Earth System Dynamics
Earth System Dynamics
ESD
Articles | Volume 15, issue 4
Articles | Volume 15, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-829-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-829-2024
© Author(s) 2024. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Articles | Volume 15, issue 4
Research article
 | 
11 Jul 2024
Research article |  | 11 Jul 2024

Testing the assumptions in emergent constraints: why does the “emergent constraint on equilibrium climate sensitivity from global temperature variability” work for CMIP5 and not CMIP6?

Mark S. Williamson, Peter M. Cox, Chris Huntingford, and Femke J. M. M. Nijsse

Viewed

Total article views: 1,015 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
733 239 43 1,015 34 30
  • HTML: 733
  • PDF: 239
  • XML: 43
  • Total: 1,015
  • BibTeX: 34
  • EndNote: 30
Views and downloads (calculated since 30 May 2023)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 30 May 2023)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,015 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 864 with geography defined and 151 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 15 Jul 2024
Download
Short summary
Emergent constraints on equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) have generally got statistically weaker in the latest set of state-of-the-art climate models (CMIP6) compared to past sets (CMIP5). We look at why this weakening happened for one particular study (Cox et al, 2018) and attribute it to an assumption made in the theory that when corrected for restores there is a stronger relationship between predictor and ECS.
Read more
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint