Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Atmospheric and oceanic circulation altered by global mean sea-level rise

Nature Geoscience volume 16, pages 321–327 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Over recent decades, the rate of global mean sea-level rise has increased, although the magnitude—tens of centimetres—remains small from a geological perspective. Such a modest rise in sea level presents a challenge when attempting to assess its global climate impacts, as the signal is weak. However, in previous warmer geological periods, sea levels reached up to tens of metres higher than the present levels. These palaeoclimate periods offer a unique opportunity to investigate the climate effects of higher sea levels. Here, using climate simulations of the Last Interglacial period and a set of present-day sea-level sensitivity experiments, we highlight the importance of global mean sea-level rise in modulating global climate. The lowering of terrestrial elevation and deepening of oceanic bathymetry due to a spatially uniform rise in sea level reorganizes atmospheric and oceanic circulations. Our simulations of the Last Interglacial show that considering this aspect of global mean sea-level rise in isolation from changes associated with land–sea masks or freshwater input reduces the long-lasting model–data mismatch in the Southern Hemisphere. Furthermore, the present-day sensitivity experiments demonstrate that a slight increase in global mean sea level causes substantial adjustments in the global climate, particularly at mid–high latitudes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Comparison between simulated last interglacial annual surface temperature and reconstructions.
Fig. 2: Surface temperature changes due to global mean sea-level rise in present-day sensitivity experiments.
Fig. 3: Impacts of global mean sea-level rise in present-day sensitivity experiments.
Fig. 4: Simulated surface ocean currents and salinity at the North Pole.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The temperature results from the sea-level experiments are publicly available on Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7365287). The annual mean atmosphere and ocean results are publicly available on Zenodo (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7650523). More model output can be provided upon request. In addition, the LIG SST reconstructions are available in ref. 36.

Code availability

The NorESM code is available on GitHub (https://github.com/NorESMhub/NorESM).

References

  1. Fox-Kemper, B. et al. Ocean, cryosphere and sea level change. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).

  2. Oppenheimer, M. et al. Sea level rise and implications for low-lying islands, coasts and communities. In IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (eds Pörtner, H. O. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2019).

  3. Frederikse, T. et al. The causes of sea-level rise since 1900. Nature 584, 393–397 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dangendorf, S. et al. Persistent acceleration in global sea-level rise since the 1960s. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 705–710 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Nerem, R. S. et al. Climate-change-driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 2022–2025 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dieng, H. B., Cazenave, A., Meyssignac, B. & Ablain, M. New estimate of the current rate of sea level rise from a sea level budget approach. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 3744–3751 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Vousdoukas, M. I. et al. Global probabilistic projections of extreme sea levels show intensification of coastal flood hazard. Nat. Commun. 9, 2360 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Melet, A. et al. Contribution of wave setup to projected coastal sea level changes. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 125, e2020JC016078 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rasoulkhani, K., Mostafavi, A., Reyes, M. P. & Batouli, M. Resilience planning in hazards-humans-infrastructure nexus: a multi-agent simulation for exploratory assessment of coastal water supply infrastructure adaptation to sea-level rise. Environ. Model. Softw. 125, 104636 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Schuerch, M. et al. Future response of global coastal wetlands to sea-level rise. Nature 561, 231–234 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hinkel, J. et al. The ability of societies to adapt to twenty-first-century sea-level rise. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 570–578 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Farnsworth, A. et al. Climate sensitivity on geological timescales controlled by nonlinear feedbacks and ocean circulation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 46, 9880–9889 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Richter, K. et al. Detecting a forced signal in satellite-era sea-level change. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 094079 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Church, J. A. et al. Estimates of the regional distribution of sea level rise over the 1950–2000 period. J. Clim. 17, 2609–2625 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rohling, E. J. et al. Sea-level and deep-sea-temperature variability over the past 5.3 million years. Nature 508, 477–482 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. DeConto, R. M. & Pollard, D. Contribution of Antarctica to past and future sea-level rise. Nature 531, 591–597 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dutton, A. et al. Sea-level rise due to polar ice-sheet mass loss during past warm periods. Science 349, aaa4019 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hu, A. et al. Influence of Bering Strait flow and North Atlantic circulation on glacial sea-level changes. Nat. Geosci. 3, 118–121 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Tan, N. et al. Exploring the MIS M2 glaciation occurring during a warm and high atmosphere CO2 Pliocene background climate. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 472, 266–276 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Di Nezio, P. N. et al. The climate response of the Indo-Pacific warm pool to glacial sea level. Paleoceanography 31, 866–894 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kageyama, M. et al. The PMIP4 Last Glacial Maximum experiments: preliminary results and comparison with the PMIP3 simulations. Clim. Past 17, 1065–1089 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lhardy, F. et al. A first intercomparison of the simulated LGM carbon results within PMIP-Carbon: role of the ocean boundary conditions. Paleoceanogr. Paleoclimatol. 36, e2021PA004302 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Brady, E. C., Otto-Bliesner, B. L., Kay, J. E. & Rosenbloom, N. Sensitivity to glacial forcing in the CCSM4. J. Clim. 26, 1901–1925 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Martínez-Botí, M. A. et al. Plio-Pleistocene climate sensitivity evaluated using high-resolution CO2 records. Nature 518, 49–54 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Haywood, A. M. et al. The Pliocene Model Intercomparison Project Phase 2: large-scale climate features and climate sensitivity. Clim. Past 16, 2095–2123 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Rovere, A. et al. The Mid-Pliocene sea-level conundrum: glacial isostasy, eustasy and dynamic topography. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 387, 27–33 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Miller, K. G. et al. High tide of the warm Pliocene: implications of global sea level for Antarctic deglaciation. Geology 40, 407–410 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Gulev, S. K. et al. Changing state of the climate system. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).

  29. Otto-Bliesner, B. L. et al. Large-scale features of Last Interglacial climate: results from evaluating the lig127k simulations for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6)–Paleoclimate Modeling Intercomparison Project (PMIP4). Clim. Past 17, 63–94 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Pedersen, R. A., Langen, P. L. & Vinther, B. M. The last interglacial climate: comparing direct and indirect impacts of insolation changes. Clim. Dyn. 48, 3391–3407 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Berger, A. & Loutre, M. F. Insolation values for the climate of the last 10 million years. Quat. Sci. Rev. 10, 297–317 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Siegenthaler, U. et al. Stable carbon cycle-climate relationship during the late Pleistocene. Science 310, 1313–1317 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Turney, C. S. M. et al. A global mean sea-surface temperature dataset for the Last Interglacial (129-116 kyr) and contribution of thermal expansion to sea-level change. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 12, 3341–3356 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hoffman, J. S., Clark, P. U., Parnell, A. C. & He, F. Regional and global sea-surface temperatures during the last interglaciation. Science 355, 276–279 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Capron, E. et al. Temporal and spatial structure of multi-millennial temperature changes at high latitudes during the Last Interglacial. Quat. Sci. Rev. 103, 116–133 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Chandler, D. & Langebroek, P. Southern Ocean sea surface temperature synthesis: Part 2. Penultimate glacial and last interglacial. Quat. Sci. Rev. 271, 107190 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Guo, C. et al. Description and evaluation of NorESM1-F: a fast version of the Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM). Geosci. Model Dev. 12, 343–362 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Stone, E. J. et al. Impact of meltwater on high-latitude early Last Interglacial climate. Clim. Past 12, 1919–1932 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Gjermundesn, A. et al. Shutdown of Southern Ocean convection controls long-term greenhouse gas-induced warming. Nat. Geosci. 14, 724–731 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Dima, M., Nichita, D. R., Lohmann, G., Ionita, M. & Voiculescu, M. Early-onset of Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation weakening in response to atmospheric CO2 concentration. NPJ Clim. Atmos. Sci. 4, 27 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kanzow, T. et al. Seasonal variability of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation at 26.5° N. J. Clim. 23, 5678–5698 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Woodgate, R. & Peralta-Ferriz, C. Warming and freshening of the Pacific inflow to the Arctic from 1990-2019 implying dramatic shoaling in Pacific winter water ventilation of the Arctic water column. Geophys. Res. Lett. 48, e2021GL092528 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hillaire-Marcel, C., de Vernal, A., Bilodeau, G. & Weaver, A. J. Absence of deep-water formation in the Labrador Sea during the last interglacial period. Nature 410, 1073–1077 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Galaasen, E. V. et al. Rapid reductions in North Atlantic deep water during the peak of the Last Interglacial period. Science 343, 1129–1132 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Woodgate, R. Arctic ocean circulation: going around at the top of the world. Nat. Educ. Knowl. 4, 8 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Beszczynska-Möller, A., Woodgate, R. A., Lee, C., Melling, H. & Karcher, M. A synthesis of exchanges through the main oceanic gateways to the Arctic Ocean. Oceanography 24, 82–99 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Gent, P. R. et al. The Community Climate System Model Version 4. J. Clim. 24, 4973–4991 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Bentsen, M. et al. The Norwegian Earth System Model, NorESM1-M—Part 1: description and basic evaluation of the physical climate. Geosci. Model Dev. 6, 687–720 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Zhang, Z. S. et al. Pre-industrial and mid-Pliocene simulations with NorESM-L. Geosci. Model Dev. 5, 523–533 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Lunt, D. J. et al. DeepMIP: model intercomparison of early Eocene climatic optimum (EECO) large-scale climate features and comparison with proxy data. Clim. Past 17, 203–227 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Kageyama, M. et al. A multi-model CMIP6-PMIP4 study of Arctic sea ice at 127 ka: sea ice data compilation and model differences. Clim. Past 17, 37–62 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Levitus, S. & Boyer, T. P. World ocean atlas 1994 volume 4: temperature. In NOAA Atlas NESDIS (US Government Printing Office, 1994).

  53. Turney, C. S. M. et al. Early Last Interglacial ocean warming drove substantial ice mass loss from Antarctica. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 3996–4006 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Golledge, N. R. et al. Retreat of the Antarctic ice sheet during the Last Interglaciation and implications for future change. Geophys. Res. Lett. 48, e2021GL094513 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was jointly supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grants nos. 41888101 and 42125502), the National Key Research and Development Program of China (grant no. 2018YFA0605602), the SapienCE (project no. 262618) and other projects (projects nos. 314371, 229819 and 221712) from the Norwegian Research Council, as well as the computing resources from Notur/Norstore projects NN9133/NS9133, NN9486/NS9486 and NN9874/NS9874.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Atmospheric Science, School of Environmental Studies, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, China

    Zhongshi Zhang, Caoyi Dong & Xijin Wang

  2. School of Geographic Science, Nantong University, Nantong, China

    Zhongshi Zhang

  3. Centre for Severe Weather and Climate and Hydro-geological Hazards, Wuhan, China

    Zhongshi Zhang, Caoyi Dong & Xijin Wang

  4. Department of Earth Science, Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

    Eystein Jansen

  5. NORCE Norwegian Research Centre, Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research, Bergen, Norway

    Eystein Jansen, Stefan Pieter Sobolowski, Odd Helge Otterå, Chuncheng Guo, Aleksi Nummelin & Mats Bentsen

  6. Centre for Early Sapiens Behaviour, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

    Eystein Jansen, Stefan Pieter Sobolowski & Odd Helge Otterå

  7. Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, LSCE/IPSL, CEA-CNRS-UVSQ, Université Paris-Saclay, Gif-sur-Yvette, France

    Gilles Ramstein

  8. Key Laboratory of Meteorological Disaster/Collaborative Innovation Center on Forecast and Evaluation of Meteorological Disasters, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology, Nanjing, China

    Huijun Wang

  9. Key Laboratory of Cenozoic Geology and Environment, Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

    Zhengtang Guo

Authors
  1. Zhongshi Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eystein Jansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stefan Pieter Sobolowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Odd Helge Otterå
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gilles Ramstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chuncheng Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Aleksi Nummelin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mats Bentsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Caoyi Dong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Xijin Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Huijun Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Zhengtang Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Z.Z. designed and performed the simulations and wrote the draft of the paper. S.P.S. and O.H.O. contributed to the analyses of atmosphere dynamics, and C.G., A.N. and M.B. contributed to investigations into ocean dynamics. E.J., G.R., H.W. and Z.G. helped strengthen the palaeo and future climate link. C.D. and X.W. prepared some figures. All authors contributed to discussing the results and writing the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhongshi Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Geoscience thanks Daniel Lunt and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editor: Tom Richardson, in collaboration with the Nature Geoscience team.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Comparison between last interglacial simulations with reconstructions36 at sites.

The blue dots and boxes show the simulated annual mean surface air temperature (SAT, in °C) or sea surface temperature (SST, in °C) anomalies (at data sites and the range) without the global mean sea-level (GMSL) rise. The red dots and boxes show the simulated annual mean SAT/SST anomalies (at data sites and the range) with the GMSL rise. The last interglacial (LIG) sensitivity experiments show strong warming between 60°S and 70°S when the GMSL rises. While most sites used in the reconstruction are located between 40°S and 50°S, complicating direct comparison. The LIG experiments demonstrate that the model–data mismatch is reduced by considering the GMSL rise. Without the GMSL rise, the root mean square error (RMSE) between the simulated SAT (SST) and the reconstruction is 2.83 (2.85). When the GMSL rise is 5 m (10 m), the RMSE between the simulated SAT and the reconstruction becomes 2.48 (2.50), and the RMSE is 2.56 (2.58) between the simulated SST and the reconstructions. The box and whisker show the range of simulated surface temperature change at 17 sites, with the maximum, the 75% percentile, the mean, the 25% percentile, and the minimum value from top to bottom.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Comparison between last interglacial and present-day experiments.

(a) and (b) show the surface pressure changes (in Pa) due to the global mean sea-level rise of 10 m. (c) and (d) plot the sea-level surface pressure changes (in Pa). (e) and (f) illustrate the 850hPa winds anomalies (in unit m/s). (g) and (h) display the anomalies in surface air temperature (SAT, in °C). Only significant differences with a confidence level higher than 95% (t-test) are shaded. The grey and blue contours highlight pressure changes with a spacing of 40 Pa in (a), (b), (c), and (d). In (e) and (f), the arrows plot the changes in winds, and the blue-filled contours show the changes in wind speed with a confidence level higher than 95% (t-test). The supplementary information presents detailed explanations for this figure.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Comparison in ocean heat transport between last interglacial and present-day experiments.

(a) shows the changes in global ocean heat transport (OHT, in PW) between the lig126sl5m and the lig126 experiment (green), between the lig126sl10m and the lig126 experiment (red), between the co2400sl5m and the co2400 experiment (blue), and between the co2400sl10m and the co2400 experiment (black). The solid (dash) lines indicate the significant (insignificant) changes higher (lower) than a 95% confidence level (t-test). (b) and (c) as in (a), but for the Atlantic and the Indian and Pacific, respectively.

Extended Data Fig. 4 Comparison in meridional ocean circulations between last interglacial and present-day experiments.

(a) shows the stream function (in Sv) of Atlantic meridional ocean circulation (AMOC) for the lig126sl5m (filled colors and black contours) and the lig126 experiment (red and blue contours). The contours display stream function with a spacing of 4 Sv. (b) plots the differences in AMOC between the lig126sl5m and the lig126 experiment. (c) and (d) show the AMOC comparison between the lig126sl10m and the lig126 experiment. (e) to (h) plot the comparison for the co2400, co2400sl5m, and co2400sl10m experiments.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Surface pressure changes due to global mean sea-level rise in present-day sensitivity experiments.

(a) shows the comparison between the co2400sl0.625 m and the co2400 experiment, the response of annual surface pressure (in Pa) to the sea-level rise of 0.625 m. (b) to (f) as in (a), but the sea-level rise is 1.25, 2.5, 5, 10, and 20 m, respectively. Only the significant differences with a confidence level higher than 95% (t-test) appear in the filled contours. The grey contours highlight pressure changes with a spacing of 40 Pa.

Extended Data Fig. 6 Near-surface wind changes due to global mean sea-level rise in present-day sensitivity experiments.

(a) shows the comparison between the co2400sl0.625 m and the co2400 experiment, the response of 850hPa winds (in m/s) to the sea-level rise of 0.625 m. (b) to (f) as in (a), but the sea-level rise is 1.25, 2.5, 5, 10, and 20 m, respectively. The arrows plot the changes in winds, and the blue-filled contours show the changes in wind speed with a confidence level higher than 95% (t-test).

Extended Data Fig. 7 Mixed layer depth changes due to global mean sea-level rise in present-day sensitivity experiments.

(a) shows the comparison between the co2400sl0.625 m and the co2400 experiment, the response of mixed layer depth (in m) to the sea-level rise of 0.625 m. (b) to (f) as in (a), but the sea-level rise is 1.25, 2.5, 5, 10, and 20 m, respectively. Only the significant differences with a confidence level higher than 95% (t-test) appear in the filled contours. The black outlines highlight the changes with a contour spacing of 10 m.

Extended Data Fig. 8 Sea surface temperature changes due to global mean sea-level rise in present-day sensitivity experiments.

(a) shows the comparison between the co2400sl0.625 m and the co2400 experiment, the response of sea surface temperature (in °C) to the sea-level rise of 0.625 m. (b) to (f) as in (a), but the sea-level rise is 1.25, 2.5, 5, 10, and 20 m, respectively. Only the significant differences with a confidence level higher than 95% (t-test) appear in the filled contours. The black outlines highlight temperature contours of negative and positive changes of 0.5, 1, and 2 degrees.

Extended Data Fig. 9 Statistics of annual water volume in seaways in high northern latitudes in present-day sensitivity experiments.

(a) Bering Strait. (b) Canadian Archipelago seaways. (c) Fram Strait. (d) Danmark Strait. (e) Barents Sea open. (f) Iceland-Faroe-Scotland channels. Positive means flow northward, while negative means flow southward (in Sv). The dots show the mean values, and the length of the error bars represent s.d. Filled (open) dots indicate the global mean sea-level rise leads to a significant (insignificant) change (higher than the 95% confidence level with t-test) in the mean value compared to the co2400 experiment. Solid (dotted) error bars indicate the sea-level rise leads to a significant (insignificant) response (higher than the 95% confidence level with F-test) in the s.d. relative to the co2400 experiment. Statistical analyses are based on 200 annual means for each experiment. The grey horizontal lines show the mean values simulated in the pre-industrial control experiment, which agree with observations45,46.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Discussion, Figs. 1–5 and Tables 1–3.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, Z., Jansen, E., Sobolowski, S.P. et al. Atmospheric and oceanic circulation altered by global mean sea-level rise. Nat. Geosci. 16, 321–327 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-023-01153-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-023-01153-y

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing