transport impacts on atmosphere and climate: metrics

The transport sector emits a wide variety of gases and aerosols, with distinctly different characteristics which influence climate directly and indirectly via chemical and physical processes. Tools that allow these emissions to be placed on some kind of common scale in terms of their impact on climate have a number of possible uses such as: in agreements and emission trading schemes; when considering potential trade-offs between changes in emissions resulting from technological or operational developments; and/or for comparing the impact of different environmental impacts of transport activities. Many of the non-CO2 emissions from the transport sector are short-lived substances, not currently covered by the Kyoto Protocol. There are formidable difficulties in developing metrics and these are particularly acute for such short-lived species. One difficulty concerns the choice of an appropriate structure for the metric (which may depend on, for example, the design of any climate policy it is intended to serve) and the associated value judgements on the appropriate time periods to consider; these choices affect the perception of the relative importance of short- and long-lived species. A second difficulty is the quantification of input parameters (due to underlying uncertainty in atmospheric processes). In addition, for some transport-related emissions, the values of metrics (unlike the gases included in the Kyoto Protocol) depend on where and when the emissions are introduced into the atmosphere – both the regional distribution and, for aircraft, the distribution as a function of altitude, are important. In this assessment of such metrics, we present Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) as these have traditionally been used in the implementation of climate policy. We also present Global Temperature Change Potentials (GTPs) as an alternative metric, as this, or a similar metric may be more appropriate for use in some circumstances. We use radiative forcings and lifetimes from the literature to derive GWPs and GTPs for the main transport-related emissions, and discuss the uncertainties in these estimates. We find large variations in metric (GWP and GTP) values for NOx, mainly due to the dependence on location of emissions but also because of inter-model differences and differences in experimental design. For aerosols we give only global-mean values due to an inconsistent picture amongst available studies regarding regional dependence. The uncertainty in the presented metric values reflects the current state of understanding; the ranking of the various components with respect to our confidence in the given metric values is also given. While the focus is mostly on metrics for comparing the climate impact of emissions, many of the issues are equally relevant for stratospheric ozone depletion metrics, which are also discussed