There has recently been interest in understanding the differences between specific levels of global warming, especially the Paris Agreement limits of 1.5 °C and 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. However, different model experiments1,2,3 have been used in these analyses under varying rates of increase in global-average temperature. Here, we use climate model simulations to show that, for a given global temperature, most land is significantly warmer in a rapidly warming (transient) case than in a quasi-equilibrium climate. This results in more than 90% of the world’s population experiencing a warmer local climate under transient global warming than equilibrium global warming. Relative to differences between the 1.5 °C and 2 °C global warming limits, the differences between transient and quasi-equilibrium states are substantial. For many land regions, the probability of very warm seasons is at least two times greater in a transient climate than in a quasi-equilibrium equivalent. In developing regions, there are sizable differences between transient and quasi-equilibrium climates that underline the importance of explicitly framing projections. Our study highlights the need to better understand differences between future climates under rapid warming and quasi-equilibrium conditions for the development of climate change adaptation policies. Yet, current multi-model experiments1,4 are not designed for this purpose.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Open Access articles citing this article.
Climatic Change Open Access 02 May 2022
Climate Dynamics Open Access 27 May 2020
Subscribe to Nature+
Get immediate online access to the entire Nature family of 50+ journals
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $8.25 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
All model data used in this study are available in several public repositories, for example at https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/projects/esgf-llnl/. The model data used here were stored on the Australian node of the Earth System Grid (the National Computational Infrastructure). Population and GDP data were downloaded from the Global Carbon Project (http://www.cger.nies.go.jp/gcp/population-and-gdp.html). The figures used in this analysis are available at https://zenodo.org/record/3471030#.XaVve-gzbIU (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3471029). Raw figure data are provided at https://melbourne.figshare.com/articles/Source_figures_for_publication_on_transient_and_equilibrium_climate_change/10250954. Assistance using the figures is available from the corresponding authors.
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J. & Meehl, G. A. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 485–498 (2012).
Mitchell, D. et al. Half a degree additional warming, prognosis and projected impacts (HAPPI): background and experimental design. Geosci. Model Dev. 10, 571–583 (2017).
Sanderson, B. M. et al. Community climate simulations to assess avoided impacts in 1.5◦C and 2◦C futures. Earth Syst. Dyn. Discuss. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2017-42 (2017).
Eyring, V. et al. Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 1937–1958 (2016).
IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (WMO, 2018).
James, R., Washington, R., Schleussner, C.-F., Rogelj, J. & Conway, D. Characterizing half-a-degree difference: a review of methods for identifying regional climate responses to global warming targets. WIREs Clim. Change 8, e457 (2017).
Schleussner, C.-F. et al. Differential climate impacts for policy-relevant limits to global warming: the case of 1.5 °C and 2 °C. Earth Syst. Dynam. 7, 327–351 (2016).
King, A. D., Karoly, D. J. & Henley, B. J. Australian climate extremes at 1.5 °C and 2 C of global warming. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 412–416 (2017).
Lehner, F. et al. Projected drought risk in 1.5 °C and 2 °C warmer climates. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 7419–7428 (2017).
Tebaldi, C. & Knutti, R. Evaluating the accuracy of climate change pattern emulation for low warming targets. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 055006 (2018).
King, A. D. et al. On the linearity of local and regional temperature changes from 1.5 °C to 2 °C of global warming. J. Clim. 31, 7495–7514 (2018).
Rogelj, J., Schleussner, C.-F. & Hare, W. Getting it right matters: temperature goal interpretations in geoscience research. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 10662–10665 (2017).
Mengel, M., Nauels, A., Rogelj, J. & Schleussner, C.-F. Committed sea-level rise under the Paris Agreement and the legacy of delayed mitigation action. Nat. Commun. 9, 601 (2018).
Manabe, S., Stouffer, R. J., Spelman, M. J. & Bryan, K. Transient Responses of a coupled ocean–atmosphere model to gradual changes of atmospheric CO2. Part I. Annual Mean Response. J. Clim. 4, 785–818 (1991).
Blackport, R. & Kushner, P. J. The transient and equilibrium climate response to rapid summertime sea ice loss in CCSM4. J. Clim. 29, 401–417 (2016).
Boulange, J., Hanasaki, N., Veldkamp, T., Schewe, J. & Shiogama, H. Magnitude and robustness associated with the climate change impacts on global hydrological variables for transient and stabilized climate states. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 064017 (2018).
Herger, N., Sanderson, B. M. & Knutti, R. Improved pattern scaling approaches for the use in climate impact studies. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 3486–3494 (2015).
Held, I. M. et al. Probing the fast and slow components of global warming by returning abruptly to preindustrial forcing. J. Clim. 23, 2418–2427 (2010).
Long, S.-M., Xie, S.-P., Zheng, X.-T. & Liu, Q. Fast and slow responses to global warming: sea surface temperature and precipitation patterns. J. Clim. 27, 285–299 (2014).
Murakami, D. & Yamagata, Y. Estimation of gridded population and GDP scenarios with spatially explicit statistical downscaling. Sustainability 11, 2106 (2019).
Frölicher, T. L. et al. Dominance of the Southern Ocean in anthropogenic carbon and heat uptake in CMIP5 models. J. Clim. 28, 862–886 (2015).
Fischer, E. M. & Knutti, R. Anthropogenic contribution to global occurrence of heavy-precipitation and high-temperature extremes. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 560–564 (2015).
King, A. D. & Karoly, D. J. Climate extremes in Europe at 1.5 and 2 degrees of global warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 114031 (2017).
Dosio, A., Mentaschi, L., Fischer, E. M. & Wyser, K. Extreme heat waves under 1.5 °C and 2 °C global warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 054006 (2018).
Grise, K. M. & Polvani, L. M. Southern Hemisphere cloud–dynamics biases in CMIP5 models and their implications for climate projections. J. Clim. 27, 6074–6092 (2014).
Nordhaus, W. D. To slow or not to slow: the economics of the greenhouse effect. Econ. J. 101, 920–937 (1991).
Roson, R. & Sartori, M. Estimation of climate change damage functions for 140 regions in the GTAP9 database. J. Glob. Econ. Anal. 1, 78–115 (2016).
Mertz, O., Halsnæs, K., Olesen, J. E. & Rasmussen, K. Adaptation to climate change in developing countries. Environ. Manag. 43, 743–752 (2009).
Henley, B. J. & King, A. D. Trajectories toward the 1.5 °C Paris target: modulation by the interdecadal Pacific oscillation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 4256–4262 (2017).
Smith, D. M. et al. Predicted chance that global warming will temporarily exceed 1.5 °C. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 11895–11903 (2018).
King, A. D. & Harrington, L. J. The inequality of climate change from 1.5 to 2 °C of global warming. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 5030–5033 (2018).
Hawkins, E. et al. Estimating changes in global temperature since the pre-industrial period. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 98, 1841–1856 (2017).
Schurer, A. P., Mann, M. E., Hawkins, E., Tett, S. F. B. & Hegerl, G. C. Importance of the pre-industrial baseline for likelihood of exceeding Paris goals. Nat. Clim. Chang. 7, 563–567 (2017).
Sen Gupta, A., Jourdain, N. C., Brown, J. N. & Monselesan, D. Climate drift in the CMIP5 models. J. Clim. 26, 8597–8615 (2013).
Nicholls, R. J. et al. Stabilization of global temperature at 1.5 °C and 2.0 °C: implications for coastal areas. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 376, 20160448 (2018).
Lamarque, J.-F. et al. Global and regional evolution of short-lived radiatively-active gases and aerosols in the Representative Concentration Pathways. Climatic Change 109, 191–212 (2011).
Kharin, V. V. et al. Risks from climate extremes change differently from 1.5 °C to 2.0 °C depending on rarity. Earth’s Future 6, 704–715 (2018).
Paciorek, C. J., Stone, D. A. & Wehner, M. F. Quantifying statistical uncertainty in the attribution of human influence on severe weather. Weather Clim. Extrem. 20, 69–80 (2018).
Giorgi, F. & Francisco, R. Uncertainties in regional climate change prediction: a regional analysis of ensemble simulations with the HADCM2 coupled AOGCM. Clim. Dynam. 16, 169–182 (2000).
Leimbach, M., Kriegler, E., Roming, N. & Schwanitz, J. Future growth patterns of world regions—A GDP scenario approach. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 215–225 (2017).
We thank R. Knutti for discussions. We acknowledge the support of staff at the NCI facility in Australia and staff at the World Climate Research Programme’s Working Group on Coupled Modelling, which is responsible for CMIP, and we thank the climate modelling groups for producing and making available their model output. For CMIP, the US Department of Energy’s Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison provides coordinating support and led the development of software infrastructure in partnership with the Global Organization for Earth System Science Portals. A.D.K. is funded through an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DE180100638); T.P.L. through the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes (CE170100023); and B.J.H. through an Australian Research Council Linkage project (LP150100062).
Peer review information Nature Climate Change thanks Daithi Stone and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
King, A.D., Lane, T.P., Henley, B.J. et al. Global and regional impacts differ between transient and equilibrium warmer worlds. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10, 42–47 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0658-7
This article is cited by
Nature Climate Change (2022)
Climatic Change (2022)
Nature Climate Change (2021)
Nature Climate Change (2021)
Climate Dynamics (2020)