Table 3.
Summary of the experimental design, showing the adaptation modeling methods compared and the Global Climate Models (GCMs) and emissions scenarios used.
| Rationale | Range in impacts from adaptation uncertainty, controlling for climate modeling and emissions uncertainty | Range in impacts from climate modeling uncertainty, controlling for adaptation and emissions uncertainty | Range in impacts from emissions uncertainty, controlling for adaptation and climate modeling uncertainty | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GCMs | HadGEM2-ES | HadGEM2-ES, IPSL-CM5A-LR, MIROC-ESM-CHEM, GFDL-ESM2, NorESM1-M | HadGEM2-ES | ||||||
| Emissions scenarios | RCP8.5 | RCP8.5 | RCP2.6, RCP8.5 | ||||||
| Number of climate model simulations | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 2 |
| Adaptation modeling method | No adaptation | Absolute threshold shift (“Thresh ”) | Relative threshold shift (“Thresh %”) | Reduction in slope of the ERF (“Slope”) | Combined absolute threshold shift with reduction in ERF slope () | Combined relative threshold shift with reduction in ERF slope () | Analog ERFs (“Analog”) | No adaptation | No adaptation |
| Magnitude of adaptation investigated | None | 25% | 5% | All 20 possible combinations | All 20 possible combinations | Use ERF from analog city | None | None | |
| 50% | 10% | ||||||||
| 75% | 15% | ||||||||
| 100% | 20% | ||||||||
| 25% | |||||||||
Note: ERF, Exposure Response Function; RCP, Representative Concentration Pathway; Sens, sensitivity; Thresh, threshold.