Data availability
Relevant data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Brown, P. T., Stolpe, M. B. & Caldeira, K. Assumptions for emergent constraints. Nature 563, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0638-5 (2018).
Rypdal, M., Fredriksen, H.-B., Rypdal, K. & Steene, R. J. Emergent constraints on climate sensitivity. Nature 563, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0639-4 (2018).
Po-Chedley, S., Proistosescu, C., Armour, K. C. & Santer, B. D. Climate constraint reflects forced signal. Nature 563, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0640-y (2018).
Cox, P. M., Huntingford, C. & Williamson, M. S. Emergent constraint on equilibrium climate sensitivity from global temperature variability. Nature 553, 319–322 (2018).
Hasselmann, K. Stochastic climate models part I. Theory. Tellus 28, 473–485 (1976).
Geoffroy, O. et al. Transient climate cesponse in a two-layer energy-balance model. Part I: analytical solution and parameter calibration using CMIP5 AOGCM experiments. J. Climate 26, 1841–1857 (2013).
Frost, C. & Thompson, S. G. Correcting for regression dilution bias: comparison of methods for a single predictor variable. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A 163, 173–189 (2000).
MacMynowski, D. G. et al. The frequency response of temperature and precipitation in a climate model. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L16711 (2011).
Williamson, M. S., Cox, P. M. & Nijsse, F. J. M. M. Theoretical foundation of emergent constraints: relationships between climate sensitivity and global temperature variability in conceptual models. Dyn. Stat. Clim. Syst. (in the press).
Meinshausen, M. et al. The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300. Clim. Change 109, 213 (2011).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The list of co-authors and their order are slightly different from the original study4. F.J.M.M.N. carried-out many statistical tests in response to the accompanying Comments, and has therefore been added to the author list for this Reply. Similarly, M.S.W. carried out substantial new work with simple models, and has therefore been moved to the second-author position. P.M.C. and M.S.W. drafted the response. C.H. provided the time-series data for the CMIP5 models. M.S.W. produced Fig. 1 and Extended Data Fig. 2 using the one- and two-box models. P.M.C. produced Fig. 2 and Extended Data Fig. 1 from the CMIP5 models. F.J.M.M.N. provided statistical expertise and analysed the impact of regression dilution. All authors contributed to the final version of the Reply.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
Declared none.
Extended data figures and tables
Extended Data Fig. 1 Impact of de-trending on the ECS–Ψ relationship in CMIP5 models.
a, Control runs linearly de-trended in a 55-year moving window (r = 0.75). b, Control runs without de-trending (r = 0.45).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cox, P.M., Williamson, M.S., Nijsse, F.J.M.M. et al. Cox et al. reply. Nature 563, E10–E15 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0641-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0641-x
- Springer Nature Limited
Keywords
This article is cited by
-
Understanding the links between climate feedbacks, variability and change using a two-layer energy balance model
Climate Dynamics (2020)
-
Emergent Constraints on Climate-Carbon Cycle Feedbacks
Current Climate Change Reports (2019)