Recent criticisms have suggested that future emissions are unlikely to lead to the warmest climate scenario available (SSP5–8.5), which has resulted in the second highest scenario (SSP3–7.0) receiving increased attention. The distinctiveness of SSP3–7.0 has not been well recognized, but it is relevant for the proper interpretation of studies that use this scenario.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
9,800 Yen / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscription info for Japanese customers
We have a dedicated website for our Japanese customers. Please go to natureasia.com to subscribe to this journal.
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Hausfather, Z. et al. Nature 605, 26–29 (2022).
Taylor, K. E. et al. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 485–498 (2012).
IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (eds Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R. K. & Meyer, L. A.) (IPCC, 2014).
O’Neill, B. C. et al. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 3461–3482 (2016).
IPCC: Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report (eds Core Writing Team, Lee, H. & Romero, J.) (IPCC, 2023).
Climate Action Tracker: Warming Projections Global Update—November 2022 https://go.nature.com/47jNhP4 (Climate Analytics & NewClimate Institute, 2022).
Hausfather, Z. & Peters, G. P. Nature 577, 618–620 (2020).
Fujimori, S. et al. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 268–283 (2017).
Lund, M. et al. Atmos. Chem. Phys 19, 13827–13839 (2019).
Collins, W. J. et al. Geosci. Model Dev. 10, 585–607 (2017).
Popp, A. et al. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 331–345 (2017).
Lawrence, D. M. et al. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 2973–2998 (2016).
Wilcox, L. J. et al. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 20, 11955–11977 (2020).
Shiogama, H. et al. Earth Syst. Dyn. 14, 1107–1124 (2023).
Allen, R. J. et al. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 20, 9641–9663 (2020).
Acknowledgements
This comment was supported by the Advanced Studies of Climate Change Projection (SENTAN, JPMXD0722680395) of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan, by the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (JPMEERF23S21130 and JPMEERF23S21120) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency and the Ministry of Environment of Japan and by the Sumitomo Electric Industries Group CSR Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
H.S. conceived the paper. H.S. and M.H. conducted the analysis. All the authors provided insights and contributed to the writing of the paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Methods, Tables S1 and S2, Fig. S1 and References.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shiogama, H., Fujimori, S., Hasegawa, T. et al. Important distinctiveness of SSP3–7.0 for use in impact assessments. Nat. Clim. Chang. 13, 1276–1278 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01883-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-023-01883-2
This article is cited by
-
Assessing climate change impacts in the Cauvery Basin using evapotranspiration projections and its implications on water management
Theoretical and Applied Climatology (2024)