Emergent Constraints for Cloud Feedbacks

By Stephen A. Klein, A. Hall. Current Climate Change Reports, 2015

178 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Atmospheric Science, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e571b1f9d59b7768a4c650a4f3680614d4001ee9

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

Bounding Global Aerosol Radiative Forcing of Climate Change (2020, background): “The emergent constraint (Klein & Hall, 2015) constructed1425 by Rotstayn et al. (2015) from surface temperature change suggests values of aerosol ERF1426 around −1.0 Wm−2.1427 Stevens (2015) proposed that it is possible to draw a tighter constraint on the aerosol1428 ERF by considering an earlier…”
Evaluating Emergent Constraints on Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (2018, background): “Correlation between processes means that Klein and Hall (2015)’s requirement of ‘‘no multiple inﬂuences’’ is probably un-workable.”
Earth System Modeling 2.0: A Blueprint for Models That Learn From Observations and Targeted High‐Resolution Simulations (2017, background): “…there is a growing literature on “emergent constraints,” which typically are fluctuation-dissipation relationships that relate measurable fluctuations in the present climate to the response of the climate system to perturbations [Hall and Qu, 2006; Collins et al., 2012; Klein and Hall, 2015].”
Low-Cloud Feedbacks from Cloud-Controlling Factors: A Review (2017, background): “The across-model agreement between cloud variability in the current climate and the cloud feedback to climate change illustrates a type of ‘‘emergent constraint’’ relationship (Klein and Hall 2015).”
Analyzing the dependence of global cloud feedback on the spatial pattern of sea surface temperature change with a Green's function approach (2017, result): “…that climate models with more positive cloud feedbacks and larger values of ECS are more consistent with observations [Sherwood et al., 2014; Su et al., 2014; Qu et al., 2015; Zhai et al., 2015; Brient and Schneider, 2016], although a systematic bias cannot be ruled out [Klein and Hall, 2015].”