Estimating the Likelihood of GHG Concentration Scenarios From Probabilistic Integrated Assessment Model Simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The climate scenarios that form the basis for current climate risk assessments have no assigned probabilities, and this impedes the analysis of future climate risks. This paper proposes an approach to estimate the probability of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration scenarios used in key climate change modeling experiments. It computes the CO2 emissions compatible with the concentrations prescribed by Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) and CMIP6 experiments. The distribution of these compatible cumulative emissions is interpreted as the likelihood of future emissions given a concentration pathway. Using Bayesian analysis, the probability of each pathway can be estimated from a probabilistic sample of future emissions. The approach is demonstrated with five probabilistic CO2 emission simulation ensembles from four Integrated Assessment Models (IAM), leading to independent estimates of the likelihood of the CO2 concentration of Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) and Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP). Results suggest that SSP5‐8.5 is unlikely for the second half of the 21st century, but offer no clear consensus on which of the remaining scenarios is most likely. Estimates of likelihoods of CO2 concentrations associated with RCP and SSP scenarios are affected by sampling errors, differences in emission sources simulated by the IAMs, and a lack of a common experimental framework for IAM simulations. These shortcomings, along with a small IAM ensemble size, limit the applicability of the results presented here. Novel joint IAM and the Earth System Model experiments are needed to deliver actionable probabilistic climate risk assessments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".