Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items for

  • Author or Editor: Peter Uhe x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search
Andrew D. King, Reto Knutti, Peter Uhe, Daniel M. Mitchell, Sophie C. Lewis, Julie M. Arblaster, and Nicolas Freychet


Given the Paris Agreement it is imperative there is greater understanding of the consequences of limiting global warming to the target 1.5° and 2°C levels above preindustrial conditions. It is challenging to quantify changes across a small increment of global warming, so a pattern-scaling approach may be considered. Here we investigate the validity of such an approach by comprehensively examining how well local temperatures and warming trends in a 1.5°C world predict local temperatures at global warming of 2°C. Ensembles of transient coupled climate simulations from multiple models under different scenarios were compared and individual model responses were analyzed. For many places, the multimodel forced response of seasonal-average temperatures is approximately linear with global warming between 1.5° and 2°C. However, individual model results vary and large contributions from nonlinear changes in unforced variability or the forced response cannot be ruled out. In some regions, such as East Asia, models simulate substantially greater warming than is expected from linear scaling. Examining East Asia during boreal summer, we find that increased warming in the simulated 2°C world relative to scaling up from 1.5°C is related to reduced anthropogenic aerosol emissions. Our findings suggest that, where forcings other than those due to greenhouse gas emissions change, the warming experienced in a 1.5°C world is a poor predictor for local climate at 2°C of global warming. In addition to the analysis of the linearity in the forced climate change signal, we find that natural variability remains a substantial contribution to uncertainty at these low-warming targets.

Full access
Michael R. Grose, Mitchell Black, James S. Risbey, Peter Uhe, Pandora K. Hope, Karsten Haustein, and Dann Mitchell
Open access
Peter Uhe, Dann Mitchell, Paul D. Bates, Myles R. Allen, Richard A. Betts, Chris Huntingford, Andrew D. King, Benjamin M. Sanderson, and Hideo Shiogama


Precipitation events cause disruption around the world and will be altered by climate change. However, different climate modeling approaches can result in different future precipitation projections. The corresponding “method uncertainty” is rarely explicitly calculated in climate impact studies and major reports but can substantially change estimated precipitation changes. A comparison across five commonly used modeling activities shows that, for changes in mean precipitation, less than half of the regions analyzed had significant changes between the present climate and 1.5°C global warming for the majority of modeling activities. This increases to just over half of the regions for changes between present climate and 2°C global warming. There is much higher confidence in changes in maximum 1-day precipitation than in mean precipitation, indicating the robust influence of thermodynamics in the climate change effect on extremes. We also find that none of the modeling activities captures the full range of estimates from the other methods in all regions. Our results serve as an uncertainty map to help interpret which regions require a multimethod approach. Our analysis highlights the risk of overreliance on any single modeling activity and the need for confidence statements in major synthesis reports to reflect this method uncertainty. Considering multiple sources of climate projections should reduce the risks of policymakers being unprepared for impacts of warmer climates relative to using single-method projections to make decisions.

Full access
Friederike E. L. Otto, Karsten Haustein, Peter Uhe, Caio A. S. Coelho, Jose Antonio Aravequia, Waldenio Almeida, Andrew King, Erin Coughlan de Perez, Yoshihide Wada, Geert Jan van Oldenborgh, Rein Haarsma, Maarten van Aalst, and Heidi Cullen
Full access