The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Climate Change Projections in CESM1(CAM5) Compared to CCSM4
Open accessAbstract
Future climate change projections for phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) are presented for the Community Earth System Model version 1 that includes the Community Atmospheric Model version 5 [CESM1(CAM5)]. These results are compared to the Community Climate System Model, version 4 (CCSM4) and include simulations using the representative concentration pathway (RCP) mitigation scenarios, and extensions for those scenarios beyond 2100 to 2300. Equilibrium climate sensitivity of CESM1(CAM5) is 4.10°C, which is higher than the CCSM4 value of 3.20°C. The transient climate response is 2.33°C, compared to the CCSM4 value of 1.73°C. Thus, even though CESM1(CAM5) includes both the direct and indirect effects of aerosols (CCSM4 had only the direct effect), the overall climate system response including forcing and feedbacks is greater in CESM1(CAM5) compared to CCSM4. The Atlantic Ocean meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) in CESM1(CAM5) weakens considerably in the twenty-first century in all the RCP scenarios, and recovers more slowly in the lower forcing scenarios. The total aerosol optical depth (AOD) changes from ~0.12 in 2006 to ~0.10 in 2100, compared to a preindustrial 1850 value of 0.08, so there is less negative forcing (a net positive forcing) from that source during the twenty-first century. Consequently, the change from 2006 to 2100 in aerosol direct forcing in CESM1(CAM5) contributes to greater twenty-first century warming relative to CCSM4. There is greater Arctic warming and sea ice loss in CESM1(CAM5), with an ice-free summer Arctic occurring by about 2060 in RCP8.5 (2040s in September) as opposed to about 2100 in CCSM4 (2060s in September).
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
Cites
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
Self-citationThe next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment
Moss, R. H., Edmonds, J. A., Hibbard, K. A., Manning, M. R., Rose, S. K., van Vuuren, D. P., Carter, T. R., Emori, S., Kainuma, M., Kram, T., et al. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature08823 · Cited by 6,467
Self-citationLamarque, J.-F., Bond, T. C., Eyring, V., Granier, C., Heil, A., Klimont, Z., Lee, D., Liousse, C., Mieville, A., Owen, B., et al. (2010) · Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics · doi:10.5194/acp-10-7017-2010 · Cited by 2,105
Cited by
Li, H., & Sriver, R. L. (2018) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1002/2017ms001199 · Cited by 75
Cirrus cloud seeding: a climate engineering mechanism with reduced side effects?
Storelvmo, T., Boos, W. R., & Herger, N. (2014) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences · doi:10.1098/rsta.2014.0116 · Cited by 57
Dagon, K., & Schrag, D. P. (2016) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-15-0472.1 · Cited by 48
Vattioni, S., Luo, B., Feinberg, A., Stenke, A., Vockenhuber, C., Weber, R., Dykema, J. A., Krieger, U. K., Ammann, M., Keutsch, F., et al. (2023) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2023gl105889 · Cited by 26
“5 (2090–2099) for 2090 conditions (Meehl et al., 2013).”
Sensitivity of regional climate to global temperature and forcing
Tebaldi, C., O’Neill, B., & Lamarque, J.-F. (2015) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/7/074001 · Cited by 21
Vattioni, S., Peter, T., Weber, R., Dykema, J. A., Luo, B., Stenke, A., Feinberg, A., Sukhodolov, T., Keutsch, F. N., Ammann, M., et al. (2025) · Communications Earth & Environment · doi:10.1038/s43247-025-02038-1 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Meehl, G. A., Washington, W. M., Arblaster, J. M., Hu, A., Teng, H., Kay, J. E., Gettelman, A., Lawrence, D. M., Sanderson, B. M., & Strand, W. G.
- Venue
- Journal of Climate
- Publisher
- American Meteorological Society
- Published
- 2013-08-23
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 17
- Pages
- 6287-6308
- ISSN
- 0894-8755 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-0442
- OpenAlex
- W2066613834
- Cited by
- 282
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 22.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
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.