Erratum to Regional hydrological cycle changes in response to an ambitious mitigation scenario

International audienceUnfortunately, in the aforementioned contribution, Fig. 5 (Monthly multi-model (mean and range) precipitation change (mm/day) for 2080–2099 minus 1980–1999 averaged over the 26 regions, E1 (black) and A1B (grey) scenarios) contains an error. For two of the contributing models (ECHAM5-C and INGVCE) the evapotranspiration data had the wrong sign, leading to an opposing annual cycle in these models compared to the other models. The corrected Fig. 5 is presented here. It can be seen that the annual cycles of the climate change signals in evapotranspiration in the two scenarios agree much better between the different models than previously estimated. The general picture clearly underscores the findings from the preceding Figs. 3 and 4 that the climate change signals are much reduced under the E1 scenario compared to the A1B scenario. This is true for the ensemble properties (means, percentiles, ..

Erratum to: Climate change under aggressive mitigation: The ENSEMBLES multi-model experiment (Clim Dyn, (2011), 10.1007/s00382-011-1005-5)

International audienceUnfortunately, in the aforementioned contribution, Table 2 of this paper erroneously reported two separate rows of data for the BCM-C model for both the A1B and E1 scenarios, only one of which was correct in each case. The lower of the two rows of data for each scenario (i.e. those corresponding to T changes of 2.44 K for A1B and 1.18 K for E1) contained correct data. The upper rows of data reported (i.e. those corresponding to T changes of 2.65 K for A1B and 1.38 for E1) contained some errors and should not have appeared. A corrected version of Table 2 appears below