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

. An important metric for temperature projections is the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which is defined as the global mean surface air temperature change caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. The range for ECS assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report is between 1.5 and 4.5 K and has not decreased over the last decades. Among other methods, emergent constraints are potentially promising approaches to reduce the range of ECS by combining observations and output from Earth System Models (ESMs). In this study, we systematically analyze 11 published emergent constraints on ECS that have mostly been derived from models participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) project. These emergent constraints are – except for one that is based on temperature variability – all directly or indirectly based on cloud processes, which are the major source of spread in ECS among current models. The focus of the study is on testing if these emergent constraints hold for ESMs participating in the new Phase 6 (CMIP6). Since none of the emergent constraints considered here have been derived using the CMIP6 ensemble, CMIP6 can be used for cross-checking of the emergent constraints on a new model ensemble. The application of the emergent constraints to CMIP6 data shows a decrease in skill and statistical significance of the emergent relationship for nearly all constraints, with this decrease being large in many cases. Consequently, the size of the constrained ECS ranges (66 % confidenceintervals) widens by 51 % on average in CMIP6 compared to CMIP5. This islikely because of changes in the representation of cloud processes fromCMIP5 to CMIP6, but may in some cases also be due to spurious statisticalrelationships or a too small number of models in the ensemble that the emergentconstraint was originally derived from. The emergently- constrained bestestimates of ECS also increased from CMIP5 to CMIP6 by 12 % on average.This can be at least partly explained by the increased number of high-ECS(above 4.5 K) models in CMIP6 without a corresponding change in the constraint predictors, suggesting the emergence of new feedback processesrather than changes in strength of those previously dominant. Our resultssupport previous studies concluding that emergent constraints should bebased on an independently verifiable physical mechanism, and that process-based emergent constraints on ECS should rather be thought of asconstraints for the process or feedback they are actually targeting.

Emergent constraints on equilibrium climate sensitivity in CMIP5: do they hold for CMIP6?