Institution
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
Nonprofit•Laxenburg, Austria•
About: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis is a nonprofit organization based out in Laxenburg, Austria. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Greenhouse gas. The organization has 1369 authors who have published 5075 publications receiving 280467 citations. The organization is also known as: IIASA.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
••
Centre national de la recherche scientifique1, École Polytechnique2, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis3, Carma4, University of Brescia5, Institut national des sciences appliquées de Rouen6, Norwegian Institute for Air Research7, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki8, Leibniz Association9, Free University of Berlin10, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency11, ARPA-E12
TL;DR: The CityDelta project as mentioned in this paper was designed to evaluate the impact of emission-reduction strategies on air quality at the European continental scale and in European cities, with particular attention to the differences between large-scale and fine-scale models.
191 citations
••
TL;DR: In many areas of the world, recreational fisheries are not managed sustainably as mentioned in this paper, which might be related to the omission or oversimplification of angler behaviour and angler heterogeneity in fisheries.
Abstract: In many areas of the world, recreational fisheries are not managed sustainably. This might be related to the omission or oversimplification of angler behaviour and angler heterogeneity in fisheries...
191 citations
••
Joint Global Change Research Institute1, German Aerospace Center2, University of Bremen3, ETH Zurich4, University of Exeter5, École Polytechnique6, Met Office7, University of Leeds8, University of Denver9, Centre national de la recherche scientifique10, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency11, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis12, University of Melbourne13, University of Maryland, College Park14, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research15, National Center for Atmospheric Research16, Goddard Institute for Space Studies17, University of Paris18, Max Planck Society19, University of Hamburg20, Korea Meteorological Administration21, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation22, Central Maine Community College23, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory24, Pukyong National University25, Korean Ocean Research and Development Institute26, Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology27, Norwegian Meteorological Institute28, Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology29, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources30, University of Toulouse31, Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research32, Oak Ridge National Laboratory33, Deutscher Wetterdienst34, University of Arizona35, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology36, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory37, Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute38, China Meteorological Administration39, Danish Meteorological Institute40, Chinese Academy of Sciences41
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a range of its outcomes by synthesizing results from the participating global coupled Earth system models for concentration driven simulations, focusing mainly on the analysis of strictly geophysical outcomes: mainly global averages and spatial patterns of change for surface air temperature and precipitation.
Abstract: . The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) defines and coordinates the primary future climate projections within the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). This paper presents a range of its outcomes by synthesizing results from the participating global coupled Earth system models for concentration driven simulations. We limit our scope to the analysis of strictly geophysical outcomes: mainly global averages and spatial patterns of change for surface air temperature and precipitation. We also compare CMIP6 projections to CMIP5 results, especially for those scenarios that were designed to provide continuity across the CMIP phases, at the same time highlighting important differences in forcing composition, as well as in results. The range of future temperature and precipitation changes by the end of the century encompassing the Tier 1 experiments (SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5) and SSP1-1.9 spans a larger range of outcomes compared to CMIP5, due to higher warming (by 1.15 °C) reached at the upper end of the 5–95 % envelope of the highest scenario, SSP5-8.5. This is due to both the wider range of radiative forcing that the new scenarios cover and to higher climate sensitivities in some of the new models compared to their CMIP5 predecessors. Spatial patterns of change for temperature and precipitation averaged over models and scenarios have familiar features, and an analysis of their variations confirms model structural differences to be the dominant source of uncertainty. Models also differ with respect to the size and evolution of internal variability as measured by individual models' initial condition ensembles' spread, according to a set of initial condition ensemble simulations available under SSP3-7.0. The same experiments suggest a tendency for internal variability to decrease along the course of the century, a new result that will benefit from further analysis over a larger set of models. Benefits of mitigation, all else being equal in terms of societal drivers, appear clearly when comparing scenarios developed under the same SSP, but to which different degrees of mitigation have been applied. It is also found that a mild overshoot in temperature of a few decades in mid-century, as represented in SSP5-3.4OS, does not affect the end outcome in terms of temperature and precipitation changes by 2100, which return to the same level as those reached by the gradually increasing SSP4-3.4. Central estimates of the time at which the ensemble means of the different scenarios reach a given warming level show all scenarios reaching 1.5 °C of warming compared to the 1850–1900 baseline in the second half of the current decade, with the time span between slow and fast warming covering 20–28 years from present. 2 °C of warming is reached as early as the late '30s by the ensemble mean under SSP5-8.5, but as late as the late '50s under SSP1-2.6. The highest warming level considered, 5 °C, is reached only by the ensemble mean under SSP5-8.5, and not until the mid-90s.
190 citations
••
TL;DR: This paper provides a brief overview of basic adaptive dynamics theory, outlines recent work within the field and evaluates the prospects for the future.
Abstract: An international group of scientists gathered in August 1996 for a workshop in the Matra mountains of Hungary to report and assess recent developments and open research topics in the new field of adaptive dynamics. This paper provides a brief overview of basic adaptive dynamics theory, outlines recent work within the field and evaluates the prospects for the future.
190 citations
••
Chinese Academy of Sciences1, Tsinghua University2, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research3, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency4, Utrecht University5, University of Potsdam6, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis7, National Institute for Environmental Studies8, Kyoto University9, European Institute10, Polytechnic University of Milan11, Joint Global Change Research Institute12
TL;DR: In this article, the authors conducted a multimodel study and found that the 1.5°C-consistent goal would require China to reduce its carbon emissions and energy consumption by more than 90 and 39%, respectively, compared with the "no policy" case.
Abstract: Given the increasing interest in keeping global warming below 1.5°C, a key question is what this would mean for China's emission pathway, energy restructuring, and decarbonization. By conducting a multimodel study, we find that the 1.5°C-consistent goal would require China to reduce its carbon emissions and energy consumption by more than 90 and 39%, respectively, compared with the "no policy" case. Negative emission technologies play an important role in achieving near-zero emissions, with captured carbon accounting on average for 20% of the total reductions in 2050. Our multimodel comparisons reveal large differences in necessary emission reductions across sectors, whereas what is consistent is that the power sector is required to achieve full decarbonization by 2050. The cross-model averages indicate that China's accumulated policy costs may amount to 2.8 to 5.7% of its gross domestic product by 2050, given the 1.5°C warming limit.
190 citations
Authors
Showing all 1418 results
Name | H-index | Papers | Citations |
---|---|---|---|
Martin A. Nowak | 148 | 591 | 94394 |
Paul J. Crutzen | 130 | 461 | 80651 |
Andreas Richter | 110 | 769 | 48262 |
David G. Streets | 106 | 364 | 42154 |
Drew Shindell | 102 | 340 | 49481 |
Wei Liu | 102 | 2927 | 65228 |
Jean-Francois Lamarque | 100 | 385 | 55326 |
Frank Dentener | 97 | 220 | 58666 |
James W. Vaupel | 89 | 434 | 34286 |
Keywan Riahi | 87 | 318 | 58030 |
Larry W. Horowitz | 85 | 253 | 28706 |
Robert J. Scholes | 84 | 253 | 37019 |
Mark A. Sutton | 83 | 423 | 30716 |
Brian Walsh | 82 | 233 | 29589 |
Börje Johansson | 82 | 871 | 30985 |