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
Items 701–800 of 918
Pántano, V. C., & Penalba, O. C. (2017) · Theoretical and Applied Climatology · doi:10.1007/s00704-017-2339-7 · Cited by 2
More perceived but not faster evolution of heat stress than temperature extremes in the future
Brouillet, A., & Joussaume, S. (2020) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-020-02752-z · Cited by 3
From Many to One: Consensus Inference in a MIP
Cressie, N., Bertolacci, M., & Zammit‐Mangion, A. (2022) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2022gl098277 · Cited by 2
Cao, D., Jiang, X., Liu, S., Chai, F., Liu, Y., & Lai, C. (2023) · Water · doi:10.3390/w15162906 · Cited by 2
Marchi, M. (2023) · New Forests · doi:10.1007/s11056-023-10000-2 · Cited by 2
Changing flood and landslide hazard : a meteorological perspective
Turkington, T. (2016) · doi:10.3990/1.9789036541930 · Cited by 2
ClimateBench: A benchmark dataset for data-driven climate projectionsPreprint
Watson‐Parris, D., Rao, Y. D., Olivié, D., Seland, Ø., Nowack, P. J., Camps‐Valls, G., Stier, P., Bouabid, S., Dewey, M., Fons, E., et al. (2021) · doi:10.1002/essoar.10509765.1 · Cited by 2
Climate projections from IPCC models and regression models: A comparisonPreprint
Triacca, U. (2022) · doi:10.5194/egusphere-2022-134 · Cited by 2
Novel approaches to quantify the emergence of anthropogenic climate change
Harrington, L. J. (2017) · Open Access Victoria University of Wellington | Te Herenga Waka (Figshare) · doi:10.26686/wgtn.17061872 · Cited by 1
Isoprene Emission under Climate Change Scenario in Southeast AsiaPreprint
Herman, F., Sentian, J., Yee, V. K. W., Ooi, M. C. G., & Nadzir, M. S. M. (2023) · Preprints.org · doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0394.v1 · Cited by 2
Time of Emergence in Asia based on the CMIP6 Multi-Model Ensemble
Lee, J.-H., Sung, H. M., Kim, J., Sun, M.-A., Shim, S., & Byun, Y. (2022) · Journal of Climate Change Research · doi:10.15531/ksccr.2022.13.4.479 · Cited by 1
General circulation models cannot predict climate
Jonas, M. (2024) · World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews · doi:10.30574/wjarr.2024.22.1.1235 · Cited by 1
Mathematics of Climate Modeling: Challenges and Perspectives
Bala, R., & Pandey, H. (2020) · Türk bilgisayar ve matematik eğitimi dergisi · doi:10.61841/turcomat.v11i3.14657 · Cited by 1
Micro- and Macroparametric Uncertainty in Climate Change Prediction: A Large Ensemble Perspective
Viríssimo, F. D. M., & Stainforth, D. A. (2025) · Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society · doi:10.1175/bams-d-24-0064.1 · Cited by 1
From past to a precarious future: climate change threatens protected Mexican tarantulas
Hénaut, Y., Machkour‐M’Rabet, S., Shillington, C., Weissenberger, H., & Legal, L. (2025) · Journal of Insect Conservation · doi:10.1007/s10841-025-00686-4 · Cited by 1
The Hidden Predictor of Multi‐Year ENSO Predictions Revealed by Deep Learning
Chen, Y., Chen, X., Jin, Y., Zhao, Y., Dong, J., Gan, Y., & Bi, H. (2025) · Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans · doi:10.1029/2025jc022394 · Cited by 1
Rao, X., Zhang, J., Mo, W., Zou, Y., Xiao, Y., Yuan, Z., Luo, X., Wei, J., Wang, S., Xiang, Q., et al. (2025) · Environmental Research Communications · doi:10.1088/2515-7620/ae009b · Cited by 1
Probabilistic Simulations and Projections of Global Temperature Based on Greenhouse Gases
Yu, H., Wang, L., & Chen, Y. (2025) · International Journal of Climatology · doi:10.1002/joc.70097 · Cited by 1
Sepaspour, R., Hajikarimi, P., & Nejad, F. M. (2025) · Theoretical and Applied Climatology · doi:10.1007/s00704-025-05795-3 · Cited by 1
Dubey, A., Swami, D., Gupta, V., & Joshi, N. (2025) · Natural Hazards · doi:10.1007/s11069-025-07684-4 · Cited by 1
Using artificial intelligence to identify CMIP6 models from daily SLP maps
Yiou, P., & Thao, S. (2025) · npj Climate and Atmospheric Science · doi:10.1038/s41612-025-01246-y · Cited by 1
Marshall, G. J., Williams, R., Graff, L. S., Handorf, D., Karpechko, A. Y., Köhler, R. H., Levine, X. J., Orr, A., & Mooney, P. (2026) · Climate Dynamics · doi:10.1007/s00382-026-08081-8 · Cited by 1
Advances in aggregation methods for multi-model ensembles in climate science: A comprehensive review
Shiru, M. S., Song, Y.-H., Shahid, S., Sa’adi, Z., & Chung, . (2026) · Physics and Chemistry of the Earth Parts A/B/C · doi:10.1016/j.pce.2026.104391 · Cited by 1
Large potential of performance-based model weighting to improve decadal climate forecast skill
Verjans, V., Donat, M. G., Delgado‐Torres, C., & DelSole, T. (2026) · npj Climate and Atmospheric Science · doi:10.1038/s41612-026-01397-6 · Cited by 1
Mamoozadeh, N. R., Cooper, A. R., Quinlan, H. R., Varian, A., Infante, D. M., & Meek, M. H. (2026) · Evolutionary Applications · doi:10.1111/eva.70239 · Cited by 1
Multi-year droughts in CMIP6 large ensemble models
van Mourik, J., van der Wiel, K., Hazeleger, W., & Wanders, N. (2026) · Environmental Research Communications · doi:10.1088/2515-7620/ae6d87 · Cited by 1
Hello world! An interdisciplinary climate modelling course
Proske, U., & Staab, M. (2026) · Geoscience Communication · doi:10.5194/gc-9-239-2026 · Cited by 1
Jiao, Z., Yuan, J., Arima, Y., Farnham, C., & Emura, K. (2026) · Energy and Buildings · doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2026.117955 · Cited by 1
Enhancing SWAT-based ecosystem modeling through satellite data and hybrid AI under climate change
Yeşilyurt, S. N., & Gül, G. O. (2026) · Environmental Modelling & Software · doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2026.107111 · Cited by 1
Lone, M. H., Mahindrakar, A. B., & Kumar, K. (2026) · Frontiers in Climate · doi:10.3389/fclim.2026.1880364 · Cited by 1
A climate generator for agricultural planning in southeastern
Greene, A. M., Goddard, L., & Chryssanthacopoulos, J. P. (2015) · Cited by 1
The Impact of Stable Water Isotopic Information on Parameter Calibration in a Land Surface Model
Wong, T. E. (2016) · CU Scholar (University of Colorado Boulder) · doi:10.13140/rg.2.2.30181.40162 · Cited by 1
Kotamarthi, R., Hayhoe, K., Mearns, L. O., Wuebbles, D. J., Jacobs, J. M., & Jurado, J. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108601269.005 · Cited by 1
Climate Change Impact on Critical Source Area Identification in a Maryland Watershed
Renkenberger, J., Montas, H., Leisnham, P., Chanse, V., Shirmohammadi, A., Sadeghi, A., Brubaker, K. L., Rockler, A., Hutson, T., & Lansing, D. (2015) · ASABE Climate Change Symposium: Adaptation and Mitigation · doi:10.13031/cc.20152122717 · Cited by 1
Sreedevi, S., & Eldho, T. I. (2022) · Hydrological Sciences Journal · doi:10.1080/02626667.2022.2092404 · Cited by 1
The perspectival nature of scientific representation
Massimi, M. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197555620.003.0002 · Cited by 1
Implications of Model-Based Uncertainty: Scientific Responses and Philosophical Interpretations
Morrison, M. A., & Lawrence, P. (2023) · Handbooks in philosophy · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-16960-2_155-1 · Cited by 1
A Data-Driven Probabilistic Network Approach to Assess Model Similarity in CMIP Ensembles
Graafland, C. E., Brands, S., & Gutiérrez, J. M. (2024) · Artificial Intelligence for the Earth Systems · doi:10.1175/aies-d-23-0073.1 · Cited by 1
Алексеевна, Н. А., Dzhelali, P. A., Tyts, V. D., & Popkov, A. (2024) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.18377 · Cited by 1
Modeling Climate Possibilities
Roussos, J. (2025) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003342816-14 · Cited by 1
FUTURE PROJECTION OF OCEAN WAVE CLIMATE CHANGE USING MULTI-SST ENSEMBLE EXPERIMENTS
Shimura, T., Mori, N., YASUDA, T., & Hajime, M. A. S. E. (2014) · Coastal Engineering Proceedings · doi:10.9753/icce.v34.management.6 · Cited by 1
Did agriculture beget agriculture during the past several millennia?
Vavrus, S. J., Kucharik, C. J., He, F., Kutzbach, J. E., & Ruddiman, W. F. (2022) · The Holocene · doi:10.1177/09596836221088231 · Cited by 1
Kotamarthi, R., Hayhoe, K., Mearns, L. O., Wuebbles, D. J., Jacobs, J. M., & Jurado, J. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108601269.007 · Cited by 1
The short tale of a long journey
Massimi, M. (2022) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197555620.003.0001 · Cited by 1
Kawatani, Y., Horinouchi, T., & Sato, N. (2022) · SOLA · doi:10.2151/sola.2022-020 · Cited by 1
A Bayesian approach to the interpretation of climate model ensembles
Demetriou, M. (2016) · UCL Discovery (University College London) · Cited by 1
A blooming business : Identifying limits to Lake Taihu's nutrient input
Janssen, A. B. G. (2017) · doi:10.18174/413490 · Cited by 1
Integrating trait-based movement into mechanistic predictions of thermal performancePreprint
Terlau, J. F., Brose, U., Antunes, A. C., Berti, E., Boy, T., Gauzens, B., Pawar, S. S., Pinsky, M. L., Ryser, R., & Hirt, M. R. (2022) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1815379/v1 · Cited by 1
Pryck, K. D., & Hulme, M. (2022) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009082099.036 · Cited by 1
Intercomparison Project phase 5 The Southern Ocean in the Coupled Model
Meijers, A. (2014)
Context of Communication: What Philosophers can Contribute
Myrvold, W. C. (2016) · PhilSci-Archive (University of Pittsburgh)
Climate Change and Dryland Systems
Simmons, C. T., & Matthews, D. (2018) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9781315369006-1
Is future climate predictable with statistics?
Ribes, A. (2017) · ESAIM Proceedings and Surveys · doi:10.1051/proc/201760104
“Traveling Codes” Leuphana Workshop – 30-31 March 2017
Vigni, F. L. (2017) · Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique · doi:10.1177/0759106317725650
Evaluation of CESM/WRF climate simulations at high resolution over sumatra
Afrizal, T., & Surussavadee, C. (2017) · International Conference on Information Technology, Information Systems and Electrical Engineering (ICITISEE) · doi:10.1109/icitisee.2017.8285511
Climate and rainfed rice cultivation in India
Singh, K. K. (2017) · White Rose eTheses Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York)
Iceberg Melting and Climate Change in NW Atlantic Waters
Perez-Gruszkiewicz, S. E., & Peterson, W. K. (2018) · TransNav the International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation · doi:10.12716/1001.12.03.04
Understanding the predictability of the Arctic climate
Krikken, F. (2018) · doi:10.18174/456694
Pryor, J. W. (2018) · Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida)
Eftelioglu, E., Miralles‐Wilhelm, F. R., Mohtar, R. H., Ruddell, B. L., Saundry, P. D., & Shekhar, S. (2020) · AESS interdisciplinary environmental studies and sciences series · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-29914-9_17
Uytven, E. V., Niel, J. D., Meert, P., Wolfs, V., & Willems, P. (2020) · International Journal of Climatology · doi:10.1002/joc.6696
Vavrus, S. J., He, F., Kutzbach, J. E., & Ruddiman, W. F. (2020) · The Holocene · doi:10.1177/0959683620932967
Tai, S.-C., & Lee, Y.-A. (2020) · Terrestrial Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences · doi:10.3319/tao.2020.08.21.01
Assessing Climate Model Projections of Anthropogenic Warming PatternsPreprint
Drake, H. F., Abbott, T. H., & Lickley, M. J. (2019) · doi:10.31223/osf.io/ahq4p
(2021) · Geoscientific model development · doi:10.5194/gmd-2020-367-rc1
(2021) · Geoscientific model development · doi:10.5194/gmd-2020-367-rc2
Telteu, C.-E. (2021) · Geoscientific model development · doi:10.5194/gmd-2020-367-ac1
Uncertainty in Future Projections, and Approaches for Representing Uncertainty
Kotamarthi, R., Hayhoe, K., Mearns, L. O., Wuebbles, D. J., Jacobs, J. M., & Jurado, J. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108601269.008
Kotamarthi, R., Hayhoe, K., Mearns, L. O., Wuebbles, D. W., Jacobs, J., & Jurado, J. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108601269.003 · Cited by 1
Impacts, Adaptation, Vulnerability, and Decision-Making
Kotamarthi, R., Hayhoe, K., Mearns, L. O., Wuebbles, D. J., Jacobs, J. M., & Jurado, J. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108601269.002
Assessing Climate-Change Impacts at the Regional Scale
Kotamarthi, R., Hayhoe, K., Mearns, L. O., Wuebbles, D. J., Jacobs, J. M., & Jurado, J. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108601269.004
(2021) · Nonlinear processes in geophysics · doi:10.5194/npg-2021-2-rc2
Comparable sulfate climate impacts by consumption of developed and developing countriesPreprint
Lin, J., Zhou, C., Chen, L., Huang, G., Lamarque, J., Nie, J., Yang, J., Hu, K., Liu, P., Wang, J., et al. (2021) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-514963/v1
Felton, A. J., Shriver, R. K., Stemkovski, M., Bradford, J. B., Suding, K. N., & Adler, P. B. (2021) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2021.08.11.455579
Sanderson, B. M. (2021) · Earth System Dynamics · doi:10.5194/esd-2020-85-ac4
Watson‐Parris, D., Williams, A. I. L., Deaconu, L. T., et al. (2021) · Geoscientific model development · doi:10.5194/gmd-2021-267-rc2
Reviewer comment on gmd-2021-267
Watson‐Parris, D., Williams, A. I. L., Deaconu, L. T., et al. (2021) · Geoscientific model development · doi:10.5194/gmd-2021-267-rc1
Nath, S. (2021) · Earth System Dynamics · doi:10.5194/esd-2021-59-ac3
Wehrli, K. (2021) · Earth System Dynamics · doi:10.5194/esd-2021-58-ac1
(2021) · Weather and Climate Dynamics · doi:10.5194/wcd-2021-71-rc1
Nath, S. (2021) · Earth System Dynamics · doi:10.5194/esd-2021-59-ac2
Nath, S., Lejeune, Q., Beusch, L., et al. (2021) · Earth System Dynamics · doi:10.5194/esd-2021-59-rc1
Nath, S. (2021) · Earth System Dynamics · doi:10.5194/esd-2021-59-ac1
(2021) · Weather and Climate Dynamics · doi:10.5194/wcd-2021-71-rc2
Sebök, É., Henriksen, H. J. ̧., Pastén-Zapata, E., et al. (2022) · Hydrology and earth system sciences · doi:10.5194/hess-2021-597-rc1
Nath, S., Lejeune, Q., Beusch, L., et al. (2021) · Earth System Dynamics · doi:10.5194/esd-2021-59-rc3
Holube, K. M., Zolles, T., & Born, A. (2021) · The Cryosphere · doi:10.5194/tc-2021-128-rc1
Watson‐Parris, D. (2021) · Geoscientific model development · doi:10.5194/gmd-2021-267-ac1
Sanderson, B. M. (2021) · Earth System Dynamics · doi:10.5194/esd-2020-85-ac1
Holube, K. M. (2021) · The Cryosphere · doi:10.5194/tc-2021-128-ac1
Holube, K. M. (2021) · The Cryosphere · doi:10.5194/tc-2021-128-ac2
How exposure to land use impacts and climate change may prune the tetrapod tree of lifePreprint
Beaumont, L. J., Nipperess, D. A., Wilson, P. D., Baumgartner, J. B., & Esperón‐Rodríguez, M. (2022) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2022.02.01.478740
Sanderson, B. M. (2021) · Earth System Dynamics · doi:10.5194/esd-2020-85-ac3
Sanderson, B. M. (2021) · Earth System Dynamics · doi:10.5194/esd-2020-85-ac2
Kotamarthi, R., Hayhoe, K., Mearns, L. O., Wuebbles, D. J., Jacobs, J. M., & Jurado, J. (2021) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108601269.011
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
