The table below contains detailed information on models and how the upscaling and downscaling were performed for each entry in Table 4.1 (using the same numbering scheme).
In each case E indicates an empirical derivation, M indicates a modelling study, a number refers to how many GCMs (see Glossary) were used in the original literature (for GCM abbreviations used here see below), other codes indicate whether model projections included respectively, precipitation (P), ocean acidification (pH), sea ice (SI), sea-level rise (SLR), sea surface temperature (SST) or anthropogenic water use (W); dispersal assumptions from the literature (D - estimate assumes dispersal; ND - estimate assumes no dispersal; NR - not relevant since species/ecosystem has nowhere to disperse to in order to escape warming - e.g., habitat is at top of isolated mountain or at southern extremity of austral landmass).
IMAGE, BIOME3, BIOME4, LPJ, MAPSS refer to specific models as used in the study, e.g., LPJ denotes the Lund-Potsdam-Jena dynamic global vegetation model (LPJ-DGVM - Sitch et al., 2003; see also Glossary).
Lower case a-h refer to how the literature was addressed in terms of up/downscaling (a - clearly defined global impact for a specific AT against a specific baseline, upscaling not necessary; b - clearly defined regional impact at a specific regional AT where no GCM used; c - clearly defined regional impact as a result of specific GCM scenarios but study only used the regional AT; d -as c but impacts also the result of regional precipitation changes; e
- as b but impacts also the result of regional precipitation change; f - regional temperature change is off-scale for upscaling with available GCM patterns to 2100, in which case upscaling is, where possible, approximated by using Figures 10.5 and 10.8 fromMeehl et al., 2007; g - studies which estimate the range of possible outcomes in a given location or region considering a multi-model ensemble linked to a global temperature change. In this case upscaling is not carried out since the GCM uncertainty has already been taken into account in the original literature; h - cases where sea surface temperature is the important variable, hence upscaling has been carried out using the maps from Meehl et al. (2007), using Figures 10.5 and 10.8, taking the increases in local annual mean (or where appropriate seasonal, from Figure 10.9) surface air temperature over the sea as equal to the local increases in annual mean or seasonal sea surface temperature. GCM abbreviations used here: H2 - HadCM2, H3 - HadCM3, GF - GFDL, EC -ECHAM4, CS - CSIRO, CG - CG, PCM - NCAR PCM.
The GCM outputs used in this calculation are those used in the Third Assessment Report (IPCC, 2001) and are at 5° resolution: HadCM3 A1FI, A2, B1, B2 where A2 is an ensemble of 3 runs and B2 is an ensemble of 2 runs; ECHAM4 A2 and B2 (not ensemble runs); CSIRO mark 2 A2, B1, B2; NCAR PCM A2 B2; CGCM2 A2 B2 (each an ensemble of 2 runs). Where GCM scenario names only were provided further details were taken from: HadCM2/3 (Mitchell et al., 1995), http://www.ipcc-data.org/ (see also Gyalistras et al., 1994; IPCC-TGCIA, 1999; Gyalistras and Fischlin, 1999; Jones et al., 2005). AH used GCMs/AOGCMs have been reviewed here: IPCC (1990), IPCC (1996), Neilson and Drapek (1998), IPCC (2001).
No.i Details on type of study, models, model results and methods used to derive the sensitivities as tabulated in Table 4.1 for each entry
4,11,30 M, 7, ND, c; ref. quotes 13.8% loss in Rocky Mountains for each 1°C rise in JJA temperature, upscaled with CS, PCM, CG
5 M, D&ND, P, a; 18% matches minimum expected climate change scenarios which Table 3 of ref. (supplementary material) lists as AT of 0.9°-1.7°C (mean 1.3°C) above 1961-1990 mean; 8 of the 9 sub-studies used H2, one used H3
6 M, 5, IMAGE, a; authors confirmed temperature baseline is year 2000 which is 0.1 °C warmer than 1990
9 M, H2, P, ND, d; table 3 of ref. 1 gives global AT of 1.35°C above 1961-1990; HHGSDX of H3; downscaled with H3 then upscaled with H3, EC, CS, PCM, CG
12,14 M, P, NR, e; upscaled using H3, EC, CS, PCM, CG
15 M, P, NR, d; HadRM3PA2 in 2050, figure 13 in ref. shows AT matching B2 of H3 of 1.6°C above 1961-1990 mean; downscaled with H3 and upscaled with H3, EC, CS, PCM, CG
18 M, 10, P, D, d, g; table 3 of ref. 1 gives global AT of 1.35°C above 1961-1990; upscaled with H3, EC, CS, PCM, CG; Uses a local AT range across Australia
19 M, H3, P, D&ND, d; ref. gives B1 in 2050 with a AT of 1.8°C above the 1961-1990 baseline; downscaled with H3 and then upscaled with H3, EC, CG
20 M, H2, P, D&ND, d; studies used global annual mean AT of 1.9°C above 1961-1990 mean
21 M, P, D&ND, a; table 3 of ref. mid-range climate scenarios has a mean AT of 1.9°C above 1961-1990
22 M, H2, P, D&ND, d; ref. uses A2 of H3 in 2050 that has a AT of 1.9°C above 1961-1990 (Arnell et al., 2004); downscaled with H3 then upscaled with H3, EC, CS, PCM, CG
i Same numbers as used in first column in Table 4.1. 250
23 h; upscaled using maps from WGI, chapter 10
25 M, 2, P, NR, d; scenarios on CRU website used with AT of 2.0°C above 1961-1990, agrees with Table 3 of ref. 1 which gives AT of 2.0°C above 1961-1990 mean; downscaled with H3 then upscaled with H3, EC, CS, PCM, CG
26 M, H2, P, D, d; the 66% is from a suite of 179 representative species, table 3 of ref. 1 lists global AT of 3°C above 1961-1990 mean, upscaled with H3, EC, CS, CG
27 M, H2, P, D&ND, d; table 3 of ref. 1 which gives AT of 2.0°C above 1961-1990 mean using HHGGAX; downscaled with H3 then upscaled with H3, EC, CS, PCM, CG
29 M, IMAGE, P, D&ND; ref. gives the global temperature change relative to 1990
31 M, H3, W, a; ref. uses B2 of H3 in 2070 that has a AT rise of 2.1°C with respect to the 1961-1990 mean
32 M, P, D&ND; ref. uses B1 in H3 in 2080s from (Arnell et al., 2004)
33 M, 2, P, LPJ; upscaled with H3, EC5 (see also Figure 4.2; 4.3)
35 M, P, D, d; UKCIP02 high emissions scenario used as central value; upscaled for Hampshire from UKCIP02 regional maps using H3, EC, CS
37 M, SLR, a; analysis based on transient 50% probability of sea-level rise using the US EPA scenarios for AT of 2°C above 1990 baseline
38 M, P, NR, d; see No. 15; HadRM3PA2 in 2050, taken from Figure 13 in ref.
39 M, H2, D&ND, d; ref. uses global ATof2.3°Cabove 1961-1990 mean
42 M, 15, SI, a; Arzel (Arzel et al., 2006) uses 15 GCMs with A1B for 2080s, AT A1B 2080s multi-model mean from Meehl et al., 2007, Figure 10.5 is2.5°C above 1990; ACIA uses 4 GCMs with B2, multi-model AT is2.2°C over 1961-1990 or2.0°C above 1990
43 M, GE, P, NR, d; GENESIS GCM with 2.5°C rise for CO2 doubling from 345 to 690ppm, 345 ppm corresponds quite closely to the 19611990 mean; upscaling then gives the range all locations used; variously used H3, EC, CS, CG
45 M, 2, P, d, g; range is due to importance of A P, GFDL CO2 doubling is from 300 ppm which occurred in about 1900, and climate sensitivity in SAR is 3.7; UKMO in 2050 is 1.6°C above 1961-1990 mean, 1.9°C above pre-industrial
46,47 M, H2, BIOME4, P, NR, c; A1 scenario of H2GS has AT of 2.6°C relative to 1961-1990 mean 48,49 pH, g; IS92a in 2100 has 788 ppm CO2 and AT of 1.3-3.5°C above 1990 (IPCC, 1996, Figure 6.20)
50 M, 10, P, D, d, g; 2.6°C above 1961-1990 mean.upscaled with H3, EC, CS, CG at lower end, upper end out of range
51 M, P, D&ND, a; Table 3 of ref. maximum climate scenarios have mean AT of 2.6°C above 1961-1990 or2.3°C above 1990; 8 of the 9 sub-studies used H2, one used H3
52 M, BIOME3, P, d, f; H2 2080s with aerosols (HHGSA1) has global AT of 2.6°C above 1961-1990 mean
53 M, H3, W, a; ref. uses A2 of H3 in 2070 that has a AT of 2.7°C with respect to the 1961-1990 mean and hence 2.5°C with respect to 1990
54 M, 2, SLR, a; IS92ain2100 has 788 ppm CO2 and AT of 1.3-3.5°C above 1990 (IPCC, 1996, Figure 6.20)
57 M, P, NR, e; upscaled for several sites taken from maps in ref., using H3, EC, CS, CG
59 pH, a; impact is at CO2 doubling, T range given by WGI for equilibrium climate sensitivity
61 M, NR, b; % derived from Table 1 in ref. for all forest areas combined on the 3 islands studied; upscaling considers changes averaged over 3 islands and uses H3, EC, CS, CG
62 M, H3, P, D&ND, d, f; table 3 of ref. lists global AT of 3°C above 1961-1990 mean
63 M, H2, SLR, NR, a; H2 2080s without aerosols has global AT of 3.4°C above pre-industrial (Hulme et al., 1999)
64 M, 7, BIOME3, MAPSS, P, D&ND, a; uses transient and equilibrium CO2 doubling scenarios from Neilson & Drapek (1998) table 2; control concentrations were obtained directly from modellers; thus deduced mean global mean AT for this study
65 M, 2, P, D, d; study used CO2 doubling scenarios in equilibrium - CCC AT at doubling is 3.5°C relative to 1900 whilst GFDL R30 is 3.3°C relative to 1900; upscaling gives range H3, EC, CG
67 M, H3, P, D&ND, d; ref. uses A2 in H3 in 2080 that has a AT of 3.3°C above 1961-1990 (Arnell et al., 2004)
68 M, CCC, P, D, d; CO2 equilibrium doubling scenario has AT of 3.5°C relative to 1900; downscaled with CGCM and upscaled with H3, EC, CS, CG
69,70,71 M, 5, IMAGE, a; authors confirmed temperature baseline is year 2000 which is 0.1°C warmer than 1990
72 M, H3, P, D&ND, d; ref. lists AT of 3.6°C for A1 in 2080 relative to 1961-1990, downscaled with H3 and upscaled with H3, EC, CG
74 M, NR, b, f; Meehl et al., 2007, Figures 10.5 and 10.8 suggest global AT of 3.5°C relative to 1990
75 M, D, f; Meehl et al., 2007, Figure 10. 5 shows this occurs for AT a3.5°C above 1990
Was this article helpful?