Articles | Volume 13, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1715-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1715-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
19 Dec 2022
Research article |
| 19 Dec 2022
| 19 Dec 2022
Potential for bias in effective climate sensitivity from state-dependent energetic imbalance
Benjamin M. Sanderson
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
CICERO, Oslo, Norway
Maria Rugenstein
Department of Atmospheric Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Related authors
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Susanne Baur, Carl-Freidrich Schleussner, Glen P. Peters, Shivika Mittal, Marit Sandstad, Steffen Kallbekken, Chris Smith, Sabine Fuss, Bas van Ruijven, Rosie A. Fisher, Joeri Rogelj, Roland Séférian, Bjørn Samset, Norman J. Steinert, Laurent Terray, and Jan Fuglestvedt
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-28, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-28, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Earth System Dynamics (ESD).
Short summary
Short summary
Solar Radiation Modification by adding aerosols to the stratosphere could rapidly and temporarily cool the Earth, but this speed creates unprecedented risks. Fast climate responses coupled with political instability create risks of failure to decarbonise, super-rapid climate change, and conflict. Idealized scenarios or conventional modeling tools could lead to systematic ignorance of these risks. We thus introduce a framework outlining what must be represented in future modeling and assessment.
Alejandro Romero-Prieto, Marit Sandstad, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Zebedee R. J. Nicholls, Norman J. Steinert, Thomas Gasser, Camilla Mathison, Jarmo Kikstra, Thomas J. Aubry, and Chris Smith
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5775, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5775, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Reduced-complexity models are an important tool in climate science, helping us understand and estimate future climate change. We present the experimental protocol for the next phase of the reduced-complexity model intercomparison project, which aims to compare results from many such models to better understand their behaviour. This knowledge will guide how these models are developed and used in the future, including in the upcoming IPCC assessment report (AR7).
Marit Sandstad, Norman Julius Steinert, Susanne Baur, and Benjamin Mark Sanderson
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 8269–8312, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-8269-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-8269-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present METEORv1.0.1, a climate model emulator, that can be trained on full spatially resolved and widely available climate model data to reproduce climate variables and make predictions from unseen emission trajectories. The methodology identifies patterns with timescales of impact for one or more forcers using idealised experiments and anomaly calculations. Results for precipitation and temperature show good model performance and can reproduce hysteresis for overshoot scenarios.
Norman J. Steinert and Benjamin M. Sanderson
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 1711–1721, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1711-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1711-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we explore how carbon emissions from thawing permafrost, known as the permafrost carbon feedback, affect two important climate metrics: how much the Earth warms per amount of carbon we emit and how much warming continues after we stop emitting carbon. Our study tackles a major gap in how we estimate future climate change. Using simplified climate models, we find a generalizable relationship between the permafrost carbon feedback and its additional warming impact on climate.
John P. Dunne, Helene T. Hewitt, Julie M. Arblaster, Frédéric Bonou, Olivier Boucher, Tereza Cavazos, Beth Dingley, Paul J. Durack, Birgit Hassler, Martin Juckes, Tomoki Miyakawa, Matt Mizielinski, Vaishali Naik, Zebedee Nicholls, Eleanor O'Rourke, Robert Pincus, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Isla R. Simpson, and Karl E. Taylor
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 6671–6700, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-6671-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-6671-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The seventh phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP7) coordinates efforts to answer key and timely climate science questions and facilitate delivery of relevant multi-model simulations for prediction and projection; characterization, attribution, and process understanding; and vulnerability, impact, and adaptation analysis. Key to the CMIP7 design are the mandatory Diagnostic, Evaluation and Characterization of Klima and optional Assessment Fast Track experiments.
Colin Jones, Isaline Bossert, Donovan P. Dennis, Hazel Jeffery, Chris D. Jones, Torben Koenigk, Sina Loriani, Benjamin Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Klaus Wyser, Shuting Yang, Manabu Abe, Sebastian Bathiany, Pascale Braconnot, Victor Brovkin, Friedrich A. Burger, Patrica Cadule, Frederic S. Castruccio, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Andrea Dittus, Jonathan F. Donges, Friederike Fröb, Thomas Frölicher, Goran Georgievski, Chuncheng Guo, Aixue Hu, Peter Lawrence, Paul Lerner, José Licón-Saláiz, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Anastasia Romanou, Elena Shevliakova, Yona Silvy, Didier Swingedouw, Jerry Tjiputra, Jeremy Walton, Andy Wiltshire, Ricarda Winkelmann, Richard Wood, Tokuta Yokohata, and Tilo Ziehn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3604, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3604, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce a new Earth system model experiment protocol to help researchers understand how Earth might respond to positive, zero, and negative carbon emissions. This protocol enables different models to be compared following similar warming and cooling rates. Researchers use the models to explore how the Earth reacts to different climate futures, including the risk of tipping points being exceeded and whether changes can be reversed. The results will support improved long-term climate policy.
Ken S. Carslaw, Leighton A. Regayre, Ulrike Proske, Andrew Gettelman, David M. H. Sexton, Yun Qian, Lauren Marshall, Oliver Wild, Marcus van Lier-Walqui, Annika Oertel, Saloua Peatier, Ben Yang, Jill S. Johnson, Sihan Li, Daniel T. McCoy, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Christina J. Williamson, Gregory S. Elsaesser, Kuniko Yamazaki, and Ben B. B. Booth
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4341, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4341, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
A major challenge in climate science is reducing projection uncertainty despite advances in models and observational constraints. Perturbed parameter ensembles (PPEs) offer a powerful tool to explore and reduce uncertainty by revealing model weaknesses and guiding development. PPEs are now widely applied across climate systems and scales. We argue they should be prioritized alongside complexity and resolution in model resource planning.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Victor Brovkin, Rosie A. Fisher, David Hohn, Tatiana Ilyina, Chris D. Jones, Torben Koenigk, Charles Koven, Hongmei Li, David M. Lawrence, Peter Lawrence, Spencer Liddicoat, Andrew H. MacDougall, Nadine Mengis, Zebedee Nicholls, Eleanor O'Rourke, Anastasia Romanou, Marit Sandstad, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Lori T. Sentman, Isla R. Simpson, Chris Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Abigail L. S. Swann, Jerry Tjiputra, and Tilo Ziehn
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 5699–5724, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-5699-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-5699-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates how climate models warm in response to simplified carbon emissions trajectories, refining the understanding of climate reversibility and commitment. Metrics are defined for warming response to cumulative emissions and for the cessation of emissions or ramp-down to net-zero and net-negative levels. Results indicate that previous concentration-driven experiments may have overstated the Zero Emissions Commitment due to emissions rates exceeding historical levels.
Susanne Baur, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, and Laurent Terray
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 667–681, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-667-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-667-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) could be used alongside mitigation to reduce global warming. Previous studies suggest that more atmospheric CO2 is taken up when SAI is deployed. Here, we look at the entire SAI deployment from start to after termination. We show how the initial CO2 uptake benefit, and hence lower mitigation burden, is reduced in later stages of SAI, where the reduction in natural CO2 uptake turns into an additional mitigation burden.
Detlef van Vuuren, Brian O'Neill, Claudia Tebaldi, Louise Chini, Pierre Friedlingstein, Tomoko Hasegawa, Keywan Riahi, Benjamin Sanderson, Bala Govindasamy, Nico Bauer, Veronika Eyring, Cheikh Fall, Katja Frieler, Matthew Gidden, Laila Gohar, Andrew Jones, Andrew King, Reto Knutti, Elmar Kriegler, Peter Lawrence, Chris Lennard, Jason Lowe, Camila Mathison, Shahbaz Mehmood, Luciana Prado, Qiang Zhang, Steven Rose, Alexander Ruane, Carl-Friederich Schleussner, Roland Seferian, Jana Sillmann, Chris Smith, Anna Sörensson, Swapna Panickal, Kaoru Tachiiri, Naomi Vaughan, Saritha Vishwanathan, Tokuta Yokohata, and Tilo Ziehn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3765, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3765, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a set of six plausible 21st century emission scenarios, and their multi-century extensions, that will be used by the international community of climate modeling centers to produce the next generation of climate projections. These projections will support climate, impact and mitigation researchers, provide information to practitioners to address future risks from climate change, and contribute to policymakers’ considerations of the trade-offs among various levels of mitigation.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Ben B. B. Booth, John Dunne, Veronika Eyring, Rosie A. Fisher, Pierre Friedlingstein, Matthew J. Gidden, Tomohiro Hajima, Chris D. Jones, Colin G. Jones, Andrew King, Charles D. Koven, David M. Lawrence, Jason Lowe, Nadine Mengis, Glen P. Peters, Joeri Rogelj, Chris Smith, Abigail C. Snyder, Isla R. Simpson, Abigail L. S. Swann, Claudia Tebaldi, Tatiana Ilyina, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Roland Séférian, Bjørn H. Samset, Detlef van Vuuren, and Sönke Zaehle
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8141–8172, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8141-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8141-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We discuss how, in order to provide more relevant guidance for climate policy, coordinated climate experiments should adopt a greater focus on simulations where Earth system models are provided with carbon emissions from fossil fuels together with land use change instructions, rather than past approaches that have largely focused on experiments with prescribed atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. We discuss how these goals might be achieved in coordinated climate modeling experiments.
Colin G. Jones, Fanny Adloff, Ben B. B. Booth, Peter M. Cox, Veronika Eyring, Pierre Friedlingstein, Katja Frieler, Helene T. Hewitt, Hazel A. Jeffery, Sylvie Joussaume, Torben Koenigk, Bryan N. Lawrence, Eleanor O'Rourke, Malcolm J. Roberts, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Samuel Somot, Pier Luigi Vidale, Detlef van Vuuren, Mario Acosta, Mats Bentsen, Raffaele Bernardello, Richard Betts, Ed Blockley, Julien Boé, Tom Bracegirdle, Pascale Braconnot, Victor Brovkin, Carlo Buontempo, Francisco Doblas-Reyes, Markus Donat, Italo Epicoco, Pete Falloon, Sandro Fiore, Thomas Frölicher, Neven S. Fučkar, Matthew J. Gidden, Helge F. Goessling, Rune Grand Graversen, Silvio Gualdi, José M. Gutiérrez, Tatiana Ilyina, Daniela Jacob, Chris D. Jones, Martin Juckes, Elizabeth Kendon, Erik Kjellström, Reto Knutti, Jason Lowe, Matthew Mizielinski, Paola Nassisi, Michael Obersteiner, Pierre Regnier, Romain Roehrig, David Salas y Mélia, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Michael Schulz, Enrico Scoccimarro, Laurent Terray, Hannes Thiemann, Richard A. Wood, Shuting Yang, and Sönke Zaehle
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1319–1351, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1319-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1319-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a number of priority areas for the international climate research community to address over the coming decade. Advances in these areas will both increase our understanding of past and future Earth system change, including the societal and environmental impacts of this change, and deliver significantly improved scientific support to international climate policy, such as future IPCC assessments and the UNFCCC Global Stocktake.
Marit Sandstad, Borgar Aamaas, Ane Nordlie Johansen, Marianne Tronstad Lund, Glen Philip Peters, Bjørn Hallvard Samset, Benjamin Mark Sanderson, and Ragnhild Bieltvedt Skeie
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6589–6625, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6589-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6589-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The CICERO-SCM has existed as a Fortran model since 1999 that calculates the radiative forcing and concentrations from emissions and is an upwelling diffusion energy balance model of the ocean that calculates temperature change. In this paper, we describe an updated version ported to Python and publicly available at https://github.com/ciceroOslo/ciceroscm (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10548720). This version contains functionality for parallel runs and automatic calibration.
Saloua Peatier, Benjamin M. Sanderson, and Laurent Terray
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 987–1014, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-987-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-987-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The calibration of Earth system model parameters is a high-dimensionality problem subject to data, time, and computational constraints. In this study, we propose a practical solution for finding diverse near-optimal solutions. We argue that the effective degrees of freedom in the model performance response to parameter input is relatively small. Comparably performing parameter configurations exist and showcase different trade-offs in model errors, providing insights for model development.
Malte Meinshausen, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Kathleen Beyer, Greg Bodeker, Olivier Boucher, Josep G. Canadell, John S. Daniel, Aïda Diongue-Niang, Fatima Driouech, Erich Fischer, Piers Forster, Michael Grose, Gerrit Hansen, Zeke Hausfather, Tatiana Ilyina, Jarmo S. Kikstra, Joyce Kimutai, Andrew D. King, June-Yi Lee, Chris Lennard, Tabea Lissner, Alexander Nauels, Glen P. Peters, Anna Pirani, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Hans Pörtner, Joeri Rogelj, Maisa Rojas, Joyashree Roy, Bjørn H. Samset, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Sonia Seneviratne, Christopher J. Smith, Sophie Szopa, Adelle Thomas, Diana Urge-Vorsatz, Guus J. M. Velders, Tokuta Yokohata, Tilo Ziehn, and Zebedee Nicholls
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4533–4559, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4533-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4533-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The scientific community is considering new scenarios to succeed RCPs and SSPs for the next generation of Earth system model runs to project future climate change. To contribute to that effort, we reflect on relevant policy and scientific research questions and suggest categories for representative emission pathways. These categories are tailored to the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal, high-risk outcomes in the absence of further climate policy and worlds “that could have been”.
Susanne Baur, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, and Laurent Terray
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 307–322, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-307-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-307-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Most solar radiation modification (SRM) simulations assume no physical coupling between mitigation and SRM. We analyze the impact of SRM on photovoltaic (PV) and concentrated solar power (CSP) and find that almost all regions have reduced PV and CSP potential compared to a mitigated or unmitigated scenario, especially in the middle and high latitudes. This suggests that SRM could pose challenges for meeting energy demands with solar renewable resources.
Susanne Baur, Alexander Nauels, Zebedee Nicholls, Benjamin M. Sanderson, and Carl-Friedrich Schleussner
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 367–381, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-367-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-367-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Solar radiation modification (SRM) artificially cools global temperature without acting on the cause of climate change. This study looks at how long SRM would have to be deployed to limit warming to 1.5 °C and how this timeframe is affected by different levels of mitigation, negative emissions and climate uncertainty. None of the three factors alone can guarantee short SRM deployment. Due to their uncertainty at the time of SRM initialization, any deployment risks may be several centuries long.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Angeline G. Pendergrass, Charles D. Koven, Florent Brient, Ben B. B. Booth, Rosie A. Fisher, and Reto Knutti
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 899–918, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-899-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-899-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Emergent constraints promise a pathway to the reduction in climate projection uncertainties by exploiting ensemble relationships between observable quantities and unknown climate response parameters. This study considers the robustness of these relationships in light of biases and common simplifications that may be present in the original ensemble of climate simulations. We propose a classification scheme for constraints and a number of practical case studies.
Camille Besombes, Olivier Pannekoucke, Corentin Lapeyre, Benjamin Sanderson, and Olivier Thual
Nonlin. Processes Geophys., 28, 347–370, https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-28-347-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-28-347-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper investigates the potential of a type of deep generative neural network to produce realistic weather situations when trained from the climate of a general circulation model. The generator represents the climate in a compact latent space. It is able to reproduce many aspects of the targeted multivariate distribution. Some properties of our method open new perspectives such as the exploration of the extremes close to a given state or how to connect two realistic weather states.
Claudia Tebaldi, Kevin Debeire, Veronika Eyring, Erich Fischer, John Fyfe, Pierre Friedlingstein, Reto Knutti, Jason Lowe, Brian O'Neill, Benjamin Sanderson, Detlef van Vuuren, Keywan Riahi, Malte Meinshausen, Zebedee Nicholls, Katarzyna B. Tokarska, George Hurtt, Elmar Kriegler, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Gerald Meehl, Richard Moss, Susanne E. Bauer, Olivier Boucher, Victor Brovkin, Young-Hwa Byun, Martin Dix, Silvio Gualdi, Huan Guo, Jasmin G. John, Slava Kharin, YoungHo Kim, Tsuyoshi Koshiro, Libin Ma, Dirk Olivié, Swapna Panickal, Fangli Qiao, Xinyao Rong, Nan Rosenbloom, Martin Schupfner, Roland Séférian, Alistair Sellar, Tido Semmler, Xiaoying Shi, Zhenya Song, Christian Steger, Ronald Stouffer, Neil Swart, Kaoru Tachiiri, Qi Tang, Hiroaki Tatebe, Aurore Voldoire, Evgeny Volodin, Klaus Wyser, Xiaoge Xin, Shuting Yang, Yongqiang Yu, and Tilo Ziehn
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 253–293, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-253-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-253-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We present an overview of CMIP6 ScenarioMIP outcomes from up to 38 participating ESMs according to the new SSP-based scenarios. Average temperature and precipitation projections according to a wide range of forcings, spanning a wider range than the CMIP5 projections, are documented as global averages and geographic patterns. Times of crossing various warming levels are computed, together with benefits of mitigation for selected pairs of scenarios. Comparisons with CMIP5 are also discussed.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Susanne Baur, Carl-Freidrich Schleussner, Glen P. Peters, Shivika Mittal, Marit Sandstad, Steffen Kallbekken, Chris Smith, Sabine Fuss, Bas van Ruijven, Rosie A. Fisher, Joeri Rogelj, Roland Séférian, Bjørn Samset, Norman J. Steinert, Laurent Terray, and Jan Fuglestvedt
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-28, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-28, 2026
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Earth System Dynamics (ESD).
Short summary
Short summary
Solar Radiation Modification by adding aerosols to the stratosphere could rapidly and temporarily cool the Earth, but this speed creates unprecedented risks. Fast climate responses coupled with political instability create risks of failure to decarbonise, super-rapid climate change, and conflict. Idealized scenarios or conventional modeling tools could lead to systematic ignorance of these risks. We thus introduce a framework outlining what must be represented in future modeling and assessment.
Alejandro Romero-Prieto, Marit Sandstad, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Zebedee R. J. Nicholls, Norman J. Steinert, Thomas Gasser, Camilla Mathison, Jarmo Kikstra, Thomas J. Aubry, and Chris Smith
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5775, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5775, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Reduced-complexity models are an important tool in climate science, helping us understand and estimate future climate change. We present the experimental protocol for the next phase of the reduced-complexity model intercomparison project, which aims to compare results from many such models to better understand their behaviour. This knowledge will guide how these models are developed and used in the future, including in the upcoming IPCC assessment report (AR7).
Marit Sandstad, Norman Julius Steinert, Susanne Baur, and Benjamin Mark Sanderson
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 8269–8312, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-8269-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-8269-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present METEORv1.0.1, a climate model emulator, that can be trained on full spatially resolved and widely available climate model data to reproduce climate variables and make predictions from unseen emission trajectories. The methodology identifies patterns with timescales of impact for one or more forcers using idealised experiments and anomaly calculations. Results for precipitation and temperature show good model performance and can reproduce hysteresis for overshoot scenarios.
Norman J. Steinert and Benjamin M. Sanderson
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 1711–1721, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1711-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1711-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we explore how carbon emissions from thawing permafrost, known as the permafrost carbon feedback, affect two important climate metrics: how much the Earth warms per amount of carbon we emit and how much warming continues after we stop emitting carbon. Our study tackles a major gap in how we estimate future climate change. Using simplified climate models, we find a generalizable relationship between the permafrost carbon feedback and its additional warming impact on climate.
John P. Dunne, Helene T. Hewitt, Julie M. Arblaster, Frédéric Bonou, Olivier Boucher, Tereza Cavazos, Beth Dingley, Paul J. Durack, Birgit Hassler, Martin Juckes, Tomoki Miyakawa, Matt Mizielinski, Vaishali Naik, Zebedee Nicholls, Eleanor O'Rourke, Robert Pincus, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Isla R. Simpson, and Karl E. Taylor
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 6671–6700, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-6671-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-6671-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The seventh phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP7) coordinates efforts to answer key and timely climate science questions and facilitate delivery of relevant multi-model simulations for prediction and projection; characterization, attribution, and process understanding; and vulnerability, impact, and adaptation analysis. Key to the CMIP7 design are the mandatory Diagnostic, Evaluation and Characterization of Klima and optional Assessment Fast Track experiments.
Colin Jones, Isaline Bossert, Donovan P. Dennis, Hazel Jeffery, Chris D. Jones, Torben Koenigk, Sina Loriani, Benjamin Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Klaus Wyser, Shuting Yang, Manabu Abe, Sebastian Bathiany, Pascale Braconnot, Victor Brovkin, Friedrich A. Burger, Patrica Cadule, Frederic S. Castruccio, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Andrea Dittus, Jonathan F. Donges, Friederike Fröb, Thomas Frölicher, Goran Georgievski, Chuncheng Guo, Aixue Hu, Peter Lawrence, Paul Lerner, José Licón-Saláiz, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Anastasia Romanou, Elena Shevliakova, Yona Silvy, Didier Swingedouw, Jerry Tjiputra, Jeremy Walton, Andy Wiltshire, Ricarda Winkelmann, Richard Wood, Tokuta Yokohata, and Tilo Ziehn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3604, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3604, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce a new Earth system model experiment protocol to help researchers understand how Earth might respond to positive, zero, and negative carbon emissions. This protocol enables different models to be compared following similar warming and cooling rates. Researchers use the models to explore how the Earth reacts to different climate futures, including the risk of tipping points being exceeded and whether changes can be reversed. The results will support improved long-term climate policy.
Ken S. Carslaw, Leighton A. Regayre, Ulrike Proske, Andrew Gettelman, David M. H. Sexton, Yun Qian, Lauren Marshall, Oliver Wild, Marcus van Lier-Walqui, Annika Oertel, Saloua Peatier, Ben Yang, Jill S. Johnson, Sihan Li, Daniel T. McCoy, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Christina J. Williamson, Gregory S. Elsaesser, Kuniko Yamazaki, and Ben B. B. Booth
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4341, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4341, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
A major challenge in climate science is reducing projection uncertainty despite advances in models and observational constraints. Perturbed parameter ensembles (PPEs) offer a powerful tool to explore and reduce uncertainty by revealing model weaknesses and guiding development. PPEs are now widely applied across climate systems and scales. We argue they should be prioritized alongside complexity and resolution in model resource planning.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Victor Brovkin, Rosie A. Fisher, David Hohn, Tatiana Ilyina, Chris D. Jones, Torben Koenigk, Charles Koven, Hongmei Li, David M. Lawrence, Peter Lawrence, Spencer Liddicoat, Andrew H. MacDougall, Nadine Mengis, Zebedee Nicholls, Eleanor O'Rourke, Anastasia Romanou, Marit Sandstad, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Lori T. Sentman, Isla R. Simpson, Chris Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Abigail L. S. Swann, Jerry Tjiputra, and Tilo Ziehn
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 5699–5724, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-5699-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-5699-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates how climate models warm in response to simplified carbon emissions trajectories, refining the understanding of climate reversibility and commitment. Metrics are defined for warming response to cumulative emissions and for the cessation of emissions or ramp-down to net-zero and net-negative levels. Results indicate that previous concentration-driven experiments may have overstated the Zero Emissions Commitment due to emissions rates exceeding historical levels.
Susanne Baur, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, and Laurent Terray
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 667–681, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-667-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-667-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) could be used alongside mitigation to reduce global warming. Previous studies suggest that more atmospheric CO2 is taken up when SAI is deployed. Here, we look at the entire SAI deployment from start to after termination. We show how the initial CO2 uptake benefit, and hence lower mitigation burden, is reduced in later stages of SAI, where the reduction in natural CO2 uptake turns into an additional mitigation burden.
Detlef van Vuuren, Brian O'Neill, Claudia Tebaldi, Louise Chini, Pierre Friedlingstein, Tomoko Hasegawa, Keywan Riahi, Benjamin Sanderson, Bala Govindasamy, Nico Bauer, Veronika Eyring, Cheikh Fall, Katja Frieler, Matthew Gidden, Laila Gohar, Andrew Jones, Andrew King, Reto Knutti, Elmar Kriegler, Peter Lawrence, Chris Lennard, Jason Lowe, Camila Mathison, Shahbaz Mehmood, Luciana Prado, Qiang Zhang, Steven Rose, Alexander Ruane, Carl-Friederich Schleussner, Roland Seferian, Jana Sillmann, Chris Smith, Anna Sörensson, Swapna Panickal, Kaoru Tachiiri, Naomi Vaughan, Saritha Vishwanathan, Tokuta Yokohata, and Tilo Ziehn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3765, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3765, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a set of six plausible 21st century emission scenarios, and their multi-century extensions, that will be used by the international community of climate modeling centers to produce the next generation of climate projections. These projections will support climate, impact and mitigation researchers, provide information to practitioners to address future risks from climate change, and contribute to policymakers’ considerations of the trade-offs among various levels of mitigation.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Ben B. B. Booth, John Dunne, Veronika Eyring, Rosie A. Fisher, Pierre Friedlingstein, Matthew J. Gidden, Tomohiro Hajima, Chris D. Jones, Colin G. Jones, Andrew King, Charles D. Koven, David M. Lawrence, Jason Lowe, Nadine Mengis, Glen P. Peters, Joeri Rogelj, Chris Smith, Abigail C. Snyder, Isla R. Simpson, Abigail L. S. Swann, Claudia Tebaldi, Tatiana Ilyina, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Roland Séférian, Bjørn H. Samset, Detlef van Vuuren, and Sönke Zaehle
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8141–8172, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8141-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8141-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We discuss how, in order to provide more relevant guidance for climate policy, coordinated climate experiments should adopt a greater focus on simulations where Earth system models are provided with carbon emissions from fossil fuels together with land use change instructions, rather than past approaches that have largely focused on experiments with prescribed atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. We discuss how these goals might be achieved in coordinated climate modeling experiments.
Colin G. Jones, Fanny Adloff, Ben B. B. Booth, Peter M. Cox, Veronika Eyring, Pierre Friedlingstein, Katja Frieler, Helene T. Hewitt, Hazel A. Jeffery, Sylvie Joussaume, Torben Koenigk, Bryan N. Lawrence, Eleanor O'Rourke, Malcolm J. Roberts, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Samuel Somot, Pier Luigi Vidale, Detlef van Vuuren, Mario Acosta, Mats Bentsen, Raffaele Bernardello, Richard Betts, Ed Blockley, Julien Boé, Tom Bracegirdle, Pascale Braconnot, Victor Brovkin, Carlo Buontempo, Francisco Doblas-Reyes, Markus Donat, Italo Epicoco, Pete Falloon, Sandro Fiore, Thomas Frölicher, Neven S. Fučkar, Matthew J. Gidden, Helge F. Goessling, Rune Grand Graversen, Silvio Gualdi, José M. Gutiérrez, Tatiana Ilyina, Daniela Jacob, Chris D. Jones, Martin Juckes, Elizabeth Kendon, Erik Kjellström, Reto Knutti, Jason Lowe, Matthew Mizielinski, Paola Nassisi, Michael Obersteiner, Pierre Regnier, Romain Roehrig, David Salas y Mélia, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Michael Schulz, Enrico Scoccimarro, Laurent Terray, Hannes Thiemann, Richard A. Wood, Shuting Yang, and Sönke Zaehle
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1319–1351, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1319-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1319-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a number of priority areas for the international climate research community to address over the coming decade. Advances in these areas will both increase our understanding of past and future Earth system change, including the societal and environmental impacts of this change, and deliver significantly improved scientific support to international climate policy, such as future IPCC assessments and the UNFCCC Global Stocktake.
Marit Sandstad, Borgar Aamaas, Ane Nordlie Johansen, Marianne Tronstad Lund, Glen Philip Peters, Bjørn Hallvard Samset, Benjamin Mark Sanderson, and Ragnhild Bieltvedt Skeie
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6589–6625, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6589-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6589-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The CICERO-SCM has existed as a Fortran model since 1999 that calculates the radiative forcing and concentrations from emissions and is an upwelling diffusion energy balance model of the ocean that calculates temperature change. In this paper, we describe an updated version ported to Python and publicly available at https://github.com/ciceroOslo/ciceroscm (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10548720). This version contains functionality for parallel runs and automatic calibration.
Saloua Peatier, Benjamin M. Sanderson, and Laurent Terray
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 987–1014, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-987-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-987-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The calibration of Earth system model parameters is a high-dimensionality problem subject to data, time, and computational constraints. In this study, we propose a practical solution for finding diverse near-optimal solutions. We argue that the effective degrees of freedom in the model performance response to parameter input is relatively small. Comparably performing parameter configurations exist and showcase different trade-offs in model errors, providing insights for model development.
Malte Meinshausen, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Kathleen Beyer, Greg Bodeker, Olivier Boucher, Josep G. Canadell, John S. Daniel, Aïda Diongue-Niang, Fatima Driouech, Erich Fischer, Piers Forster, Michael Grose, Gerrit Hansen, Zeke Hausfather, Tatiana Ilyina, Jarmo S. Kikstra, Joyce Kimutai, Andrew D. King, June-Yi Lee, Chris Lennard, Tabea Lissner, Alexander Nauels, Glen P. Peters, Anna Pirani, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Hans Pörtner, Joeri Rogelj, Maisa Rojas, Joyashree Roy, Bjørn H. Samset, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Sonia Seneviratne, Christopher J. Smith, Sophie Szopa, Adelle Thomas, Diana Urge-Vorsatz, Guus J. M. Velders, Tokuta Yokohata, Tilo Ziehn, and Zebedee Nicholls
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4533–4559, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4533-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4533-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The scientific community is considering new scenarios to succeed RCPs and SSPs for the next generation of Earth system model runs to project future climate change. To contribute to that effort, we reflect on relevant policy and scientific research questions and suggest categories for representative emission pathways. These categories are tailored to the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal, high-risk outcomes in the absence of further climate policy and worlds “that could have been”.
Susanne Baur, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, and Laurent Terray
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 307–322, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-307-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-307-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Most solar radiation modification (SRM) simulations assume no physical coupling between mitigation and SRM. We analyze the impact of SRM on photovoltaic (PV) and concentrated solar power (CSP) and find that almost all regions have reduced PV and CSP potential compared to a mitigated or unmitigated scenario, especially in the middle and high latitudes. This suggests that SRM could pose challenges for meeting energy demands with solar renewable resources.
Susanne Baur, Alexander Nauels, Zebedee Nicholls, Benjamin M. Sanderson, and Carl-Friedrich Schleussner
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 367–381, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-367-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-367-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Solar radiation modification (SRM) artificially cools global temperature without acting on the cause of climate change. This study looks at how long SRM would have to be deployed to limit warming to 1.5 °C and how this timeframe is affected by different levels of mitigation, negative emissions and climate uncertainty. None of the three factors alone can guarantee short SRM deployment. Due to their uncertainty at the time of SRM initialization, any deployment risks may be several centuries long.
Yiyu Zheng, Maria Rugenstein, Patrick Pieper, Goratz Beobide-Arsuaga, and Johanna Baehr
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1611–1623, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1611-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1611-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is one of the dominant climatic phenomena in the equatorial Pacific. Understanding and predicting how ENSO might change in a warmer climate is both societally and scientifically important. We use 1000-year-long simulations from seven climate models to analyze ENSO in an idealized stable climate. We show that ENSO will be weaker and last shorter under the warming, while the skill of ENSO prediction will unlikely change.
Tim Rohrschneider, Jonah Bloch-Johnson, and Maria Rugenstein
Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2021-86, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2021-86, 2021
Preprint withdrawn
Short summary
Short summary
We question whether the timescale of long-term climate change is independent of temperature or forcing and the evolution of time. The timescale of long-term climate change depends on feedback temperature dependence and the evolution of time.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Angeline G. Pendergrass, Charles D. Koven, Florent Brient, Ben B. B. Booth, Rosie A. Fisher, and Reto Knutti
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 899–918, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-899-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-899-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Emergent constraints promise a pathway to the reduction in climate projection uncertainties by exploiting ensemble relationships between observable quantities and unknown climate response parameters. This study considers the robustness of these relationships in light of biases and common simplifications that may be present in the original ensemble of climate simulations. We propose a classification scheme for constraints and a number of practical case studies.
Camille Besombes, Olivier Pannekoucke, Corentin Lapeyre, Benjamin Sanderson, and Olivier Thual
Nonlin. Processes Geophys., 28, 347–370, https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-28-347-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/npg-28-347-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper investigates the potential of a type of deep generative neural network to produce realistic weather situations when trained from the climate of a general circulation model. The generator represents the climate in a compact latent space. It is able to reproduce many aspects of the targeted multivariate distribution. Some properties of our method open new perspectives such as the exploration of the extremes close to a given state or how to connect two realistic weather states.
Claudia Tebaldi, Kevin Debeire, Veronika Eyring, Erich Fischer, John Fyfe, Pierre Friedlingstein, Reto Knutti, Jason Lowe, Brian O'Neill, Benjamin Sanderson, Detlef van Vuuren, Keywan Riahi, Malte Meinshausen, Zebedee Nicholls, Katarzyna B. Tokarska, George Hurtt, Elmar Kriegler, Jean-Francois Lamarque, Gerald Meehl, Richard Moss, Susanne E. Bauer, Olivier Boucher, Victor Brovkin, Young-Hwa Byun, Martin Dix, Silvio Gualdi, Huan Guo, Jasmin G. John, Slava Kharin, YoungHo Kim, Tsuyoshi Koshiro, Libin Ma, Dirk Olivié, Swapna Panickal, Fangli Qiao, Xinyao Rong, Nan Rosenbloom, Martin Schupfner, Roland Séférian, Alistair Sellar, Tido Semmler, Xiaoying Shi, Zhenya Song, Christian Steger, Ronald Stouffer, Neil Swart, Kaoru Tachiiri, Qi Tang, Hiroaki Tatebe, Aurore Voldoire, Evgeny Volodin, Klaus Wyser, Xiaoge Xin, Shuting Yang, Yongqiang Yu, and Tilo Ziehn
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 253–293, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-253-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-253-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We present an overview of CMIP6 ScenarioMIP outcomes from up to 38 participating ESMs according to the new SSP-based scenarios. Average temperature and precipitation projections according to a wide range of forcings, spanning a wider range than the CMIP5 projections, are documented as global averages and geographic patterns. Times of crossing various warming levels are computed, together with benefits of mitigation for selected pairs of scenarios. Comparisons with CMIP5 are also discussed.
Cited articles
Andrews, T., Gregory, J. M., Webb, M. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Forcing, feedbacks
and climate sensitivity in CMIP5 coupled atmosphere-ocean climate models,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L09712, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051607, 2012. a
Andrews, T., Gregory, J. M., and Webb, M. J.: The dependence of radiative
forcing and feedback on evolving patterns of surface temperature change in
climate models, J. Climate, 28, 1630–1648, 2015. a
Andrews, T., Gregory, J. M., Paynter, D., Silvers, L. G., Zhou, C., Mauritsen,
T., Webb, M. J., Armour, K. C., Forster, P. M., and Titchner, H.: Accounting
for Changing Temperature Patterns Increases Historical Estimates of Climate
Sensitivity, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 8490–8499,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL078887, 2018. a
Armour, K. C., Bitz, C. M., and Roe, G. H.: Time-Varying Climate Sensitivity
from Regional Feedbacks, J. Climate, 26, 4518–4534,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00544.1, 2013. a
Bastiaansen, R., Dijkstra, H. A., and Heydt, A. S. v. d.: Projections of the
Transient State-Dependency of Climate Feedbacks, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2021GL094670, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL094670, 2021. a
Bloch-Johnson, J., Rugenstein, M., Stolpe, M. B., Rohrschneider, T., Zheng, Y.,
and Gregory, J. M.: Climate sensitivity increases under higher CO2 levels due
to feedback temperature dependence, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48,
e2020GL089074, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL089074, 2021. a, b
Caldeira, K. and Myhrvold, N. P.: Projections of the pace of warming following
an abrupt increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, Environ.
Res. Lett., 8, 034039, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034039, 2013. a, b
Charney, J. G., Arakawa, A., Baker, D. J., Bolin, B., Dickinson, R. E., Goody,
R. M., Leith, C. E., Stommel, H. M., and Wunsch, C. I.: Carbon dioxide and
climate: a scientific assessment, National Academy of Sciences, Washington,
DC, https://doi.org/10.17226/12181, 1979. a
Dunne, J. P., Winton, M., Bacmeister, J., Danabasoglu, G., Gettelman, A., Golaz, J.-C., Hannay, C., Schmidt, G. A.,
Krasting, J. P., Leung, L. R., Nazarenko, L., Sentman, L. T., Stouffer, R. J., and Wolfe, J. D.: Comparison of equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates from slab
ocean, 150-year, and longer simulations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47,
e2020GL088852, https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL088852, 2020. a
Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1937–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, 2016. a, b
Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., and Goodman, J.: emcee: The MCMC
Hammer, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac., 125, 306–312, https://doi.org/10.1086/670067, 2013. a
Forster, P., Storelvmo, T., Armour, K., Collins, W., Dufresne, J. L., Frame,
D., Lunt, D. J., Mauritsen, T., Palmer, M. D., Watanabe, M., Wild, M., and
Zhang, H.: The Earth’s Energy Budget, Climate Feedbacks, and Climate
Sensitivity, in: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by Masson-Delmotte, V.,
Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S. L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen,
Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M. I., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy, E.,
Matthews, J. B. R., Maycock, T. K., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and
Zhou, B., book section 7, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom and New York, NY, USA,
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_07.pdf (last access: 14 December 2022),
2021. a
Forster, P. M.: Inference of climate sensitivity from analysis of Earth's
energy budget, Annu. Rev. Earth Pl. Sc., 44, 85–106,
2016. a
Frame, D. J., Stone, D. A., Stott, P. A., and Allen, M. R.: Alternatives to
stabilization scenarios, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L14707,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL025801, 2006. a
Geoffroy, O., Saint-Martin, D., Bellon, G., Voldoire, A.,
Olivié, D. J. L., and
Tytéca, S.: Transient Climate Response in a
Two-Layer Energy-Balance Model. Part II: Representation of the Efficacy of
Deep-Ocean Heat Uptake and Validation for CMIP5 AOGCMs, J. Climate, 26,
1859–1876, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00196.1, 2013a. a
Geoffroy, O., Saint-Martin, D., Olivié, D.
J. L., Voldoire, A., Bellon, G., and Tytéca,
S.: Transient Climate Response in a Two-Layer Energy-Balance Model. Part I:
Analytical Solution and Parameter Calibration Using CMIP5 AOGCM Experiments,
J. Climate, 26, 1841–1857, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00195.1,
2013b. a
Gregory, J. M., Ingram, W. J., Palmer, M. A., Jones, G. S., Stott, P. A.,
Thorpe, R. B., Lowe, J. A., Johns, T. C., and Williams, K. D.: A new method
for diagnosing radiative forcing and climate sensitivity, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 31, L03205, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018747, 2004. a, b
Gregory, J. M., Andrews, T., and Good, P.: The inconstancy of the transient
climate response parameter under increasing CO2, Philos. T. R. Soc. A, 373,
20140417, https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0417, 2015. a
Hansen, J., Lacis, A., Rind, D., Russell, G., Stone, P., Fung, I., Ruedy, R. and Lerner, J.: Climate Sensitivity: Analysis of
Feedback Mechanisms, in: Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, edited by: Hansen, J. E. and Takahashi, T.,
https://doi.org/10.1029/GM029p0130, 1984. a
Hausfather, Z., Marvel, K., Schmidt, G. A., Nielsen-Gammon, J. W., and Zelinka,
M.: Climate simulations: Recognize the “hot model” problem, Nature, 605, 26–29, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01192-2, 2022. a, b
Huang, Y. and Bani Shahabadi, M.: Why logarithmic? A note on the dependence of
radiative forcing on gas concentration, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 119, 13683–13689, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD022466, 2014. a
IPCC: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
York, NY, USA, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324, 2013. a
Jarvis, A. and Li, S.: The contribution of timescales to the temperature
response of climate models, Clim. Dynam., 36, 523–531, 2011. a
Jiménez-de-la Cuesta, D. and Mauritsen, T.: Emergent constraints on
Earth’s transient and equilibrium response to doubled CO2 from post-1970s
global warming, Nat. Geosci., 12, 902–905, 2019. a
Jonko, A. K., Shell, K. M., Sanderson, B. M., and Danabasoglu, G.: Climate
feedbacks in CCSM3 under changing CO 2 forcing. Part I: Adapting the linear
radiative kernel technique to feedback calculations for a broad range of
forcings, J. Climate, 25, 5260–5272, 2012. a
Joos, F., Roth, R., Fuglestvedt, J. S., Peters, G. P., Enting, I. G., von Bloh, W., Brovkin, V., Burke, E. J., Eby, M., Edwards, N. R., Friedrich, T., Frölicher, T. L., Halloran, P. R., Holden, P. B., Jones, C., Kleinen, T., Mackenzie, F. T., Matsumoto, K., Meinshausen, M., Plattner, G.-K., Reisinger, A., Segschneider, J., Shaffer, G., Steinacher, M., Strassmann, K., Tanaka, K., Timmermann, A., and Weaver, A. J.: Carbon dioxide and climate impulse response functions for the computation of greenhouse gas metrics: a multi-model analysis, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 2793–2825, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2793-2013, 2013. a
Knutti, R., Rugenstein, M. A. A., and Hegerl, G. C.: Beyond equilibrium
climate sensitivity, Nat. Geosci., 10, 727–736, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo3017,
2017. a, b
Kuhlbrodt, T., Jones, C. G., Sellar, A., Storkey, D., Blockley, E., Stringer, M., Hill, R., Graham, T., Ridley, J., Blaker, A., Calvert, D., Copsey, D., Ellis, R., Hewitt, H., Hyder, P., Ineson, S., Mulcahy, J., Siahaan, A., and Walton, J.: The low-resolution
version of HadGEM3 GC3. 1: Development and evaluation for global climate,
J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 10, 2865–2888, 2018. a
Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Connors, S., Péan, C., Berger, S.,
Caud, N., Chen, Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M., Huang, M., Leitzell, K., Lonnoy,
E., Matthews, J., Maycock, T., Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., and
Zhou, B.: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and
New York, NY, USA,
https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/ (last access: 14 December 2022), 2021. a
Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Eyring, V., Flato, G., Lamarque, J.-F., Stouffer,
R. J., Taylor, K. E., and Schlund, M.: Context for interpreting equilibrium
climate sensitivity and transient climate response from the CMIP6 Earth
system models, Sci. Adv., 6, eaba1981, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba1981, 2020. a, b
Meinshausen, M., Smith, S. J., Calvin, K., Daniel, J. S., Kainuma, M. L. T.,
Lamarque, J.-F., Matsumoto, K., Montzka, S. A., Raper, S. C. B., Riahi, K.,
Thomson, A., Velders, G. J. M., and van Vuuren, D. P. P.: The RCP greenhouse
gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300, Clim. Change,
109, 213–241, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0156-z, 2011. a, b
Murphy, J.: Transient response of the Hadley centre coupled ocean-atmosphere
model to increasing carbon dioxide. Part 1: control climate and flux
adjustment, J. Climate, 8, 36–56, 1995. a
Nijsse, F. J. M. M., Cox, P. M., and Williamson, M. S.: Emergent constraints on transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from historical warming in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models, Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 737–750, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-737-2020, 2020. a
O'Neill, B. C., Tebaldi, C., van Vuuren, D. P., Eyring, V., Friedlingstein, P., Hurtt, G., Knutti, R., Kriegler, E., Lamarque, J.-F., Lowe, J., Meehl, G. A., Moss, R., Riahi, K., and Sanderson, B. M.: The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3461–3482, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3461-2016, 2016. a
Pfister, P. L. and Stocker, T. F.: State-Dependence of the Climate Sensitivity
in Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 10–643, 2017. a
Pincus, R., Forster, P. M., and Stevens, B.: The Radiative Forcing Model Intercomparison Project (RFMIP): experimental protocol for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3447–3460, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3447-2016, 2016. a
Proistosescu, C. and Huybers, P. J.: Slow climate mode reconciles historical
and model-based estimates of climate sensitivity, Sci. Adv., 3, e1602821,
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1602821, 2017. a, b, c, d
Rugenstein, M., Bloch-Johnson, J., Abe-Ouchi, A., Andrews, T., Beyerle, U., Cao, L., Chadha, T., Danabasoglu, G.,
Dufresne, J., Duan, L., Foujols, M., Frölicher, T., Geoffroy, O., Gregory, J., Knutti, R., Li, C., Marzocchi, A., Mauritsen,
T., Menary, M., Moyer, E., Nazarenko, L., Paynter, D., Saint-Martin, D., Schmidt, G. A., Yamamoto, A., and Yang, S.:
LongRunMIP: motivation and design for a large collection of millennial-length
AOGCM simulations, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 100,
2551–2570, 2019. a, b, c, d
Rugenstein, M., Bloch-Johnson, J., Gregory, J., Andrews, T., Mauritsen, T., Li, C., Frölicher, T.L. , Paynter, D.,
Danabasoglu, G., Yang, S., Dufresne, J-L, Cao, L., Schmidt, G. A., Abe-Ouchi, A., Geoffroy, O. and Knutti, R.:
Equilibrium climate sensitivity estimated by equilibrating climate models,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2019GL083898, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL083898, 2020. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i
Rugenstein, M. A. and Armour, K. C.: Three flavors of radiative feedbacks and
their implications for estimating Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2021GL092983, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL092983, 2021. a, b, c, d
Rugenstein, M. A. A., Caldeira, K., and Knutti, R.: Dependence of global
radiative feedbacks on evolving patterns of surface heat fluxes, Geophys.
Res. Lett., 43, 9877–9885, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL070907, 2016. a
Sanderson, B.: Relating climate sensitivity indices to projection uncertainty, Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 721–735, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-721-2020, 2020. a, b, c
Sanderson, B.: benmsanderson/energybalance: Revised paper in ESD (0.2), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7181801, 2022. a
Senior, C. A. and Mitchell, J. F. B.: The time-dependence of climate
sensitivity, Geophys. Res. Lett., 27, 2685–2688,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2000GL011373, 2000. a
Sherwood, S., Webb, M. J., Annan, J. D., Armour, K. C., Forster, P. M., Hargreaves, J. C., Hegerl, G., Klein, S. A.,
Marvel, K. D., Rohling, E. J., Watanabe, M., Andrews, T., Braconnot, P., Bretherton, C. S., Foster, G. L., Hausfather, Z.,
von der Heydt, A. S., Knutti, R., Mauritsen, T., Norris, J. R., Proistosescu, C., Rugenstein, M., Schmidt, G. A., Tokarska,
K. B., and Zelinka, M. D.: An assessment of Earth's climate sensitivity using multiple lines of
evidence, Rev. Geophys., 58, e2019RG000678, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019rg000678, 2020.
a
Shields, C. A., Bailey, D. A., Danabasoglu, G., Jochum, M., Kiehl, J. T.,
Levis, S., and Park, S.: The low-resolution CCSM4, J. Climate, 25,
3993–4014, 2012. a
Smith, C. J., Forster, P. M., Allen, M., Leach, N., Millar, R. J., Passerello, G. A., and Regayre, L. A.: FAIR v1.3: a simple emissions-based impulse response and carbon cycle model, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 2273–2297, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2273-2018, 2018. a, b
Solomon, S., Daniel, J. S., Sanford, T. J., Murphy, D. M., Plattner, G.-K.,
Knutti, R., and Friedlingstein, P.: Persistence of climate changes due to a
range of greenhouse gases, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA,
107, 18354–18359, 2010. a
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., and Meehl, G. A.: An overview of CMIP5 and the
experiment design, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93,
485–498, 2012. a
Tokarska, K. B. and Gillett, N. P.: Cumulative carbon emissions budgets
consistent with
1.5 ∘C global
warming, Nat. Clim. Change, 8, 296–299, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0118-9,
2018. a
Tokarska, K. B., Stolpe, M. B., Sippel, S., Fischer, E. M., Smith, C. J.,
Lehner, F., and Knutti, R.: Past warming trend constrains future warming in
CMIP6 models, Sci. Adv., 6, eaaz9549, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz9549, 2020. a
Wetherald, R. T., Stouffer, R. J., and Dixon, K. W.: Committed warming and its
implications for climate change, Geophys. Res. Lett., 28,
1535–1538, 2001. a
Winton, M., Takahashi, K., and Held, I. M.: Importance of ocean heat uptake
efficacy to transient climate change, J. Climate, 23, 2333–2344,
2010. a
Xia, J. Y., Luo, Y. Q., Wang, Y.-P., Weng, E. S., and Hararuk, O.: A semi-analytical solution to accelerate spin-up of a coupled carbon and nitrogen land model to steady state, Geosci. Model Dev., 5, 1259–1271, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-1259-2012, 2012. a
Zelinka, M. D., Myers, T. A., McCoy, D. T., Po-Chedley, S., Caldwell, P. M.,
Ceppi, P., Klein, S. A., and Taylor, K. E.: Causes of higher climate
sensitivity in CMIP6 models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47,
e2019GL085782, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085782, 2020. a
Zhang, M. and Huang, Y.: Radiative forcing of quadrupling CO2, J.
Climate, 27, 2496–2508, 2014. a
Short summary
Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is a measure of how much long-term warming should be expected in response to a change in greenhouse gas concentrations. It is generally calculated in climate models by extrapolating global average temperatures to a point of where the planet is no longer a net absorber of energy. Here we show that some climate models experience energy leaks which change as the planet warms, undermining the standard approach and biasing some existing model estimates of ECS.
Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is a measure of how much long-term warming should be...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint