The DOI matches its Crossref record.
On Co2 climate sensitivity and model dependence of results
Abstract
The regional response of climate models to small perturbations is shown to be highly dependent on the unperturbed simulation. an experiment in which CO 2 concentrations are doubled and sea surface temperatures are enhanced by 2 K has been carried out with two general circulation models which differ considerably in their control climates. the resulting changes in tropical precipitation in each model simulation are related to the increase in atmospheric water vapour which leads to enhanced precipitation in the main regions of low‐level atmospheric convergence. Since these regions of convergence occur in slightly different locations in the unperturbed simulations, the distribution of changes is also different. Differences in control simulations must be taken into account when comparing results from different models (for example, on doubling atmospheric CO 2); otherwise unduly pessimistic conclusions may be reached concerning the consistency of model results. One may be able to make subjective allowance for the effect of known deficiencies in the unperturbed simulation on the model's response before using the simulated changes in, for example, impact studies. A detailed examination of one of the experiments reveals that the change in precipitation is limited by the heat balance of the atmosphere, and indicates the importance of treating accurately the radiative perturbation due to changes in water vapour. the magnitude of the model's response is shown to be consistent with that found in three‐dimensional climate models which include a simple representation of the ocean.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Constraints on future changes in climate and the hydrologic cycle
Allen, M. R., & Ingram, W. J. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature01092 · Cited by 3,009
Conceptual Framework for Changes of Extremes of the Hydrological Cycle with Climate Change
Trenberth, K. E. (1999) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1023/a:1005488920935 · Cited by 571
Cloud feedback mechanisms and their representation in global climate models
Ceppi, P., Brient, F., Zelinka, M. D., & Hartmann, D. L. (2017) · WIREs Climate Change · doi:10.1002/wcc.465 · Cited by 430
Kato, S., Loeb, N. G., Rose, F. G., Doelling, D. R., Rutan, D. A., Caldwell, T. E., Yu, L., & Weller, R. A. (2013) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-12-00436.1 · Cited by 437
How reliable are climate models?
Räisänen, J. (2007) · Tellus A: Dynamic Meteorology and Oceanography · doi:10.3402/tellusa.v59i1.14859 · Cited by 356
Metadata
- Authors
- Mitchell, J. F. B., Wilson, C. A., & Cunnington, W. M.
- Venue
- Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1987-01
- Volume
- 113
- Issue
- 475
- Pages
- 293-322
- ISSN
- 0035-9009 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-870X
- OpenAlex
- W2159478401
- Cited by
- 275
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 17.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: On Co2 climate sensitivity and model dependence of results. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/qj.49711347517
- The paper
- Mitchell, J. F. B., Wilson, C. A., & Cunnington, W. M. (1987). On Co2 climate sensitivity and model dependence of results. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49711347517
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.