English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Cowtan and Jacobs assert that the method used by Lewis and Curry in 2018 (LC18) to estimate the climate system’s transient climate response (TCR) from changes between two time windows is less robust—in particular against sea surface temperature bias correction uncertainty—than a method that uses the entire historical record. We demonstrate that TCR estimated using all data from the temperature record is closely in line with that estimated using the LC18 windows, as is the median TCR estimate using all pairs of individual years. We also show that the median TCR estimate from all pairs of decade-plus-length windows is closely in line with that estimated using the LC18 windows and that incorporating window selection uncertainty would make little difference to total uncertainty in TCR estimation. We find that, when differences in the evolution of forcing are accounted for, the relationship over time between warming in CMIP5 models and observations is consistent with the relationship between CMIP5 TCR and LC18’s TCR estimate but fluctuates as a result of multidecadal internal variability and volcanism. We also show that various other matters raised by Cowtan and Jacobs have negligible implications for TCR estimation in LC18.

Reply to “Comment on ‘The Impact of Recent Forcing and Ocean Heat Uptake Data on Estimates of Climate Sensitivity’”