Limiting warming to 2C above pre-industrial temperatures may not be enough to prevent “extreme global climate outcomes”, according to research published in Nature.
The authors simulate climate extremes – such as drought in breadbasket regions and flooding in populated areas – under a 2C warming scenario using a range of different global climate models.
They find that the “worst-case” model projections in a 2C warmer world are often more severe than the “average” scenarios in a 3C or 4C warmer world.
An author on the study tells Carbon Brief that, for policymakers planning around risk, it is “really important” to account for these potential extremes at 2C.
The findings are “sobering” and “demonstrate that the risks at 2C of global warming may be significantly higher than previously thought”, according to one scientist who was not involved in the study.
He adds that the methods used in the research would “offer a very useful contribution” to any future “global assessment of avoidable climate-change risks”.
High-risk scenarios
As the planet warms, climate extremes such as floods and droughts are becoming more intense and frequent. For policymakers to effectively plan and adapt to upcoming changes, they need to understand how severe these events could become.
Scientists routinely use global climate models to simulate how extremes may change over the coming decades. One well-established way to present these results is to run simulations using multiple models, then take the average of these results.
This average is known as the “multimodel mean”. Model results typically cluster around the mean, giving scientists more confidence in these results, but there are often also individual projections that sit notably higher or lower.
Prof Erich Fischer is a lecturer in environmental systems science at ETH Zurich and an author on the paper. He tells Carbon Brief that focusing on the multimodel mean is a “very valuable” communication tool for climate scientists, providing a “simpler” message than showing the full range of results.
For example, he tells Carbon Brief that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – the world’s most authoritative source on climate change – uses the multimodel mean to produce many of its maps.
However, Fischer warns that from a “risk perspective”, focusing solely on the multimodel mean could give a “misleading picture”. For example, he adds, the changes that specific regions may see could be “much, much higher” than the global average.
He tells Carbon Brief that for policymakers planning around risk, it is “really important” to account for more extreme cases too.
To demonstrate this, the study authors select 42 models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6 (CMIP6). These are the models that are used most widely in the latest set of IPCC reports.
Their approach is illustrated in the diagram below. Note that this illustration is not based on real model runs, but is intended to give an example of what a set of results could look like.
The beige strip on the right shows the spread of results, where each horizontal bar indicates a different model. The models simulating the “worst-case” outcomes (red lines) are at the top and those showing the “best-case” climate outcomes (blue lines) are at the bottom. The majority of models are clustered towards the centre of the bar, close to the multimodel mean (thick black line).
The authors selected three types of events to analyse:
- Rainfall extremes in highly populated areas, which may induce flooding
- Concurrent droughts in global breadbaskets, which threaten food security
- Fire weather extremes across the world’s forests
For each event type, the authors assess the spread of results. They rank the model outputs by the severity of each type of event and compare these to the multimodel mean at different levels of warming – including 2C, 3C and 4C above pre-industrial temperatures.
In many instances, the “worst-case climate outcomes” in a 2C world are more severe than the multimodel mean in a 3C or 4C world.
Prof Rowan Sutton, director of the Met Office Hadley Centre, who was not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that the study’s findings are “sobering”. He adds that the paper “demonstrates that the risks at 2C of global warming may be significantly higher than previously thought”.
In its latest assessment report, the IPCC projected that, under current policies, the world could reach 2C of warming between 2037 and 2084, with a central estimate of 2052. (For more on when the IPCC says warming thresholds will be passed, read Carbon Brief’s explainer.)
Breadbasket drought
The analysis of drought in key breadbasket regions provided the “most striking results”, Dr Emanuele Bevacqua, a researcher at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research and lead author of the study, tells Carbon Brief.
To assess the worst-case scenario, the authors simulated drought frequency in “critical breadbasket areas across the world”, he explains.
These are the regions where most of the world’s maize, wheat, soybean and rice is grown, including regions of northern and southern America, Europe, south-eastern Asia and Australia.
The spread of model results is shown below.
The vertical bars indicate the percentage change in average drought frequency between a pre-industrial and 2C warmer world, where more-frequent drought is at the top of the bar and less-frequent drought is at the bottom.
On the left bar, each horizontal line indicates one model. The models showing the “worst-case climate outcomes” are highlighted at the top of the bar. On the right bar, the horizontal bars show the multimodel means for warming levels of 2C, 2.5C, 3C and 4C.
The percentage change in drought frequency in key breadbasket regions between a pre-industrial and 2C warmer world. On the beige bar (left), each horizontal line indicates a model. On the grey bar (right), the horizontal bars show the multimodel means for warming levels of 2C, 2.5C, 3C and 4C. Source: Bevacqua et al. (2026)
They find that 10 of the 42 models simulate a level of drought frequency at a 2C warming level that is higher than the multimodel mean at 4C warming.
(Some models also project a lower level of drought frequency at 2C warming than the multimodel mean. However, the focus of the study is to capture the most severe risks, which are particularly relevant for risk management.)
Bevacqua tells Carbon Brief that this result “makes it very clear that even if we stop [warming] at 2C, we cannot rule out the fact that we might end up in a worst-case outcome”.
The authors also conduct their analysis for extreme rainfall in populated regions. Although they find a wide range of model results, none of the simulations of extreme rainfall at 2C are higher than the multimodal mean at 4C.
Meanwhile, analysing the risk of wildfires to the world’s forests reveals that four of the models simulate more severe fire risk at 2C than the multimodel mean at 3C and none simulate more severe fire risk at 2C than at 4C.
The spread of model results for rainfall (left) and wildfire (right) are shown below.
Dr Karen McKinnon is an associate professor in statistics and the environment at the University of California, Los Angeles. McKinnon, who was not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that the study highlights that “risks are obscured when considering averages across multiple climate models”.
‘Worst-case scenarios’
The authors find that the ranking of models was different across the three case studies. In other words, the same models did not produce the “worst-case” climate outcomes in every type of event.
When assessing the impact of future extremes, the findings emphasise the need to select models that “sample the full range of possible climate outcomes”, the paper says. It adds:
“Currently, large-scale initiatives such as the latest protocol of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP) rely on a limited subset of climate models that likely omits the best- and worst-case climate models.”
ISIMIP is a global modelling effort to project the impacts of climate change across different sectors. Bevacqua notes:
“[O]ur results suggest that ISIMIP-based simulations probably underestimate the range of possible global impacts at a fixed global warming level of +2C.”
He adds:
“This is worrying and calls for new approaches that can somehow lead to accounting for this.”
The study also shows that many “best-case” model outcomes for a 2C world project a lower level of risk than the multimodel mean. However, Fischer notes that “even the best-case scenario” shows that extremes will become more severe with warming.
Fischer says that the study authors are not “doomscrolling” and notes that “landing somewhere in the middle is still the more likely outcome”. However, he emphasises the importance of considering the high-impact model outcomes for planning around risk.
Communicating risk
Climate scientists and policymakers have been discussing how best to assess and communicate climate risk for decades.
Dr Robert Vautard – senior climate scientist at France’s National Centre for Scientific Research at Institut Pierre-Simon Laplac, who was not involved in the study – tells Carbon Brief that the study provides “very insightful examples of outcomes for communicating risks”.
However, he questions whether the “global indices” used in this study would be relevant for developing “regional” adaptation plans, noting that worst-case impacts in the model “may not be the most problematic locally”.
Last month, a group of leading climate scientists published a comment article – also in Nature – calling for a global climate risk assessment that identifies the “worst-case scenarios” and helps societies to prepare for them.
The article says:
“Global assessments made by IPCC have played, and continue to play, a crucial part in assessing the evidence about climate change. But the IPCC produces science assessments, rather than risk assessments. Its main focus has been to set out what is known with the greatest confidence.
“A climate risk assessment offers different information – it makes clear the scale and severity of risks, to inform judgments about the priority to be given to avoiding or mitigating them.”
Sutton, the Hadley Centre director, is an author on the article. He tells Carbon Brief that “from a policy and decision-making perspective, climate change is a problem of risk assessment and risk management”.
He says that the methods used in this study “offer a very useful contribution to a global assessment of avoidable climate-change risks”.
The post Limiting global warming to 2C would not ‘rule out’ extreme impacts appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Limiting global warming to 2C would not ‘rule out’ extreme impacts
Scientists have vowed to keep working on the next flagship set of reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), after a political row over the timeline for their release saw its latest session suspended on Friday evening without agreement.
During the weekend, government officials and scientists alike expressed disappointment over the inability to reach a compromise before some delegates from developing countries and small island states had to leave the week-long meeting in Ethiopia to catch flights home.
The disagreement – which has persisted since early 2024 – turns on whether the three key parts of the AR7 assessment should all be published before the conclusion of the UN’s next Global Stocktake of global climate action, which is due to be completed in late 2028.
The IPCC issued a statement after the close of the session, saying that “key agenda items” – the timelines for the three AR7 reports, as well as the IPCC budget – remain open and under discussion. It said the IPCC’s plenary session and its deliberations on the pending agenda “will resume at the earliest opportunity”, giving no further details of when.
IPCC Chair Jim Skea told delegates in closing remarks that recent months had been some of the most turbulent for the climate science panel and that, if there were stronger words than “profound disappointment” he would use them, according to a summary published by the Earth Negotiators Bulletin (ENB). IPCC discussions happen behind closed doors.
IPCC scientists remained committed
In an open letter, issued on Monday, a group of nearly 120 scientists – from a total of 664 AR7 authors – said they “stand committed to continue working to deliver the AR7 reports in a manner that is rigorous, timely and inclusive, in line with our mandate to be policy-relevant”.
“An assessment that arrives after the decisions it is meant to inform cannot serve its purpose,” they emphasised. “The second Global Stocktake in 2028 is such a decision point, and the world should not have to face it without the IPCCʼs latest assessment.”
Europe, small islands and the least developed countries, plus many Latin American and developed nations, want the IPCC to meet this deadline, arguing that the findings from the UN climate science body are irreplaceable in the UN climate policy-making process.
However, around a dozen developing countries plus Russia have argued that the reports should come later in order to allow for greater research input from the Global South – something that, in their view, would make the findings fairer. They also claim that a shorter timeline would put excessive pressure on experts.
-
Who shapes climate science? The equity question facing the IPCC
Early completion of the next global climate science assessment reports risks excluding research from the Global South, which is key to ensuring the findings are fair -
Governments that support climate science must stand firm against naysayers
The IPCC is meeting to decide the timing of its next major report, as some countries try to delay it and weaken the case for faster emissions cuts
The most vocal of this group at last week’s meeting were India and Saudi Arabia, according to the ENB summary and a developed country diplomat. Critics see this push for a longer timeline as an excuse to deprive government decision-makers of the latest science and ease pressure on emerging economies to raise their ambition, particularly on cutting emissions.
Commenting on last week’s meeting, France’s ambassador for climate negotiations Benoît Faraco said a broad coalition of developed and developing countries from all five continents, “united in their support for science and the timeline proposed by scientists”, had withstood pressure “from a few countries” seeking to slow down the process of adopting the IPCC reports.
He added that France would not back down and would “continue to fight tirelessly for science, protect the integrity of information, and convince our partners that without the best available scientific data, we will be less effective in tackling climate change and protecting our populations”.
Inclusivity proposal stalled
In a bid to unlock a solution for the AR7 timeline, countries discussed ways to improve the inclusivity of the IPCC’s work. One option put on the table was for the IPCC to expand its funding for delegates from developing countries to attend some or all of its sessions from one to two participants, according to the ENB summary and a delegate speaking to Climate Home News.
That would increase the costs for the IPCC to complete AR7 by up to a quarter, according to an assessment shared by the secretariat. The panel’s budget is under severe strain and its officials have warned that, without additional voluntary contributions, it risks running out of money before it can deliver on this assessment cycle.
Climate Home News understands that some of the IPCC’s traditional donors – which mainly include European countries, Japan and Australia – indicated a willingness to support funding for an additional developing country participant. But without an agreement over the budget or the timeline for the reports, that option was ultimately not adopted.
‘Disappointed and worried’
The three reports are managed by working groups that collate and draw overall findings from the latest scientific studies and data on the physical effects of global warming around the world, how to adapt to it, and pathways for cutting planet-heating emissions in order to meet the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement.
Winston Chow, an urban climate professor at Singapore Management University who co-chairs Working Group II on adaptation, wrote in a LinkedIn post that he was “disappointed and worried” for the IPCC authors who have worked “extraordinarily hard” to assess the relevant climate science over the past two years.
He said he shared their concern that “the rigour, time and goodwill they’ve invested are now being put at risk by the Panel’s stalemate”.
As science comes under attack at UN talks, climate movement splits over how to respond
For Working Group II, a meeting for 250 experts writing that report is scheduled for January 2027, followed by the approval of a special report on cities and climate change in Singapore next March.
But because the IPCC’s budget has not been confirmed due to uncertainty about the AR7 schedule, travel support for those researchers is at risk, wrote Chow. “If they cannot participate, our assessments will lose vital expertise, perspectives and scientific breadth, and the collective effort of our authors will be undermined,” he warned.
Scientific work continues
Despite the political holdups, he – together with French climate scientist Robert Vautard, co-chair of Working Group 1 – agreed with IPCC head Skea who told the IPCC’s closing session on Friday: “The engine room of the IPCC is working, and it’s healthy.”
Vautard commented in a separate post on LinkedIn after it ended: “The boat is at full steam.” Working groups I and II are due to start revising the first drafts of their reports, while Working Group III on reducing emissions is finalising its first draft which will be out soon, he wrote.
“The most exciting two years of the cycle are ahead, for the authors. The momentum in the engine room is here and now. Trust the engine room!” he added.
The IPCC and some scientists report that progress has been made towards achieving an equitable balance of authors from the Global North and the Global South.
The group of researchers who signed the open letter on Monday noted that “inclusivity is at the heart of how we work”, with author teams bringing together experts from developed and developing countries with diverse backgrounds and at different stages of their careers.
Plea to overcome political differences
The signatories include several scientists from some of the countries opposed to the alignment of all IPCC reports with the Global Stocktake.
“We are committed to an assessment in which the knowledge, experience and priorities of every region are fully reflected, a commitment we share with the leadership of the IPCC.
Equity is built into how our assessment is being drafted,” they added.
They appealed to governments that make up the IPCC “to overcome their political differences and work together as we do as a global scientific community, so that we can deliver the IPCC reports the world needs to hear”.
In a statement published on Monday, IPCC chair Skea said reaching consensus on the schedule for the reports is “vital”. He added that the assessments provide authoritative scientific evidence to inform national climate policies, strengthen adaptation and resilience and support access to climate finance, as well as helping communicate the scale of the climate crisis and the urgency of efforts to tackle it.
The post IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock appeared first on Climate Home News.
IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock
An Lambrechts is a biodiversity politics expert at Greenpeace International with extensive experience in biodiversity-related multilateral negotiations. She is the head of the Greenpeace delegation at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) COP17 happening in Yerevan, Armenia.
In 2022, COP15 delivered the landmark Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. With COP17 starting in Yerevan, we are now halfway to the deadline, and according to the first Global Review of progress, countries are not on track to meet the biodiversity targets, and implementation must accelerate fast.
One of the main findings of the Global Review is that funding falls far short of the scale needed to halt and reverse nature loss. But the crisis facing the world’s biodiversity is not an absolute scarcity of capital – it is a profound public policy distortion.
The global economy currently spends roughly $30 destroying nature for every single dollar invested in its protection. According to a report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, a staggering $2.4 trillion is spent in public subsidies for fossil fuels, agriculture and water use, while global investment in biodiversity conservation and restoration stands at a mere $220 billion.
Countries urged to ramp up “insufficient” nature policies at COP17
Yet, discussions about how to close the biodiversity finance gap continue to claim that salvation lies in mobilising private capital, scaling offsets and “derisking” investments in nature. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of both the nature of ecological stewardship and of the global financial architecture.
Biodiversity conservation is not a speculative investment portfolio – it is the foundation of human survival. The health of our planet is a non-monetisable, non-excludable public good. Expecting profit-seeking private capital to protect nature perpetuates the structural drivers of ecosystem destruction in the first place.
But if private market mechanisms cannot save biodiversity, where will the necessary public resources come from?
Money going to the wrong places
The answer lies in recovering the vast public wealth currently drained by cross-border tax abuse, financial secrecy and corporate impunity. Finance and environment ministers meeting in Yerevan must give a strong political signal that, to avert ecological breakdown, countries need to take swift action to reform global tax rules, eliminate harmful public subsidies and cancel unsustainable sovereign debts for the public revenues to end up where they belong.
Extractive sectors such as industrial agriculture, fishing, timber and mining continue business-as-usual, often heavily subsidised by public treasuries, while voluntary carbon and biodiversity offset markets pose a serious risk to nature conservation. Offset schemes have delivered only a negligible fraction of the funding needed to preserve ecosystems, allowing industries to continue with their destructive business-as-usual practices.