The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 6 are not checked yet; none of the 9 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Climate model genealogy: Generation CMIP5 and how we got there
Open accessAbstract
A new ensemble of climate models is becoming available and provides the basis for climate change projections. Here, we show a first analysis indicating that the models in the new ensemble agree better with observations than those in older ones and that the poorest models have been eliminated. Most models are strongly tied to their predecessors, and some also exchange ideas and code with other models, thus supporting an earlier hypothesis that the models in the new ensemble are neither independent of each other nor independent of the earlier generation. On the basis of one atmosphere model, we show how statistical methods can identify similarities between model versions and complement process understanding in characterizing how and why a model has changed. We argue that the interdependence of models complicates the interpretation of multimodel ensembles but largely goes unnoticed.
Checked 2026-10-06 · 6 references not checked yet
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 9 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and some also exchange ideas and code with other models”
§ Climate model genealogy: Generation CMIP5 and how we got there > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIn the paper
“Here, we show a first analysis indicating that the models in the new ensemble agree better with observations than those in older ones”
- Also stated in: § 2. Results · plain
“CMIP5 continues the trend of better agreement with observations [Reichler and Kim, 2008], with the mean distance from observations reduced by approximately 20% from CMIP3 to CMIP5.”
§ Climate model genealogy: Generation CMIP5 and how we got there > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Reichler and Kim, 2008
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § 2. Results · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most models are strongly tied to their predecessors”
§ Climate model genealogy: Generation CMIP5 and how we got there > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the basis of one atmosphere model, we show how statistical methods can identify similarities between model versions and complement process understanding in characterizing how and why a model has changed.”
§ Climate model genealogy: Generation CMIP5 and how we got there > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The distance between models from the same institutions is often a factor of three to ten smaller than that to other models.”
§ Climate model genealogy: Generation CMIP5 and how we got there > 2. Results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sharing of model code occurred in CMIP3 (e.g., the Italian INGV model using an ECHAM atmosphere, or the Norwegian BCCR using the French ARPEGE atmosphere also present in CNRM) but has become more widespread in CMIP5.”
§ Climate model genealogy: Generation CMIP5 and how we got there > 2. Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The strengths and weaknesses of particular models, as they are evident in the biases in simulating present day climate, are partly passed on to newer model versions and to other models by the exchange of code and ideas.”
§ Climate model genealogy: Generation CMIP5 and how we got there > 3. Conclusion and Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The contribution of internal unforced variability (quantified using multiple segments of a control simulation) is small for this metric”
§ Climate model genealogy: Generation CMIP5 and how we got there > 2. Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, the CAM models with the most similar physics packages cluster closest together.”
§ Climate model genealogy: Generation CMIP5 and how we got there > 2. Results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The similarity metric is defined from the unperturbed preindustrial model control state and is strongly determined by biases in the present day climatology and seasonal cycle, that is, by model differences rather than initial conditions or forcing.”
§ Climate model genealogy: Generation CMIP5 and how we got there > 2. Results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
- It may state two separate claims as one. 10
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
- Probably not a substantial claim. 7
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and that the poorest models have been eliminated”
§ Climate model genealogy: Generation CMIP5 and how we got there > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As is clear from the tree shown in Figure 2a, the CAM5 experiments cluster together, with three single perturbation experiments similar to the base CAM5 experiment.”
§ Climate model genealogy: Generation CMIP5 and how we got there > 2. Results
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“as shown already by MK11, the different observation and reanalysis data set cluster together (see Figure 1a), and the rankings in Figure 3 are nearly identical irrespective of the chosen data set.”
§ Climate model genealogy: Generation CMIP5 and how we got there > 2. Results
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Masson and Knutti, 2011
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the projected changes, some models remain close (e.g., those which share a similar atmosphere), whereas other similarities do not persist (e.g., if the new version of a model has a different climate sensitivity).”
§ Climate model genealogy: Generation CMIP5 and how we got there > 2. Results
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The final change in the shallow convection introduces the largest change (last step in panel c), although it brings CAM5 closer to the original CAM4 in some variables (panel b).”
§ Climate model genealogy: Generation CMIP5 and how we got there > 2. Results
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“thus supporting an earlier hypothesis that the models in the new ensemble are neither independent of each other nor independent of the earlier generation”
§ Climate model genealogy: Generation CMIP5 and how we got there > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results point to a remarkable consistency and robustness in many aspects of simulated present day and future climate, but it also suggests that convergence to reality is slow and radical breakthroughs are hard to achieve.”
§ Climate model genealogy: Generation CMIP5 and how we got there > 3. Conclusion and Discussion
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Confidence is greatest in those aspects of climate change that we understand and can link back to known physical processes and simpler models and concepts (e.g., the global energy balance).”
§ Climate model genealogy: Generation CMIP5 and how we got there > 3. Conclusion and Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We argue that transparency in the model development process is helpful in understanding model evaluation and projections and contributes to that insight.”
§ Climate model genealogy: Generation CMIP5 and how we got there > 3. Conclusion and Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note that all results presented here are only based on model output; they assume no knowledge about the structure, parameterizations, or code of any model.”
§ Climate model genealogy: Generation CMIP5 and how we got there > 2. Results
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“None of those choices affect the main conclusions.”
§ Climate model genealogy: Generation CMIP5 and how we got there > 2. Results
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Confidence in model projections does not come from the sheer amount of code and data and cannot be demonstrated by repeated verification.”
§ Climate model genealogy: Generation CMIP5 and how we got there > 3. Conclusion and Discussion
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“but with the strong caveat that linking model performance metrics to model quality or skill is difficult, subjective, and strongly metric dependent [Gleckler et al., 2008]”
§ Climate model genealogy: Generation CMIP5 and how we got there > 2. Results
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gleckler et al., 2008
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We propose that one reason some models are so similar is because they share common code.”
§ Climate model genealogy: Generation CMIP5 and how we got there > 3. Conclusion and Discussion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“MK11 argued that such similarities result from the fact that models evolve from their ancestors by modification and by exchange of ideas and code with other groups.”
§ Climate model genealogy: Generation CMIP5 and how we got there > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Masson and Knutti, 2011
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The models in an ensemble are approximately a representative sample of uncertainty in how to best describe the climate system given limited observations, imperfect understanding, and finite computational resources.
“This assumes that the models are approximately a representative sample of our uncertainty in how to best describe the climate system given limited observations, imperfect understanding, and finite computational resources [Knutti, 2008;Yokohata et al., 2012].”
The authors state this as an assumption.
There are not too many similarities among models that would bias the results of an ensemble.
“It also assumes that there are not too many similarities that would bias the results.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Since CMIP5 projections are an incremental advance over CMIP3 data [34–36], this does not limit the relevance of our analysis as a tool for assessing anthropogenic influences on future fire activity.”
From Incorporating Anthropogenic Influences into Fire Probability Models: Effects of Human Activity and Climate Change on Fire Activity in California (2016) · cites this paper as [34]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Overall distance metric is described two different ways
MinorThe methods section says the combined temperature-precipitation distance used for Figure 3 is a mean square, while the Figure 3 caption calls it a root mean square. Taking the square root changes the reported distance values.
“for Figures 1 and 3, the metric now also includes differences in the annual mean climatology and that we use the mean square of the temperature and precipitation distance to define overall similarity”
“The distance metric is calculated as the root mean square of the surface temperature and precipitation distance as in Figure 1”
Citations
Cites
Climate change 2007: the physical science basis
Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Marquis, M. C., Averyt, K. B., Tignor, M., Miller, H. L., & Chen, Z. (2007) · Cited by 23,398
An Overview of CMIP5 and the Experiment Design
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., & Meehl, G. A. (2012) · Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society · doi:10.1175/bams-d-11-00094.1 · Cited by 14,052
The use of the multi-model ensemble in probabilistic climate projections
Tebaldi, C., & Knutti, R. (2007) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rsta.2007.2076 · Cited by 1,862
Self-citationRobustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projections
Knutti, R., & Sedláček, J. (2013) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate1716 · Cited by 1,569
Self-citationPerformance metrics for climate models.
Gleckler, P. J., Taylor, K. E., & Doutriaux, C. (2008) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/2007jd008972 · Cited by 1,328
Challenges in combining projections from multiple climate models.
Knutti, R., Furrer, R., Tebaldi, C., Cermak, J., & Meehl, G. A. (2010) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/2009jcli3361.1 · Cited by 1,270
Self-citationA numerical method for the study of the circulation of the world ocean
Bryan, K. (1969) · Journal of Computational Physics · doi:10.1016/0021-9991(69)90004-7 · Cited by 974
A Numerical Method for the Study of the Circulation of the World Ocean
Bryan, K. (1997) · Journal of Computational Physics · doi:10.1006/jcph.1997.5699 · Cited by 906
How Well Do Coupled Models Simulate Today's Climate?
Reichler, T. J., & Kim, J. (2008) · Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society · doi:10.1175/bams-89-3-303 · Cited by 880
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Community Earth System Model Version 2 (CESM2)
Danabasoglu, G., Lamarque, J., Bacmeister, J. T., Bailey, D. A., DuVivier, A. K., Edwards, J., Emmons, L. K., Fasullo, J., García, R. R., Gettelman, A., et al. (2020) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1029/2019ms001916 · Cited by 3,408
Self-citationKay, J. E., Deser, C., Phillips, A. S., Mai, A., Hannay, C., Strand, G., Arblaster, J. M., Bates, S. C., Gokhan Danabasoglu, C., Edwards, J., et al. (2014) · Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society · doi:10.1175/bams-d-13-00255.1 · Cited by 2,496
Causes of Higher Climate Sensitivity in CMIP6 Models
Zelinka, M. D., Myers, T. A., McCoy, D. T., Po–Chedley, S., Caldwell, P., Ceppi, P., Klein, S. A., & Taylor, K. E. (2020) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2019gl085782 · Cited by 1,758
Wang, T., Hamann, A., Spittlehouse, D., & Carroll, C. (2016) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0156720 · Cited by 1,110
Atmospheric circulation as a source of uncertainty in climate change projections
Shepherd, T. G. (2014) · Nature Geoscience · doi:10.1038/ngeo2253 · Cited by 1,130
Séférian, R., Nabat, P., Michou, M., Saint‐Martin, D., Voldoire, A., Colin, J., Decharme, B., Delire, C., Berthet, S., Chevallier, M., et al. (2019) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1029/2019ms001791 · Cited by 925
Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability
Change, I. P. O. C. (2014) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781107415324.023 · Cited by 950
Kwiatkowski, L., Torres, O., Bopp, L., Aumont, O., Chamberlain, M., Christian, J. R., Dunne, J. P., Gehlen, M., Ilyina, T., John, J. G., et al. (2020) · Biogeosciences · doi:10.5194/bg-17-3439-2020 · Cited by 897
Observed heavy precipitation increase confirms theory and early models
Fischer, E. M., & Knutti, R. (2016) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate3110 · Cited by 800
Self-citationShepherd, T. G., Boyd, E., Calel, R. A., Chapman, S. C., Dessai, S., Dima, I. M., Fowler, H. J., James, R., Maraun, D., Martius, O., et al. (2018) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-018-2317-9 · Cited by 842
Causes, impacts and patterns of disastrous river floods
Merz, B., Blöschl, G., Vorogushyn, S., Dottori, F., Aerts, J. C. J. H., Bates, P., Bertola, M., Kemter, M., Kreibich, H., Lall, U., et al. (2021) · Nature Reviews Earth & Environment · doi:10.1038/s43017-021-00195-3 · Cited by 813
Past warming trend constrains future warming in CMIP6 models
Tokarska, K. B., Stolpe, M. B., Sippel, S., Fischer, E. M., Smith, C., Lehner, F., & Knutti, R. (2020) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaz9549 · Cited by 749
Self-citationConfiguration and assessment of the GISS ModelE2 contributions to the CMIP5 archive
Schmidt, G. A., Kelley, M., Nazarenko, L., Ruedy, R. A., Russell, G. L., Aleinov, I., Bauer, M., Bauer, S. E., Bhat, M. K., Bleck, R., et al. (2014) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1002/2013ms000265 · Cited by 714
Dominance of the Southern Ocean in Anthropogenic Carbon and Heat Uptake in CMIP5 Models
Frölicher, T. L., Sarmiento, J. L., Paynter, D. J., Dunne, J. P. P., Krasting, J. P., & Winton, M. (2014) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-14-00117.1 · Cited by 682
GISS‐E2.1: Configurations and Climatology
Kelley, M., Schmidt, G. A., Nazarenko, L., Bauer, S. E., Ruedy, R. A., Russell, G. L., Ackerman, A. S., Aleinov, I., Bauer, M., Bleck, R., et al. (2020) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1029/2019ms002025 · Cited by 672
Partitioning climate projection uncertainty with multiple large ensembles and CMIP5/6
Lehner, F., Deser, C., Maher, N., Marotzke, J., Fischer, E. M., Brunner, L., Knutti, R., & Hawkins, E. (2020) · Earth System Dynamics · doi:10.5194/esd-11-491-2020 · Cited by 734
Self-citationA climate model projection weighting scheme accounting for performance and interdependence
Knutti, R., Sedláčék, J., Sanderson, B. M., Lorenz, R., Fischer, E. M., & Eyring, V. (2017) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1002/2016gl072012 · Cited by 524
Self-citationHigh Climate Sensitivity in the Community Earth System Model Version 2 (CESM2)
Gettelman, A., Hannay, C., Bacmeister, J. T., Neale, R., Pendergrass, A. G., Danabasoglu, G., Lamarque, J., Fasullo, J., Bailey, D. A., Lawrence, D. M., et al. (2019) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2019gl083978 · Cited by 491
Self-citationLarge loss of CO2 in winter observed across the northern permafrost region
Natali, S. M., Watts, J. D., Rogers, B. M., Potter, S., Ludwig, S., Selbmann, A. K., Sullivan, P. F., Abbott, B. W., Arndt, K. A., Birch, L., et al. (2019) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-019-0592-8 · Cited by 454
Progressing emergent constraints on future climate change
Hall, A. D., Cox, P. M., Huntingford, C., & Klein, S. A. (2019) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-019-0436-6 · Cited by 496
Integrated Risk and Uncertainty Assessment of Climate Change Response Policies
Change, I. P. O. C. (2015) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781107415416.008 · Cited by 417
A Representative Democracy to Reduce Interdependency in a Multimodel Ensemble
Sanderson, B. M., Knutti, R., & Caldwell, P. (2015) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-14-00362.1 · Cited by 411
Self-citationClimate change reduces extent of temperate drylands and intensifies drought in deep soils
Schlaepfer, D. R., Bradford, J. B., Lauenroth, W. K., Munson, S. M., Tietjen, B., Hall, S. A., Wilson, S. D., Duniway, M. C., Jia, G., Pyke, D. A., et al. (2017) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms14196 · Cited by 403
Lutz, A., ter Maat, H. W., Biemans, H., Shrestha, A. B., Wester, P., & Immerzeel, W. W. (2016) · International Journal of Climatology · doi:10.1002/joc.4608 · Cited by 396
Reduced global warming from CMIP6 projections when weighting models by performance and independence
Brunner, L., Pendergrass, A. G., Lehner, F., Merrifield, A. L., Lorenz, R., & Knutti, R. (2020) · Earth System Dynamics · doi:10.5194/esd-11-995-2020 · Cited by 386
Self-citation(IPCC), I. P. O. C. C. (2023) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009157896.003 · Cited by 429
Greater future global warming inferred from Earth’s recent energy budget
Brown, P. T., & Caldeira, K. (2017) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature24672 · Cited by 334
Beyond equilibrium climate sensitivity
Knutti, R., Rugenstein, M. A. A., & Hegerl, G. C. (2017) · Nature Geoscience · doi:10.1038/ngeo3017 · Cited by 364
Self-citationZhou, B., Wen, Q. H., Xu, Y., Song, L., & Zhang, X. (2014) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-13-00761.1 · Cited by 331
Long‐term ozone changes and associated climate impacts in CMIP5 simulations
Eyring, V., Arblaster, J. M., Cionni, I., Sedláčék, J., Perlwitz, J., Young, P. J., Bekki, S., Bergmann, D., Cameron-Smith, P. J., Collins, W. J., et al. (2013) · Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · doi:10.1002/jgrd.50316 · Cited by 339
Snowfall less sensitive to warming in Karakoram than in Himalayas due to a unique seasonal cycle
Kapnick, S., Delworth, T. L., Ashfaq, M., Malyshev, S. L., & Milly, P. C. D. (2014) · Nature Geoscience · doi:10.1038/ngeo2269 · Cited by 314
Ahmed, K., Sachindra, D. A., Shahid, S., Demirel, M. C., & Chung, . (2019) · Hydrology and earth system sciences · doi:10.5194/hess-23-4803-2019 · Cited by 311
Evaluation of CMIP5 20th century climate simulations for the Pacific Northwest USA
Rupp, D. E., Abatzoglou, J. T., Hegewisch, K. C., & Mote, P. W. (2013) · Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · doi:10.1002/jgrd.50843 · Cited by 308
Alexander, M. A., Scott, J. D., Friedland, K. D., Mills, K. E., Nye, J. A., Pershing, A. J., & Thomas, A. C. (2018) · Elementa Science of the Anthropocene · doi:10.1525/elementa.191 · Cited by 319
Making climate projections conditional on historical observations
Ribes, A., Qasmi, S., & Gillett, N. P. (2021) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abc0671 · Cited by 297
Characterizing Uncertainty of the Hydrologic Impacts of Climate Change
Clark, M., Wilby, R. L., Gutmann, E. D., Vano, J. A., Gangopadhyay, S., Wood, A. W., Fowler, H. J., Prudhomme, C., Arnold, J. R., & Brekke, L. D. (2016) · Current Climate Change Reports · doi:10.1007/s40641-016-0034-x · Cited by 308
Storylines of Atmospheric Circulation Change for European Regional Climate Impact Assessment
Zappa, G., & Shepherd, T. G. (2017) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-16-0807.1 · Cited by 288
Arnell, N. W., & Lloyd-Hughes, B. (2013) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0948-4 · Cited by 296
A Common Framework for Approaches to Extreme Event Attribution
Shepherd, T. G. (2016) · Current Climate Change Reports · doi:10.1007/s40641-016-0033-y · Cited by 312
Pattern scaling: Its strengths and limitations, and an update on the latest model simulations
Tebaldi, C., & Arblaster, J. M. (2014) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-013-1032-9 · Cited by 274
Krueger, S. K., Fu, Q., Liou, K. N., & Chin, H.-N. S. (1995) · Journal of applied meteorology · doi:10.1175/1520-0450-34.1.281 · Cited by 262
Herman, J. D., Quinn, J. D., Steinschneider, S., Giuliani, M., & Fletcher, S. M. (2020) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2019wr025502 · Cited by 279
Robust ecological drought projections for drylands in the 21st century
Bradford, J. B., Schlaepfer, D. R., Lauenroth, W. K., & Palmquist, K. A. (2020) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.15075 · Cited by 252
Regional Climate Sensitivity of Climate Extremes in CMIP6 Versus CMIP5 Multimodel Ensembles
Seneviratne, S. I., & Hauser, M. (2020) · Earth s Future · doi:10.1029/2019ef001474 · Cited by 242
Skill and independence weighting for multi-model assessments
Sanderson, B. M., Wehner, M. F., & Knutti, R. (2017) · Geoscientific model development · doi:10.5194/gmd-10-2379-2017 · Cited by 251
Self-citationEvaluating the Performance of Past Climate Model Projections
Hausfather, Z., Drake, H. F., Abbott, T. H., & Schmidt, G. A. (2019) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2019gl085378 · Cited by 238
Simulations for CMIP6 With the AWI Climate Model AWI‐CM‐1‐1
Semmler, T., Danilov, S. D., Gierz, P., Goessling, H., Hegewald, J., Hinrichs, C., Koldunov, N., Khosravi, N., Mu, L., Rackow, T., et al. (2020) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1029/2019ms002009 · Cited by 243
Models agree on forced response pattern of precipitation and temperature extremes
Fischer, E. M., Sedláčék, J., Hawkins, E., & Knutti, R. (2014) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1002/2014gl062018 · Cited by 240
Self-citationThe effects of 1.5 and 2 degrees of global warming on Africa in the CORDEX ensemble
Nikulin, G., Lennard, C., Dosio, A., Kjellström, E., Chen, Y., Haensler, A., Kupiainen, M., Laprise, R., Mariotti, L., Maule, C. F., et al. (2018) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aab1b1 · Cited by 218
Evaluation of CMIP6 GCM rainfall in mainland Southeast Asia
Iqbal, Z., Shahid, S., Ahmed, K., Ismail, T., Ziarh, G. F., Chung, ., & Wang, X. (2021) · Atmospheric Research · doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2021.105525 · Cited by 215
Ghan, S. J., Wang, M., Zhang, S., Ferrachat, S., Gettelman, A., Griesfeller, J., Kipling, Z., Lohmann, U., Morrison, H., Neubauer, D., et al. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1514036113 · Cited by 216
Self-citationAbramowitz, G., Herger, N., Gutmann, E., Hammerling, D., Knutti, R., Leduc, M., Lorenz, R., Pincus, R., & Schmidt, G. (2019) · Earth System Dynamics · doi:10.5194/esd-10-91-2019 · Cited by 174
Self-citationSources of uncertainties in 21st century projections of potential ocean ecosystem stressors
Frölicher, T. L., Rodgers, K. B., Stock, C. A. A., & Cheung, W. W. L. (2016) · Global Biogeochemical Cycles · doi:10.1002/2015gb005338 · Cited by 215
On the spread of changes in marine low cloud cover in climate model simulations of the 21st century
Qu, X., Hall, A. D., Klein, S. A., & Caldwell, P. (2013) · Climate Dynamics · doi:10.1007/s00382-013-1945-z · Cited by 208
Tietjen, B., Schlaepfer, D. R., Bradford, J. B., Lauenroth, W. K., Hall, S. A., Duniway, M. C., Hochstrasser, T., Jia, G., Munson, S. M., Pyke, D. A., et al. (2016) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.13598 · Cited by 206
Salman, S. A., Shahid, S., Ismail, T., Ahmed, K., & Wang, X.-J. (2018) · Atmospheric Research · doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2018.07.008 · Cited by 195
High-resolution monthly precipitation and temperature time series from 2006 to 2100
Karger, D. N., Schmatz, D. R., Dettling, G., & Zimmermann, N. E. (2020) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-020-00587-y · Cited by 207
Li, M., Cao, X., Liu, D., Fu, Q., Li, T., & Shang, R. (2021) · Agricultural Water Management · doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107235 · Cited by 202
Global warming accelerates soil heterotrophic respiration
Nissan, A., Alcolombri, U., Peleg, N., Galili, N., Jiménez‐Martínez, J., Molnár, P., & Holzner, M. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-38981-w · Cited by 201
Myhre, G., Forster, P. M. D. F., Samset, B. H., Hodnebrog, Ø., Sillmann, J., Aalbergsjø, S. G., Andrews, T., Boucher, O., Faluvegi, G., Fläschner, D., et al. (2016) · Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society · doi:10.1175/bams-d-16-0019.1 · Cited by 196
Khan, N., Shahid, S., Ahmed, K., Ismail, T., Nawaz, N., & Son, M. (2018) · Water · doi:10.3390/w10121793 · Cited by 183
Addressing Interdependency in a Multimodel Ensemble by Interpolation of Model Properties
Sanderson, B. M., Knutti, R., & Caldwell, P. (2015) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-14-00361.1 · Cited by 185
Self-citationA closer look at novel climates: new methods and insights at continental to landscape scales
Mahony, C. R., Cannon, A. J., Wang, T., & Aitken, S. N. (2017) · Global Change Biology · doi:10.1111/gcb.13645 · Cited by 178
Manzini, E., Karpechko, A. Y., Anstey, J. A., Baldwin, M., Black, R. X., Cagnazzo, C., Calvo, N., Charlton-Perez, A. J., Christiansen, B., Davini, P., et al. (2014) · Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · doi:10.1002/2013jd021403 · Cited by 177
Massimi, M. (2022) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197555620.001.0001 · Cited by 206
Selecting a climate model subset to optimise key ensemble properties
Herger, N., Abramowitz, G., Knutti, R., Angélil, O., Lehmann, K., & Sanderson, B. M. (2018) · Earth System Dynamics · doi:10.5194/esd-9-135-2018 · Cited by 184
Self-citationClassification of CMIP5 Future Climate Responses by the Tropical Sea Surface Temperature Changes
Mizuta, R., Arakawa, O., Ose, T., Kusunoki, S., Endo, H., & Kitoh, A. (2014) · SOLA · doi:10.2151/sola.2014-035 · Cited by 170
Pour, S. H., Shahid, S., Chung, E.-S., & Wang, X.-J. (2018) · Atmospheric Research · doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2018.06.006 · Cited by 183
Hadley cell expansion in CMIP6 models
Grise, K. M., & Davis, S. (2020) · Atmospheric chemistry and physics · doi:10.5194/acp-20-5249-2020 · Cited by 166
Practice and philosophy of climate model tuning across six US modeling centers
Schmidt, G. A., Bader, D. C., Donner, L. J., Elsaesser, G. S., Golaz, J., Hannay, C., Molod, A. M., Neale, R., & Saha, S. (2017) · Geoscientific model development · doi:10.5194/gmd-10-3207-2017 · Cited by 164
The Southern Ocean in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5
Meijers, A. (2014) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rsta.2013.0296 · Cited by 162
Cannon, A. J. (2014) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-14-00636.1 · Cited by 160
The potential to reduce uncertainty in regional runoff projections from climate models
Lehner, F., Wood, A. W., Vano, J. A., Lawrence, D. M., Clark, M., & Mankin, J. (2019) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-019-0639-x · Cited by 168
Liang, Y., Gillett, N. P., & Monahan, A. H. (2020) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2019gl086757 · Cited by 162
Davini, P., & D’Andrea, F. (2016) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-16-0242.1 · Cited by 154
Statistical significance of climate sensitivity predictors obtained by data mining
Caldwell, P. M., Bretherton, C. S., Zelinka, M. D., Klein, S. A., Santer, B. D., & Sanderson, B. M. (2014) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1002/2014gl059205 · Cited by 153
Design considerations for riverine floods in a changing climate – A review
François, B., Schlef, K., Wi, S., & Brown, C. (2019) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.04.068 · Cited by 164
Zhang, J., Guan, K., Peng, B., Pan, M., Zhou, W. M., Jiang, C., Kimm, H., Franz, T. E., Grant, R. F., Yang, Y., et al. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-25254-7 · Cited by 173
Mann, M. L., Batllori, E., Moritz, M. A., Waller, E. K., Berck, P., Flint, A. L., Flint, L. E., & Dolfi, E. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0153589 · Cited by 151
Telteu, C.-E., Schmied, H. M., Thiery, W., Leng, G., Burek, P., Liu, X., Boulangé, J., Andersen, L. S., Grillakis, M. G., Gosling, S. N., et al. (2021) · Geoscientific model development · doi:10.5194/gmd-14-3843-2021 · Cited by 151
Palazzi, E., Filippi, L., & von Hardenberg, J. (2016) · Climate Dynamics · doi:10.1007/s00382-016-3316-z · Cited by 159
Mülmenstädt, J., & Feingold, G. (2018) · Current Climate Change Reports · doi:10.1007/s40641-018-0089-y · Cited by 159
Exploring, exploiting and evolving diversity of aquatic ecosystem models: a community perspective
Janssen, A. B. G., Arhonditsis, G. B., Beusen, A. H. W., Bolding, K., Bruce, L. C., Bruggeman, J., Couture, R., Downing, A. S., Elliott, J. A., Frassl, M. A., et al. (2015) · Aquatic Ecology · doi:10.1007/s10452-015-9544-1 · Cited by 150
Bradford, J. B., & Bell, D. M. (2017) · Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment · doi:10.1002/fee.1445 · Cited by 144
Biotic and Climatic Velocity Identify Contrasting Areas of Vulnerability to Climate Change
Carroll, C., Lawler, J. J., Roberts, D. R., & Hamann, A. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0140486 · Cited by 143
Prestoration: using species in restoration that will persist now and into the future
Butterfield, B. J., Copeland, S. M., Munson, S. M., Roybal, C. M., & Wood, T. E. (2016) · Restoration Ecology · doi:10.1111/rec.12381 · Cited by 142
Impact of climate change on pavement structural performance in the United States
Gudipudi, P. P., Underwood, B. S., & Zalghout, A. A. (2017) · Transportation Research Part D Transport and Environment · doi:10.1016/j.trd.2017.09.022 · Cited by 147
Northern Hemisphere vegetation change drives a Holocene thermal maximum
Thompson, A. J., Zhu, J., Poulsen, C. J., Tierney, J. E., & Skinner, C. B. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abj6535 · Cited by 137
Beusch, L., Gudmundsson, L., & Seneviratne, S. I. (2020) · Earth System Dynamics · doi:10.5194/esd-11-139-2020 · Cited by 164
Comparison of past and future simulations of ENSO in CMIP5/PMIP3 and CMIP6/PMIP4 models
Brown, J. R., Brierley, C., An, S., Guarino, M. V., Stevenson, S. L., Williams, C. J. R., Zhang, Q., Zhao, A., Abe‐Ouchi, A., Braconnot, P., et al. (2020) · Climate of the past · doi:10.5194/cp-16-1777-2020 · Cited by 155
Hydrological response to climate change: The Pearl River, China under different RCP scenarios
Yan, D., Werners, S. E., Ludwig, F., & Huang, H. Q. (2015) · Journal of Hydrology Regional Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ejrh.2015.06.006 · Cited by 139
Evaluating Emergent Constraints on Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity
Caldwell, P., Zelinka, M. D., & Klein, S. A. (2018) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-17-0631.1 · Cited by 132
Brunner, L., Lorenz, R., Zumwald, M., & Knutti, R. (2019) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab492f · Cited by 137
Self-citationSpringer, Y. P., Jarnevich, C. S., Barnett, D. T., Monaghan, A. J., & Eisen, R. J. (2015) · American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · doi:10.4269/ajtmh.15-0330 · Cited by 134
Fast and slow responses of Southern Ocean sea surface temperature to SAM in coupled climate models
Kostov, Y., Marshall, J., Hausmann, U., Armour, K. C., Ferreira, D., & Holland, M. M. (2017) · Climate Dynamics · doi:10.1007/s00382-016-3162-z · Cited by 129
Quinn, J. D., Reed, P. M., Giuliani, M., Castelletti, A. F., Oyler, J. W., & Nicholas, R. E. (2018) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2018wr022743 · Cited by 135
Brient, F. (2019) · Advances in Atmospheric Sciences · doi:10.1007/s00376-019-9140-8 · Cited by 143
ClimateEU, scale-free climate normals, historical time series, and future projections for Europe
Marchi, M., Castellanos‐Acuña, D., Hamann, A., Wang, T., Ray, D., & Menzel, A. (2020) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-020-00763-0 · Cited by 131
Fasullo, J., & Nerem, R. S. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1813233115 · Cited by 125
CMIP5 model selection for ISMIP6 ice sheet model forcing: Greenland and Antarctica
Barthel, A. M., Agosta, C., Little, C. M., Hattermann, T., Jourdain, N. C., Goelzer, H., Nowicki, S., Seroussi, H. L., Straneo, F., & Bracegirdle, T. J. (2020) · The Cryosphere · doi:10.5194/tc-14-855-2020 · Cited by 125
Metadata
- Authors
- Knutti, R., Masson, D., & Gettelman, A.
- Affiliations
- ETH Zurich (CH)
- Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss (CH)
- NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research (US)
- Corresponding author
- Knutti, Reto
- Venue
- Geophysical Research Letters
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2013-03-26
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1194-1199
- ISSN
- 0094-8276 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-8007
- OpenAlex
- W1796961055
- Semantic Scholar
- f6507ca951e61214c9268ce9a43376724b2f9bcf
- Cited by
- 918
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 37 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 54 · 2023: 73 · 2022: 114 · 2021: 126 · 2020: 109 · 2019: 64 · 2018: 76 · 2017: 67 · 2016: 51 · 2015: 55 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 7
- FWCI
- 39.41
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Geophysical Research Letters (publishedVersion)
- Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- ETH Zürich Research Collection
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
- Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Atmospheric Science › Meteorological Phenomena and Simulations
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
- Keywords
- CMIP5, multi-model ensemble, model validation against observations, climate change projections, statistical model comparison
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
