Editing IPCC:AR6/SR15/Chapter-2 (section)

== 2.1.2 The Use of Scenarios ==

<div id="section-2-1-2-block-1"></div>

Variations in scenario assumptions and design define to a large degree which questions can be addressed with a specific scenario set, for example, the exploration of implications of delayed climate mitigation action. In this assessment, the following classes of 1.5°C- and 2°C-consistent scenarios are of particular interest to the topics addressed in this chapter: (i) scenarios with the same climate target over the 21st century but varying socio-economic assumptions (Sections 2.3 and 2.4), (ii) pairs of scenarios with similar socio-economic assumptions but with forcing targets aimed at 1.5°C and 2°C (Section 2.3), and (iii) scenarios that follow the Nationally Determined Contributions or NDCs <sup>[[#fn:2|2]]</sup>  until 2030 with much more stringent mitigation action thereafter (Section 2.3.5).

Characteristics of these pathways, such as emissions reduction rates, time of peaking, and low-carbon energy deployment rates, can be assessed as being consistent with 1.5°C. However, they cannot be assessed as ‘requirements’ for 1.5°C, unless a targeted analysis is available that specifically asked whether there could be other 1.5°C-consistent pathways without the characteristics in question. AR5 already assessed such targeted analyses, for example, asking which technologies are important in order to keep open the possibility of limiting warming to 2°C (Clarke et al., 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r3|3]]</sup> . By now, several such targeted analyses are also available for questions related to 1.5°C (Luderer et al., 2013; Rogelj et al., 2013b; Bauer et al., 2018; Strefler et al., 2018b; van Vuuren et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r4|4]]</sup> . This assessment distinguishes between ‘consistent’ and the much stronger concept of required characteristics of 1.5°C pathways wherever possible.

Ultimately, society will adjust the choices it makes as new information becomes available and technical learning progresses, and these adjustments can be in either direction. Earlier scenario studies have shown, however, that deeper emissions reductions in the near term hedge against the uncertainty of both climate response and future technology availability (Luderer et al., 2013; Rogelj et al., 2013b; Clarke et al., 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r5|5]]</sup> . Not knowing what adaptations might be put in place in the future, and due to limited studies, this chapter examines prospective rather than iteratively adaptive mitigation pathways (Cross-Chapter Box 1 in Chapter 1). Societal choices illustrated by scenarios may also influence what futures are envisioned as possible or desirable and hence whether those come into being (Beck and Mahony, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r6|6]]</sup> .

<span id="new-scenario-information-since-ar5"></span>