Emergent Constraints on CMIP6 Climate Warming Projections: Contrasting Cloud- and Surface Temperature–Based Constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The latest Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) multimodel ensemble shows a broader range of projected warming than the previous-generation CMIP5 ensemble. We show that the projected warming is well correlated with tropical and subtropical low-level cloud properties. These physically meaningful relations enable us to use observed cloud properties to constrain future climate warming. We develop multivariate linear regression models with metrics selected from a set of potential constraints based on a stepwise selection approach. The resulting linear regression model using two low-cloud metrics shows better cross-validated results than regression models that use single metrics as constraints. Application of a regression model using the low-cloud metrics to climate projections results in similar estimates of the mean, but substantially narrower uncertainty ranges, of projected twenty-first-century warming when compared with unconstrained simulations. The resulting projected global-mean warming in 2081–2100 relative to 1995–2014 is 2.84–5.12 K (5%–95% range) for Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) 5–8.5 compared with a range of 2.34–5.81 K for unconstrained projections, and 0.60–1.70 K for SSP1–2.6 compared to an unconstrained range of 0.38–2.04 K. We provide evidence for a higher lower bound of the projected warming range than that obtained from constrained projections based on the past global-mean temperature trend. Consideration of the impact of the sea surface temperature pattern effect on the recent observed warming trend, which is not well captured in the CMIP6 ensemble, indicates that the relatively low projected warming resulting from the global-mean temperature trend constraint may not be reliable and provides further justification for the use of climatologically based cloud metrics to constrain projections.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".