• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Long-term Regional Dynamic Sea Level Changes from CMIP6 Projections

    2021-02-26 08:22:06BrunoFERREROMarcosTONELLIFernandaMARCELLOandIlanaWAINER
    Advances in Atmospheric Sciences 2021年2期

    Bruno FERRERO, Marcos TONELLI, Fernanda MARCELLO, and Ilana WAINER

    University of S?o Paulo, S?o Paulo 05508120, Brazil

    ABSTRACT

    Key words:dynamic sea level,CMIP6,sea level rise,signal-to-noise,time of emergence

    1.Introduction

    Even though human-induced sea level rise (SLR) will continue over the next century at least (Church et al., 2013),the expected regional expression of its global average is rather variable across the ocean basins (Slangen et al., 2014;Bordbar et al., 2015; Meyssignac et al., 2017), influenced by a range of processes (Clark et al., 2015; Slangen et al.,2017). This regional distribution is influenced both by anthropogenic and natural external forcings and by intrinsic climate variability (Marcos et al., 2017). Detection consists of determining if a given signal actually corresponds to an externally forced change or simply falls within possible fluctuations from natural internal variability of the coupled climate system (Stott et al., 2010).

    Large ensembles (LEs) of climate simulations offer a powerful approach to assess climate change detection.While single-model LEs target the uncertainty arising from internal climate variability (i.e., from natural interactions in the coupled ocean–atmosphere–land–biosphere–cryosphere system), multi-model ensembles also include structural uncertainty (arising from differences in model formulation), but offer, in turn, unique insights on the forced climate response since they provide information from the perspective of diversified efforts to simulate the climate system. Despite the exclusive value of a single-model LE in addressing more specifically the intrinsic climate variability, there is no evidence that any particular model is more realistic at climate projections than others of its class (Deser et al., 2020).

    In LE analysis, the ensemble mean, which is referred to as the signal (S), represents the forced response (i.e., the anthropogenic climate change); while the ensemble spread,or noise (N), represents the uncertainty arising from two sources: internal variability and model structural differences. Therefore, ensemble spread in single-model LE arises only from internal variability, while in multi-model LEs the spread is due to both the model configuration and internal variability. A third source of projection uncertainty is associated with the possible radiative forcing scenarios.

    Little et al. (2015) assessed the sources of uncertainty for modeled sea level change in CMIP5 projections and suggested that the combined effect of temperature biases,upper-ocean stratification, and vertical mixing impact the thermosteric sea change across models. Moreover, they discuss that differences in atmospheric models lead to discrepancies in surface fluxes and feedback, which increase uncertainties in multi-model LEs.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) assessments rely on multi-model climate projections based on new alternative development scenarios of future emissions and land-use changes [the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways, or SSPs (O’Neill et al., 2016) and the forcing levels of CMIP5’s Representative Concentration Pathways, or RCPs (van Vuuren et al., 2011)], produced with integrated assessment models participating in phase 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6; Eyring et al., 2016).

    The SSPs’ narrativeillustrate possible anthropogenic drivers of climate change over the 21st century (departing from the historical runs) ranging from sustainable to fossilfueled development (Riahi et al., 2017):

    ● SSP1 —Sustainability —Taking the Green Road:Low challenges to mitigation and adaptation;

    ● SSP2 —Middle of the Road: Medium challenges to mitigation and adaptation;

    ● SSP3 —Regional Rivalry —A Rocky Road: High challenges to mitigation and adaptation;

    ● SSP4 —Inequality —A Road Divided: Low challenges to mitigation, high challenges to adaptation;

    ● SSP5 —Fossil-fueled Development —Taking the Highway: High challenges to mitigation, low challenges to adaptation.

    Beyond improving the understanding of the climate system and characterizing societal risks and response options,numerical climate change projections provide relevant information regarding the emergence of anthropogenically forced trends above internal variability (Carson et al., 2019). This particular time, when S exceeds N above a particular threshold with no turning back below it, is referred to as the time of emergence (ToE).

    The dynamic sea level (DSL) is the spatiotemporally dependent sea surface topography referenced to the Earth’s geoid and it is influenced by ocean currents, local mass balance and density changes in the water column (Cazenave and Remy, 2011; Griffies and Greatbatch, 2012; Gregory et al., 2013; Richter et al., 2013). DSL does not count for global mean SLR and does not contain any other sea level signal, such as zero global mean thermosteric sea level, land ice melt, land motion, or inverse barometer effects; it is defined to have a global mean of zero (Gregory et al.,2019). According to several past studies, regional sea level changes are usually detected by examining DSL changes(e.g., Slangen et al., 2014; Bordbar et al., 2015; Hu and Bates, 2018).

    Here, we investigate the most up-to-date projected DSL for the 21st century as simulated by state-of-the-art global climate models and Earth System Models (ESMs) under the auspices of the CMIP6 project (Table 1). First, the results from the 50-member CanESM5 ensemble (Swart et al., 2019) are assessed for two historical CMIP6 experiments: historical(1850 to 2014, full-forcing) and historical-natural (1850 to 2020; natural-only with no anthropogenic forcing). The trends in sterodynamic sea-level [DSL plus global mean thermosteric sea-level, as defined in Gregory et al. (2019)] from these experiments are compared for consistency against satellite altimetry data from the Archiving, Validation and Interpretation of Satellite Oceanographic data (AVISO, https://www.aviso.altimetry.fr).

    Projected DSL responses to three distinct SSPs are then presented for the 50-member CanESM5 ensemble mean and a CMIP6-27-model ensemble mean. The three CMIP6 scenarios used are: the SSP1-2.6 (sustainability, low emissions,mitigation – year 2100 forcing of 2.6 W m), SSP3-7.0 (business as usual, medium to high emissions — year 2100 forcing of 7.0 W m), and SSP 5-8.5 (fossil-fueled development, high emissions — year 2100 forcing of 8.5 W m).Our goal is to provide a global picture of projected regional DSL based on the agreement between both the CanESM5 and the CMIP6-27-model ensemble sets. Furthermore, we discuss the projected DSL outcomes from distinct SSP scenarios and how they differ between the single- and multimodel ensemble approaches.

    2.Materials and methods

    Two sets of experiments are used in this study: one from a single-model LE, in which ensemble members differ only by small round-off level temperature variations in their initial condition fields, and one corresponding to a multi-model LE, composed of 27 different models from the CMIP6 archive. Our focus is to analyze the future projection experiments (SSPs) for both these sets. These are the three “Tier 1 ScenarioMIP projections” that were available at the time of writing: SSP1-2.6, SSP3-7.0, and SSP5-8.5 –covering the period from 2015 to 2100. Besides the SSP experiments, a set of two historical experiments are also analyzed for the single-model LE, as detailed below.

    2.1.Initial condition CanESM5 ensemble

    For the single-model analysis we employ the 50-member ensemble output from the Canadian Earth System Model version 5 (CanESM5, Swart et al., 2019) retrieved from the CMIP6 archive (hereafter “CanESM5 ensemble”).To compare with satellite-derived observational data, we use the historical scenario with full forcing (i.e., anthropogenic plus natural external forcings and natural internal variability, from 1850 to 2014, Fig.1b) and the historical scenario with natural forcings only (10 members with all-natural external forcings, e.g., volcanoes, solar, but no anthropogenic emissions, from 1850 to 2020, Fig.1c). Each historical realization starts at a different year (with 50-year intervals) from the piControl experiment, yielding differences in multidecadal ocean variability among members (Swart et al., 2019).

    Fig.1. Annual mean linear trend (mm yr?1) for the years 1993–2018 of (a) total sea level from satellite observations(AVISO+), (b) sterodynamic sea-level (DSL plus global mean thermosteric sea level) from CanESM5 historical + SSP585(50 members average) and (c) from CanESM5 historicalnatural (10 members average). The altimeter-derived sea levels refer to the ocean topography with respect to the geoid. Figure A1 in the appendix provides information about the CanESM5 intra-ensemble spread in the observed period.

    There are two subset variants within this ensemble: 25 members use a conservative wind-stress field interpolation passed from the atmospheric model to the ocean model and the other 25-member subset uses a bilinear remapping scheme. These variants do not produce distinguishable responses on transient climate or global scale dynamics(Swart et al., 2019); hence, for our purposes, we can assume this to be a 50-member ensemble with the spread generated only by initial condition characteristics. The analyses were conducted using yearly means of the CanESM5 ensemble DSL results.

    2.2.CMIP6 multi-model ensemble

    The outputs from the 27 Earth System Models (ESMs)used in this study (Table 1; hereafter “CMIP6 ensemble”)are from the CMIP6 archive. The models selection was based on the availability of the DSL variable (or “zos” in CMIP convention — with zero global-area mean and not including inverse barometer depressions from sea ice) for the three “Tier 1 ScenarioMIP projections”. The model output submissions for the CMIP6 archive do not have the same number of ensemble members, so to compute our multi-model ensemble mean of the projected sea level change for the 21st century we are using a single ensemble member from each model (usually the ‘r1i1p1f1’), and every model is given the same weight for the ensemble statistics. To provide an estimate of the internal variability we are also using the last 200 years from the control run (under constant pre-industrial forcing: piControl).

    2.3.Methods

    Prior to performing the CMIP6 ensemble analysis, we interpolated the DSL data from 27 different models onto a common 1° × 1° grid using bilinear interpolation with the same land–ocean mask, excluding the marginal seas and interior lakes like the Mediterranean Sea, Red Sea, Arabian Gulf, Black Sea, Caspian Sea, Baltic Sea, and Hudson Bay.

    Four key metrics in LE analysis were then obtained for the regional DSL data for both the CanESM5 and the CMIP6 ensemble results over the 21st century for each of the three SSPs:

    (i) S — the forced response — which is the ensemble mean of the absolute linear trend in annual mean DSL spanning the period from 2015 to 2100. Trends are used to estimate sea level changes as well as other climate signals in order to highlight nonstationary behavior in the time series.This low-frequency signal can be assessed in terms of prediction, therefore providing a clearer indication of the future long-term movements in the series (Visser et al., 2015) and playing a role in climate change detection (Church et al.,2013).

    (ii) N — the ensemble spread representing uncertainty –which is the standard deviation from the linear trend field among the ensemble members. Using model spread to define N should include additional model errors, whereas in the real-world N should be natural forcing and internal variability only.

    (iii) S/N, as the ratio between the ensemble mean andthe ensemble spread, i.e., between forced response and uncertainty.

    Table 1. Earth System Models used.

    (iv) ToE — the forced response detection time —defined as the decade over which a trend (S) will be statistically above the unforced sea level internal variability [i.e., N(Carson et al., 2019)]. Here, ToE is computed as the year when the DSL time series (with no thermosteric component) at each grid point exceeds two standard deviations of the monthly mean DSL from the piControl experiment,using the same approach as in Bordbar et al. (2015) and Lyu et al. (2014). The computation was performed for each ensemble member separately, and the resulting ToEs were averaged to obtain an ensemble mean ToE.

    The CanESM5 and CMIP6 ensembles were both de-drifted using their respective piControl runs to remove potential spurious trends caused by model equilibrium adjustment rather than by external forcing. Results do not change significantly, consistent with Gupta et al. (2013), who assessed surface properties other than DSL to report that“when considering multimodel means of surface properties,drift is negligible”. The authors also investigated the steric sea level, which integrates the water column, to conclude that the deep ocean can be dominated by model drift.

    3.Results

    The regional patterns of sea level change obtained from satellite-derived observations (Fig.1a) arise from a variety of combined factors within the climate system, which, in turn, emerge from internal climate processes as well as from external forcings. Numerical experiments run with transient forcings enable us to untangle the sea level response to external forcings emerged from natural and anthropogenic drivers, as in Figs. 1b and c, respectively. As argued by Swart et al. (2019), the trends identified in CanESM5 historical-natural simulations (Fig.1c) “are far smaller than would be expected from anthropogenically forced trends, confirming that the model is suitably stable to evaluate centennial-scale climate change.”

    The sterodynamic sea level trends (with global mean thermosteric sea level included) from 1993 to 2018 indicate good agreement between the satellite altimetry product(Fig.1a) and the CanESM5 ensemble (Fig.1b), both depicting major global-scale features such as the midlatitude band of positive trends. When comparing the results from both the altimetry data (Fig.1a) and the CanESM5 full-forcing(Fig.1b) against the CanESM5 historical-natural (Fig.1c;note different color scale) — the latter accounting only for natural external forcings and internal variability — it can be noted that the most evident trends in Figs. 1a and b generally depart from the trends of the spatial pattern with no anthropogenic forcings (Fig.1c). This suggests that a scenario in which only natural forcings existed would still bear the regional distribution of the full-forcing SLR scenario,albeit with much smaller magnitudes, as expected. The differences seen between the altimetry data (Fig.1a)/CanESM5 full-forcing results (Fig.1b) and the CanESM5 historical-natural are therefore attributable to anthropogenic external forcing.

    Although sea level changes have been best explained by models driven by both natural and anthropogenic forcings, the anthropogenic forcing still seems to be the leading factor in explaining the magnitude of observed changes,while most of the variability in models seems to be caused by natural forcing, as shown by Slangen et al. (2014), when comparing full-depth observations of thermosteric sea level change to a range of single-forcing experiments done with 28 CMIP5 climate models. This study, as well as that of Marcos and Amores (2014), shows that the majority of observed global mean thermosteric sea level distribution in the second half of the 20th century is of anthropogenic origin.

    Results for the future projections show common regional sea level changes relative to the global mean in both the CanESM5 and the CMIP6 ensembles (Figs. 2 and 3). The tendency to greater SLR (depicted by S) appears strongly in the Arctic (where N is also higher), the northwestern Pacific, the northern extension of the Gulf Stream, the North Indian Ocean, as well as in the northern limits of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC). In the Southern Ocean, there is a common negative change closer to the Antarctic Continent and in the southeastern Pacific.

    These trends, either positive or negative, are more intense in the SSP5-8.5 scenario and display a regional distribution consistent with previous studies. Based on an ensemble of 21 CMIP5 model projections, the RCP4.5 relative regional sea level anomaly shown by Slangen et al.(2014) [e.g., Fig.7 in Slangen et al. (2017)] is similar to the spatial patterns displayed in Figs. 2 and 3. The authors also found the highest regional sea-level changes along the North Atlantic coastal regions, and along the ACC. Features such as DSL rise in high latitudes and polar regions, as well as the Southern Ocean belt-like structure (“meridional dipole”), are also robust in CMIP3 and CMIP5 model ensembles (Yin et al., 2010; Pardaens et al., 2011; Yin,2012; Bilbao et al., 2015). Likewise, Carson et al. (2015)found large negative sea surface height changes in the Southern Ocean, relative to the global signal.

    By analyzing DSL projections from both CMIP5 and CMIP6 models, Lyu et al. (2020) concluded that they exhibit very similar features and intermodel uncertainties. Relevant improvements from CMIP5 to CMIP6 include a better representation of the location of Southern Hemisphere westerly wind stress, which in turn could be partially responsible for improving the Southern Ocean simulated mean sea level. Larger DSL changes in the North Atlantic and Arctic are also projected by CMIP6 models, which are associated with a larger weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation. It is suggested that the inclusion of models with larger climate sensitivity in CMIP6, in comparison with that of the CMIP5 ensemble, might have contributed to this increase in projected DSL.

    Fig.2. Top: CanESM5 ensemble-mean of the linear DSL trends (mm yr?1). Middle: Spread of the ensemble trends (DSL trends’standard deviation, mm yr?1). Bottom: The signal-to-noise ratio. The DSL trends were computed for all 50 members between 2015 and 2100 for the three SSP projections (left: SSP1-2.6; center: SSP3-7.0; right: SSP5-8.5). Figures A2 and A3 show the time series of CanESM5 global mean thermosteric sea level and local sterodynamic sea level (1850–2100) for the historical simulation and the assessed SSP scenarios.

    Fig.3. CMIP6 multi-model mean (top) linear DSL trends (mm yr?1), spread of multi-model trends (DSL trends’ standard deviation,mm yr?1; middle), and the signal-to-noise ratio (bottom). The DSL trends were computed for all 27 models between 2015 and 2100 for the three SSP projections (left: SSP1-2.6; center: SSP3-7.0; right: SSP5-8.5).

    For the CanESM5 ensemble, greatest N, i.e., largest spread (Fig.2, middle) occurs mainly at high latitudes, with values greater than 1 in the Arctic and the Southern Ocean.High values of projected DSL spread indicate an uncertainty that arises from internal climate variability. N does not vary significantly among the higher emissions projections, but is particularly larger in the Arctic for the SSP1-2.6. This suggests that the uncertainty associated with internal variability does not accompany the change in external forcing magnitude in our results, direct or indirectly. Additionally, for the CanESM5 ensemble, N is larger in regions where S is higher, suggesting that there is more uncertainty in the DSL projection over regions expected to see the biggest changes, in agreement with the results from Hu and Bates (2018) and Slangen et al. (2015).

    The great advantage of using the S/N is provided by the ability to assess the significance of the DSL trends. For instance, Hu and Deser (2013) discuss that the magnitudes of the sterodynamic trends in the Southern Ocean and Arctic (2000–60) are smaller than the 95% uncertainty, and therefore statistically non-significant. Here, the magnitude (S)and spread (N) of the DSL trends are somewhat similar in the Arctic for both CanESM5 (Fig.2) and CMIP6 (Fig.3) results. Nonetheless, the North Atlantic dipole pattern along the Gulf Stream (North Atlantic Current) is rather clear and displays high S/N values in both ensembles for the scenarios SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5 (Figs. 2 and 3), which seems to be linked to the weakening of the Meridional Overturning Circulation (Yin et al., 2009; Pardaens et al., 2011;Bouttes and Gregory, 2014; Hu and Bates, 2018). Carson et al. (2015) also reported high S/N values along the northeastern coast of the United States for results from the Max Planck Institute Earth System Model with low resolution,while the combined analysis (including CMIP5 outputs) of Carson et al. (2016) suggested that, among densely populated regions, the New York City and the northeast of North America are projected to undergo the largest changes in relative sea level during the 20th and 21st centuries.

    For both the CanESM5 and CMIP6 ensembles, the regional changes projected by the SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5 scenarios are fairly similar, while standing out in comparison with the changes projected by the lower-emission SSP1-2.6 (Figs. 2 and 3). This is consistent with the small differences found between the middle-RCP4.5 and the stronger-RCP8.5 forcing scenarios, by Carson et al. (2015),using 21 models from the CMIP5 archive.

    In the Southern Ocean, noticeable S/N values point to high trends — more so for the SSP5-8.5 than for the SSP3-7.0 scenario, with S reaching five times the magnitude of N in the CMIP6 ensemble and up to 20 times in the CanESM5 ensemble. Forget and Ponte (2015) suggested that on long time scales wind stress variability will impact regional sea level variability across the global oceans. The stronger DSL response in the Southern Ocean has been associated with the strengthening of the westerlies (Landerer et al., 2014),which yields enhanced Ekman transport northward and intensifies the meridional sea surface height gradient. This in turn is intensified by an increased meridional temperature gradient.

    Fig.4. CanESM5 ToE: Decade when the DSL time series exceeds the range of natural variability (defined by two standard deviations of the monthly mean DSL simulated in the control experiment). The illustrated ToE corresponds to the averaged ToE from all 50 members.

    Fig.5. CMIP6 ToE: Decade when the DSL time series exceeds the range of natural variability (defined by two standard deviations of the monthly mean DSL simulated in the control experiment) in each model. The illustrated ToE corresponds to the averaged ToE from all 27 models.

    Furthermore, the magnitude of this strong DSL response in the Southern Ocean could be related to surface fluxes (Clark et al., 2015). Warm sea surface temperature(SST) biases in the Southern Ocean have been reported for CMIP5 simulations (Sallée et al., 2013; Meijers, 2014) to be linked to deficiencies in atmospheric processes (Hyder et al., 2018). The same atmospheric surface flux anomalies responsible for causing the SST bias (Hyder et al., 2018) are also the source of variations in heat and freshwater fluxes as well as a poleward shift of the westerly winds (Slangen et al., 2015). Ultimately, ACC changes due to wind stress variations are possibly the main drivers of the local DSL change.

    Figures 4 and 5 display the ToE for the CanESM5 and CMIP6 ensembles, respectively. The regional distribution of S/N (bottom of Figs. 2 and 3) is consistent with the spatial distribution of the decade of ToE from Figs. 4 and 5.Higher S/N can be associated with smaller uncertainties.Although the trend detection falls in similar regions for the three projections, SSP1-2.6 yields much later ToE covering a smaller area relative to the other SSPs. The CanESM5 DSL S emerges roughly two decades prior to the one of the CMIP6 ensemble, which reflects the much smaller natural forcing generated by the CanESM5 simulations, where N is a function only of initial conditions. For the CMIP6 simulations, N comes from both differences in initial conditions and also in model structure.

    Although the RCP8.5-CMIP5 results from Lyu et al.(2014) show that, as a result of large internal variability, the ToE of sea-level change for DSL only (their Fig.2a) occurs before the year of 2080 over only a small fraction of the ocean area, our CMIP6 (and also CanESM5) DSL results show ToEs occurring before 2080 over a majority of the global ocean, more in agreement with those results of Lyu et al. (2014) which consider the DSL plus the global mean thermosteric sea level (their Fig.2b).

    4.Conclusions

    We provide an assessment of 21st century projected changes in regional DSL as simulated within the auspices of the CMIP6 project in three “Tier 1 ScenarioMIP” scenarios:SSP1-2.6 (mitigation), SSP3-7.0 (business as usual), and SSP5-8.5 (high forcing). Detection analyses are performed on DSL outputs from a 50-member single-model ensemble mean (CanESM5) as well as from a multi-model ensemble mean of 27 distinct ESMs participating in CMIP6 (Table 1).The single- and multi-model analyses show a consistent forced response (signal) in regional sea level projections, in which regions displaying higher S/N (low uncertainty)match regions expecting earlier ToEs, overall. The DSL signal is projected to emerge following an upward (i.e., rising)trend in the Arctic and northwestern Atlantic, and following a downward trend (i.e., decline) in the Southern Ocean and Southeast Pacific—with respect to the global-area mean.

    Although internal variability can change in response to forcing (Lehner et al., 2020), here we show that as the signal progressively increases, the DSL noise does not vary substantially across different future scenarios. It means that variations in the external forcing do not seem to significantly impact the ensembles’ spread associated with the uncertainty arising from internal climate variability (and from model differences for the CMIP6 ensemble) with respect to the DSL results analyzed here. N is reduced in the single- relative to the multi-model LE, since the latter accounts for model differences other than just internal variability. In the CanESM5 ensemble, N is larger in regions where S is higher, suggesting that there is more uncertainty in the DSL projection over regions expected to see the largest changes[in agreement with Hu and Bates (2018) and Slangen et al.(2015)].

    The CanESM5 ensemble historical experiment driven by natural forcing alone cannot fully reproduce the current pattern of SLR, although its resulting regional sea level distribution resembles that of the full-forcing historical experiment, with relatively much reduced magnitudes, as expected.

    The SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5 scenarios project similar and equivalent DSL changes — as an adjustment to the external forcing — whereas the changes over the 21st century in the sustainable scenario (SSP1-2.6) are shown to be mostly dominated by internal variability, i.e., DSL signals remain almost entirely within the envelope of internal climate variability. This is consistent with Lyu et al. (2014),who showed that the ToE for total sea level exhibits little dependence on the emissions scenario, and occurs considerably earlier than that for the surface warming. It should be noted, however, that the total sea level variable considered by the authors also accounts for the global thermosteric mean sea level, which certainly has an emissions scenario dependence, differently from DSL.

    Regional projections of sea level changes are strongly linked to global-scale processes that could exceed the range of local natural variability even in a more sustainable scenario. Nevertheless, by “Taking the Green Road” we would be approaching a reality where most of the DSL changes throughout the 21st century would be dominated by internal processes of the climate system rather than by external radiative forcing imbalance.

    Acknowledgements.

    We acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme, which, through its Working Group on Coupled Modelling, coordinated and promoted CMIP6. We thank the climate modeling groups for producing and making available their model output, the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) for archiving the data and providing access, and the multiple funding agencies that support CMIP6 and ESGF. Grants CNPq-MCTINCT-594 CRIOSFERA 573720/2008-8 and Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior-Brasil (CAPES)-Finance Code 001; FAPESP 2015/506861; 2017/16511-5; 2018/14789-9.

    APPENDIX

    Fig.A1. CanESM5 sterodynamic sea level spread (standard deviation,mm yr?1) in the observed period (1993–2018).

    Fig.A2. Time series of global mean thermosteric sea level (cm) from the CanESM5 ensemble for each SSP departing from the historical simulation. Shaded area indicates the spread for each scenario.

    Fig.A3. Time series of local (45°W, 38°S) mean sterodynamic sea level (cm) from the CanESM5 ensemble for each SSP scenario departing from the historical simulation. Thin lines indicate individual ensemble members and solid lines indicate ensemble means for each scenario.

    亚洲四区av| 日韩,欧美,国产一区二区三区 | 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 亚洲在线观看片| 我要搜黄色片| 久久久久精品久久久久真实原创| 大香蕉久久网| 亚洲久久久久久中文字幕| 久久精品久久精品一区二区三区| 亚洲av成人av| 色噜噜av男人的天堂激情| 天天一区二区日本电影三级| 久久久久久久国产电影| 18禁在线无遮挡免费观看视频| 亚洲国产精品专区欧美| 国产极品精品免费视频能看的| 一级爰片在线观看| 久久精品夜色国产| 青春草亚洲视频在线观看| 国产精品福利在线免费观看| 久久久久国产网址| 高清在线视频一区二区三区 | 欧美xxxx性猛交bbbb| 国产高清国产精品国产三级 | 日韩av不卡免费在线播放| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 青春草国产在线视频| 两个人视频免费观看高清| 少妇丰满av| 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看 | 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 国产高潮美女av| 人妻系列 视频| 97在线视频观看| 变态另类丝袜制服| 日本猛色少妇xxxxx猛交久久| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 在线观看一区二区三区| 久久久久精品久久久久真实原创| 中文字幕亚洲精品专区| 一个人免费在线观看电影| 97超视频在线观看视频| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 国产不卡一卡二| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看| 中文在线观看免费www的网站| 欧美xxxx黑人xx丫x性爽| 精品久久久久久久久av| 午夜a级毛片| 亚洲在久久综合| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 国产在视频线在精品| 国产黄色视频一区二区在线观看 | 性色avwww在线观看| 亚洲av成人av| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| 久久这里只有精品中国| 精品人妻视频免费看| 国产成人a区在线观看| 69人妻影院| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久 | 看黄色毛片网站| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 赤兔流量卡办理| 中文字幕亚洲精品专区| 久久久久网色| 两个人视频免费观看高清| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 久久99蜜桃精品久久| 国产av码专区亚洲av| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 三级国产精品片| 97热精品久久久久久| 中文字幕熟女人妻在线| 亚洲怡红院男人天堂| 日本色播在线视频| 亚洲不卡免费看| 日韩一区二区三区影片| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 成人鲁丝片一二三区免费| 欧美极品一区二区三区四区| 亚洲人成网站在线播| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 一级黄色大片毛片| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 免费无遮挡裸体视频| 哪个播放器可以免费观看大片| 小说图片视频综合网站| 真实男女啪啪啪动态图| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器| 日本一二三区视频观看| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 综合色丁香网| 综合色av麻豆| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 91aial.com中文字幕在线观看| 欧美三级亚洲精品| 日本-黄色视频高清免费观看| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 日韩在线高清观看一区二区三区| 午夜久久久久精精品| 国产精品国产三级国产专区5o | 内地一区二区视频在线| 男女国产视频网站| 成年版毛片免费区| 久久精品夜色国产| 亚洲欧洲国产日韩| 免费观看精品视频网站| 免费看美女性在线毛片视频| 三级经典国产精品| 嫩草影院入口| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 亚洲精品成人久久久久久| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99 | 大香蕉97超碰在线| 日韩中字成人| 国产高清不卡午夜福利| 夫妻性生交免费视频一级片| 国产一级毛片七仙女欲春2| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 久久人妻av系列| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜爱| 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄 | 日本wwww免费看| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99 | 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 亚洲国产欧美在线一区| 有码 亚洲区| 亚洲18禁久久av| 久久精品夜夜夜夜夜久久蜜豆| 亚洲精品亚洲一区二区| 国产极品精品免费视频能看的| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 天天一区二区日本电影三级| 亚洲精品456在线播放app| 美女cb高潮喷水在线观看| 日本免费a在线| 日本免费a在线| 插阴视频在线观看视频| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区国产| 久热久热在线精品观看| av线在线观看网站| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 免费黄色在线免费观看| 禁无遮挡网站| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区国产| 久久草成人影院| 级片在线观看| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| 一级毛片电影观看 | 欧美三级亚洲精品| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 国产探花极品一区二区| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 丝袜喷水一区| 日本三级黄在线观看| 免费观看的影片在线观看| 春色校园在线视频观看| 国产精品国产三级国产专区5o | 亚洲精品乱码久久久v下载方式| 一级毛片电影观看 | 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜 | 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看 | 精品国产露脸久久av麻豆 | 亚洲色图av天堂| 国产成人aa在线观看| 国产一区二区亚洲精品在线观看| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 久久久亚洲精品成人影院| 国产高潮美女av| 日韩中字成人| 亚洲av免费在线观看| 午夜福利在线在线| 欧美一区二区精品小视频在线| 哪个播放器可以免费观看大片| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 综合色av麻豆| 蜜臀久久99精品久久宅男| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠久久av| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费| 一级黄色大片毛片| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 成人毛片60女人毛片免费| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 日本午夜av视频| 日韩精品有码人妻一区| 亚洲国产欧洲综合997久久,| 高清av免费在线| 九色成人免费人妻av| 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 久久久久九九精品影院| 久久精品久久精品一区二区三区| 久久久久久大精品| 婷婷六月久久综合丁香| 国产一区二区亚洲精品在线观看| 精品久久久久久电影网 | 六月丁香七月| 97热精品久久久久久| 18禁在线无遮挡免费观看视频| 日韩制服骚丝袜av| 国产三级中文精品| 男女下面进入的视频免费午夜| 97在线视频观看| 69人妻影院| 国产美女午夜福利| 嘟嘟电影网在线观看| 男人狂女人下面高潮的视频| 午夜爱爱视频在线播放| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 国产在线男女| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 成人午夜精彩视频在线观看| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 色视频www国产| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 免费看光身美女| 一区二区三区高清视频在线| 高清毛片免费看| 成年免费大片在线观看| 中文字幕精品亚洲无线码一区| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 在线播放国产精品三级| 中文字幕av在线有码专区| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 99久久人妻综合| 高清毛片免费看| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 99久久人妻综合| 国产色爽女视频免费观看| 久久久精品大字幕| 国产精品野战在线观看| 少妇的逼水好多| 欧美高清成人免费视频www| 久久久欧美国产精品| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看| 91精品一卡2卡3卡4卡| 高清视频免费观看一区二区 | 97热精品久久久久久| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 中文资源天堂在线| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 日韩欧美三级三区| 国产视频首页在线观看| 插阴视频在线观看视频| 18禁裸乳无遮挡免费网站照片| av国产久精品久网站免费入址| 色播亚洲综合网| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 晚上一个人看的免费电影| 成人午夜高清在线视频| 久久久久久大精品| 久久久精品欧美日韩精品| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久 | 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观| 国产一区二区三区av在线| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 亚洲av熟女| 久久国内精品自在自线图片| 老司机影院成人| 蜜桃亚洲精品一区二区三区| 美女高潮的动态| 欧美3d第一页| 国产在线一区二区三区精 | 高清毛片免费看| av黄色大香蕉| 中文资源天堂在线| 精品国产露脸久久av麻豆 | 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99 | 观看免费一级毛片| 久久久久久久久中文| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| 久久国产乱子免费精品| av又黄又爽大尺度在线免费看 | 嫩草影院精品99| 亚洲四区av| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 色网站视频免费| 亚洲av.av天堂| av视频在线观看入口| 亚洲婷婷狠狠爱综合网| 丝袜美腿在线中文| 中文字幕精品亚洲无线码一区| 人妻系列 视频| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久| 免费无遮挡裸体视频| 精品久久久久久久久亚洲| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 一级二级三级毛片免费看| 国内精品宾馆在线| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 国产精品电影一区二区三区| www.av在线官网国产| 特级一级黄色大片| 日本与韩国留学比较| 亚洲av一区综合| 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 看黄色毛片网站| 99久久九九国产精品国产免费| 国产精品福利在线免费观看| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 国产亚洲精品久久久com| 国产精品永久免费网站| 色5月婷婷丁香| 日韩一本色道免费dvd| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久| 午夜免费激情av| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 欧美成人午夜免费资源| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 成年女人看的毛片在线观看| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 超碰av人人做人人爽久久| 国产精华一区二区三区| 中文字幕制服av| 在线播放无遮挡| 国产女主播在线喷水免费视频网站 | 亚洲熟妇中文字幕五十中出| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 中文字幕免费在线视频6| 91狼人影院| 欧美精品一区二区大全| 久久久久久伊人网av| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 国产熟女欧美一区二区| 国产不卡一卡二| 亚洲av熟女| 成人鲁丝片一二三区免费| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 麻豆国产97在线/欧美| 51国产日韩欧美| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 嫩草影院精品99| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 成年版毛片免费区| 亚洲欧洲国产日韩| av视频在线观看入口| 国产精品蜜桃在线观看| 久久久久国产网址| 久久99热这里只有精品18| 成人无遮挡网站| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 色5月婷婷丁香| 自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇| 国产一区二区亚洲精品在线观看| 中文乱码字字幕精品一区二区三区 | 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 国产成人精品婷婷| 18禁在线播放成人免费| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 别揉我奶头 嗯啊视频| 亚洲人成网站在线观看播放| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 国产高清有码在线观看视频| 99热6这里只有精品| 亚洲无线观看免费| 国产 一区精品| 久久99热这里只频精品6学生 | 免费av观看视频| 黄色日韩在线| www日本黄色视频网| 69人妻影院| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色| 97超碰精品成人国产| 久久欧美精品欧美久久欧美| 国国产精品蜜臀av免费| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 能在线免费看毛片的网站| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| 色网站视频免费| 七月丁香在线播放| 久久久久九九精品影院| 观看免费一级毛片| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 亚洲av免费在线观看| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久 | 一个人看视频在线观看www免费| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 国产黄片视频在线免费观看| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 国产白丝娇喘喷水9色精品| 国产精品av视频在线免费观看| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av| 别揉我奶头 嗯啊视频| 午夜福利在线观看免费完整高清在| 国产av不卡久久| 99热6这里只有精品| 看免费成人av毛片| 国产成人精品婷婷| 成人二区视频| 色网站视频免费| 国产高清国产精品国产三级 | 2021少妇久久久久久久久久久| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 深夜a级毛片| 亚洲欧美清纯卡通| 内地一区二区视频在线| 天堂中文最新版在线下载 | 岛国在线免费视频观看| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 岛国毛片在线播放| 七月丁香在线播放| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 六月丁香七月| 国产成人精品一,二区| 插逼视频在线观看| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 午夜福利成人在线免费观看| av在线蜜桃| 女人十人毛片免费观看3o分钟| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 熟女电影av网| 色吧在线观看| 成人鲁丝片一二三区免费| 免费无遮挡裸体视频| www.色视频.com| 久久久国产成人免费| 天天一区二区日本电影三级| 亚洲国产欧洲综合997久久,| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 亚洲成色77777| 亚洲欧美成人精品一区二区| 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| 久久精品综合一区二区三区| 精品酒店卫生间| 国产成人freesex在线| 九色成人免费人妻av| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久| 蜜臀久久99精品久久宅男| 性插视频无遮挡在线免费观看| 天堂网av新在线| 少妇丰满av| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 国产精品永久免费网站| av在线观看视频网站免费| 日韩高清综合在线| 特级一级黄色大片| 七月丁香在线播放| 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区| 大香蕉久久网| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 99久久人妻综合| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观| 国产极品天堂在线| 欧美xxxx黑人xx丫x性爽| 欧美变态另类bdsm刘玥| 亚洲伊人久久精品综合 | 国产视频内射| 成年女人看的毛片在线观看| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 日韩一区二区视频免费看| 亚洲伊人久久精品综合 | 久久精品熟女亚洲av麻豆精品 | 赤兔流量卡办理| 成人国产麻豆网| 亚洲欧美中文字幕日韩二区| 亚洲在久久综合| 国产精品人妻久久久影院| 免费看av在线观看网站| 欧美日韩一区二区视频在线观看视频在线 | 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 日韩高清综合在线| 欧美人与善性xxx| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 精品久久久久久成人av| 成人毛片60女人毛片免费| 免费搜索国产男女视频| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| 日本午夜av视频| 人妻系列 视频| 永久网站在线| 一个人观看的视频www高清免费观看| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 国产一区二区亚洲精品在线观看| 国产精品电影一区二区三区| 久久99热这里只有精品18| 青春草国产在线视频| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 韩国av在线不卡| av播播在线观看一区| 韩国高清视频一区二区三区| 黄片无遮挡物在线观看| 亚洲欧美精品综合久久99| 国产精品福利在线免费观看| 成人av在线播放网站| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 亚洲五月天丁香| 久久久久久久久久成人| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 免费观看精品视频网站| 久久久久久久久大av| 女的被弄到高潮叫床怎么办| 日韩av在线免费看完整版不卡| 久久国内精品自在自线图片| 久久久久久久久久久免费av| 偷拍熟女少妇极品色| 午夜视频国产福利| 天堂√8在线中文| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 午夜a级毛片| 极品教师在线视频| 国产午夜精品久久久久久一区二区三区| 久久精品夜色国产| 国产黄片美女视频| 嘟嘟电影网在线观看| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 91久久精品电影网| 亚洲精品乱码久久久久久按摩| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频 | 最近最新中文字幕免费大全7| 老司机福利观看| 国产极品天堂在线| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 亚洲经典国产精华液单| 欧美一区二区亚洲| 午夜视频国产福利| 亚洲av福利一区| 中文在线观看免费www的网站| 精品人妻视频免费看| 亚洲欧美日韩高清专用| 色网站视频免费| 69av精品久久久久久| a级一级毛片免费在线观看| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 18禁动态无遮挡网站| 国产精品福利在线免费观看| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 欧美成人a在线观看| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 国产精品精品国产色婷婷| av专区在线播放| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久| 国产精品永久免费网站| 婷婷色综合大香蕉| 婷婷色av中文字幕| av在线观看视频网站免费| 水蜜桃什么品种好| 国产高清不卡午夜福利| 综合色丁香网| 欧美日韩国产亚洲二区| 久久久久久大精品| 国产欧美日韩精品一区二区| 亚洲av福利一区| 国产一区有黄有色的免费视频 | 日本熟妇午夜| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 91精品一卡2卡3卡4卡| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 免费人成在线观看视频色| 男女边吃奶边做爰视频| 日韩欧美在线乱码| 久久精品综合一区二区三区| 欧美变态另类bdsm刘玥| 嫩草影院精品99| 伦精品一区二区三区| 国产黄色小视频在线观看| 黄色配什么色好看| 91精品伊人久久大香线蕉| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99 | 久久99蜜桃精品久久| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类| av在线蜜桃| 国产成人aa在线观看| 国产三级中文精品| 国产精品国产三级国产专区5o | 能在线免费观看的黄片| 久久热精品热| 好男人视频免费观看在线| 色综合色国产| 精品久久久久久久末码| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 午夜免费激情av| 国产成人精品久久久久久| 1024手机看黄色片| 中文字幕av成人在线电影| 99热6这里只有精品| 91午夜精品亚洲一区二区三区|