fixed links

bibliography.bib

@@ -9,7 +9,6 @@ @article {Bony:2006a
       number = "15",
       doi = "10.1175/JCLI3819.1",
       pages=      "3445 - 3482",
-      url = "https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/19/15/jcli3819.1.xml"
 }
 
 @incollection{hartmann:ch2:2016a,
@@ -23,7 +22,6 @@ @incollection{hartmann:ch2:2016a
 year = {2016},
 isbn = {978-0-12-328531-7},
 doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-328531-7.00002-5},
-url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123285317000025},
 author = {Dennis L. Hartmann},
 keywords = {climate, energy budget of Earth, emission temperature of a planet, greenhouse effect, insolation, solar zenith angle, poleward energy transport}
 }
@@ -36,7 +34,6 @@ @article{gregory:2004a
 number = {3},
 pages = {},
 doi = {https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018747},
-url = {https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2003GL018747},
 eprint = {https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2003GL018747},
 abstract = {We describe a new method for evaluating the radiative forcing, the climate feedback parameter (W m−2 K−1) and hence the effective climate sensitivity from any GCM experiment in which the climate is responding to a constant forcing. The method is simply to regress the top of atmosphere radiative flux against the global average surface air temperature change. This method does not require special integrations or off-line estimates, such as for stratospheric adjustment, to obtain the forcing, and eliminates the need for double radiation calculations and tropopause radiative fluxes. We show that for CO2 and solar forcing in a slab model and an AOGCM the method gives results consistent with those obtained by conventional methods. For a single integration it is less precise but since it does not require a steady state to be reached its precision could be improved by running an ensemble of short integrations.},
 year = {2004}
@@ -53,7 +50,6 @@ @incollection{hartmann:ch10:2016a
 year = {2016},
 isbn = {978-0-12-328531-7},
 doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-328531-7.00010-4},
-url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123285317000104},
 author = {Dennis L. Hartmann},
 keywords = {climate sensitivity, feedback, climate forcing, water-vapor feedback, ice–albedo feedback, lapse-rate feedback, cloud feedback, energy balance climate models, Budyko model, Sellers’ model, Daisyworld, evaporation feedback, biogeochemical feedbacks}
 }
@@ -69,7 +65,6 @@ @incollection{dessler:2015a
 year = {2015},
 isbn = {978-0-12-382225-3},
 doi = {https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-382225-3.00471-0},
-url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123822253004710},
 author = {A.E. Dessler and M.D. Zelinka},
 keywords = {Albedo, Climate, Climate change, Clouds, Feedbacks, Global warming, Water vapor},
 abstract = {Synopsis
@@ -85,7 +80,6 @@ @article{sherwood:2020a
 pages = {e2019RG000678},
 keywords = {Climate, climate sensitivity, global warming, Bayesian methods},
 doi = {https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000678},
-url = {https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019RG000678},
 eprint = {https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2019RG000678},
 note = {e2019RG000678 2019RG000678},
 abstract = {Abstract We assess evidence relevant to Earth's equilibrium climate sensitivity per doubling of atmospheric CO2, characterized by an effective sensitivity S. This evidence includes feedback process understanding, the historical climate record, and the paleoclimate record. An S value lower than 2 K is difficult to reconcile with any of the three lines of evidence. The amount of cooling during the Last Glacial Maximum provides strong evidence against values of S greater than 4.5 K. Other lines of evidence in combination also show that this is relatively unlikely. We use a Bayesian approach to produce a probability density function (PDF) for S given all the evidence, including tests of robustness to difficult-to-quantify uncertainties and different priors. The 66\% range is 2.6–3.9 K for our Baseline calculation and remains within 2.3–4.5 K under the robustness tests; corresponding 5–95\% ranges are 2.3–4.7 K, bounded by 2.0–5.7 K (although such high-confidence ranges should be regarded more cautiously). This indicates a stronger constraint on S than reported in past assessments, by lifting the low end of the range. This narrowing occurs because the three lines of evidence agree and are judged to be largely independent and because of greater confidence in understanding feedback processes and in combining evidence. We identify promising avenues for further narrowing the range in S, in particular using comprehensive models and process understanding to address limitations in the traditional forcing-feedback paradigm for interpreting past changes.},
@@ -102,7 +96,6 @@ @inbook{hansen:1984a
 chapter = {},
 pages = {130-163},
 doi = {https://doi.org/10.1029/GM029p0130},
-url = {https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/GM029p0130},
 eprint = {https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/GM029p0130},
 year = {1984},
 keywords = {Climatology—Congresses, Geophysics—Congresses, Ocean-atmosphere interaction—Congresses},
@@ -120,7 +113,6 @@ @article { loeb:2018a
       number = "2",
       doi = "10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0208.1",
       pages=      "895 - 918",
-      url = "https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/2/jcli-d-17-0208.1.xml"
 }
 
 @article {caldwell:2016a,
@@ -134,7 +126,6 @@ @article {caldwell:2016a
       number = "2",
       doi = "10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0352.1",
       pages=      "513 - 524",
-      url = "https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/29/2/jcli-d-15-0352.1.xml"
 }
 
 @article { dessler:2013a,
@@ -148,7 +139,6 @@ @article { dessler:2013a
       number = "1",
       doi = "10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00640.1",
       pages=      "333 - 342",
-      url = "https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/26/1/jcli-d-11-00640.1.xml"
 }
 
 @article{Cronin:2023a,
@@ -160,7 +150,6 @@ @article{Cronin:2023a
 pages = {e2023MS003729},
 keywords = {climate change, atmospheric radiation, planetary atmospheres, climate feedbacks},
 doi = {https://doi.org/10.1029/2023MS003729},
-url = {https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2023MS003729},
 eprint = {https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2023MS003729},
 note = {e2023MS003729 2023MS003729},
 abstract = {Abstract A reference or “no-feedback” radiative response to warming is fundamental to understanding how much global warming will occur for a given change in greenhouse gases or solar radiation incident on the Earth. The simplest estimate of this radiative response is given by the Stefan-Boltzmann law as  W m−2 K−1 for Earth's present climate, where is a global effective emission temperature. The comparable radiative response in climate models, widely called the “Planck feedback,” averages −3.3 W m−2 K−1. This difference of 0.5 W m−2 K−1 is large compared to the uncertainty in the net climate feedback, yet it has not been studied carefully. We use radiative transfer models to analyze these two radiative feedbacks to warming, and find that the difference arises primarily from the lack of stratospheric warming assumed in calculations of the Planck feedback (traditionally justified by differing constraints on and time scales of stratospheric adjustment relative to surface and tropospheric warming). The Planck feedback is thus masked for wavelengths with non-negligible stratospheric opacity, and this effect implicitly acts to amplify warming in current feedback analysis of climate change. Other differences between Planck and Stefan-Boltzmann feedbacks arise from temperature-dependent gas opacities, and several artifacts of nonlinear averaging across wavelengths, heights, and different locations; these effects partly cancel but as a whole slightly destabilize the Planck feedback. Our results point to an important role played by stratospheric opacity in Earth's climate sensitivity, and clarify a long-overlooked but notable gap in our understanding of Earth's reference radiative response to warming.},