The potential for structural errors in emergent constraints
-
Published:2021-08-23
Issue:3
Volume:12
Page:899-918
-
ISSN:2190-4987
-
Container-title:Earth System Dynamics
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Earth Syst. Dynam.
Author:
Sanderson Benjamin M.ORCID, Pendergrass Angeline G.ORCID, Koven Charles D.ORCID, Brient FlorentORCID, Booth Ben B. B., Fisher Rosie A., Knutti RetoORCID
Abstract
Abstract. Studies of emergent constraints have frequently proposed that a single
metric can constrain future responses of the Earth system to anthropogenic
emissions. Here, we illustrate that strong relationships between observables
and future climate across an ensemble can arise from common structural model
assumptions with few degrees of freedom. Such cases have the potential to
produce strong yet overconfident constraints when processes are represented
in a common, oversimplified fashion throughout the ensemble. We consider
these issues in the context of a collection of published constraints and
argue that although emergent constraints are potentially powerful tools for
understanding ensemble response variation and relevant observables, their
naïve application to reduce uncertainties in unknown climate responses
could lead to bias and overconfidence in constrained projections. The
prevalence of this thinking has led to literature in which statements are made on
the probability bounds of key climate variables that were confident yet
inconsistent between studies. Together with statistical robustness and a
mechanism, assessments of climate responses must include multiple lines of
evidence to identify biases that can arise from shared, oversimplified
modelling assumptions that impact both present and future climate
simulations in order to mitigate against the influence of shared structural
biases.
Funder
Agence Nationale de la Recherche
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences
Reference161 articles.
1. Allen, M. R. and Ingram, W. J.: Constraints on future changes in climate and
the hydrologic cycle, Nature, 419, 224–232, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01092,
2002. 2. Allen, M. R. and Stott, P. A.: Estimating signal amplitudes in optimal
fingerprinting, part I: theory, Clim. Dynam., 21, 477–491,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-003-0313-9, 2003. 3. Andrews, T., Gregory, J. M., Webb, M. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Forcing,
feedbacks and climate sensitivity in CMIP5 coupled atmosphere-ocean climate
models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L09712, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012gl051607, 2012. 4. Annan, J. D., Hargreaves, J. C., Mauritsen, T., and Stevens, B.: What could we learn about climate sensitivity from variability in the surface temperature record?, Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 709–719, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-709-2020, 2020. 5. Arora, V. K., Katavouta, A., Williams, R. G., Jones, C. D., Brovkin, V., Friedlingstein, P., Schwinger, J., Bopp, L., Boucher, O., Cadule, P., Chamberlain, M. A., Christian, J. R., Delire, C., Fisher, R. A., Hajima, T., Ilyina, T., Joetzjer, E., Kawamiya, M., Koven, C. D., Krasting, J. P., Law, R. M., Lawrence, D. M., Lenton, A., Lindsay, K., Pongratz, J., Raddatz, T., Séférian, R., Tachiiri, K., Tjiputra, J. F., Wiltshire, A., Wu, T., and Ziehn, T.: Carbon–concentration and carbon–climate feedbacks in CMIP6 models and their comparison to CMIP5 models, Biogeosciences, 17, 4173–4222, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-4173-2020, 2020.
Cited by
28 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|