Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 27 references

Finite-Response Complementarity in Fluctuation Constraints on Climate Sensitivity

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims the CMIP6 weakening of the fluctuation constraint on climate sensitivity is a relocation, not a loss, of information: the ECS residual aligns with a finite CO2-response residual ($C_6 = 0.593$), and the correction applied…

desk verdict The residual-complementarity diagnostic is new and the CMIP6 result is credible, but the paper's own model implies the HadCRUT5 correction is biased; worth a serious referee, not worth quoting the corrected ECS. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07356 v1 pith:3PVH3FAS submitted 2026-08-07 physics.ao-ph physics.data-an

Zaibo Zhao , Yongwen Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ao-phphysics.data-an
keywords equilibriumclimatesensitivityemergentconstraintsfluctuation-memorycoordinatefiniteCO2responseresidualcomplementaritylineartheoryCMIP6HadCRUT5
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks whether climate-sensitivity information that a well-known variability-based constraint fails to capture in modern models reappears in another observable. The authors construct a finite-time CO2 response coordinate $R$ from historical temperature and common forcing histories, without using any model's sensitivity label, and test whether the ECS left unexplained by the fluctuation-memory coordinate $\Psi$ is organized by the part of $R$ that $\Psi$ also leaves unexplained. In CMIP5 the residuals are nearly uncoupled ($C_5 = 0.154$, $p = 0.541$), but in CMIP6 they align strongly ($C_6 = 0.593$, $p = 0.00288$), meaning the information missed by $\Psi$ in CMIP6 is visible in a finite response. A two-mode stochastic response model shows that hidden forced-response amplitude spread poorly projected onto $\Psi$ produces exactly this alignment, while unrelated kinetic or timescale variation suppresses it. Applying the CMIP6 residual direction to the observed HadCRUT5 coordinates yields a conditional ECS estimate centered at 3.00 K, so the much-discussed weakening of the constraint need not mean the susceptibility information is gone.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a residual-complementarity test built from two projected coordinates. $\Psi$ is the fluctuation-memory coordinate, the window-averaged ratio $\sigma_w/(-\log \alpha_{1,w})$ of detrended standard deviation to one-year lag memory in rolling 55-year windows, following the original emergent-constraint construction. $R_{\mathrm{CO2}}$ is a finite CO2 response coordinate: a CO2-doubling-equivalent 55-year step response of a scalar ARX/state-space model fitted to each model's annual temperature with common radiative forcing histories, estimated without ECS labels. After conditioning both ECS and $R$ on $\Psi$ by linear regression, the central objects are the residual alignment $C_g = \mathrm{corr}_g(\Delta E, \Delta R)$ and the residual operator $\Gamma_g = \mathrm{Cov}_g(\Delta E, \Delta R)/\mathrm{Var}_g(\Delta R)$, which converts the alignment into a first-order correction. A two-mode stochastic response model (an observed temperature coordinate coupled to a hidden slow state under common forcing) supplies the mechanism: the hidden susceptibility amplitude $H$ has cross-model spread partly orthogonal to $\Psi$, generating complementary residuals, and the response-information ratio $Q = \|\mathbf{r}_{\mathrm{amp}}\|^2/\|\mathbf{r}_{\mathrm{kin}}\|^2$ predicts $C$ via $C_{\mathrm{pred}} = \sqrt{Q/(1+Q)}$.

What would settle it

Run the identical residual pipeline on an independent ensemble with known sensitivities, for instance single-forcing historical simulations or the next generation of CMIP historical runs, and check whether the finite-response residual aligns with the ECS residual after conditioning on $\Psi$. The mechanism predicts $C_g$ should again be strongly positive wherever hidden response-amplitude spread is poorly projected onto $\Psi$; observing $C_g$ near zero there would falsify the claim that finite-response complementarity recovers the lost sensitivity information.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a statement about complementarity under projection: a scalar fluctuation statistic cannot encode the whole forced response, but the part of the equilibrium climate sensitivity it misses can reappear in an observable finite-time CO2 response. After regressing ECS and $R_{\mathrm{CO2}}$ on $\Psi$ separately within each ensemble, the residual complementarity coefficient $C_g = \mathrm{corr}_g(\Delta E, \Delta R)$ is essentially zero in CMIP5 ($C_5 = 0.154$) and strongly positive in CMIP6 ($C_6 = 0.593$, $p = 0.00288$), with residual operator $\Gamma_6 = 0.899$ converting the alignment into a correction. The contrast is reproduced by a minimal two-mode stochastic model in which a hidden slow response pathway with cross-model amplitude spread partly orthogonal to $\Psi$ generates the alignment, and the ratio $Q$ of response-amplitude to kinetic contamination in $\Delta R$ predicts $C$ through $C_{\mathrm{pred}} = \sqrt{Q/(1+Q)}$. At the observation-facing level, the corrected coordinate $\hat{E}_{\mathrm{corr}} = E_0^{(6)}(\Psi) + \Gamma_6 [R_\oplus - R_0^{(6)}(\Psi)]$ for HadCRUT5 is 3.004 K, with a 66% conditional diagnostic interval of 2.17–3.83 K. The paper concludes that the weakened CMIP6 fluctuation constraint is not evidence that susceptibility information is lost; it is evidence that the information is carried by a complementary finite-response projection.

Load-bearing premise

The whole correction rests on the assumption that the leftover spread in ECS and the leftover spread in the finite CO2 response are dominated by one common hidden forced-response direction; if the finite-response residual is instead largely unrelated kinetic or timescale variation, the operator $\Gamma_6$ and the 3.00 K estimate are biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The documented weakening of the $\Psi$-based ECS constraint from CMIP5 to CMIP6 does not close the possibility of constraining sensitivity from historical variability: in CMIP6 the residual ECS signal is carried by the finite CO2 response ($C_6 = 0.593$).
  • A first-order correction along the CMIP6 residual direction places HadCRUT5's conditional ECS at about 3.00 K, with the 66% diagnostic interval 2.17–3.83 K overlapping the commonly quoted assessment range.
  • Emergent constraints should be evaluated as paired projections: a scalar coordinate is informative only if the residual it leaves in ECS is organized by an independent observable's residual, making $C_g = \mathrm{corr}(\Delta E, \Delta R)$ a general diagnostic.
  • Model-ensemble design should aim spread at physically interpretable response directions — cloud feedbacks, pattern effects, ocean heat uptake — because the value of an ensemble is whether it spans response directions that could contain the real system, not just how large it is.
  • The finite CO2 response coordinate does not replace $\Psi$; it measures the forced-response part that the scalar fluctuation-memory projection fails to resolve.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the complementarity mechanism is general, the same residual diagnostic should work prospectively: before an ensemble's sensitivity labels are used, one could predict that the finite-response residual organizes the ECS residual, and a pre-registered test on a future CMIP generation would separate the mechanism from a CMIP6-specific coincidence.
  • The two-mode model implies that the controlling quantity $Q$ can be estimated directly from real model behaviour (for instance from the ratio of each model's 55-year response to its converged response), which would let $C$ be predicted without computing any residual statistics.
  • The corrected 3.00 K value inherits the CMIP6 ensemble mean through $E_0(\Psi)$; an out-of-sample split, estimating $\Gamma$ on one half of CMIP6 and applying it to the other half, would reveal how much of the shift is a genuine correction rather than a rescaling of the ensemble.
  • Extending the test from global-mean temperature to spatial patterns or ocean-heat-content observables would identify what the hidden coordinate $\delta\eta$ physically is — something the paper proposes but does not demonstrate.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper tests whether the weakening of the Cox et al. fluctuation-memory constraint on equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) in CMIP6 is compensated by information contained in a finite CO2-response coordinate. After residualizing both ECS and a 55-year ARX-estimated CO2 response against the fluctuation-memory coordinate Ψ within each ensemble, the authors find weak residual alignment in CMIP5 (C5 = 0.154, p = 0.541) and strong alignment in CMIP6 (C6 = 0.593, p = 0.00288). They interpret this contrast through a two-mode stochastic response model in which hidden response-amplitude spread and kinetic/time-scale contamination jointly control the complementarity coefficient, and they use the CMIP6 residual operator Γ6 to construct a HadCRUT5-based corrected coordinate, yielding a 66% conditional interval of 2.17–3.83 K. The paper concludes that the weakened scalar fluctuation constraint does not imply loss of ECS information, because part of that information reappears in a complementary finite-response projection.

Significance. If the complementarity result holds, it sharpens the interpretation of emergent constraints: a scalar variability statistic may miss susceptibility information that is visible in a finite forced-response projection. The central empirical correlation is tested against a permutation null, the analysis is transparent about data and code availability, and the paper explicitly discusses physical candidate mechanisms such as cloud feedbacks, pattern effects, and ocean heat uptake. The main caveat is that the operational correction and the HadCRUT5 interval rely on a dominance condition that, under the paper's own two-mode model, is not satisfied by the headline CMIP6 value; this makes the quantitative observational estimate less secure than the qualitative complementarity claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II D, Section II E, Section III B] The precondition stated in Section II D for using residual alignment as a correction is that the residuals must be dominated by a common unresolved forced-response coordinate δη. The paper's own two-mode model makes this quantitative: Eq. (10) gives C_pred = sqrt(Q/(1+Q)). Inserting the headline CMIP6 value C6 = 0.593 yields Q = 0.542, so Var(r_kin) > Var(r_amp) in ΔR; the finite-time kinetic component has larger variance than the response-amplitude component. Consequently ΔR is not dominated by the common hidden coordinate, and the ensemble-level operator Γ6 = Cov/Var is attenuated by the variance fraction Var(r_amp)/Var(ΔR) = Q/(1+Q) ≈ 0.351, up to the conversion from r_amp to ΔE. The HadCRUT5 corrected coordinate in Eq. (11) is therefore biased toward the Ψ-only reference E0(Ψ⊕) = 3.184 K, and the claim that the residual direction 'defines a first-order correction' is not supported by the stated dominance condition. The complementarity result itself can stand, but the observational correction and the 2.17–3.83 K interval in Eq. (12) need either a revised estimator that does not require dominance or an explicit bias/uncertainty quantification in the Q = 0.54 regime.
  2. [Section III D, Fig. 4a] The validation of the corrected coordinate inside CMIP6 is in-sample: the same CMIP6 data are used to estimate E0, R0, and Γ6 and then to compute the correlation r = 0.675 between E_corr and ECS (Fig. 4a). This does not demonstrate predictive skill for the HadCRUT5 application, because the calibration and evaluation sets are not separated. A leave-one-model-out cross-validation or a split-ensemble check would substantially strengthen the claim that Eq. (11) is a usable first-order correction rather than a re-description of the calibration data.
  3. [Section III C, Fig. 3b] The agreement between C_pred and C in Fig. 3b (r = 0.955) is an internal consistency check, not an out-of-sample validation. The toy ensembles are generated from the same two-mode model that defines Q, so the high correlation verifies the algebraic relation in Eq. (10) rather than testing whether the model predicts the CMIP6 complementarity. The paper should not present this as independent mechanistic support; it should be framed as a derivation check within the model class.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II C, Eq. (2)] The ARX model in Eq. (2a) is described only tersely; please specify the estimation procedure, the treatment of the constant c, and how T_step(55) and T_control(55) in Eq. (2b) are computed from the fitted model, so that the response feature is reproducible.
  2. [Section II D] The term 'conditioning' is used to mean linear residualization by OLS fits E0,g(Ψ) and R0,g(Ψ). Since 'conditional' can also imply nonparametric or Bayesian conditioning, adding an explicit sentence that the main analysis uses ordinary least squares would avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Section II D, Fig. 2c] The permutation null is described as two-sided, but the text reports only one p-value per ensemble and Fig. 2c shows only the upper tail. Please state explicitly whether the quoted p-values are two-sided and whether they are adjusted for the two ensembles or the four marginal correlations tested in Section III A.
  4. [Section II A] The analysis uses common effective radiative forcing histories for all models; this is acknowledged, but a quantitative sensitivity test (e.g., using model-specific forcing estimates where available, or omitting individual forcing components) would help assess how much of the residual alignment C6 could be an artifact of imposing a shared forcing path.
  5. [Section II E, Eq. (10)] The response-information ratio Q = ||r_amp||^2/||r_kin||^2 is defined only in the sentence preceding Eq. (10); adding an explicit definition of the norm and of r_amp and r_kin in the main text would make the derivation more accessible.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the central C6 complementarity result is a permutation-tested residual correlation, but two in-sample 'checks' are mathematically forced by construction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III D, Eq. (11); Section II D, Eq. (6)]
    ""Fig. 4a first checks the corrected coordinate inside CMIP6: E_corr is correlated with model ECS (r=0.675, p<10^{-3})" and Eq. (11): "E_corr = E_0^(6)(Psi) + Gamma_6 [R - R_0^(6)(Psi)]"."

    Gamma_6 is estimated from the same CMIP6 residuals via Eq. (6): Gamma_g = Cov(Delta E, Delta R)/Var(Delta R). Substituting this into Eq. (11) makes E_corr the ordinary least-squares linear predictor of E from Psi and R. Its in-sample correlation with E in the calibration ensemble is therefore a mathematical consequence of the fit, not an independent validation. The HadCRUT5 application is a genuine out-of-sample prediction, so this internal 'check' is not load-bearing for the main claim.

  2. other [Section III C, Fig. 3b; Eq. (10)]
    ""Fig. 3b compares the observed C from each toy ensemble with the prediction in Eq. (10); the high correlation (r=0.955) shows that the response-information ratio captures the dominant dependence of C.""

    The toy ensembles are generated from the same two-mode stochastic response model whose assumed decomposition Delta R = r_amp + r_kin defines Eq. (10), C_pred = sqrt(Q/(1+Q)). The agreement between the simulated C and the formula derived from the same model's construction is a consistency check of the algebra, not an independent empirical test. The paper's independent evidence for complementarity is the CMIP6 permutation result, not this self-consistency plot.

full rationale

The derivation chain begins with residual definitions (Eqs. 3-4) and the central statistic C6 = 0.593, p = 0.00288, which is tested against a residual-pairing permutation null. This is an empirical result and does not reduce to a fitted parameter. The ARX estimate of R uses common forcing and no ECS labels, so there is no trivial leakage. The two-mode model is explicitly a controlled projection experiment; its Eq. (10) is a structural relation, and Fig. 3b's agreement is a self-consistency check rather than independent confirmation. The HadCRUT5 correction applies CMIP6-calibrated E0, R0, and Gamma6 to independent HadCRUT5 coordinates, which is a genuinely out-of-sample prediction; however, the in-sample correlation check in Fig. 4a is redundant because E_corr is constructed from the least-squares fit and its correlation with E in the calibration ensemble is forced. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem. The skeptic's Q approximately 0.54 concern is a correctness/regime-attribution issue, not circularity. Overall score 3 reflects the minor in-sample self-consistency checks; the central empirical claim is independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The empirical analysis has several fitted components: per-model ARX coefficients, ensemble-level conditional regressions, and the residual operator Gamma6. These are legitimate statistical calibrations, but they mean the HadCRUT5 estimate is an in-sample correction, not an external prediction. The two-mode model introduces unobserved entities (z, eta) with no independent evidence, though they serve only as a mechanistic illustration. The main empirical result, C6, does not depend on the toy model but does depend on the ARX response specification.

free parameters (4)
  • ARX coefficients (a, beta_CO2, beta_aer, beta_nat, c) = per model
    Fitted to each model's historical temperature series in Eq. (2a). These determine the finite-response coordinate R, which is central to the analysis.
  • Conditional-mean regression slopes for E0(Psi) and R0(Psi) = per ensemble
    OLS fits of E and R on Psi within CMIP5 and CMIP6 define the residuals in Eqs. (3a) and (3b), which are the basis of the complementarity coefficient.
  • Residual operator Gamma6 = 0.899
    Estimated from CMIP6 covariances in Eq. (6) and used to correct the HadCRUT5 coordinate. The HadCRUT5 estimate is therefore calibrated in-sample.
  • Two-mode model parameters (lambda, C_T, kappa, mu, C_z, q, b, s, rho_Psi) = set for synthetic ensembles, not fit to CMIP6 data
    These parameters generate the toy ensembles in Fig. 3. They are chosen by hand and are not compared against CMIP6 data, so they affect the mechanism illustration but not the empirical result.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Residuals delta-E and delta-R are dominated by a common unresolved forced-response coordinate delta-eta, allowing the first-order expansion in Eq. (5).
    This is explicitly stated in Section II D. If violated, the correction Gamma6 is not interpretable as recovering lost ECS information.
  • domain assumption Common effective radiative forcing histories (CO2, aerosol, natural) are appropriate for all models when fitting the ARX response.
    Section II A and Eq. (2a) apply the same forcing components to every model. Model-specific forcing differences are ignored, which could bias R.
  • domain assumption The fluctuation-memory coordinate Psi, computed with rolling 55-year windows and linear detrending, is a meaningful scalar projection of forced historical variability.
    Section II B follows Cox et al. and notes that detrending does not perfectly separate internal variability from forced structure.
  • standard math Standard statistical tools (OLS, permutation test, bootstrap) are valid for the residual correlations.
    Used throughout Section II D to define residuals and significance.
invented entities (2)
  • Hidden slow response state z(t)
    purpose: Represents forced-response pathways that are not captured by the scalar fluctuation coordinate Psi in the two-mode stochastic model.
    A theoretical construct in Eq. (7), not directly observed. It is used to generate synthetic ensembles and interpret CMIP6 behavior.
  • Hidden coordinate eta
    purpose: A latent variable representing the cross-model strength of the forced pathway F -> z -> T, used to formalize the residual expansion in Eq. (5).
    Introduced in Section II D as a conceptual coordinate, not measured. It provides the language for the correction but has no independent falsifiable handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Finite-Response Complementarity in Fluctuation Constraints on Climate Sensitivity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3PVH3FAS

@misc{pith2026260807356,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Finite-Response Complementarity in Fluctuation Constraints on Climate Sensitivity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3PVH3FAS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07356}
}
read the original abstract

Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is a zero-frequency susceptibility, whereas historical globalmean temperature variability samples a finite, forced projection of the climate system. We test whether information missed by a scalar fluctuation-memory coordinate reappears in a finite CO2 response. After conditioning both ECS and the finite response on {\Psi}, CMIP5 residuals are nearly uncoupled (C5 = 0.154), whereas CMIP6 shows strong complementarity (C6 = 0.593, p = 0.00288). A two-mode stochastic response model attributes this contrast to hidden-response spread that is visible in the finite response but poorly projected onto {\Psi}. The CMIP6 residual direction defines a first-order correction and yields a HadCRUT5 conditional ECS estimate centered at 3.00 K. Thus the weakened CMIP6 fluctuation constraint does not imply that susceptibility information is lost: part of it is recovered through a complementary finite-response projection.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07356 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

27 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Knutti, M

    R. Knutti, M. A. A. Rugenstein, and G. C. Hegerl, Be- yond equilibrium climate sensitivity, Nat. Geosci.10, 727 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    S. C. Sherwoodet al., An assessment of earth’s climate sensitivity using multiple lines of evidence, Rev. Geophys. 58, e2019RG000678 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    P. M. Caldwellet al., Statistical significance of climate sensitivity predictors obtained by data mining, Geophys. Res. Lett.41, 1803 (2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    P. T. Brown, M. B. Stolpe, and K. Caldeira, Assumptions for emergent constraints, Nature563, E1 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    P. M. Cox, C. Huntingford, and M. S. Williamson, Emer- gent constraint on equilibrium climate sensitivity from global temperature variability, Nature553, 319 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Kubo, The fluctuation-dissipation theorem, Rep

    R. Kubo, The fluctuation-dissipation theorem, Rep. Prog. Phys.29, 255 (1966)

    1966

  7. [7]

    Hasselmann, Stochastic climate models

    K. Hasselmann, Stochastic climate models. part I. theory, Tellus28, 473 (1976). 8

    work page 1976

  8. [8]

    C. E. Leith, Climate response and fluctuation dissipation, J. Atmos. Sci.32, 2022 (1975)

    work page 1975

Show all 27 references
  1. [9]

    Cionni, G

    I. Cionni, G. Visconti, and F. Sassi, Fluctuation dissi- pation theorem in a general circulation model, Geophys. Res. Lett.31, L09206 (2004)

    2004

  2. [10]

    Gritsun and G

    A. Gritsun and G. Branstator, Climate response using a three-dimensional operator based on the fluctuation- dissipation theorem, J. Atmos. Sci.64, 2558 (2007)

    2007

  3. [11]

    Ragone, V

    F. Ragone, V. Lucarini, and F. Lunkeit, A new frame- work for climate sensitivity and prediction: a modelling perspective, Clim. Dyn.46, 1459 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    Ghil and V

    M. Ghil and V. Lucarini, The physics of climate vari- ability and climate change, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 035002 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Ruelle, General linear response formula in statistical mechanics, and the fluctuation-dissipation theorem far from equilibrium, Phys

    D. Ruelle, General linear response formula in statistical mechanics, and the fluctuation-dissipation theorem far from equilibrium, Phys. Lett. A245, 220 (1998)

    1998

  6. [14]

    Lucarini, F

    V. Lucarini, F. Ragone, and F. Lunkeit, Predicting cli- mate change using response theory: global averages and spatial patterns, J. Stat. Phys.166, 1036 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Mori, Transport, collective motion, and Brownian mo- tion, Prog

    H. Mori, Transport, collective motion, and Brownian mo- tion, Prog. Theor. Phys.33, 423 (1965)

    1965

  8. [16]

    Zwanzig, Memory effects in irreversible thermodynam- ics, Phys

    R. Zwanzig, Memory effects in irreversible thermodynam- ics, Phys. Rev.124, 983 (1961)

    1961

  9. [17]

    Rypdal, H.-B

    M. Rypdal, H.-B. Fredriksen, K. Rypdal, and R. J. Steene, Emergent constraints on climate sensitivity, Na- ture563, E4 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Po-Chedley, C

    S. Po-Chedley, C. Proistosescu, K. C. Armour, and B. D. Santer, Climate constraint reflects forced signal, Nature 563, E6 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Schlund, A

    M. Schlund, A. Lauer, P. Gentine, S. C. Sherwood, and V. Eyring, Emergent constraints on equilibrium climate sensitivity in CMIP5: do they hold for CMIP6?, Earth Syst. Dyn.11, 1233 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    M. S. Williamson, P. M. Cox, C. Huntingford, and F. J. M. M. Nijsse, Testing the assumptions in emergent con- straints: why does the emergent constraint on equilib- rium climate sensitivity from global temperature vari- ability work for CMIP5 and not CMIP6?, Earth Syst. Dyn.15...

    2024

  13. [21]

    M. D. Zelinkaet al., Causes of higher climate sen- sitivity in CMIP6 models, Geophys. Res. Lett.47, e2019GL085782 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Y. Dong, K. C. Armour, C. Proistosescu, and D. S. Bat- tisti, Intermodel spread in the pattern effect and its con- tribution to climate sensitivity in CMIP5 and CMIP6 models, J. Clim.33, 7755 (2020)

    2020

  15. [23]

    K. E. Taylor, R. J. Stouffer, and G. A. Meehl, An overview of cmip5 and the experiment design, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc.93, 485 (2012)

    2012

  16. [24]

    Eyring, S

    V. Eyring, S. Bony, G. A. Meehl,et al., Overview of the coupled model intercomparison project phase 6 (cmip6) experimental design and organization, Geosci. Model Dev.9, 1937 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    C. P. Morice, J. J. Kennedy, N. A. Rayner, J. Winn, E. Hogan, R. Killick, R. J. H. Dunn, T. J. Osborn, P. D. Jones, and I. R. Simpson, An updated assessment of near- surface temperature change from 1850: The hadcrut5 data set, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos.126, e2019JD032361 (2021)

    2021

  18. [26]

    Finite-Response Comple- mentarity in Fluctuation Constraints on Climate Sensi- tivity

    Supplemental Material for “Finite-Response Comple- mentarity in Fluctuation Constraints on Climate Sensi- tivity”

  19. [27]

    Zhao, Code for ”finite-response complementarity in fluctuation constraints on climate sensitivity”, Zenodo (2026)

    Z. Zhao, Code for ”finite-response complementarity in fluctuation constraints on climate sensitivity”, Zenodo (2026)

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.