The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Emergent constraints on transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from historical warming in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models
Open accessAbstract
Abstract. Climate sensitivity to CO2 remains the key uncertainty in projections of future climate change. Transient climate response (TCR) is the metric of temperature sensitivity that is most relevant to warming in the next few decades and contributes the biggest uncertainty to estimates of the carbon budgets consistent with the Paris targets. Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is vital for understanding longer-term climate change and stabilisation targets. In the IPCC 5th Assessment Report (AR5), the stated “likely” ranges (16 %–84 % confidence) of TCR (1.0–2.5 K) and ECS (1.5–4.5 K) were broadly consistent with the ensemble of CMIP5 Earth system models (ESMs) available at the time. However, many of the latest CMIP6 ESMs have larger climate sensitivities, with 5 of 34 models having TCR values above 2.5 K and an ensemble mean TCR of 2.0±0.4 K. Even starker, 12 of 34 models have an ECS value above 4.5 K. On the face of it, these latest ESM results suggest that the IPCC likely ranges may need revising upwards, which would cast further doubt on the feasibility of the Paris targets. Here we show that rather than increasing the uncertainty in climate sensitivity, the CMIP6 models help to constrain the likely range of TCR to 1.3–2.1 K, with a central estimate of 1.68 K. We reach this conclusion through an emergent constraint approach which relates the value of TCR linearly to the global warming from 1975 onwards. This is a period when the signal-to-noise ratio of the net radiative forcing increases strongly, so that uncertainties in aerosol forcing become progressively less problematic. We find a consistent emergent constraint on TCR when we apply the same method to CMIP5 models. Our constraints on TCR are in good agreement with other recent studies which analysed CMIP ensembles. The relationship between ECS and the post-1975 warming trend is less direct and also non-linear. However, we are able to derive a likely range of ECS of 1.9–3.4 K from the CMIP6 models by assuming an underlying emergent relationship based on a two-box energy balance model. Despite some methodological differences; this is consistent with a previously published ECS constraint derived from warming trends in CMIP5 models to 2005. Our results seem to be part of a growing consensus amongst studies that have applied the emergent constraint approach to different model ensembles and to different aspects of the record of global warming.
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
The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6
O'Neill, B. C., Tebaldi, C., van Vuuren, D. P., Eyring, V., Friedlingstein, P., Hurtt, G., Knutti, R., Kriegler, E., Lamarque, J.-F., Lowe, J., et al. (2016) · Geoscientific Model Development · doi:10.5194/gmd-9-3461-2016 · Cited by 5,241
Morice, C. P., Kennedy, J. J., Rayner, N. A., & Jones, P. D. (2012) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/2011jd017187 · Cited by 1,657
Bounding Global Aerosol Radiative Forcing of Climate Change
Bellouin, N., Quaas, J., Gryspeerdt, E., Kinne, S., Stier, P., Watson‐Parris, D., Boucher, O., Carslaw, K. S., Christensen, M., Daniau, A. ‐., et al. (2020) · Reviews of Geophysics · doi:10.1029/2019rg000660 · Cited by 1,116
A new method for diagnosing radiative forcing and climate sensitivity
Gregory, J. M., Ingram, W. J., Palmer, M. A., Jones, G. S., Stott, P. A., Thorpe, R. B., Lowe, J. A., Johns, T. C., & Williams, K. D. (2004) · Geophysical Research Letters · doi:10.1029/2003gl018747 · Cited by 1,075
Improvements in the GISTEMP uncertainty model
Lenssen, N. J. L., Schmidt, G. A., Hansen, J. E., Menne, M. J., Persin, A., Ruedy, R., & Zyss, D. (2019) · Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres · doi:10.1029/2018jd029522 · Cited by 962 · cited 2×
“…runs have been colour-coded by their TCR value, with darker red indicating models with higher TCR and darker blue indicating lower TCR. Black lines are observational global warming datasets over the same period (Morice et al., 2012; Rohde et al., 2013; Lenssen et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020).”
BackgroundPast warming trend constrains future warming in CMIP6 models
Tokarska, K. B., Stolpe, M. B., Sippel, S., Fischer, E. M., Smith, C. J., Lehner, F., & Knutti, R. (2020) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aaz9549 · Cited by 727
Strong present-day aerosol cooling implies a hot future
Andreae, M. O., Jones, C. D., & Cox, P. M. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature03671 · Cited by 665
Self-citationBerkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process
Rohde, R., Muller, R., Jacobsen, R., Perlmutter, S., & Mosher, S. (2013) · Geoinformatics & Geostatistics: An Overview · doi:10.4172/2327-4581.1000103 · Cited by 477
Reconciling controversies about the ‘global warming hiatus’
Medhaug, I., Stolpe, M. B., Fischer, E. M., & Knutti, R. (2017) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature22315 · Cited by 455
Cited by
An Assessment of Earth's Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence
Sherwood, S. C., Webb, M. J., Annan, J. D., Armour, K. C., Forster, P. M., Hargreaves, J. C., Hegerl, G., Klein, S. A., Marvel, K. D., Rohling, E. J., et al. (2020) · Reviews of Geophysics · doi:10.1029/2019rg000678 · Cited by 1,254
High-resolution (1 km) Köppen-Geiger maps for 1901–2099 based on constrained CMIP6 projections
Beck, H. E., McVicar, T. R., Vergopolan, N., Berg, A., Lutsko, N. J., Dufour, A., Zeng, Z., Jiang, X., van Dijk, A. I. J. M., & Miralles, D. G. (2023) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/s41597-023-02549-6 · Cited by 917
CMIP6 Simulations With the CMCC Earth System Model (CMCC‐ESM2)
Lovato, T., Peano, D., Butenschön, M., Materia, S., Iovino, D., Scoccimarro, E., Fogli, P. G., Cherchi, A., Bellucci, A., Gualdi, S., et al. (2022) · Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · doi:10.1029/2021ms002814 · Cited by 426
Impacts and risks of “realistic” global warming projections for the 21st century
Scafetta, N. (2024) · Geoscience Frontiers · doi:10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101774 · Cited by 143
Increased risk of near term global warming due to a recent AMOC weakening
Bonnet, R., Swingedouw, D., Gastineau, G., Boucher, O., Deshayes, J., Hourdin, F., Mignot, J., Servonnat, J., & Sima, A. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-26370-0 · Cited by 68
Metadata
- Authors
- Nijsse, F. J. M. M., Cox, P. M., & Williamson, M. S.
- Venue
- Earth System Dynamics
- Publisher
- Copernicus GmbH
- Published
- 2020-08-17
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 737-750
- ISSN
- 2190-4979 (ISSN-L)
- 2190-4987
- OpenAlex
- W3072187604
- Cited by
- 258
- References
- 42
- FWCI
- 15.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Emergent constraints on transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from historical warming in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5194/esd-11-737-2020
- The paper
- Nijsse, F. J. M. M., Cox, P. M., & Williamson, M. S. (2020). Emergent constraints on transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from historical warming in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models. Earth System Dynamics. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-737-2020
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.