The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How Well Do We Understand and Evaluate Climate Change Feedback Processes?
Open accessAbstract
Processes in the climate system that can either amplify or dampen the climate response to an external perturbation are referred to as climate feedbacks. Climate sensitivity estimates depend critically on radiative feedbacks associated with water vapor, lapse rate, clouds, snow, and sea ice, and global estimates of these feedbacks differ among general circulation models. By reviewing recent observational, numerical, and theoretical studies, this paper shows that there has been progress since the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in (i) the understanding of the physical mechanisms involved in these feedbacks, (ii) the interpretation of intermodel differences in global estimates of these feedbacks, and (iii) the development of methodologies of evaluation of these feedbacks (or of some components) using observations. This suggests that continuing developments in climate feedback research will progressively help make it possible to constrain the GCMs’ range of climate feedbacks and climate sensitivity through an ensemble of diagnostics based on physical understanding and observations.
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
Radiative forcing and climate response
Hansen, J., Sato, M., & Ruedy, R. (1997) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/96jd03436 · Cited by 2,241
Quantification of modelling uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change simulations.
Murphy, J. M., Sexton, D. M. H., Barnett, D. N., Jones, G. S., Webb, M. J., Collins, M., & Stainforth, D. A. (2004) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature02771 · Cited by 1,655
Self-citationEmanuel, K. A. (1994) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195066302.001.0001 · Cited by 1,205
Thermodynamic constraint on the cloud liquid water feedback in climate models
Betts, A. K., & Harshvardhan (1987) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/jd092id07p08483 · Cited by 160
Cited by
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
Increase in hourly precipitation extremes beyond expectations from temperature changes
Lenderink, G., & van Meijgaard, E. (2008) · Nature Geoscience · doi:10.1038/ngeo262 · Cited by 1,072
Evaluation of climate models using palaeoclimatic data
Braconnot, P., Harrison, S. P., Kageyama, M., Bartlein, P. J., Masson-Delmotte, V., Abe-Ouchi, A., Otto-Bliesner, B., & Zhao, Y. (2012) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate1456 · Cited by 1,013
The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks
Pidgeon, N., & Fischhoff, B. (2011) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate1080 · Cited by 680
The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth's temperature to radiation changes
Knutti, R., & Hegerl, G. C. (2008) · Nature Geoscience · doi:10.1038/ngeo337 · Cited by 490
Metadata
- Authors
- Bony, S., Colman, R., Kattsov, V. M., Allan, R. P., Bretherton, C. S., Dufresne, J.-L., Hall, A., Hallegatte, S., Holland, M. M., Ingram, W., Randall, D. A., Soden, B. J., Tselioudis, G., & Webb, M. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Climate
- Publisher
- American Meteorological Society
- Published
- 2006-08-01
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 15
- Pages
- 3445-3482
- ISSN
- 0894-8755 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-0442
- OpenAlex
- W2052115269
- Cited by
- 1,038
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 40.47
- 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.
