Explore the vast range of titles available.

Global warming drives changes in Earth’s cloud cover, which, in turn, may amplify or dampen climate change. This “cloud feedback” is the single most important cause of uncertainty in Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS)—the equilibrium global warming following a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Using data from Earth observations and climate model simulations, we here develop a statistical learning analysis of how clouds respond to changes in the environment. We show that global cloud feedback is dominated by the sensitivity of clouds to surface temperature and tropospheric stability. Considering changes in just these two factors, we are able to constrain global cloud feedback to 0.43 ± 0.35 W·m−2·K−1 (90% confidence), implying a robustly amplifying effect of clouds on global warming and only a 0.5% chance of ECS below 2 K. We thus anticipate that our approach will enable tighter constraints on climate change projections, including its manifold socioeconomic and ecological impacts.

We analyze projected changes in climate extremes (extreme temperatures and heavy precipitation) in the multimodel ensembles of the fifth and sixth Coupled Model Intercomparison Projects (CMIP5 and CMIP6). The results reveal close similarity between both ensembles in the regional climate sensitivity of the projected multimodel mean changes in climate extremes, that is, their projected changes as a function of global warming. This stands in contrast to widely reported divergences in global (transient and equilibrium) climate sensitivity in the two multimodel ensembles. Some exceptions include higher warming in the South America monsoon region, lower warming in Southern Asia and Central Africa, and higher increases in heavy precipitation in Western Africa and the Sahel region in the CMIP6 ensemble. The multimodel spread in regional climate sensitivity is found to be large in both ensembles. In particular, it contributes more to intermodel spread in projected regional climate extremes compared with the intermodel spread in global climate sensitivity in CMIP6. Our results highlight the need to consider regional climate sensitivity as a distinct feature of Earth system models and a key determinant of projected regional impacts, which is largely independent of the models' response in global climate sensitivity. Plain Language Summary Many articles analyze and compare global climate sensitivity in climate models, that is, how their global warming differs at a given level of CO2 concentrations. However, global warming is only one quantity affecting impacts. To assess human‐ and ecosystem‐relevant impacts, it is essential to evaluate the regional climate sensitivity of climate models, that is, how their regional climate features differ at a given level of global warming. We analyze here regional climate sensitivity in the new multimodel ensemble that will underlie the conclusions of the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This ensemble of model projections is called the “Sixth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project” or CMIP6. We find that differences in regional climate sensitivity between models in CMIP6 often contribute more to the uncertainty of regional extremes projections than the uncertainty in global mean warming between models. Overall, the regional climate sensitivity features in the CMIP6 models' projections ensemble are very similar to those of the prior ensemble (CMIP5), although the model ensembles have been highlighted to differ in their global climate sensitivity over the 21st century. Key Points Changes in climate extremes as a function of global warming are quasilinear and determine a “regional climate sensitivity” in CMIP5 and CMIP6 The regional climate sensitivity of climate extremes is found to be very similar in CMIP5 and CMIP6, unlike global climate sensitivity Model spread in regional climate sensitivity in CMIP6 contributes more to uncertainty of projected extremes than global climate sensitivity

Equilibrium climate sensitivity of the Community Climate System Model, version 4 (CCSM4) is 3.20°C for 1° horizontal resolution in each component. This is about a half degree Celsius higher than in the previous version (CCSM3). The transient climate sensitivity of CCSM4 at 1° resolution is 1.72°C, which is about 0.2°C higher than in CCSM3. These higher climate sensitivities in CCSM4 cannot be explained by the change to a preindustrial baseline climate. This study uses the radiative kernel technique to show that, from CCSM3 to CCSM4, the global mean lapse-rate feedback declines in magnitude and the shortwave cloud feedback increases. These two warming effects are partially canceled by cooling because of slight decreases in the global mean water vapor feedback and longwave cloud feedback from CCSM3 to CCSM4. A new formulation of the mixed layer, slab-ocean model in CCSM4 attempts to reproduce the SST and sea ice climatology from an integration with a full-depth ocean, and it is integrated with a dynamic sea ice model. These new features allow an isolation of the influence of ocean dynamical changes on the climate response when comparing integrations with the slab ocean and full-depth ocean. The transient climate response of the full-depth ocean version is 0.54 of the equilibrium climate sensitivity when estimated with the new slab-ocean model version for both CCSM3 and CCSM4. The authors argue the ratio is the same in both versions because they have about the same zonal mean pattern of change in ocean surface heat flux, which broadly resembles the zonal mean pattern of net feedback strength.

The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (phase 6) (CMIP6) global circulation models (GCMs) predict equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) values ranging between 1.8 and 5.7 ∘ C. To narrow this range, we group 38 GCMs into low, medium and high ECS subgroups and test their accuracy and precision in hindcasting the mean global surface warming observed from 1980–1990 to 2011–2021 in the ERA5-T2m, HadCRUT5, GISTEMP v4, and NOAAGlobTemp v5 global surface temperature records. We also compare the GCM hindcasts to the satellite-based UAH-MSU v6 lower troposphere global temperature record. We use 143 GCM ensemble averaged simulations under four slightly different forcing conditions, 688 GCM member simulations, and Monte Carlo modeling of the internal variability of the GCMs under three different model accuracy requirements. We found that the medium and high-ECS GCMs run too hot up to over 95% and 97% of cases, respectively. The low ECS GCM group agrees best with the warming values obtained from the surface temperature records, ranging between 0.52 and 0.58 ∘ C. However, when comparing the observed and GCM hindcasted warming on land and ocean regions, the surface-based temperature records appear to exhibit a significant warming bias. Furthermore, if the satellite-based UAH-MSU-lt record is accurate, actual surface warming from 1980 to 2021 may have been around 0.40 ∘ C (or less), that is up to about 30% less than what is reported by the surface-based temperature records. The latter situation implies that even the low-ECS models would have produced excessive warming from 1980 to 2021. These results suggest that the actual ECS may be relatively low, i.e. lower than 3 ∘ C or even less than 2 ∘ C if the 1980–2021 global surface temperature records contain spurious warming, as some alternative studies have already suggested. Therefore, the projected global climate warming over the next few decades could be moderate and probably not particularly alarming.

Contemporary general circulation models (GCMs) and Earth system models (ESMs) are developed by a large number of modeling groups globally. They use a wide range of representations of physical processes, allowing for structural (code) uncertainty to be partially quantified with multi‐model ensembles (MMEs). Many models in the MMEs of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) have a common development history due to sharing of code and schemes. This makes their projections statistically dependent and introduces biases in MME statistics. Previous research has focused on model output and code dependence, and model code genealogy of CMIP models has not been fully analyzed. We present a full reconstruction of CMIP3, CMIP5, and CMIP6 code genealogy of 167 atmospheric models, GCMs, and ESMs (of which 114 participated in CMIP) based on the available literature, with a focus on the atmospheric component and atmospheric physics. We identify 12 main model families. We propose family and ancestry weighting methods designed to reduce the effect of model structural dependence in MMEs. We analyze weighted effective climate sensitivity (ECS), climate feedbacks, forcing, and global mean near‐surface air temperature, and how they differ by model family. Models in the same family often have similar climate properties. We show that weighting can partially reconcile differences in ECS and cloud feedbacks between CMIP5 and CMIP6. The results can help in understanding structural dependence between CMIP models, and the proposed ancestry and family weighting methods can be used in MME assessments to ameliorate model structural sampling biases. Plain Language Summary Contemporary global climate models are developed by a large number of modeling groups internationally. Commonly, projections from multiple models are used together to calculate multi‐model means and quantify uncertainty. Because many of the models share parts of their computer code, algorithms and parametrization schemes, they are not independent. Overrepresented models can cause biases in multi‐model means, and uncertainty may be underestimated if model dependence is not taken into account. We document a full code genealogy of 167 models, of which 114 participated in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) phases 3, 5, and 6, with a focus on the atmospheric component. We identify 12 main model families. We show that models in the same family often have similar estimates of key climate properties. We propose statistical weighting methods based on the model family and code relationship, and show that they can reconcile some of the difference in results between the two most recent CMIP phases. The weighting methods or a selection of independent models based on the genealogy can be used in model assessment studies to reduce the effects of model dependence. Key Points We reconstruct a code genealogy of 167 climate models with a focus on the atmospheric component and atmospheric physics All models originate from 12 main model families, and models in the same family often have similar climate feedbacks and sensitivity Proposed ancestry and family weighting can partly reconcile differences in means between the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phases

Understanding equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS, equilibrium warming in response to a doubling of CO2) uncertainty is fundamental for making reliable climate projections. We leverage the Hector simple climate model in a probabilistic framework to explore how different ECS priors influence uncertainty in long‐term (2081–2100) temperature projections. This method demonstrates a computationally efficient probabilistic workflow that explores the effects of parameter priors on climate projections. Excluding process and paleoclimate evidence in ECS priors widens resulting temperature projection uncertainty (a 5%–95% confidence range of 1.12–3.03°C and 1.09–3.33°C, respectively), while synthesizing all lines of evidence narrows temperature projection uncertainty (1.24–2.89°C; 5–95% CI), suggesting a more robust range of future temperature outcomes. Plain Language Summary Understanding how much Earth's temperature may change in response to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations is essential for understanding outputs of earth system models. A key component of this process is equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which estimates how temperature changes respond to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels. Recent earth system models have shown a wider range of ECS values than before, increasing uncertainty about the future. In this study, we used a simple climate model to investigate how different constraints on ECS uncertainty shapes the uncertainty in end‐of‐century temperature projections. Our findings show that excluding certain lines of evidence (process and paleoclimate evidence) results in more uncertain temperature projections. This occurs because leaving out critical lines of evidence increases the likelihood of ECS values falling at either ends of the distribution. Therefore, including this evidence is critical for constraining ECS distributions and reducing the uncertainty of temperature projections. Our results also show by how much inducing all information at our disposal to constrain ECS can narrow the uncertainty of future temperature projections. Simple climate models with a probabilistic framework offer a fast, interpretable way to test how ECS distributions impact climate projections. Key Points Uncertainty in equilibrium climate sensitivity distributions propagates through to future temperature projections Prior distributions that exclude process and paleoclimate evidence result in the most uncertain future temperature projections Using simple climate models with a probabilistic framework can help test the effects of different parameter priors on climate projections

We formulate a new conceptual model, named “ MT 2”, to describe global ocean heat uptake, as simulated by atmosphere–ocean general circulation models (AOGCMs) forced by increasing atmospheric CO 2 , as a function of global-mean surface temperature change T and the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC, M ). MT 2 has two routes whereby heat reaches the deep ocean. On the basis of circumstantial evidence, we hypothetically identify these routes as low- and high-latitude. In low latitudes, which dominate the global-mean energy balance, heat uptake is temperature-driven and described by the two-layer model, with global-mean T as the temperature change of the upper layer. In high latitudes, a proportion p (about 14%) of the forcing is taken up along isopycnals, mostly in the Southern Ocean, nearly like a passive tracer, and unrelated to T . Because the proportion p depends linearly on the AMOC strength in the unperturbed climate, we hypothesise that high-latitude heat uptake and the AMOC are both affected by some characteristic of the unperturbed global ocean state, possibly related to stratification. MT 2 can explain several relationships among AOGCM projections, some found in this work, others previously reported: ∙  Ocean heat uptake efficiency correlates strongly with the AMOC. ∙  Global ocean heat uptake is not correlated with the AMOC. ∙  Transient climate response (TCR) is anticorrelated with the AMOC. ∙   T projected for the late twenty-first century under high-forcing scenarios correlates more strongly with the effective climate sensitivity than with the TCR.

Philosophers argue that many choices in science are influenced by values or have value-implications, ranging from the preference for some research method’s qualities to ethical estimation of the consequences of error. Based on the argument that awareness of values in the scientific process is a necessary first step to both avoid bias and attune science best to the needs of society, an analysis of the role of values in the physical climate science production process is provided. Model-based assessment of climate sensitivity is taken as an illustrative example; climate sensitivity is useful here because of its key role in climate science and relevance for policy, by having been the subject of several assessments over the past decades including a recent shift in assessment method, and because it enables insights that apply to numerous other aspects of climate science. It is found that value-judgements are relevant at every step of the model-based assessment process, with a differentiated role of non-epistemic values across the steps, impacting the assessment in various ways. Scrutiny of current philosophical norms for value-management highlights the need for those norms to be re-worked for broader applicability to climate science. Recent development in climate science turning away from direct use of models for climate sensitivity assessment also gives the opportunity to start investigating the role of values in alternative assessment methods, highlighting similarities and differences in terms of the role of values that encourage further study.

The Community Earth System Model version 2 (CESM2) simulates a high equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS > 5°C) and a Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) that is substantially colder than proxy temperatures. In this study, we examine the role of cloud parameterizations in simulating the LGM cooling in CESM2. Through substituting different versions of cloud schemes in the atmosphere model, we attribute the excessive LGM cooling to the new CESM2 schemes of cloud microphysics and ice nucleation. Further exploration suggests that removing an inappropriate limiter on cloud ice number (NoNimax) and decreasing the time-step size (substepping) in cloud microphysics largely eliminate the excessive LGM cooling. NoNimax produces a more physically consistent treatment of mixed-phase clouds, which leads to an increase in cloud ice content and a weaker shortwave cloud feedback over mid-to-high latitudes and the Southern Hemisphere subtropics. Microphysical substepping further weakens the shortwave cloud feedback. Based on NoNimax and microphysical substepping, we have developed a paleoclimate-calibrated CESM2 (PaleoCalibr), which simulates well the observed twentieth century warming and spatial characteristics of key cloud and climate variables. PaleoCalibr has a lower ECS (∼4°C) and a 20% weaker aerosol-cloud interaction than CESM2. PaleoCalibr represents a physically more consistent treatment of cloud microphysics than CESM2 and is a valuable tool in climate change studies, especially when a large climate forcing is involved. Our study highlights the unique value of paleoclimate constraints in informing the cloud parameterizations and ultimately the future climate projection.

Despite decades of effort to constrain equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), current best estimates still exhibit a large spread. Past studies have sought to reduce ECS uncertainty through a variety of methods including emergent constraints. One example uses global temperature variability over the past century to constrain ECS. While this method shows promise, it has been criticized for its susceptibility to the influence of anthropogenic forcing and the limited length of the instrumental record used to compute temperature variability. Here, we investigate the emergent relationship between ECS and two metrics of global temperature variability using model simulations and paleoclimate reconstructions over the last millennium (850–1999). We find empirical evidence in support of these emergent relationships. Observational constraints suggest a central ECS estimate of 2.6–2.8 K, consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's consensus estimate of 3K. Moreover, they suggest ECS “likely” ranges of 1.8–3.3 K and 2.0–3.6 K. Plain Language Summary Future changes in global‐mean temperatures have substantial implications for climate‐related risks, and global‐mean temperatures will continue to increase in response to carbon emissions (a property known as climate sensitivity). In addition to long‐term, human‐driven warming, the global surface temperature also exhibits short‐term swings due to natural climate variability. Recently, climate model experiments have shown some evidence of a linear relationship between climate sensitivity and climate variability, with potential applications for climate model development and future predictions. We show that this relationship holds when applied to paleoclimate data from the Common Era (850–1999) and use the reconstructed temperature record over this period to estimate climate sensitivity. Our analysis considers a period (∼1,000 years) that is much longer than what has been used in prior studies (∼100 years) and thus paints a fuller picture of past temperature variability. We show that interannual and decadal fluctuations in climate could offer a novel technique for assessing the Earth's sensitivity to external forcing. Our results are consistent with other lines of evidence, increasing confidence in our approach. We hope our findings add value to the existing collection of climate sensitivity estimates and encourage future use of paleoclimate data to verify proposed constraints on climate quantities. Key Points We use model output and temperature reconstructions from 850 to 1999 to test a proposed emergent constraint on climate sensitivity The proposed emergent constraint largely holds for this period, which is longer and more stationary than that of prior work Our central estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity are 2.6–2.8 K, consistent with prior results and the IPCC's consensus estimate