Climate Forcings and Climate Sensitivities Diagnosed from Coupled Climate Model Integrations

By Piers M. Forster, K. Taylor. 2006

155 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Atmospheric Science, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1739461ed05f7478ed69b5ff49294d4dd8169aff

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Atmospheric Science

In Global and Planetary Change

Citations in the corpus

Contributions of Different Cloud Types to Feedbacks and Rapid Adjustments in CMIP5 (2012, methodology): “…relative to the initial equilibrium state, F is the Unauthenticated | Downloaded 04/27/21 09:06 AM UTC effective climate forcing [using the terminology of Forster and Taylor (2006)], and a is the net climate feedback (including the Planck response and therefore negative for a stable climate).”
CO2 forcing induces semi‐direct effects with consequences for climate feedback interpretations (2008, unknown): “Forster and Taylor [2006] speculated that some of their spread in projected forcings for a given scenario may be due to greenhouse gas induced tropospheric adjustments.”
Evaluating Emergent Constraints on Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (2018, methodology): “CMIP3 forcings are computed following the method of Forster and Taylor (2006), which involved computing net feedback from simulations where only CO 2 was changed using the Gregory method, then using this information in conjunction with D T s and TOA radiative imbalance to derive effective forcing…”
Transient Climate Response in a Two-Layer Energy-Balance Model. Part II: Representation of the Efficacy of Deep-Ocean Heat Uptake and Validation for CMIP5 AOGCMs (2013, background): “Indeed, Forster and Taylor (2006) found a forcing estimate of 3.45 W m22 in the LW for a 23CO2 experiment (corresponding to 6.90 W m 22 for a 43CO2 experiment).”
Climate response to regional radiative forcing during the twentieth century (2009, methodology): “We then calculated the transient global mean temperature and temperature gradient responses per unit radiative forcing by dividing by the radiative forcing calculated in individual CMIP3 models for the nine models for which this is availabl”
The vertical distribution of cloud feedback in coupled ocean‐atmosphere models (2011, methodology): “[3] Several studies have diagnosed climate feedbacks in GCM simulations prepared for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC‐AR4) [Bony et al., 2006; Forster and Taylor, 2006; Ringer et al., 2006; Soden and Held, 2006; Soden et al., 2008; Webb et al., 2006; Dufre”
An Assessment of the Primary Sources of Spread of Global Warming Estimates from Coupled Atmosphere–Ocean Models (2008, methodology): “We believe that the intermodel spread of the forcing reported by Forster and Taylor (2006) is the most relevant for our study because the global warming estimates are derived from global simulations, including clouds and a stratospheric temperature response.”
Recommendations for diagnosing effective radiative forcing from climate models for CMIP6 (2016, background): “ERF can be inferred from TOA irradiances in existing coupled climate model runs, for example, by assuming constant known climate feedbacks [Forster et al., 2013; Forster and Taylor, 2006] or using an impulse response model that assumes known time-varying feedbacks [Larson and Portmann, 2016].”
Total aerosol effect: radiative forcing or radiative flux perturbation? (2009, methodology): “An interesting aspect of this method is that the efficacy is included in the forcing estimate ( Forster and Taylor , 2006). Another important outcome from this work is that “fast feedbacks”, such as cloud changes that respond directly to the forcing of CO 2 rather than to1T , are now regarded as par”
Simulated Antarctic precipitation and surface mass balance at the end of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries (2006, background): “The climate sensitivity of IPSL-CM4 for a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration from pre-industrial values (3.7 C) is situated in the upper part of the range of coupled models of the 4th IPCC assessment report (Forster and Taylor 2006).”
Tropospheric Adjustment Induces a Cloud Component in CO2 Forcing (2008, methodology): “Hansen et al. (2002) proposed the method, which they implemented by prescribing observed sea surface temperatures and sea ice; we will call this a “fixed SST experiment.”
Emulating atmosphere-ocean and carbon cycle models with a simpler model, MAGICC6 – Part 2: Applications (2011, methodology): “CMIP3 AOGCMs, as diagnosed by Forster and Taylor (2006) (F&T, see panel a).”
An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 (2009, methodology): “points are regressions of outgoing radiation minus forcing against temperature for 20 models in the IPCC archive [Forster and Taylor, 2006].”
Time-Varying Climate Sensitivity from Regional Feedbacks (2012, methodology): “This method has been widely applied to estimate feedbacks and forcing within both models and observations (Forster and Taylor 2006; Forster and Gregory 2006; Gregory and Webb 2008; Andrews and Forster 2008;Williams et al. 2008; Murphy et al. 2009; Boer 2011; Crook et al. 2011; Andrews et al. 2012a;…”
CMIP5 historical simulations (1850–2012) with GISS ModelE2 (2014, methodology): “This regression coefficient is then multiplied by temperature variations over the historical period and combined with the radiative imbalance to derive the ERF [Forster and Taylor 2006].”