Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
J. Alcamo, R. Leemans, E. Kreileman (1998)
Global change scenarios of the 21st Century : results from the IMAGE 2.1 model
R. Stouffer, S. Manabe (1999)
Response of a Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere Model to Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide: Sensitivity to the Rate of IncreaseJournal of Climate, 12
M. Collins, C. Senior (2002)
Projections of future climate changeWeather, 57
S. Raper, U. Cubasch (1996)
Emulation of the results from a coupled general circulation model using a simple climate modelGeophysical Research Letters, 23
D. Schimel, D. Glover, J. Melack (1999)
Atmospheric Chemistry and Greenhouse Gases
G. Myhre, E. Highwood, K. Shine, F. Stordal (1998)
New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gasesGeophysical Research Letters, 25
T. Wigley, S. Raper (2001)
Interpretation of High Projections for Global-Mean WarmingScience, 293
S. Raper, J. Gregory, R. Stouffer (2002)
The Role of Climate Sensitivity and Ocean Heat Uptake on AOGCM Transient Temperature ResponseJournal of Climate, 15
D. Harvey, J. Gregory, M. Hoffert, Atul Jain, M. Lal, R. Leemans, S. Raper, T. Wigley, J. Wolde (1997)
An introduction to simple climate models used in the IPCC second assessment report
A. Grübler (1998)
A Review of Global and Regional Sulfur Emission ScenariosMitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 3
T. Osborn, T. Wigley (1994)
A simple model for estimating methane concentration and lifetime variationsClimate Dynamics, 9
T. Wigley (1993)
Balancing the carbon budget. Implications for projections of future carbon dioxide concentration changesTellus B, 45
S. Raper, T. Wigley, R. Warrick (1996)
Global Sea-level Rise: Past and Future
N. Nakicenovic, J. Alcamo, Gerald Davis, B. Vries, Joergen Fenhann, S. Gaffin, K. Gregory, Amulf Griibler, T. Jung, T. Kram, E. Rovere, L. Michaelis, S. Mori, T. Morita, W. Pepper, Hugh Pitcher, L. Price, K. Riahi, A. Roehrl, H. Rogner, Alexei Sankovski, M. Schlesinger, P. Shukla, Steven Smith, R. Swart, S. Rooijen, Nadejda Victor, Z. Dadi (2000)
Special report on emissions scenarios
Steven Smith, Hugh Pitcher, T. Wigley (2001)
Global and regional anthropogenic sulfur dioxide emissions, 29
(1998)
Uncertainties in projections of future global-mean temperature change. Do We Understand Climate Change
J. Edmonds, M. Wise, Hugh Pitcher, R. Richels, T. Wigley, Chris Maccracken (1997)
An Integrated Assessment of Climate Change and the Accelerated Introduction of Advanced Energy Technologies - An Application of MiniCAM 1.0Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 1
T. Wigley, S. Raper (1992)
Implications for climate and sea level of revised IPCC emissions scenariosNature, 357
S. Raper, J. Gregory, T. Osborn (2001)
Use of an upwelling-diffusion energy balance climate model to simulate and diagnose A/OGCM resultsClimate Dynamics, 17
V. Ramanswamy, K. Shine, C. Leovy, Wei‐Chyung Wang, H. Rodhe, D. Wuebbles, M. Ding, J. Lelieveld, J. Edmonds, M. McCormick (1991)
Radiative forcing of climate
T. Wigley, Steven Smith, M. Prather (2002)
Radiative Forcing Due to Reactive Gas EmissionsJournal of Climate, 15
(1996)
Other trace gases and atmospheric chemistry
(1992)
Emissions scenarios for IPCC: An update
W. Washington, J. Weatherly, G. Meehl, A. Semtner, T. Bettge, A. Craig, W. Strand, J. Arblaster, V. Wayland, Rodney James, Y. Zhang (2000)
Parallel climate model (PCM) control and transient simulationsClimate Dynamics, 16
Projections of future warming in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR) are substantially larger than those in the Second Assessment Report (SAR). The reasons for these differences are documented and quantified. Differences are divided into differences in the emissions scenarios and differences in the science (gas cycle, forcing, and climate models). The main source of emissions-related differences in warming is aerosol forcing, primarily due to large differences in SO 2 emissions between the SAR and TAR scenarios. For any given emissions scenario, concentration projections based on SAR and TAR science are similar, except for methane at high emissions levels where TAR science leads to substantially lower concentrations. The new (TAR) science leads to slightly lower total forcing and slightly larger warming. At the low end of the warming range the effects of the new science and the new emissions scenarios are roughly equal. At the high end, TAR science has a smaller effect and the main reason for larger TAR warming is the use of a different high-end emissions scenario, primarily changes in SO 2 emissions.
Journal of Climate – American Meteorological Society
Published: Sep 25, 2001
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.