Many recently updated climate models show greater future warming than previously. Separate lines of evidence suggest that their warming rates may be unrealistically high, but the risk of such eventualities only emphasizes the need for rapid and deep reductions in emissions.
Your institute does not have access to this article
Open Access articles citing this article.
Nature Communications Open Access 20 October 2021
Scientific Reports Open Access 12 July 2021
npj Climate and Atmospheric Science Open Access 06 April 2021
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.
Data for Fig. 2, and additional figures comparing SSPs and RCPs, are available from https://github.com/Priestley-Centre/CMIP5_CMIP6_FaIR_gsat_data.
Collins, M. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 1029–1136 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
Knutti, R., Rugenstein, M. A. A. & Hegerl, G. C. Nat. Geosci. 10, 727–736 (2017).
Why results from the next generation of climate models matter. https://go.nature.com/2rU3E65
Bodas‐Salcedo, A. et al. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 11, 1735–1758 (2019).
Sellar, A. A. et al. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001739 (2019).
Meinshausen, M., Raper, S. C. B. & Wigley, T. M. L. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11, 1417–1456 (2011).
Smith, C. J. et al. Geosci. Model Dev. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2273-2018 (2018).
Grose, M. R., Gregory, J., Colman, R. & Andrews, T. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 1559–1566 (2018).
Sutton, R. T. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 100, 1637–1642 (2019).
Swart, N. C. et al. Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2019-177 (2019).
Rogelj, J., Forster, P. M., Kriegler, E., Smith, C. J. & Séférian, R. Nature 571, 335–342 (2019).
Herger, N. et al. Earth Syst. Dynam. 9, 135–151 (2018).
Eyring, V. et al. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 1747–1802 (2016).
We thank C. Jones, K. Tokarska, T. Mauritsen, A. Klein Tank, A. Gettelman, V. Eyring, C. Schleussner, J. Rogelj and J. Marotzke for discussions. Funding was provided by European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement no. 820829 (CONSTRAIN) and UKRI NERC grant NE/N006038/1 (SMURPHS). We acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme, which, through its Working Group on Coupled Modelling, coordinated and promoted CMIP6. We thank the climate modelling groups for producing and making available their model output, the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) for archiving the data and providing access, and the multiple funding agencies who support CMIP6 and ESGF. M. Schlund is thanked for providing CMIP ECS data.
The authors declare no competing interests.
About this article
Cite this article
Forster, P.M., Maycock, A.C., McKenna, C.M. et al. Latest climate models confirm need for urgent mitigation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10, 7–10 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0660-0
Recruitment of pioneer trees with physically dormant seeds under climate change: the case of Vachellia pennatula (Fabaceae) in semiarid environments of Mexico
Journal of Plant Research (2022)
Evaluation of CMIP6 models in the representation of observed extreme temperature indices trends in South America
Climatic Change (2022)
On the dependency of GCM-based regional surface climate change projections on model biases, resolution and climate sensitivity
Climate Dynamics (2022)
Nature Climate Change (2021)
Nature Communications (2021)