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.
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.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
11 Jul 2024
Research article |
| 11 Jul 2024
| 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
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Global Systems Institute, Faculty of Environment, Science and Economy, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
Climate Dynamics, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty of Environment, Science and Economy, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
Peter M. Cox
Global Systems Institute, Faculty of Environment, Science and Economy, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
Climate Dynamics, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty of Environment, Science and Economy, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
Chris Huntingford
Climate System, UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, UK
Femke J. M. M. Nijsse
Global Systems Institute, Faculty of Environment, Science and Economy, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
Department of Geography, Faculty of Environment, Science and Economy, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
Related authors
Joseph Clarke, Chris Huntingford, Paul David Longden Ritchie, Rebecca Varney, Mark Williamson, and Peter Cox
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3703, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3703, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Earth System Dynamics (ESD).
Short summary
Short summary
An increase in CO2 in the atmosphere warms the climate through the greenhouse effect, but also leads to uptake of CO2 by the land and ocean. However, the warming is also expected to suppress carbon uptake. If this suppression were strong enough, it could overwhelm the uptake of carbon, leading to a runaway feedback loop causing severe global warming. We find it is possible that this runaway could be relevant in complex climate models and even at the end of the last ice age.
Mark S. Williamson and Timothy M. Lenton
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1483–1508, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1483-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1483-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate models have transitioned to a superrotating atmospheric state under a broad range of warm climates. Such a transition would change global weather patterns should it occur. Here we simulate this transition using an idealized climate model and look for any early warnings of the superrotating state before it happens. We find several early warning indicators that we attribute to an oscillating pattern in the windfield fluctuations.
Chris Huntingford, Peter M. Cox, Mark S. Williamson, Joseph J. Clarke, and Paul D. L. Ritchie
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 433–442, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-433-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-433-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Emergent constraints (ECs) reduce the spread of projections between climate models. ECs estimate changes to climate features impacting adaptation policy, and with this high profile, the method is under scrutiny. Asking
What is an EC?, we suggest they are often the discovery of parameters that characterise hidden large-scale equations that climate models solve implicitly. We present this conceptually via two examples. Our analysis implies possible new paths to link ECs and physical processes.
Morgan Sparey, Peter Cox, and Mark S. Williamson
Biogeosciences, 20, 451–488, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-451-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-451-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Accurate climate models are vital for mitigating climate change; however, projections often disagree. Using Köppen–Geiger bioclimate classifications we show that CMIP6 climate models agree well on the fraction of global land surface that will change classification per degree of global warming. We find that 13 % of land will change climate per degree of warming from 1 to 3 K; thus, stabilising warming at 1.5 rather than 2 K would save over 7.5 million square kilometres from bioclimatic change.
Paul D. L. Ritchie, Chris Huntingford, and Peter M. Cox
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 1523–1526, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1523-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1523-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Climate tipping points are not committed upon crossing critical thresholds in global warming, as is often assumed. Instead, it is possible to temporarily overshoot a threshold without causing tipping, provided the duration of the overshoot is short. In this Idea, we demonstrate that restricting the time over 1.5 °C would considerably reduce tipping point risks.
Joseph Clarke, Chris Huntingford, Paul David Longden Ritchie, Rebecca Varney, Mark Williamson, and Peter Cox
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3703, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3703, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Earth System Dynamics (ESD).
Short summary
Short summary
An increase in CO2 in the atmosphere warms the climate through the greenhouse effect, but also leads to uptake of CO2 by the land and ocean. However, the warming is also expected to suppress carbon uptake. If this suppression were strong enough, it could overwhelm the uptake of carbon, leading to a runaway feedback loop causing severe global warming. We find it is possible that this runaway could be relevant in complex climate models and even at the end of the last ice age.
Chris Huntingford, Andrew J. Nicoll, Cornelia Klein, and Jawairia A. Ahmad
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 475–495, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-475-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-475-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
AI is impacting science, providing key data insights, but most algorithms are statistical requiring cautious "out-of-sample" extrapolation. Yet climate research concerns predicting future climatic states. We consider a new method of AI-led equation discovery. Equations offer process interpretation and more robust predictions. We recommend this method for climate analysis, suggesting illustrative application to atmospheric convection, land–atmosphere CO2 flux, and global ocean circulation models.
Camilla Mathison, Eleanor J. Burke, Gregory Munday, Chris D. Jones, Chris J. Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Andy J. Wiltshire, Chris Huntingford, Eszter Kovacs, Laila K. Gohar, Rebecca M. Varney, and Douglas McNeall
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1785–1808, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present PRIME (Probabilistic Regional Impacts from Model patterns and Emissions), which is designed to take new emissions scenarios and rapidly provide regional impact information. PRIME allows large ensembles to be run on multi-centennial timescales, including the analysis of many important variables for impact assessments. Our evaluation shows that PRIME reproduces the climate response for known scenarios, providing confidence in using PRIME for novel scenarios.
Mark S. Williamson and Timothy M. Lenton
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1483–1508, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1483-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1483-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate models have transitioned to a superrotating atmospheric state under a broad range of warm climates. Such a transition would change global weather patterns should it occur. Here we simulate this transition using an idealized climate model and look for any early warnings of the superrotating state before it happens. We find several early warning indicators that we attribute to an oscillating pattern in the windfield fluctuations.
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.
Rebecca M. Varney, Pierre Friedlingstein, Sarah E. Chadburn, Eleanor J. Burke, and Peter M. Cox
Biogeosciences, 21, 2759–2776, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-2759-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-2759-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Soil carbon is the largest store of carbon on the land surface of Earth and is known to be particularly sensitive to climate change. Understanding this future response is vital to successfully meeting Paris Agreement targets, which rely heavily on carbon uptake by the land surface. In this study, the individual responses of soil carbon are quantified and compared amongst CMIP6 Earth system models used within the most recent IPCC report, and the role of soils in the land response is highlighted.
Emma L. Robinson, Chris Huntingford, Valyaveetil Shamsudheen Semeena, and James M. Bullock
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 5371–5401, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5371-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5371-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
CHESS-SCAPE is a suite of high-resolution climate projections for the UK to 2080, derived from United Kingdom Climate Projections 2018 (UKCP18), designed to support climate impact modelling. It contains four realisations of four scenarios of future greenhouse gas levels (RCP2.6, 4.5, 6.0 and 8.5), with and without bias correction to historical data. The variables are available at 1 km resolution and a daily time step, with monthly, seasonal and annual means and 20-year mean-monthly time slices.
Rebecca M. Varney, Sarah E. Chadburn, Eleanor J. Burke, Simon Jones, Andy J. Wiltshire, and Peter M. Cox
Biogeosciences, 20, 3767–3790, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-3767-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-3767-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This study evaluates soil carbon projections during the 21st century in CMIP6 Earth system models. In general, we find a reduced spread of changes in global soil carbon in CMIP6 compared to the previous CMIP5 generation. The reduced CMIP6 spread arises from an emergent relationship between soil carbon changes due to change in plant productivity and soil carbon changes due to changes in turnover time. We show that this relationship is consistent with false priming under transient climate change.
Nina Raoult, Tim Jupp, Ben Booth, and Peter Cox
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 723–731, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-723-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-723-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Climate models are used to predict the impact of climate change. However, poorly constrained parameters used in the physics of the models mean that we simulate a large spread of possible future outcomes. We can use real-world observations to reduce the uncertainty of parameter values, but we do not have observations to reduce the spread of possible future outcomes directly. We present a method for translating the reduction in parameter uncertainty into a reduction in possible model projections.
Paul D. L. Ritchie, Hassan Alkhayuon, Peter M. Cox, and Sebastian Wieczorek
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 669–683, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-669-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-669-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Complex systems can undergo abrupt changes or tipping points when external forcing crosses a critical level and are of increasing concern because of their severe impacts. However, tipping points can also occur when the external forcing changes too quickly without crossing any critical levels, which is very relevant for Earth’s systems and contemporary climate. We give an intuitive explanation of such rate-induced tipping and provide illustrative examples from natural and human systems.
Chris Huntingford, Peter M. Cox, Mark S. Williamson, Joseph J. Clarke, and Paul D. L. Ritchie
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 433–442, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-433-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-433-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Emergent constraints (ECs) reduce the spread of projections between climate models. ECs estimate changes to climate features impacting adaptation policy, and with this high profile, the method is under scrutiny. Asking
What is an EC?, we suggest they are often the discovery of parameters that characterise hidden large-scale equations that climate models solve implicitly. We present this conceptually via two examples. Our analysis implies possible new paths to link ECs and physical processes.
Gang Liu, Shushi Peng, Chris Huntingford, and Yi Xi
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 1277–1296, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1277-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1277-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Due to computational limits, lower-complexity models (LCMs) were developed as a complementary tool for accelerating comprehensive Earth system models (ESMs) but still lack a good precipitation emulator for LCMs. Here, we developed a data-calibrated precipitation emulator (PREMU), a computationally effective way to better estimate historical and simulated precipitation by current ESMs. PREMU has potential applications related to land surface processes and their interactions with climate change.
Morgan Sparey, Peter Cox, and Mark S. Williamson
Biogeosciences, 20, 451–488, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-451-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-451-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Accurate climate models are vital for mitigating climate change; however, projections often disagree. Using Köppen–Geiger bioclimate classifications we show that CMIP6 climate models agree well on the fraction of global land surface that will change classification per degree of global warming. We find that 13 % of land will change climate per degree of warming from 1 to 3 K; thus, stabilising warming at 1.5 rather than 2 K would save over 7.5 million square kilometres from bioclimatic change.
Isobel M. Parry, Paul D. L. Ritchie, and Peter M. Cox
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1667–1675, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1667-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1667-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Despite little evidence of regional Amazon rainforest dieback, many localised abrupt dieback events are observed in the latest state-of-the-art global climate models under anthropogenic climate change. The detected dieback events would still cause severe consequences for local communities and ecosystems. This study suggests that 7 ± 5 % of the northern South America region would experience abrupt downward shifts in vegetation carbon for every degree of global warming past 1.5 °C.
Rebecca M. Varney, Sarah E. Chadburn, Eleanor J. Burke, and Peter M. Cox
Biogeosciences, 19, 4671–4704, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-4671-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-4671-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Soil carbon is the Earth’s largest terrestrial carbon store, and the response to climate change represents one of the key uncertainties in obtaining accurate global carbon budgets required to successfully militate against climate change. The ability of climate models to simulate present-day soil carbon is therefore vital. This study assesses soil carbon simulation in the latest ensemble of models which allows key areas for future model development to be identified.
Louise J. Slater, Chris Huntingford, Richard F. Pywell, John W. Redhead, and Elizabeth J. Kendon
Earth Syst. Dynam., 13, 1377–1396, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1377-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-13-1377-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This work considers how wheat yields are affected by weather conditions during the three main wheat growth stages in the UK. Impacts are strongest in years with compound weather extremes across multiple growth stages. Future climate projections are beneficial for wheat yields, on average, but indicate a high risk of unseen weather conditions which farmers may struggle to adapt to and mitigate against.
Rebecca J. Oliver, Lina M. Mercado, Doug B. Clark, Chris Huntingford, Christopher M. Taylor, Pier Luigi Vidale, Patrick C. McGuire, Markus Todt, Sonja Folwell, Valiyaveetil Shamsudheen Semeena, and Belinda E. Medlyn
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5567–5592, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5567-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5567-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce new representations of plant physiological processes into a land surface model. Including new biological understanding improves modelled carbon and water fluxes for the present in tropical and northern-latitude forests. Future climate simulations demonstrate the sensitivity of photosynthesis to temperature is important for modelling carbon cycle dynamics in a warming world. Accurate representation of these processes in models is necessary for robust predictions of climate change.
Anna B. Harper, Karina E. Williams, Patrick C. McGuire, Maria Carolina Duran Rojas, Debbie Hemming, Anne Verhoef, Chris Huntingford, Lucy Rowland, Toby Marthews, Cleiton Breder Eller, Camilla Mathison, Rodolfo L. B. Nobrega, Nicola Gedney, Pier Luigi Vidale, Fred Otu-Larbi, Divya Pandey, Sebastien Garrigues, Azin Wright, Darren Slevin, Martin G. De Kauwe, Eleanor Blyth, Jonas Ardö, Andrew Black, Damien Bonal, Nina Buchmann, Benoit Burban, Kathrin Fuchs, Agnès de Grandcourt, Ivan Mammarella, Lutz Merbold, Leonardo Montagnani, Yann Nouvellon, Natalia Restrepo-Coupe, and Georg Wohlfahrt
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3269–3294, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3269-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3269-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluated 10 representations of soil moisture stress in the JULES land surface model against site observations of GPP and latent heat flux. Increasing the soil depth and plant access to deep soil moisture improved many aspects of the simulations, and we recommend these settings in future work using JULES. In addition, using soil matric potential presents the opportunity to include parameters specific to plant functional type to further improve modeled fluxes.
Garry D. Hayman, Edward Comyn-Platt, Chris Huntingford, Anna B. Harper, Tom Powell, Peter M. Cox, William Collins, Christopher Webber, Jason Lowe, Stephen Sitch, Joanna I. House, Jonathan C. Doelman, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Sarah E. Chadburn, Eleanor Burke, and Nicola Gedney
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 513–544, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-513-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-513-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We model greenhouse gas emission scenarios consistent with limiting global warming to either 1.5 or 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. We quantify the effectiveness of methane emission control and land-based mitigation options regionally. Our results highlight the importance of reducing methane emissions for realistic emission pathways that meet the global warming targets. For land-based mitigation, growing bioenergy crops on existing agricultural land is preferable to replacing forests.
Andrew J. Wiltshire, Eleanor J. Burke, Sarah E. Chadburn, Chris D. Jones, Peter M. Cox, Taraka Davies-Barnard, Pierre Friedlingstein, Anna B. Harper, Spencer Liddicoat, Stephen Sitch, and Sönke Zaehle
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2161–2186, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2161-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2161-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Limited nitrogen availbility can restrict the growth of plants and their ability to assimilate carbon. It is important to include the impact of this process on the global land carbon cycle. This paper presents a model of the coupled land carbon and nitrogen cycle, which is included within the UK Earth System model to improve projections of climate change and impacts on ecosystems.
Douglas I. Kelley, Chantelle Burton, Chris Huntingford, Megan A. J. Brown, Rhys Whitley, and Ning Dong
Biogeosciences, 18, 787–804, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-787-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-787-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Initial evidence suggests human ignitions or landscape changes caused most Amazon fires during August 2019. However, confirmation is needed that meteorological conditions did not have a substantial role. Assessing the influence of historical weather on burning in an uncertainty framework, we find that 2019 meteorological conditions alone should have resulted in much less fire than observed. We conclude socio-economic factors likely had a strong role in the high recorded 2019 fire activity.
Bettina K. Gier, Michael Buchwitz, Maximilian Reuter, Peter M. Cox, Pierre Friedlingstein, and Veronika Eyring
Biogeosciences, 17, 6115–6144, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-6115-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-6115-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Models from Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) phases 5 and 6 are compared to a satellite data product of column-averaged CO2 mole fractions (XCO2). The previously believed discrepancy of the negative trend in seasonal cycle amplitude in the satellite product, which is not seen in in situ data nor in the models, is attributed to a sampling characteristic. Furthermore, CMIP6 models are shown to have made progress in reproducing the observed XCO2 time series compared to CMIP5.
Cited articles
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, 2012. a
Bell, J.: Against “measurement”, Physics World, 3, 33, https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-7058/3/8/26, 1990. a
Bloch-Johnson, J., Rugenstein, M., and Abbot, D. S.: Spatial Radiative Feedbacks from Internal Variability Using Multiple Regression, J. Climate, 33, 4121–4140, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0396.1, 2020. a
Bock, L. and Lauer, A.: Cloud properties and their projected changes in CMIP models with low to high climate sensitivity, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 1587–1605, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-1587-2024, 2024. a
Bracegirdle, T. J. and Stephenson, D. B.: On the robustness of emergent constraints used in multimodel climate change projections of Arctic warming, J. Climate, 26, 669–678, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00537.1, 2013. a
Brient, F.: Reducing Uncertainties in Climate Projections with Emergent Constraints: Concepts, Examples and Prospects, Adv. Atmos. Sci., 37, 1–15, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-019-9140-8, 2020. a
Brown, P. T., Stolpe, M. B., and Caldeira, K.: Assumptions for emergent constraints, Nature, 563, E1–E3, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0638-5, 2018. 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, c
Caldwell, P. M., Bretherton, C. S., Zelinka, M. D., Klein, S. A., Santer, B. D., and Sanderson, B. M.: Statistical significance of climate sensitivity predictors obtained by data mining, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 1803–1808, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL059205, 2014. a
Caldwell, P. M., Zelinka, M. D., and Klein, S. A.: Evaluating Emergent Constraints on Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, J. Climate, 31, 3921–3942, https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-17-0631.1, 2018. a
CMIP5_database: The Climate Model Intercomparison Project version 5 data ensemble, Earth System Grid Federation portal [data set], https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/projects/cmip5/ (last access: August 2021), 2021.
CMIP6_database: The Climate Model Intercomparison Project version 6 data ensemble, Earth System Grid Federation portal [data set], https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/projects/cmip6/ (last access: August 2021), 2021.
Covey, C., Guilyardi, E., Jiang, X., Johns, T. C., Treut, H. L., Madec, G., Meehl, G. A., Miller, R., Power, S. B., Roeckner, E., and Russell, G.: The seasonal cycle in coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation models, Clim. Dynam., 16, 775–787, 2000. a
Cox, P. M., Huntingford, C., and Williamson, M. S.: Emergent constraint on equilibrium climate sensitivity from global temperature variability, Nature, 553, 319, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25450, 2018a. a, b, c, d
Dessler, A. E., Mauritsen, T., and Stevens, B.: The influence of internal variability on Earth's energy balance framework and implications for estimating climate sensitivity, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 5147–5155, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-5147-2018, 2018. 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
Forster, P. M.: Inference of Climate Sensitivity from Analysis of Earth's Energy Budget, Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sc., 44, 85–106, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-earth-060614-105156, 2016. a
Forster, P. M., Maycock, A. C., McKenna, C. M., and Smith, C. J.: Latest climate models confirm need for urgent mitigation, Nat. Clim. Change, 10, 7–10, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0660-0, 2020. a
Foster, G., Annan, J. D., Schmidt, G. A., and Mann, M. E.: Comment on “Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system” by S. E. Schwartz, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 113, D15102, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009373, 2008. 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, b
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, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r
Gregory, J. M.: Vertical heat transports in the ocean and their effect on time-dependent climate change, Clim. Dynam., 16, 501–515, https://doi.org/10.1007/s003820000059, 2000. a, b
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
Hall, A. and Qu, X.: Using the current seasonal cycle to constrain snow albedo feedback in future climate change, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L03502, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005gl025127, 2006. a
Hall, A., Cox, P., Huntingford, C., and Klein, S.: Progressing emergent constraints on future climate change, Nat. Clim. Change, 9, 269–278, 2019. a
Hargreaves, J. C., Annan, J. D., Yoshimori, M., and Abe-Ouchi, A.: Can the Last Glacial Maximum constrain climate sensitivity?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, 1–5, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL053872, 2012. a
Held, I. M., Winton, M., Takahashi, K., Delworth, T., Zeng, F., and Vallis, G. K.: Probing the Fast and Slow Components of Global Warming by Returning Abruptly to Preindustrial Forcing, J. Climate, 23, 2418–2427, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI3466.1, 2010. a, b
Herger, N., Abramowitz, G., Knutti, R., Angélil, O., Lehmann, K., and Sanderson, B. M.: Selecting a climate model subset to optimise key ensemble properties, Earth Syst. Dynam., 9, 135–151, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-135-2018, 2018. a
IPCC: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, vol. In Press, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157896, 2021. a
Kirk-Davidoff, D. B.: On the diagnosis of climate sensitivity using observations of fluctuations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 9, 813–822, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-9-813-2009, 2009. a
Knutti, R., Meehl, G. A., Allen, M. R., and Stainforth, D. A.: Constraining climate sensitivity from the seasonal cycle in surface temperature, J. Climate, 19, 4224–4233, https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli3865.1, 2006. a
Knutti, R., Krähenmann, S., Frame, D. J., and Allen, M. R.: Comment on “Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system” by S. E. Schwartz, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 113, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009473, 2008. 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
Kubo, R.: The fluctuation-dissipation theorem, Rep. Prog. Phys., 29, 255–284, https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/29/1/306, 1966. a
Leith, C. E.: Climate Response and Fluctuation Dissipation, J. Atmos. Sci., 32, 2022–2026, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1975)032<2022:CRAFD>2.0.CO;2, 1975. a
MacMynowski, D. G., Shin, H. J., and Caldeira, K.: The frequency response of temperature and precipitation in a climate model, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L16711, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL048623, 2011. a, b
Manabe, S. and Bryan, K.: Climate Calculations with a Combined Ocean-Atmosphere Model, J. Atmos. Sci., 26, 786–789, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1969)026<0786:CCWACO>2.0.CO;2, 1969. a
Manabe, S. and Wetherald, R. T.: The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the climate of a General Circulation Model, J. Atmos. Sci., 32, 3–15, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1975)032<0003:TEODTC>2.0.CO;2, 1975. a
Masson, D. and Knutti, R.: Climate model genealogy, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL046864, 2011a. a
Masson, D. and Knutti, R.: Climate model genealogy, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL046864, 2011b. a
Masson, D. and Knutti, R.: Predictor Screening, Calibration, and Observational Constraints in Climate Model Ensembles: An Illustration Using Climate Sensitivity, J. Climate, 26, 887–898, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00540.1, 2012. a
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, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0156-z, 2011. 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
Pennell, C. and Reichler, T.: On the Effective Number of Climate Models, J. Climate, 24, 2358–2367, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3814.1, 2010. a
Po-Chedley, S., Proistosescu, C., Armour, K. C., and Santer, B. D.: Climate constraint reflects forced signal, Nature, 563, E6–E9, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0640-y, 2018. a, b, c
Rypdal, M., Fredriksen, H.-B., Rypdal, K., and Steene, R. J.: Emergent constraints on climate sensitivity, Nature, 563, E4–E5, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0639-4, 2018. a, b
Sanderson, B. M., Pendergrass, A. G., Koven, C. D., Brient, F., Booth, B. B. B., Fisher, R. A., and Knutti, R.: The potential for structural errors in emergent constraints, Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 899–918, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-899-2021, 2021. a
Scafetta, N.: Comment on “Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system” by S. E. Schwartz, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 113, D15104, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009586, 2008. a
Schwartz, S. E.: Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 112, D24S05, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008746, 2007. a
Schwartz, S. E.: Reply to comments by G. Foster et al., R. Knutti et al., and N. Scafetta on “Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system”, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 113, D15105, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD009872, 2008. a
Sherwood, S. C., Bony, S., and Dufresne, J. L.: Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing, Nature, 505, 37–42, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12829, 2014. a
Sherwood, S. C., 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
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., and Meehl, G. A.: An Overview of CMIP5 and the Experiment Design, B. Am. Meteor. Soc., 93, 485–498, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1, 2011. a
Thackeray, C. W., Hall, A., Zelinka, M. D., and Fletcher, C. G.: Assessing Prior Emergent Constraints on Surface Albedo Feedback in CMIP6, J. Climate, 34, 3889–3905, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0703.1, 2021. 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
Williamson, D. B. and Sansom, P. G.: How Are Emergent Constraints Quantifying Uncertainty and What Do They Leave Behind?, B. Am. Meteor. Soc., 100, 2571–2588, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-19-0131.1, 2019. a
Williamson, M. S., Cox, P. M., and Nijsse, F. J. M. M.: Theoretical foundations of emergent constraints: relationships between climate sensitivity and global temperature variability in conceptual models, Dynamics and Statistics of the Climate System, 3, dzy006, https://doi.org/10.1093/climsys/dzy006, 2018. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h
Williamson, M. S., Thackeray, C. W., Cox, P. M., Hall, A., Huntingford, C., and Nijsse, F. J. M. M.: Emergent constraints on climate sensitivities, Rev. Mod. Phys., 93, 025004, https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.93.025004, 2021. a, b, c
Winton, M., Takahashi, K., and Held, I. M.: Importance of Ocean Heat Uptake Efficacy to Transient Climate Change, J. Climate, 23, 2333–2344, https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI3139.1, 2010. 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
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.
Emergent constraints on equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) have generally got statistically...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint