Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Climate Warming in Response to Emission Reductions Consistent with the Paris Agreement

Climate Warming in Response to Emission Reductions Consistent with the Paris Agreement Hindawi Advances in Meteorology Volume 2018, Article ID 2487962, 9 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2487962 Research Article Climate Warming in Response to Emission Reductions Consistent with the Paris Agreement 1 2 3 3 Fang Wang , Katarzyna B. Tokarska, Jintao Zhang, Quansheng Ge , 3 3 3 Zhixin Hao , Xuezhen Zhang, and Maowei Wu Department of Climate and Environment Change, Key Laboratory of Land Surface Pattern and Simulation, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 11A, Datun Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100101, China School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, 3800 Finnerty Road, Victoria, BC, Canada, V8W 3V6 Department of Climate and Environment Change, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China Correspondence should be addressed to Fang Wang; wangf@igsnrr.ac.cn Received 1 September 2017; Revised 12 March 2018; Accepted 29 March 2018; Published 8 May 2018 Academic Editor: Annalisa Cherchi Copyright © 2018 Fang Wang et al. )is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. To limit global warming to well below 2 C in accord with the Paris Agreement, countries throughout the world have submitted their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) outlining their greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation actions in the next few decades. However, it remains unclear what the resulting climate change is in response to the proposed INDCs and subsequent emission reductions. In this study, the global and regional warming under the updated INDC scenarios was estimated from a range of comprehensive Earth system models (CMIP5) and a simpler carbon-climate model (MAGICC), based on the relationship of climate response to cumulative emissions. )e global GHG emissions under the updated INDC pledges are ° ° estimated to reach 14.2∼15.0 GtC/year in 2030, resulting in a global mean temperature increase of 1.29∼1.55 C (median of 1.41 C) above the preindustrial level. By extending the INDC scenarios to 2100, global GHG emissions are estimated to be around 6.4∼9.0 ° ° GtC/year in 2100, resulting in a global mean temperature increase by 2.67∼3.74 C (median of 3.17 C). )e Arctic warming is projected to be most profound, exceeding the global average by a factor of three by the end of this century. )us, climate warming under INDC scenarios is projected to greatly exceed the long-term Paris Agreement goal of stabilizing the global mean tem- perature at to a low level of 1.5-2.0 C above the pre-industrial. Our study suggests that the INDC emission commitments need to be adjusted and strengthened to bridge this warming gap. poorly understood and their adequacy to meet the long-term 1. Introduction goal of stabilizing the global mean temperature to 1.5 C or ° ° To limit global mean warming to well below 2 C, in ac- 2 C above the preindustrial level is still unknown. cordance with the Paris Agreement [1], 190 countries To simulate climate response under INDC scenarios, submitted their Intended Nationally Determined Contri- running a full suite of comprehensive Earth system models butions (INDCs), which outline the intended post-2020 (ESMs), such as the CMIP5 models (Coupled Model In- emission plans of each country [2]. INDCs became the tercomparison Project), is unrealistic due to the high com- first target of greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation reached putational cost, while running only one certain model is not through a bottom-up approach by nationally intended ef- representative of climate response of the Earth system due to forts, so it is easier to monitor a level of commitment than potential model biases. Recent studies have shown a near before through a top-down system. However, the impacts of linear relationship between cumulative carbon emissions these emission-reduction efforts on climate warming are and temperature change [3–10]; thereby providing a way to 2 Advances in Meteorology evaluate climate response under INDC scenarios without the 165 INDCs cover 192 countries, which together account for need of running additional simulations by comprehensive more than 99% of global GHG emissions. In addition, three countries (Libya, Nicaragua, and Syria) still had not submitted Earth system models. In the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the In- INDC reports at the time of this analysis. )e INDC emission tergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [11], targets consist of both the unconditional targets (voluntary future climate change was projected under a set of Repre- emission reductions, irrespective of the actions of other sentative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios, using countries) and conditional targets (more aggressive mitiga- a model ensemble of comprehensive Earth system models tion actions if certain conditions are met regarding the (CMIP5) [12] and a reduced-complexity carbon-cycle and provision of finance or technological assistance from de- climate model (Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse veloped countries). Supplementary Table S1 shows the INDCs Gas Induced Climate Change (MAGICC)) [13, 14]. )e ratio of the 165 countries (up to July 2017) analyzed in this study. of temperature increase to cumulative carbon emissions, also referred to as the transient climate response to cumulative 2.2. Calculating Cumulative Global INDC Emissions. carbon emissions (TCRE), is relatively constant over time Global cumulative INDC emissions were estimated by and is independent of the CO emissions pathway [4, 15, 16]. summing national INDC emissions for each year. National Expert judgements [4, 5, 7, 10] based on multiple lines of INDC commitments provide the emission level of the pre- ° ° evidence estimate TCRE to be likely between 0.8 C and 2.5 C 2030 period (Figure 1). For the post-2030 period, annual per 1000 GtC (5 to 95%), of cumulative CO emissions. Most emission pathways were obtained by linear interpolation of the above studies presented results only for CO emis- based on the expected level of development. )e global sions, without considering the effects of non-CO forcing. emissions are assumed to peak in 2030 and then decline When non-CO GHG forcing is considered, the additional steadily (Figure 2). We assume that the continued action of net warming from non-CO forcings contributes to lower national emission reduction was adopted in the scenario levels of emissions allowed to reach the given temperature over the 21st century, and the relatively constant decar- target [16–18]. bonisation rates were followed for the period after 2030. )erefore, estimates of the climate response to cumu- lative carbon emissions provide a useful benchmark for 2.3. Temperature Response to INDC Emissions. )e tem- assessing the climate response under different emission perature response to cumulative INDC emissions was es- scenarios. In this study, we make use of the available data of timated based on a well-established framework of climate climate responses to cumulative emissions based on CMIP5 response to cumulative carbon emissions [3, 4, 6, 8–10, 16]. and MAGICC simulations, to estimate the global mean Cumulative carbon emissions and temperature re- warming in response to the INDC scenarios. )is study is sponses from RCP experiments were used to construct structured as follows: Section 2 describes the methods and a function of climate responses to cumulative emissions data sources, Section 3.1 presents the conditional and un- referred to as TCRE (Figure 3): conditional INDC committed emissions, Section 3.2 ex- all amines climate responses to cumulative emissions in CMIP5 ΔT (1) TCRE � , all and MAGICC models and presents an estimate of warming ΔI under INDC emission scenarios, while Section 4 provides where TCRE represents the climate response for all GHGs, the conclusions and further discussion. all both for CO effect and for non-CO GHG effect. ΔI rep- 2 2 resents the cumulative anthropogenic GHG emissions above 2. Data and Methods the current level in 2012, including CO and other non-CO 2 2 GHG emissions. All non-CO emissions were converted into 2.1. INDC Data. )e INDC dataset is continuously updated, 2 a unified unit of CO equivalent emissions, according to the and includes 192 countries (165 INDCs) that submitted their 2 global warming potential of each gas [21]. ΔT is the cor- pledges up to 2017 (July). Most countries have reported their responding change of global temperature, subject to decadal composite targets, such as emission targets, energy targets, smoothing. )ese data were obtained from the RCP sim- forest targets, and adaptation targets [2]. )e emission targets ulation experiments for CMIP5 and MAGICC models. reported by countries vary from absolute emission target )e warming above the current level (ΔT ) under the (e.g., reducing emissions by a given amount of GtC/year) to INDC INDC scenarios was estimated by the following equation: emission target relative to the base year level (e.g., reducing emissions back to 2010 or 2000 levels), or emission-reduction ΔT � TCRE × ΔI , (2) INDC all INDC target relative to the baseline emission scenario (e.g., reducing emissions compared with the business-as-usual scenario where ΔI represents cumulative emissions (from year INDC (BAU, 2030 levels)). )e base years of emission data of each 2012) under the INDC scenarios, which was calculated by country were obtained from the UNFCCC national in- summing national INDC emissions for each year. ventories [19]. )e baseline scenario data of each country )en, the warming level above the preindustrial level was were calculated according to the predicted emissions from the estimated based on the sum of the INDC warming above the Stockholm Environment Institute [20]. )e reported emission current level (ΔT ) and the current warming above the INDC targets of each country were extracted and, subsequently, total preindustrial level. )e current warming in 2012 was esti- cumulative emissions were calculated (see Section 2.2). )e mated to be about 0.85± 0.14 C [22]. Advances in Meteorology 3 (%) 0.1 0.5 0 2 –30 –60 >5 –120 –60 0 60 120 180 Longitude (degrees) Figure 1: National emissions under Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) scenarios for unconditional pledges in 2030. )e emission target data of each country are calculated based on national INDCs in this study (see Section 2.1 and Supplementary Table S1). Emission level for each country is expressed as a percentage of total global emissions in 2030. )e member states of European Union (EU) are shown as a whole as their emission target is submitted for the whole region. )e spatial pattern of global warming under the INDC RCP 8.5 scenario was estimated based on the time-slice approach [23–26], where the spatial state at a specific warming point RCP 6.0 related to ΔT is taken from the decadal time slices INDC with the respective mean warming for each model separately. )is study uses the spatial output from 12 comprehensive Earth system models from the CMIP5 project [27]. )ese models include BCC_CSM 1.1 (China), CanESM2 (Canada), CESM1 (BGC) (USA), GFDL-ESM2G (USA), GFDL-ESM2M (USA), INM-CM4 (Russia), IPSL-CM5A-LR (France), IPSL- CM5A-MR (France), IPSL-CM5B-LR (France), MIROC- ESM (Japan), and MPI-ESM-LR and MPI-ESM-MR (Ger- RCP 4.5 many). We make use of RCP 4.5, 6.0, and 8.5 scenarios and identify the respective warming patterns corresponding to INDC warming for each model, followed by computing a multimodel average state of the spatial warming pattern RCP 2.6 based on all model simulations. )e simulations are regridded ° ° into a common 144 × 72 grid (2.5 × 2.5 ). )e CMIP5 models 0 considered in this study are comprehensive Earth system 1980 2010 2040 2070 2100 models (ESMs) with coupled carbon-climate system re- Year sponses, where terrestrial and ocean carbon-cycle processes INDC-uncon INDC-con-extended are coupled with atmosphere-ocean general circulation INDC-uncon-extended RCP models [27, 28]. In addition to CMIP5 ESMs, we also make INDC-con Observation use of the MAGICC scenario database. )e MAGICC model Figure 2: Global INDC emissions compared with representative consists of reduced-complexity carbon-cycle and climate concentration pathway (RCP) scenarios. )e black line shows the models and emulates the global and annual mean behavior of historical observed emissions. )e blue lines show future RCP significantly more complex CMIP5 models [13, 14, 29]. emission scenarios. Colored lines show Intended Nationally De- termined Contribution (INDC) emissions under the unconditional 3. Results pledge (red line) and conditioned pledge (pink line). Solid (red and pink) lines represent emissions before 2030 and dashed lines 3.1. INDC Emissions Rate and Cumulative INDC Emissions. represent emissions after 2030. Figure 1 shows the emission level of each country in 2030 for unconditional INDC pledges, where emission levels are expressed as a percentage of total global emissions. )e from Africa, Latin America, and southwest Asia account for countries including China, India, United States, and Euro- a small proportion. pean Union-28 account for the largest proportions of annual On a global scale, for the unconditional and conditional global emissions in 2030 and most underdeveloped countries pledges (Figure 2, red and pink lines), the total INDC Latitude (degrees) –1 GHG emissions (GtC eq·yr ) 4 Advances in Meteorology emissions target was about 14.2∼14.9 GtC/year for 2030, 14.1∼14.6 GtC/year for 2025, and 14.0∼14.3 GtC/year for 2020 (Figure 2, solid lines). )e rate of annual emission from 2012 to 2030 increased on average by 0.7% per year. )e global 4 INDC emissions target under conditional pledge is about 0.7 GtC/year less than that of the unconditional pledges in 2030. In terms of the RCP emissions, the INDC emissions level was intermediate between the emission levels of RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5. To extend the INDC emissions to 2100, the 2 continued action of emission reduction was adopted in the scenario over the 21st century. We assumed global emissions peaked in 2030, as this condition is essential for the control of warming to meet long-term targets [30]. In 2050, the esti- mated GHG emissions were about 11.3∼14.0 GtC/year, while 0 in 2100 they were about 6.4∼9.0 GtC/year. From 2030 to 2100, the INDC emission level was intermediate between the emission levels of RCP 4.5 and RCP 6.0. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Cumulative carbon emissions from 1870 (GtC eq) Cumulative emissions for the unconditional and con- ditional pledges are estimated to be 263∼270 GtC (for the CMIP5 MAGICC 2012 to 2030 period) and 940∼1120 GtC (for the 2012 to 2100 RCP 8.5 RCP 8.5 period). )e INDC cumulative emissions during 2012–2100 RCP 6.0 RCP 6.0 were higher than those of RCP 2.6 by about 400∼580 GtC but RCP 4.5 RCP 4.5 RCP 2.6 RCP 2.6 lower than those of RCP 6.0 and RCP 8.5 by about Historical RCP range 380∼560 GtC and 1380∼1560 GtC, respectively. 1PCT CO 1PCT CO range 3.2. Global Mean Temperature Estimates in Response to INDC (a) Emission Reductions. Global mean temperature is pro- portional to cumulative carbon emissions for a range of emission scenarios considered here (Figure 3(a)). )e black CMIP5 RCP GHG line in Figure 3(a) shows the historical values and the colored at 0.4∼1.5 Egc lines are the results for different RCP scenarios. It was found that the relationship between cumulative carbon emissions and temperature increase does not differ much for different MAGICC GHG at 0.4∼1.5 Egc RCP scenarios for low warming targets (such as 1.5 C or 2.0 C) and was nearly constant for each RCP pathway, with only a small and stable change when cumulative emissions CMIP5 1PCT CO approached 2000 GtC. )e results from MAGICC were well at 0∼2.2 Egc aligned with the CMIP5 results for the RCP pathways. )erefore, for lower temperature targets such as 1.5 C and Historical GHG 2.0 C, this relationship could be used as an approximation of at 0∼0.4 Egc the projection of the climate response to INDC scenarios. 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 We estimated the ratio of a median TCRE (1) of 2.12 C per all –1 TCRE (°C·EgC ) 1000 GtC using CMIP5 results (blue cross in Figure (3b)). )e value was about 2.06 C per 1000 GtC using MAGICC (b) results (pink cross in Figure 3(b)). )e uncertainty range is likely 1.63∼2.59 C per 1000 GtC (5 to 95%). Note that these Figure 3: Global temperature change as a function of cumulative carbon emissions from various lines of evidence. (a) Simulated GHG-attributable values apply to cumulative emissions of up to 600 GtC warming as a function of cumulative emissions based on representative (about 600 GtC have been emitted at the present time). If −1 concentration pathway (RCP) and 1%·yr CO increase (1PCT) sim- 2 only CO -induced temperature response is considered to ulations from the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison estimate climate warming (gray line in Figure 3(a), based on Project (CMIP5) and Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas the 1PCT simulations, where atmospheric CO concentra- Induced Climate Change (MAGICC) experiments. )e MAGICC was −1 tion increases at a rate of 1%·yr using CMIP5 models), used in order to compare the results of CMIP5 models used in IPCC TCRE is lower, due to lack of the net warming from non- Working Group 1 to the MAGICC model results in Working Group 3. CO2 forcings that are present in the RCP scenarios. (b) )e ratio of GHG-attributable warming to cumulative carbon Estimates of global mean warming under INDC emis- emissions (TCRE). )e ranges of numbers in panel (b) indicate the sion scenarios are based on the above definition of the amounts of cumulative emissions from the horizontal axis of (a) for each climate response to cumulative emissions (TCRE ). For the simulation. )ese values indicate different ratios of TCRE at different all amounts of cumulative emissions from various RCP simulations. unconditional INDC pledges (Figure 4(a)), the global mean Temperature change relative to 1861–1880 (°C) Advances in Meteorology 5 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 –1 –1 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 T change for INDC-uncon T change for INDC-con CMIP5 median CMIP5 median MAGICC median MAGICC median Observation Observation (a) (b) 2030 2100 INDC-uncon CMIP5 MAGICC INDC-con CMIP5 MAGICC 12 3 4 Temperature increase (°C) (ref. to 1861–1880) (c) Figure 4: Global temperature increases under Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) scenarios. (a) unconditional INDC, (b) conditional INDC, and (c) temperature change relative to the preindustrial level (CMIP5: the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project; MAGICC: Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change). )e method of calculating temperature response to INDC emissions is presented in Section 2.3. )e INDC-induced warming is calculated based on (2) by multiplying ΔT (cumulative carbon emission under the INDC scenarios) by TCRE (the ratio of GHG-attributable warming to cumulative INDC all emissions). temperature change in 2030 is projected to be 0.57 C Correspondingly, for the conditional INDC pledges (median) above the 2012 baseline for the CMIP5 simulations (Figure 4(b)), the global temperature increase in 2030 is ° ° and 0.56 C (median) for the MAGICC simulations. )e projected to be 0.56 C above the 2012 level for the CMIP5 ° ° likely range is 0.44∼0.70 C (5 to 95%) above the 2012 simulations and 0.54 C for the MAGICC simulations baseline. Relative to the preindustrial levels, the increase is (range, 0.43∼0.68 C). In 2100, the global temperature is ° ° ° ° projected to be 1.42 C and 1.41 C for the CMIP5 and projected to be 1.98 C (CMIP5) and 1.93 C (MAGICC) ° ° ° MAGICC models, respectively (likely range, 1.29∼1.55 C) above the 2012 level (range, 1.53∼2.42 C) and 2.83 C (Figure 4(c)). By the end of this century, the global tem- (CMIP5) and 2.78 C (MAGICC) above the preindustrial ° ° perature is projected to be 2.36 C (CMIP5) and 2.30 C level (Figure 4(c)). (MAGICC) (range, 1.82∼2.89 C) above the 2012 baseline Figures 5(a) and 5(b) show multimodel mean regional ° ° and 3.21 C (CMIP5) and 3.15 C (MAGICC) (range, patterns of surface temperature changes for unconditional 2.67∼3.74 C) above the preindustrial level. INDC scenario in 2030 and 2100, respectively. )e Arctic Temperature change (°C) Temperature change (°C) 6 Advances in Meteorology 0 (°C) –30 –60 –120 –60 0 –60 120 Longitude (degrees) (a) 0 (°C) –30 –60 –120 –60 0 –60 120 Longitude (degrees) (b) Figure 5: Simulated model mean temperature changes in response to Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) emissions for unconditional pledges in (a) 2030 and (b) 2100. )e temperature anomalies are relative to preindustrial levels. )e simulation data from 12 CMIP5 models were used to produce an average state of warming pattern for INDC (see Section 2.3). )e 2030 spatial pattern for INDC was estimated based on RCP 4.5 scenario experiment due to the similar emission levels of RCP 4.5 and INDC for 2030. )e 2100 spatial pattern for INDC was estimated based on RCP 6.0 and 8.5 scenarios experiments due to the available simulations of the two scenarios for larger temperature increases. warming is projected to be most profound, exceeding the et al.[30] (the median of 2.6∼3.1 C). We also compared the global average by a factor of three, with about 3∼5 C Arctic results of this study with the temperature increase resulting warming in 2030 and 8∼10 C in 2100 relative to the pre- from the RCP scenarios, reported in IPCC AR5 [16, 34]. industrial level. )e warming in midlatitude is nearly a factor Table 1 gives the warming estimates for each scenario in of two greater than the global average in both 2030 and 2100. 2030 and 2100. In 2030, the INDC level of warming will be )e south oceans and parts of North Atlantic exhibit lowest higher than that estimated from RCP 2.6 and 6.0, but lower warming (Figures 5(a) and 5(b)). than that estimated in RCP 8.5. However, the temperature differences between the INDC scenarios and other scenarios are very small (in the order of 0.01 C). In 2100, the INDC 4. Discussion and Conclusions warming will be higher than that estimated form RCP 4.5 Our study estimated the global mean temperature increase and 2.6 scenarios and lower than that estimated from RCP under the INDC commitments in 2030 to range from 1.29 to 6.0 and 8.5, but closer to the warming estimated in RCP 4.5 ° ° 1.55 C (median of 1.41 C) above the preindustrial level, and RCP 6.0 (Table 1). Sanderson et al. [35] proposed a set of ° ° reaching 2.67∼3.74 C (median of 3.17 C) in 2100. Our best idealized emission pathways consistent with reaching the estimates were within the reported ranges from other studies 2 C temperature target, which showed that if the INDCs for (e.g., UNEP [31], CI [32], and CAT [33]). Our best estimate 2030 remain the same as committed, only net zero GHG for global mean warming is a little higher than that of Rogelj emissions by 2085 and negative emissions implemented later Latitude (degrees) Latitude (degrees) Advances in Meteorology 7 Table 1: Temperature projections for Intended Nationally De- structural uncertainty from ranges of model responses from termined Contribution (INDC) and representative concentration model ensembles, rather than the results based only on one pathway (RCP) scenarios (relative to preindustrial levels). model. Note that the MAGICC TCRE values are slightly all lower than that of CMIP5 mean value (as shown in Figures 3 Temperature increase ° (a) and 3(b)). )is is why the estimated future climate from ( C) Scenario 1 2 IPCC WG1 is slightly warmer than that from the IPCC 2030 2100 WG3. )e results presented here are also subject to un- 1.41 3.17 INDC Unconditional certainties due to different representation of carbon cycle (1.29∼1.55) (2.67∼3.74) processes in climate models. Also, since permafrost carbon 1.39 2.80 Conditional cycle feedbacks and ice sheets are not currently represented (1.28∼1.53) (2.38∼3.27) in CMIP5 models considered here, they could lead to even 430–480 ppm (CO eq. RCP 2.6 ∼1.3 1.5–1.7 higher warming levels and associated feedbacks. concentration in 2100) INDC emission pledges are nonbinding and will be RCP 4.5 580–650 ppm ∼1.4 2.3–2.6 650–720 ppm 2.6–2.9 evaluated every five years, with the pre-evaluation by RCP 6.0 720–1000 ppm ∼1.3 3.1–3.7 UNFCCC in 2018, and the first formal evaluation in 2023. RCP 8.5 >1000 ppm ∼1.5 4.1–4.8 )e outcome will be used as the input for new INDCs. “1” represents the best estimate (median). “∼” refers to the approximate )erefore, it is necessary to evaluate the climate impacts of estimate based on RCP scenario data from the Fifth Assessment Report the new INDCs in a timely manner. Our study shows that (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “2” climate warming under current INDC scenarios is projected refers to RCP data directly from Table 6.3 in the IPCC Workgroup 3 report. to greatly exceed the long-term Paris Agreement goal of ° ° stabilizing the global mean temperature at 2 C or 1.5 C above in the century are required to limit the global mean warming the preindustrial level, suggesting that rapid emission re- below the 2 C warming. However, such rapid emission ductions in conjunction with negative emissions [30] may be reductions would be quite difficult to implement [30]. necessary to ensure temperature stabilization consistent with Compared with the long-term temperature-limiting the Paris Agreement. targets, the global mean warming resulting from INDC ° ° emission reductions exceeds the 2 C or 1.5 C stabilization Data Availability goals set by UNFCCC [36]. )erefore, even the conditional INDCs and resulting emission reductions are insufficient to )e data that support the findings of this study are available meet the globally agreed long-term goal of limiting global from the corresponding author upon request. CMIP5 model ° ° mean warming to well below 2 C or 1.5 C. To achieve the data are publically available at the Earth System Grid Server desired temperature levels in the future, it is therefore at http://pcmdi9.llnl.gov/. necessary to adjust and strengthen the INDC emission- reduction commitments. Conflicts of Interest Regional climate change prediction is more relevant for assessing impact-related temperature-controlled goals. )e )e authors declare that they have no competing interests. results indicate that by 2030 the high-latitude regions show higher warming level under INDC emission pledges, while by 2100 the significant warming trends will reach across Acknowledgments the globe. In particular, the intense warming of the Arctic )is work was supported by the National Key Research and other high-latitude land regions may have serious and Development Program of China (2016YFA0602704), implications for other components of the Earth system the National Natural Science Foundation of China (e.g., Arctic summer sea ice retreat, Alpine glaciers loss, and (41771050), the CAS Key Project (No. KJZD-EW-TZ- coral reefs bleaching). Future regional extreme climate G10) and the Reform and Development Research Program change should be given more attention. of Ministry of Science and Technology “Imperative and )e results presented in this study are sensitive to future significant problems to addressing climate change after non-CO emission trajectories, which are not fully included Paris Conference”. in the INDC-committed emission reductions. For example, strong aerosol emissions could have negative effects on warming, even by several tenths of a degree in the short term Supplementary Materials [37, 38]. Further research is needed regarding the probability distribution of warming in response to INDC scenarios and )e INDC reports include 192 countries that submitted its sensitivity to different non-CO emission trajectories. their pledges through 2017, in which the 28 member states )e global mean temperature under different INDC of EU submitted an INDC target as a whole for the region. emission scenarios was estimated using estimates of TCRE We analyzed and calculated these countries’ mitigation based on CMIP5 and MAGICC responses. )e advantage of objectives and the details can be found in Supplementary this approach is the avoidance of high costs of running all Table S1. )e INDC emission targets consist of both the comprehensive ESMs to simulate the climate response under unconditional targets and conditional targets. (Supple- INDC scenarios. )is approach also incorporates the overall mentary Materials) 8 Advances in Meteorology system response to representative concentration pathway References scenarios,” Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan. Ser. [1] UNFCCC, Adoption of the Paris Agreement: Proposal by the II, vol. 90, no. 3, pp. 417–434, 2012. President, Tech. Rep. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1, UNFCCC, [18] M. C. Sarofim, C. E. Forest, D. M. Reiner, and J. M. Reilly, Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. “Stabilization and global climate policy,” Global and Planetary [2] UNFCCC, INDCs as Communicated by Parties, 2016, http:// Change, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 266–272, 2005. www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/ [19] UNFCCC, National Inventory Submissions, 2018, http:// submissions.aspx. unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_ [3] M. R. Allen, D. J. Frame, C. Huntingford et al., “Warming inventories_submissions/items/10566.php. caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth [20] T. Athanasiou, S. Kartha, and P. Baer, National Fair Shares: tonne,” Nature, vol. 458, no. 7242, pp. 1163–1166, 2009. 6e Mitigation Gap—Domestic Actions & International [4] N. P. Gillett, V. K. Arora, D. Matthews, and M. R. Allen, Support, 2016, https://climateequityreference.org/national- “Constraining the ratio of global warming to cumulative CO fair-shares-the-mitigation-gap-domestic-actions-international- emissions using CMIP5 simulations,” Journal of Climate, support/. vol. 26, no. 18, pp. 6844–6858, 2013. [21] G. Myhre, D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon et al., “Anthropogenic and [5] T. C. Johns, J.-F. Royer, I. Hoschel ¨ et al., “Climate change natural radiative forcing,” in Climate Change 2013: the under aggressive mitigation: the ENSEMBLES multi-model Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the experiment,” Climate Dynamics, vol. 37, no. 9-10, pp. 1975– Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 2003, 2011. Climate Change, T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner et al., [6] H. D. Matthews, N. P. Gillett, P. A. Stott, and K. Zickfeld, “)e Eds., pp. 659–740, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon UK, 2013. emissions,” Nature, vol. 459, no. 7248, pp. 829–832, 2009. [22] D. L. Hartmann, A. M. G. Klein Tank, M. Rusticucci et al., [7] J. Rogelj, M. Meinshausen, and R. Knutti, “Global warming “Observations: atmosphere and surface,” in Climate Change under old and new scenarios using IPCC climate sensitivity 2013: the Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working range estimates,” Nature Climate Change, vol. 2, no. 4, Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the In- pp. 248–253, 2012. tergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, T. F. Stocker, [8] K. B. Tokarska, N. P. Gillett, A. J. Weaver, V. K. Arora, and D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner et al., Eds., pp. 159–254, Cambridge M. Eby, “)e climate response to five trillion tonnes of carbon,” Nature Climate Change, vol. 6, no. 9, pp. 851–856, 2016. University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2013. [9] K. Zickfeld, M. Eby, H. D. Matthews, and A. J. Weaver, [23] C. Giannakopoulos, P. Le Sager, M. Bindi, M. Moriondo, “Setting cumulative emissions targets to reduce the risk of E. Kostopoulou, and C. M. Goodess, “Climatic changes and dangerous climate change,” Proceedings of the National associated impacts in the Mediterranean resulting from a 2 Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 106, degrees C global warming,” Global and Planetary Change, no. 38, pp. 16129–16134, 2009. vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 209–224, 2009. [10] K. Zickfeld, M. Eby, A. J. Weaver et al., “Long-term climate change [24] R. Vautard, A. Gobiet, S. Sobolowski et al., “)e European commitment and reversibility: an EMIC intercomparison,” climate under a 2 degrees C global warming,” Environmental Journal of Climate, vol. 26, no. 16, pp. 5782–5809, 2013. Research Letters, vol. 9, no. 3, p. 034006, 2014. [11] R. H. Moss, J. A. Edmonds, K. A. Hibbard et al., “)e next [25] C. R. Schleussner, T. K. Lissner, E. M. Fischer et al., “Dif- generation of scenarios for climate change research and as- ferential climate impacts for policy-relevant limits to global sessment,” Nature, vol. 463, no. 7282, pp. 747–756, 2010. ° ° warming: the case of 1.5 C and 2 C,” Earth System Dynamics, [12] K. E. Taylor, R. J. Stouffer, and G. A. Meehl, “An overview of vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 327–351, 2016. CMIP5 and the experiment design,” Bulletin of the American [26] J. P. Huang, H. P. Yu, A. G. Dai, Y. Wei, and L. T. Kang, Meteorological Society, vol. 93, no. 4, pp. 485–498, 2012. “Drylands face potential threat under 2 degrees C global [13] M. Meinshausen, S. C. B. Raper, and T. M. L. Wigley, warming target,” Nature Climate Change, vol. 7, no. 6, “Emulating coupled atmosphere-ocean and carbon cycle pp. 417–422, 2017. models with a simpler model, MAGICC6-part 1: model de- [27] V. K. Arora, G. J. Boer, P. Friedlingstein et al., “Carbon- scription and calibration,” Atmospheric Chemistry and concentration and carbon-climate feedbacks in CMIP5 earth Physics, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 1417–1456, 2011. system models,” Journal of Climate, vol. 26, no. 15, [14] M. Meinshausen, T. M. L. Wigley, and S. C. B. Raper, “Em- pp. 5289–5314, 2013. ulating atmosphere-ocean and carbon cycle models with [28] World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), “WCRP a simpler model, MAGICC6-part 2: applications,” Atmospheric coupled model intercomparison project phase 5-CMIP5,” Chemistry and Physics, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 1457–1471, 2011. CLIVAR Exchanges (Special Issue), pp. 1–52, 2011. [15] K. Caldeira and J. F. Kasting, “Insensitivity of global warming [29] V. Krey, O. Masera, G. Blanford et al., “Annex II: metrics & potentials to carbon dioxide emission scenarios,” Nature, methodology,” in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate vol. 366, no. 6452, pp. 251–253, 1993. Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth As- [16] M. Collins, R. Knutti, J. Arblaster et al., “Long-term climate sessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change: projections, commitments and irreversibility,” in Cli- Change, O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona et al., mate Change 2013: the Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2014. Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the In- [30] J. Rogelj, M. den Elzen, N. Hohne et al., “Paris agreement tergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner et al., Eds., pp. 1029–1136, Cambridge climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2013. 2 C,” Nature, vol. 534, no. 7609, pp. 631–639, 2016. [17] T. Hajima, T. Ise, K. Tachiiri, E. Kato, S. Watanabe, and [31] United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), 6e Emis- M. Kawamiya, “Climate change, allowable emission, and earth sions Gap Report 2015, UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya, 2016. Advances in Meteorology 9 [32] Climate Interactive (CI), Climate Scoreboard, UN Climate Pledge Analysis, 2016, https://www.climateinteractive.org/ programs/scoreboard/. [33] Climate Action Tracker (CAT), Climate Pledges Will Bring 2.7 C of Warming, Potential for More Action, 2015, http:// www.climateactiontracker.org/news/253/Climate-pledges-will- bring-2.7C-of-warming-potential-for-more-action.html. [34] L. Clarke, K. Jiang, K. Akimoto et al., “Assessing trans- formation pathways,” in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, [35] B. M. Sanderson, B. C. O’Neill, and C. Tebaldi, “What would it take to achieve the Paris temperature targets?,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 43, no. 13, pp. 7133–7142, 2016. [36] UNFCCC, “Synthesis report on the aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions,” Tech. Rep. FCCC/CP/2015/7, UNFCCC, Paris, France, 2015. [37] D. Shindell, J. C. I. Kuylenstierna, E. Vignati et al., “Simul- taneously mitigating near-term climate change and improving human health and food security,” Science, vol. 335, no. 6065, pp. 183–189, 2012. [38] K. Tanaka and T. Raddatz, “Correlation between climate sensitivity and aerosol forcing and its implication for the “climate trap”,” Climatic Change, vol. 109, no. 3, pp. 815–825, 2011. International Journal of The Scientific Advances in Advances in Geophysics Chemistry Scientica World Journal Public Health Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Hindawi www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 http://www www.hindawi.com .hindawi.com V Volume 2018 olume 2013 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 Journal of Environmental and Public Health Advances in Meteorology Hindawi Hindawi www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 Submit your manuscripts at www.hindawi.com Applied & Environmental Journal of Soil Science Geological Research Hindawi Volume 2018 Hindawi www.hindawi.com www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 International Journal of International Journal of Agronomy Ecology International Journal of Advances in International Journal of Forestry Research Microbiology Agriculture Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 International Journal of Journal of Journal of International Journal of Biodiversity Archaea Analytical Chemistry Chemistry Marine Biology Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Advances in Meteorology Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Climate Warming in Response to Emission Reductions Consistent with the Paris Agreement

Download PDF
10 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/hindawi-publishing-corporation/climate-warming-in-response-to-emission-reductions-consistent-with-the-Qr30803qfO

References (32)

Publisher
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Fang Wang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
ISSN
1687-9309
eISSN
1687-9317
DOI
10.1155/2018/2487962
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Hindawi Advances in Meteorology Volume 2018, Article ID 2487962, 9 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2487962 Research Article Climate Warming in Response to Emission Reductions Consistent with the Paris Agreement 1 2 3 3 Fang Wang , Katarzyna B. Tokarska, Jintao Zhang, Quansheng Ge , 3 3 3 Zhixin Hao , Xuezhen Zhang, and Maowei Wu Department of Climate and Environment Change, Key Laboratory of Land Surface Pattern and Simulation, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 11A, Datun Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100101, China School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Victoria, 3800 Finnerty Road, Victoria, BC, Canada, V8W 3V6 Department of Climate and Environment Change, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China Correspondence should be addressed to Fang Wang; wangf@igsnrr.ac.cn Received 1 September 2017; Revised 12 March 2018; Accepted 29 March 2018; Published 8 May 2018 Academic Editor: Annalisa Cherchi Copyright © 2018 Fang Wang et al. )is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. To limit global warming to well below 2 C in accord with the Paris Agreement, countries throughout the world have submitted their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) outlining their greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation actions in the next few decades. However, it remains unclear what the resulting climate change is in response to the proposed INDCs and subsequent emission reductions. In this study, the global and regional warming under the updated INDC scenarios was estimated from a range of comprehensive Earth system models (CMIP5) and a simpler carbon-climate model (MAGICC), based on the relationship of climate response to cumulative emissions. )e global GHG emissions under the updated INDC pledges are ° ° estimated to reach 14.2∼15.0 GtC/year in 2030, resulting in a global mean temperature increase of 1.29∼1.55 C (median of 1.41 C) above the preindustrial level. By extending the INDC scenarios to 2100, global GHG emissions are estimated to be around 6.4∼9.0 ° ° GtC/year in 2100, resulting in a global mean temperature increase by 2.67∼3.74 C (median of 3.17 C). )e Arctic warming is projected to be most profound, exceeding the global average by a factor of three by the end of this century. )us, climate warming under INDC scenarios is projected to greatly exceed the long-term Paris Agreement goal of stabilizing the global mean tem- perature at to a low level of 1.5-2.0 C above the pre-industrial. Our study suggests that the INDC emission commitments need to be adjusted and strengthened to bridge this warming gap. poorly understood and their adequacy to meet the long-term 1. Introduction goal of stabilizing the global mean temperature to 1.5 C or ° ° To limit global mean warming to well below 2 C, in ac- 2 C above the preindustrial level is still unknown. cordance with the Paris Agreement [1], 190 countries To simulate climate response under INDC scenarios, submitted their Intended Nationally Determined Contri- running a full suite of comprehensive Earth system models butions (INDCs), which outline the intended post-2020 (ESMs), such as the CMIP5 models (Coupled Model In- emission plans of each country [2]. INDCs became the tercomparison Project), is unrealistic due to the high com- first target of greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation reached putational cost, while running only one certain model is not through a bottom-up approach by nationally intended ef- representative of climate response of the Earth system due to forts, so it is easier to monitor a level of commitment than potential model biases. Recent studies have shown a near before through a top-down system. However, the impacts of linear relationship between cumulative carbon emissions these emission-reduction efforts on climate warming are and temperature change [3–10]; thereby providing a way to 2 Advances in Meteorology evaluate climate response under INDC scenarios without the 165 INDCs cover 192 countries, which together account for need of running additional simulations by comprehensive more than 99% of global GHG emissions. In addition, three countries (Libya, Nicaragua, and Syria) still had not submitted Earth system models. In the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the In- INDC reports at the time of this analysis. )e INDC emission tergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [11], targets consist of both the unconditional targets (voluntary future climate change was projected under a set of Repre- emission reductions, irrespective of the actions of other sentative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios, using countries) and conditional targets (more aggressive mitiga- a model ensemble of comprehensive Earth system models tion actions if certain conditions are met regarding the (CMIP5) [12] and a reduced-complexity carbon-cycle and provision of finance or technological assistance from de- climate model (Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse veloped countries). Supplementary Table S1 shows the INDCs Gas Induced Climate Change (MAGICC)) [13, 14]. )e ratio of the 165 countries (up to July 2017) analyzed in this study. of temperature increase to cumulative carbon emissions, also referred to as the transient climate response to cumulative 2.2. Calculating Cumulative Global INDC Emissions. carbon emissions (TCRE), is relatively constant over time Global cumulative INDC emissions were estimated by and is independent of the CO emissions pathway [4, 15, 16]. summing national INDC emissions for each year. National Expert judgements [4, 5, 7, 10] based on multiple lines of INDC commitments provide the emission level of the pre- ° ° evidence estimate TCRE to be likely between 0.8 C and 2.5 C 2030 period (Figure 1). For the post-2030 period, annual per 1000 GtC (5 to 95%), of cumulative CO emissions. Most emission pathways were obtained by linear interpolation of the above studies presented results only for CO emis- based on the expected level of development. )e global sions, without considering the effects of non-CO forcing. emissions are assumed to peak in 2030 and then decline When non-CO GHG forcing is considered, the additional steadily (Figure 2). We assume that the continued action of net warming from non-CO forcings contributes to lower national emission reduction was adopted in the scenario levels of emissions allowed to reach the given temperature over the 21st century, and the relatively constant decar- target [16–18]. bonisation rates were followed for the period after 2030. )erefore, estimates of the climate response to cumu- lative carbon emissions provide a useful benchmark for 2.3. Temperature Response to INDC Emissions. )e tem- assessing the climate response under different emission perature response to cumulative INDC emissions was es- scenarios. In this study, we make use of the available data of timated based on a well-established framework of climate climate responses to cumulative emissions based on CMIP5 response to cumulative carbon emissions [3, 4, 6, 8–10, 16]. and MAGICC simulations, to estimate the global mean Cumulative carbon emissions and temperature re- warming in response to the INDC scenarios. )is study is sponses from RCP experiments were used to construct structured as follows: Section 2 describes the methods and a function of climate responses to cumulative emissions data sources, Section 3.1 presents the conditional and un- referred to as TCRE (Figure 3): conditional INDC committed emissions, Section 3.2 ex- all amines climate responses to cumulative emissions in CMIP5 ΔT (1) TCRE � , all and MAGICC models and presents an estimate of warming ΔI under INDC emission scenarios, while Section 4 provides where TCRE represents the climate response for all GHGs, the conclusions and further discussion. all both for CO effect and for non-CO GHG effect. ΔI rep- 2 2 resents the cumulative anthropogenic GHG emissions above 2. Data and Methods the current level in 2012, including CO and other non-CO 2 2 GHG emissions. All non-CO emissions were converted into 2.1. INDC Data. )e INDC dataset is continuously updated, 2 a unified unit of CO equivalent emissions, according to the and includes 192 countries (165 INDCs) that submitted their 2 global warming potential of each gas [21]. ΔT is the cor- pledges up to 2017 (July). Most countries have reported their responding change of global temperature, subject to decadal composite targets, such as emission targets, energy targets, smoothing. )ese data were obtained from the RCP sim- forest targets, and adaptation targets [2]. )e emission targets ulation experiments for CMIP5 and MAGICC models. reported by countries vary from absolute emission target )e warming above the current level (ΔT ) under the (e.g., reducing emissions by a given amount of GtC/year) to INDC INDC scenarios was estimated by the following equation: emission target relative to the base year level (e.g., reducing emissions back to 2010 or 2000 levels), or emission-reduction ΔT � TCRE × ΔI , (2) INDC all INDC target relative to the baseline emission scenario (e.g., reducing emissions compared with the business-as-usual scenario where ΔI represents cumulative emissions (from year INDC (BAU, 2030 levels)). )e base years of emission data of each 2012) under the INDC scenarios, which was calculated by country were obtained from the UNFCCC national in- summing national INDC emissions for each year. ventories [19]. )e baseline scenario data of each country )en, the warming level above the preindustrial level was were calculated according to the predicted emissions from the estimated based on the sum of the INDC warming above the Stockholm Environment Institute [20]. )e reported emission current level (ΔT ) and the current warming above the INDC targets of each country were extracted and, subsequently, total preindustrial level. )e current warming in 2012 was esti- cumulative emissions were calculated (see Section 2.2). )e mated to be about 0.85± 0.14 C [22]. Advances in Meteorology 3 (%) 0.1 0.5 0 2 –30 –60 >5 –120 –60 0 60 120 180 Longitude (degrees) Figure 1: National emissions under Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) scenarios for unconditional pledges in 2030. )e emission target data of each country are calculated based on national INDCs in this study (see Section 2.1 and Supplementary Table S1). Emission level for each country is expressed as a percentage of total global emissions in 2030. )e member states of European Union (EU) are shown as a whole as their emission target is submitted for the whole region. )e spatial pattern of global warming under the INDC RCP 8.5 scenario was estimated based on the time-slice approach [23–26], where the spatial state at a specific warming point RCP 6.0 related to ΔT is taken from the decadal time slices INDC with the respective mean warming for each model separately. )is study uses the spatial output from 12 comprehensive Earth system models from the CMIP5 project [27]. )ese models include BCC_CSM 1.1 (China), CanESM2 (Canada), CESM1 (BGC) (USA), GFDL-ESM2G (USA), GFDL-ESM2M (USA), INM-CM4 (Russia), IPSL-CM5A-LR (France), IPSL- CM5A-MR (France), IPSL-CM5B-LR (France), MIROC- ESM (Japan), and MPI-ESM-LR and MPI-ESM-MR (Ger- RCP 4.5 many). We make use of RCP 4.5, 6.0, and 8.5 scenarios and identify the respective warming patterns corresponding to INDC warming for each model, followed by computing a multimodel average state of the spatial warming pattern RCP 2.6 based on all model simulations. )e simulations are regridded ° ° into a common 144 × 72 grid (2.5 × 2.5 ). )e CMIP5 models 0 considered in this study are comprehensive Earth system 1980 2010 2040 2070 2100 models (ESMs) with coupled carbon-climate system re- Year sponses, where terrestrial and ocean carbon-cycle processes INDC-uncon INDC-con-extended are coupled with atmosphere-ocean general circulation INDC-uncon-extended RCP models [27, 28]. In addition to CMIP5 ESMs, we also make INDC-con Observation use of the MAGICC scenario database. )e MAGICC model Figure 2: Global INDC emissions compared with representative consists of reduced-complexity carbon-cycle and climate concentration pathway (RCP) scenarios. )e black line shows the models and emulates the global and annual mean behavior of historical observed emissions. )e blue lines show future RCP significantly more complex CMIP5 models [13, 14, 29]. emission scenarios. Colored lines show Intended Nationally De- termined Contribution (INDC) emissions under the unconditional 3. Results pledge (red line) and conditioned pledge (pink line). Solid (red and pink) lines represent emissions before 2030 and dashed lines 3.1. INDC Emissions Rate and Cumulative INDC Emissions. represent emissions after 2030. Figure 1 shows the emission level of each country in 2030 for unconditional INDC pledges, where emission levels are expressed as a percentage of total global emissions. )e from Africa, Latin America, and southwest Asia account for countries including China, India, United States, and Euro- a small proportion. pean Union-28 account for the largest proportions of annual On a global scale, for the unconditional and conditional global emissions in 2030 and most underdeveloped countries pledges (Figure 2, red and pink lines), the total INDC Latitude (degrees) –1 GHG emissions (GtC eq·yr ) 4 Advances in Meteorology emissions target was about 14.2∼14.9 GtC/year for 2030, 14.1∼14.6 GtC/year for 2025, and 14.0∼14.3 GtC/year for 2020 (Figure 2, solid lines). )e rate of annual emission from 2012 to 2030 increased on average by 0.7% per year. )e global 4 INDC emissions target under conditional pledge is about 0.7 GtC/year less than that of the unconditional pledges in 2030. In terms of the RCP emissions, the INDC emissions level was intermediate between the emission levels of RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5. To extend the INDC emissions to 2100, the 2 continued action of emission reduction was adopted in the scenario over the 21st century. We assumed global emissions peaked in 2030, as this condition is essential for the control of warming to meet long-term targets [30]. In 2050, the esti- mated GHG emissions were about 11.3∼14.0 GtC/year, while 0 in 2100 they were about 6.4∼9.0 GtC/year. From 2030 to 2100, the INDC emission level was intermediate between the emission levels of RCP 4.5 and RCP 6.0. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Cumulative carbon emissions from 1870 (GtC eq) Cumulative emissions for the unconditional and con- ditional pledges are estimated to be 263∼270 GtC (for the CMIP5 MAGICC 2012 to 2030 period) and 940∼1120 GtC (for the 2012 to 2100 RCP 8.5 RCP 8.5 period). )e INDC cumulative emissions during 2012–2100 RCP 6.0 RCP 6.0 were higher than those of RCP 2.6 by about 400∼580 GtC but RCP 4.5 RCP 4.5 RCP 2.6 RCP 2.6 lower than those of RCP 6.0 and RCP 8.5 by about Historical RCP range 380∼560 GtC and 1380∼1560 GtC, respectively. 1PCT CO 1PCT CO range 3.2. Global Mean Temperature Estimates in Response to INDC (a) Emission Reductions. Global mean temperature is pro- portional to cumulative carbon emissions for a range of emission scenarios considered here (Figure 3(a)). )e black CMIP5 RCP GHG line in Figure 3(a) shows the historical values and the colored at 0.4∼1.5 Egc lines are the results for different RCP scenarios. It was found that the relationship between cumulative carbon emissions and temperature increase does not differ much for different MAGICC GHG at 0.4∼1.5 Egc RCP scenarios for low warming targets (such as 1.5 C or 2.0 C) and was nearly constant for each RCP pathway, with only a small and stable change when cumulative emissions CMIP5 1PCT CO approached 2000 GtC. )e results from MAGICC were well at 0∼2.2 Egc aligned with the CMIP5 results for the RCP pathways. )erefore, for lower temperature targets such as 1.5 C and Historical GHG 2.0 C, this relationship could be used as an approximation of at 0∼0.4 Egc the projection of the climate response to INDC scenarios. 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 We estimated the ratio of a median TCRE (1) of 2.12 C per all –1 TCRE (°C·EgC ) 1000 GtC using CMIP5 results (blue cross in Figure (3b)). )e value was about 2.06 C per 1000 GtC using MAGICC (b) results (pink cross in Figure 3(b)). )e uncertainty range is likely 1.63∼2.59 C per 1000 GtC (5 to 95%). Note that these Figure 3: Global temperature change as a function of cumulative carbon emissions from various lines of evidence. (a) Simulated GHG-attributable values apply to cumulative emissions of up to 600 GtC warming as a function of cumulative emissions based on representative (about 600 GtC have been emitted at the present time). If −1 concentration pathway (RCP) and 1%·yr CO increase (1PCT) sim- 2 only CO -induced temperature response is considered to ulations from the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison estimate climate warming (gray line in Figure 3(a), based on Project (CMIP5) and Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas the 1PCT simulations, where atmospheric CO concentra- Induced Climate Change (MAGICC) experiments. )e MAGICC was −1 tion increases at a rate of 1%·yr using CMIP5 models), used in order to compare the results of CMIP5 models used in IPCC TCRE is lower, due to lack of the net warming from non- Working Group 1 to the MAGICC model results in Working Group 3. CO2 forcings that are present in the RCP scenarios. (b) )e ratio of GHG-attributable warming to cumulative carbon Estimates of global mean warming under INDC emis- emissions (TCRE). )e ranges of numbers in panel (b) indicate the sion scenarios are based on the above definition of the amounts of cumulative emissions from the horizontal axis of (a) for each climate response to cumulative emissions (TCRE ). For the simulation. )ese values indicate different ratios of TCRE at different all amounts of cumulative emissions from various RCP simulations. unconditional INDC pledges (Figure 4(a)), the global mean Temperature change relative to 1861–1880 (°C) Advances in Meteorology 5 3 3 2 2 1 1 0 0 –1 –1 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 T change for INDC-uncon T change for INDC-con CMIP5 median CMIP5 median MAGICC median MAGICC median Observation Observation (a) (b) 2030 2100 INDC-uncon CMIP5 MAGICC INDC-con CMIP5 MAGICC 12 3 4 Temperature increase (°C) (ref. to 1861–1880) (c) Figure 4: Global temperature increases under Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) scenarios. (a) unconditional INDC, (b) conditional INDC, and (c) temperature change relative to the preindustrial level (CMIP5: the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project; MAGICC: Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change). )e method of calculating temperature response to INDC emissions is presented in Section 2.3. )e INDC-induced warming is calculated based on (2) by multiplying ΔT (cumulative carbon emission under the INDC scenarios) by TCRE (the ratio of GHG-attributable warming to cumulative INDC all emissions). temperature change in 2030 is projected to be 0.57 C Correspondingly, for the conditional INDC pledges (median) above the 2012 baseline for the CMIP5 simulations (Figure 4(b)), the global temperature increase in 2030 is ° ° and 0.56 C (median) for the MAGICC simulations. )e projected to be 0.56 C above the 2012 level for the CMIP5 ° ° likely range is 0.44∼0.70 C (5 to 95%) above the 2012 simulations and 0.54 C for the MAGICC simulations baseline. Relative to the preindustrial levels, the increase is (range, 0.43∼0.68 C). In 2100, the global temperature is ° ° ° ° projected to be 1.42 C and 1.41 C for the CMIP5 and projected to be 1.98 C (CMIP5) and 1.93 C (MAGICC) ° ° ° MAGICC models, respectively (likely range, 1.29∼1.55 C) above the 2012 level (range, 1.53∼2.42 C) and 2.83 C (Figure 4(c)). By the end of this century, the global tem- (CMIP5) and 2.78 C (MAGICC) above the preindustrial ° ° perature is projected to be 2.36 C (CMIP5) and 2.30 C level (Figure 4(c)). (MAGICC) (range, 1.82∼2.89 C) above the 2012 baseline Figures 5(a) and 5(b) show multimodel mean regional ° ° and 3.21 C (CMIP5) and 3.15 C (MAGICC) (range, patterns of surface temperature changes for unconditional 2.67∼3.74 C) above the preindustrial level. INDC scenario in 2030 and 2100, respectively. )e Arctic Temperature change (°C) Temperature change (°C) 6 Advances in Meteorology 0 (°C) –30 –60 –120 –60 0 –60 120 Longitude (degrees) (a) 0 (°C) –30 –60 –120 –60 0 –60 120 Longitude (degrees) (b) Figure 5: Simulated model mean temperature changes in response to Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) emissions for unconditional pledges in (a) 2030 and (b) 2100. )e temperature anomalies are relative to preindustrial levels. )e simulation data from 12 CMIP5 models were used to produce an average state of warming pattern for INDC (see Section 2.3). )e 2030 spatial pattern for INDC was estimated based on RCP 4.5 scenario experiment due to the similar emission levels of RCP 4.5 and INDC for 2030. )e 2100 spatial pattern for INDC was estimated based on RCP 6.0 and 8.5 scenarios experiments due to the available simulations of the two scenarios for larger temperature increases. warming is projected to be most profound, exceeding the et al.[30] (the median of 2.6∼3.1 C). We also compared the global average by a factor of three, with about 3∼5 C Arctic results of this study with the temperature increase resulting warming in 2030 and 8∼10 C in 2100 relative to the pre- from the RCP scenarios, reported in IPCC AR5 [16, 34]. industrial level. )e warming in midlatitude is nearly a factor Table 1 gives the warming estimates for each scenario in of two greater than the global average in both 2030 and 2100. 2030 and 2100. In 2030, the INDC level of warming will be )e south oceans and parts of North Atlantic exhibit lowest higher than that estimated from RCP 2.6 and 6.0, but lower warming (Figures 5(a) and 5(b)). than that estimated in RCP 8.5. However, the temperature differences between the INDC scenarios and other scenarios are very small (in the order of 0.01 C). In 2100, the INDC 4. Discussion and Conclusions warming will be higher than that estimated form RCP 4.5 Our study estimated the global mean temperature increase and 2.6 scenarios and lower than that estimated from RCP under the INDC commitments in 2030 to range from 1.29 to 6.0 and 8.5, but closer to the warming estimated in RCP 4.5 ° ° 1.55 C (median of 1.41 C) above the preindustrial level, and RCP 6.0 (Table 1). Sanderson et al. [35] proposed a set of ° ° reaching 2.67∼3.74 C (median of 3.17 C) in 2100. Our best idealized emission pathways consistent with reaching the estimates were within the reported ranges from other studies 2 C temperature target, which showed that if the INDCs for (e.g., UNEP [31], CI [32], and CAT [33]). Our best estimate 2030 remain the same as committed, only net zero GHG for global mean warming is a little higher than that of Rogelj emissions by 2085 and negative emissions implemented later Latitude (degrees) Latitude (degrees) Advances in Meteorology 7 Table 1: Temperature projections for Intended Nationally De- structural uncertainty from ranges of model responses from termined Contribution (INDC) and representative concentration model ensembles, rather than the results based only on one pathway (RCP) scenarios (relative to preindustrial levels). model. Note that the MAGICC TCRE values are slightly all lower than that of CMIP5 mean value (as shown in Figures 3 Temperature increase ° (a) and 3(b)). )is is why the estimated future climate from ( C) Scenario 1 2 IPCC WG1 is slightly warmer than that from the IPCC 2030 2100 WG3. )e results presented here are also subject to un- 1.41 3.17 INDC Unconditional certainties due to different representation of carbon cycle (1.29∼1.55) (2.67∼3.74) processes in climate models. Also, since permafrost carbon 1.39 2.80 Conditional cycle feedbacks and ice sheets are not currently represented (1.28∼1.53) (2.38∼3.27) in CMIP5 models considered here, they could lead to even 430–480 ppm (CO eq. RCP 2.6 ∼1.3 1.5–1.7 higher warming levels and associated feedbacks. concentration in 2100) INDC emission pledges are nonbinding and will be RCP 4.5 580–650 ppm ∼1.4 2.3–2.6 650–720 ppm 2.6–2.9 evaluated every five years, with the pre-evaluation by RCP 6.0 720–1000 ppm ∼1.3 3.1–3.7 UNFCCC in 2018, and the first formal evaluation in 2023. RCP 8.5 >1000 ppm ∼1.5 4.1–4.8 )e outcome will be used as the input for new INDCs. “1” represents the best estimate (median). “∼” refers to the approximate )erefore, it is necessary to evaluate the climate impacts of estimate based on RCP scenario data from the Fifth Assessment Report the new INDCs in a timely manner. Our study shows that (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “2” climate warming under current INDC scenarios is projected refers to RCP data directly from Table 6.3 in the IPCC Workgroup 3 report. to greatly exceed the long-term Paris Agreement goal of ° ° stabilizing the global mean temperature at 2 C or 1.5 C above in the century are required to limit the global mean warming the preindustrial level, suggesting that rapid emission re- below the 2 C warming. However, such rapid emission ductions in conjunction with negative emissions [30] may be reductions would be quite difficult to implement [30]. necessary to ensure temperature stabilization consistent with Compared with the long-term temperature-limiting the Paris Agreement. targets, the global mean warming resulting from INDC ° ° emission reductions exceeds the 2 C or 1.5 C stabilization Data Availability goals set by UNFCCC [36]. )erefore, even the conditional INDCs and resulting emission reductions are insufficient to )e data that support the findings of this study are available meet the globally agreed long-term goal of limiting global from the corresponding author upon request. CMIP5 model ° ° mean warming to well below 2 C or 1.5 C. To achieve the data are publically available at the Earth System Grid Server desired temperature levels in the future, it is therefore at http://pcmdi9.llnl.gov/. necessary to adjust and strengthen the INDC emission- reduction commitments. Conflicts of Interest Regional climate change prediction is more relevant for assessing impact-related temperature-controlled goals. )e )e authors declare that they have no competing interests. results indicate that by 2030 the high-latitude regions show higher warming level under INDC emission pledges, while by 2100 the significant warming trends will reach across Acknowledgments the globe. In particular, the intense warming of the Arctic )is work was supported by the National Key Research and other high-latitude land regions may have serious and Development Program of China (2016YFA0602704), implications for other components of the Earth system the National Natural Science Foundation of China (e.g., Arctic summer sea ice retreat, Alpine glaciers loss, and (41771050), the CAS Key Project (No. KJZD-EW-TZ- coral reefs bleaching). Future regional extreme climate G10) and the Reform and Development Research Program change should be given more attention. of Ministry of Science and Technology “Imperative and )e results presented in this study are sensitive to future significant problems to addressing climate change after non-CO emission trajectories, which are not fully included Paris Conference”. in the INDC-committed emission reductions. For example, strong aerosol emissions could have negative effects on warming, even by several tenths of a degree in the short term Supplementary Materials [37, 38]. Further research is needed regarding the probability distribution of warming in response to INDC scenarios and )e INDC reports include 192 countries that submitted its sensitivity to different non-CO emission trajectories. their pledges through 2017, in which the 28 member states )e global mean temperature under different INDC of EU submitted an INDC target as a whole for the region. emission scenarios was estimated using estimates of TCRE We analyzed and calculated these countries’ mitigation based on CMIP5 and MAGICC responses. )e advantage of objectives and the details can be found in Supplementary this approach is the avoidance of high costs of running all Table S1. )e INDC emission targets consist of both the comprehensive ESMs to simulate the climate response under unconditional targets and conditional targets. (Supple- INDC scenarios. )is approach also incorporates the overall mentary Materials) 8 Advances in Meteorology system response to representative concentration pathway References scenarios,” Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan. Ser. [1] UNFCCC, Adoption of the Paris Agreement: Proposal by the II, vol. 90, no. 3, pp. 417–434, 2012. President, Tech. Rep. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1, UNFCCC, [18] M. C. Sarofim, C. E. Forest, D. M. Reiner, and J. M. Reilly, Geneva, Switzerland, 2015. “Stabilization and global climate policy,” Global and Planetary [2] UNFCCC, INDCs as Communicated by Parties, 2016, http:// Change, vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 266–272, 2005. www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/ [19] UNFCCC, National Inventory Submissions, 2018, http:// submissions.aspx. unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_ [3] M. R. Allen, D. J. Frame, C. Huntingford et al., “Warming inventories_submissions/items/10566.php. caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth [20] T. Athanasiou, S. Kartha, and P. Baer, National Fair Shares: tonne,” Nature, vol. 458, no. 7242, pp. 1163–1166, 2009. 6e Mitigation Gap—Domestic Actions & International [4] N. P. Gillett, V. K. Arora, D. Matthews, and M. R. Allen, Support, 2016, https://climateequityreference.org/national- “Constraining the ratio of global warming to cumulative CO fair-shares-the-mitigation-gap-domestic-actions-international- emissions using CMIP5 simulations,” Journal of Climate, support/. vol. 26, no. 18, pp. 6844–6858, 2013. [21] G. Myhre, D. Shindell, F.-M. Bréon et al., “Anthropogenic and [5] T. C. Johns, J.-F. Royer, I. Hoschel ¨ et al., “Climate change natural radiative forcing,” in Climate Change 2013: the under aggressive mitigation: the ENSEMBLES multi-model Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the experiment,” Climate Dynamics, vol. 37, no. 9-10, pp. 1975– Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 2003, 2011. Climate Change, T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner et al., [6] H. D. Matthews, N. P. Gillett, P. A. Stott, and K. Zickfeld, “)e Eds., pp. 659–740, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, proportionality of global warming to cumulative carbon UK, 2013. emissions,” Nature, vol. 459, no. 7248, pp. 829–832, 2009. [22] D. L. Hartmann, A. M. G. Klein Tank, M. Rusticucci et al., [7] J. Rogelj, M. Meinshausen, and R. Knutti, “Global warming “Observations: atmosphere and surface,” in Climate Change under old and new scenarios using IPCC climate sensitivity 2013: the Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working range estimates,” Nature Climate Change, vol. 2, no. 4, Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the In- pp. 248–253, 2012. tergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, T. F. Stocker, [8] K. B. Tokarska, N. P. Gillett, A. J. Weaver, V. K. Arora, and D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner et al., Eds., pp. 159–254, Cambridge M. Eby, “)e climate response to five trillion tonnes of carbon,” Nature Climate Change, vol. 6, no. 9, pp. 851–856, 2016. University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2013. [9] K. Zickfeld, M. Eby, H. D. Matthews, and A. J. Weaver, [23] C. Giannakopoulos, P. Le Sager, M. Bindi, M. Moriondo, “Setting cumulative emissions targets to reduce the risk of E. Kostopoulou, and C. M. Goodess, “Climatic changes and dangerous climate change,” Proceedings of the National associated impacts in the Mediterranean resulting from a 2 Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 106, degrees C global warming,” Global and Planetary Change, no. 38, pp. 16129–16134, 2009. vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 209–224, 2009. [10] K. Zickfeld, M. Eby, A. J. Weaver et al., “Long-term climate change [24] R. Vautard, A. Gobiet, S. Sobolowski et al., “)e European commitment and reversibility: an EMIC intercomparison,” climate under a 2 degrees C global warming,” Environmental Journal of Climate, vol. 26, no. 16, pp. 5782–5809, 2013. Research Letters, vol. 9, no. 3, p. 034006, 2014. [11] R. H. Moss, J. A. Edmonds, K. A. Hibbard et al., “)e next [25] C. R. Schleussner, T. K. Lissner, E. M. Fischer et al., “Dif- generation of scenarios for climate change research and as- ferential climate impacts for policy-relevant limits to global sessment,” Nature, vol. 463, no. 7282, pp. 747–756, 2010. ° ° warming: the case of 1.5 C and 2 C,” Earth System Dynamics, [12] K. E. Taylor, R. J. Stouffer, and G. A. Meehl, “An overview of vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 327–351, 2016. CMIP5 and the experiment design,” Bulletin of the American [26] J. P. Huang, H. P. Yu, A. G. Dai, Y. Wei, and L. T. Kang, Meteorological Society, vol. 93, no. 4, pp. 485–498, 2012. “Drylands face potential threat under 2 degrees C global [13] M. Meinshausen, S. C. B. Raper, and T. M. L. Wigley, warming target,” Nature Climate Change, vol. 7, no. 6, “Emulating coupled atmosphere-ocean and carbon cycle pp. 417–422, 2017. models with a simpler model, MAGICC6-part 1: model de- [27] V. K. Arora, G. J. Boer, P. Friedlingstein et al., “Carbon- scription and calibration,” Atmospheric Chemistry and concentration and carbon-climate feedbacks in CMIP5 earth Physics, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 1417–1456, 2011. system models,” Journal of Climate, vol. 26, no. 15, [14] M. Meinshausen, T. M. L. Wigley, and S. C. B. Raper, “Em- pp. 5289–5314, 2013. ulating atmosphere-ocean and carbon cycle models with [28] World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), “WCRP a simpler model, MAGICC6-part 2: applications,” Atmospheric coupled model intercomparison project phase 5-CMIP5,” Chemistry and Physics, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 1457–1471, 2011. CLIVAR Exchanges (Special Issue), pp. 1–52, 2011. [15] K. Caldeira and J. F. Kasting, “Insensitivity of global warming [29] V. Krey, O. Masera, G. Blanford et al., “Annex II: metrics & potentials to carbon dioxide emission scenarios,” Nature, methodology,” in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate vol. 366, no. 6452, pp. 251–253, 1993. Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth As- [16] M. Collins, R. Knutti, J. Arblaster et al., “Long-term climate sessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change: projections, commitments and irreversibility,” in Cli- Change, O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona et al., mate Change 2013: the Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2014. Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the In- [30] J. Rogelj, M. den Elzen, N. Hohne et al., “Paris agreement tergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, T. F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner et al., Eds., pp. 1029–1136, Cambridge climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2013. 2 C,” Nature, vol. 534, no. 7609, pp. 631–639, 2016. [17] T. Hajima, T. Ise, K. Tachiiri, E. Kato, S. Watanabe, and [31] United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), 6e Emis- M. Kawamiya, “Climate change, allowable emission, and earth sions Gap Report 2015, UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya, 2016. Advances in Meteorology 9 [32] Climate Interactive (CI), Climate Scoreboard, UN Climate Pledge Analysis, 2016, https://www.climateinteractive.org/ programs/scoreboard/. [33] Climate Action Tracker (CAT), Climate Pledges Will Bring 2.7 C of Warming, Potential for More Action, 2015, http:// www.climateactiontracker.org/news/253/Climate-pledges-will- bring-2.7C-of-warming-potential-for-more-action.html. [34] L. Clarke, K. Jiang, K. Akimoto et al., “Assessing trans- formation pathways,” in Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, [35] B. M. Sanderson, B. C. O’Neill, and C. Tebaldi, “What would it take to achieve the Paris temperature targets?,” Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 43, no. 13, pp. 7133–7142, 2016. [36] UNFCCC, “Synthesis report on the aggregate effect of the intended nationally determined contributions,” Tech. Rep. FCCC/CP/2015/7, UNFCCC, Paris, France, 2015. [37] D. Shindell, J. C. I. Kuylenstierna, E. Vignati et al., “Simul- taneously mitigating near-term climate change and improving human health and food security,” Science, vol. 335, no. 6065, pp. 183–189, 2012. [38] K. Tanaka and T. Raddatz, “Correlation between climate sensitivity and aerosol forcing and its implication for the “climate trap”,” Climatic Change, vol. 109, no. 3, pp. 815–825, 2011. International Journal of The Scientific Advances in Advances in Geophysics Chemistry Scientica World Journal Public Health Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Hindawi www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 http://www www.hindawi.com .hindawi.com V Volume 2018 olume 2013 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 Journal of Environmental and Public Health Advances in Meteorology Hindawi Hindawi www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 Submit your manuscripts at www.hindawi.com Applied & Environmental Journal of Soil Science Geological Research Hindawi Volume 2018 Hindawi www.hindawi.com www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 International Journal of International Journal of Agronomy Ecology International Journal of Advances in International Journal of Forestry Research Microbiology Agriculture Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 International Journal of Journal of Journal of International Journal of Biodiversity Archaea Analytical Chemistry Chemistry Marine Biology Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi Hindawi www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018 www.hindawi.com Volume 2018

Journal

Advances in Meteorology – Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Published: May 8, 2018

There are no references for this article.