It is fairly clear that all potentially
credible emergent constraints on ECS in climate models that have been investigated really constrain SW low cloud feedback (Qu et al. 2018).
Not exact matches
In Part 1 of this article the nature and validity of
emergent constraints [1] on equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) in GCMs were discussed, drawing mainly on the analysis and assessment of 19 such
constraints in Caldwell et al. (2018), [2] who concluded that only four of them were
credible.
Caldwell regarded a proposed
emergent constraint as not
credible if it lacks an identifiable physical mechanism; is not robust to change of model ensemble; or if its correlation with ECS is not due to its proposed physical mechanism.
In Part 1 of this article the nature and validity of
emergent constraints [i] on equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) in GCMs were discussed, drawing mainly on the analysis and assessment of 19 such
constraints in Caldwell et al (2018; henceforth Caldwell), [ii] who concluded that only four of them were
credible.
In Part 1 of this article the nature and validity of
emergent constraints [1] on equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) in GCMs were discussed, drawing mainly on the analysis and assessment of 19 such
constraints in Caldwell et al. (2018), [2] who concluded that only four of them were
credible.
The fairly detailed Caldwell 2016 review identified four
emergent constraints that were potentially
credible, although it did not investigate them in detail.
Part 1 of this article the nature and validity of
emergent constraints [1] on equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) in GCMs were discussed, drawing mainly on the analysis and assessment of 19 such
constraints in Caldwell et al. (2018), [2] who concluded that only four of them were
credible.
Caldwell regarded a proposed
emergent constraint as not
credible if it lacks an identifiable physical mechanism; is not robust to change of model ensemble; or if its correlation with ECS is not due to its proposed physical mechanism.