Articles | Volume 15, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-829-2024
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-829-2024
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

Related authors

Early warnings of the transition to a superrotating atmospheric state
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
Emergent constraints for the climate system as effective parameters of bulk differential equations
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
Bioclimatic change as a function of global warming from CMIP6 climate projections
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
Emergent constraints on transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from historical warming in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models
Femke J. M. M. Nijsse, Peter M. Cox, and Mark S. Williamson
Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 737–750, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-737-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-737-2020, 2020
Short summary
Statistical indicators of Arctic sea-ice stability – prospects and limitations
Sebastian Bathiany, Bregje van der Bolt, Mark S. Williamson, Timothy M. Lenton, Marten Scheffer, Egbert H. van Nes, and Dirk Notz
The Cryosphere, 10, 1631–1645, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-10-1631-2016,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-10-1631-2016, 2016
Short summary

Related subject area

Topics: Climate change | Interactions: Other interactions | Methods: Earth system and climate modeling
Storylines of summer Arctic climate change constrained by Barents–Kara seas and Arctic tropospheric warming for climate risk assessment
Xavier J. Levine, Ryan S. Williams, Gareth Marshall, Andrew Orr, Lise Seland Graff, Dörthe Handorf, Alexey Karpechko, Raphael Köhler, René R. Wijngaard, Nadine Johnston, Hanna Lee, Lars Nieradzik, and Priscilla A. Mooney
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1161–1177, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1161-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1161-2024, 2024
Short summary
Future Changes of Compound Explosive Cyclones and Atmospheric Rivers in the North Atlantic
Ferran Lopez-Marti, Mireia Ginesta, Davide Faranda, Anna Rutgersson, Pascal Yiou, Lichuan Wu, and Gabriele Messori
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1711,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1711, 2024
Short summary
Climate tipping point interactions and cascades: a review
Nico Wunderling, Anna S. von der Heydt, Yevgeny Aksenov, Stephen Barker, Robbin Bastiaansen, Victor Brovkin, Maura Brunetti, Victor Couplet, Thomas Kleinen, Caroline H. Lear, Johannes Lohmann, Rosa Maria Roman-Cuesta, Sacha Sinet, Didier Swingedouw, Ricarda Winkelmann, Pallavi Anand, Jonathan Barichivich, Sebastian Bathiany, Mara Baudena, John T. Bruun, Cristiano M. Chiessi, Helen K. Coxall, David Docquier, Jonathan F. Donges, Swinda K. J. Falkena, Ann Kristin Klose, David Obura, Juan Rocha, Stefanie Rynders, Norman Julius Steinert, and Matteo Willeit
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 41–74, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-41-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-41-2024, 2024
Short summary
Extending MESMER-X: a spatially resolved Earth system model emulator for fire weather and soil moisture
Yann Quilcaille, Lukas Gudmundsson, and Sonia I. Seneviratne
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 1333–1362, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-1333-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-1333-2023, 2023
Short summary
Understanding pattern scaling errors across a range of emissions pathways
Christopher D. Wells, Lawrence S. Jackson, Amanda C. Maycock, and Piers M. Forster
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 817–834, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-817-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-817-2023, 2023
Short summary

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
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.
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint