Letter | Published:

Inhomogeneous forcing and transient climate sensitivity

Nature Climate Change volume 4, pages 274277 (2014) | Download Citation

Abstract

Understanding climate sensitivity is critical to projecting climate change in response to a given forcing scenario. Recent analyses1,2,3 have suggested that transient climate sensitivity is at the low end of the present model range taking into account the reduced warming rates during the past 10–15 years during which forcing has increased markedly4. In contrast, comparisons of modelled feedback processes with observations indicate that the most realistic models have higher sensitivities5,6. Here I analyse results from recent climate modelling intercomparison projects to demonstrate that transient climate sensitivity to historical aerosols and ozone is substantially greater than the transient climate sensitivity to CO2. This enhanced sensitivity is primarily caused by more of the forcing being located at Northern Hemisphere middle to high latitudes where it triggers more rapid land responses and stronger feedbacks. I find that accounting for this enhancement largely reconciles the two sets of results, and I conclude that the lowest end of the range of transient climate response to CO2 in present models and assessments7 (<1.3 °C) is very unlikely.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    , , & Causes of the global warming observed since the 19th century. Atmos. Clim. Sci. 2, 401–415 (2012).

  2. 2.

    et al. Energy budget constraints on climate response. Nature Geosci. 6, 415–416 (2013).

  3. 3.

    Climate Science: A Sensitive Matter (The Economist Group, 2012).

  4. 4.

    et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) Ch. 8 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  5. 5.

    & A Less cloudy future: The role of subtropical subsidence in climate sensitivity. Science 338, 792–794 (2012).

  6. 6.

    , & Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing. Nature 505, 37–42 (2014).

  7. 7.

    et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) Ch. 12 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  8. 8.

    et al. in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (eds Solomon, S. et al.) Ch. 9 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

  9. 9.

    et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) Ch. 7 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  10. 10.

    , & An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 485–498 (2012).

  11. 11.

    et al. Radiative forcing in the ACCMIP historical and future climate simulations. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 13, 2939–2974 (2013).

  12. 12.

    , , & Forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivity in CMIP5 coupled atmosphere-ocean climate models. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L09712 (2012).

  13. 13.

    et al. Evaluating adjusted forcing and model spread for historical and future scenarios in the CMIP5 generation of climate models. J. Geophys. Res. 118, 1139–1150 (2013).

  14. 14.

    , & Radiative forcing and climate response. J. Geophys. Res. 102, 6831–6864 (1997).

  15. 15.

    , , & An examination of climate sensitivity for idealised climate change experiments in an intermediate general circulation model. Clim. Dynam. 16, 833–849 (2000).

  16. 16.

    & Climate response to regional radiative forcing during the 20th century. Nature Geosci. 2, 294–300 (2009).

  17. 17.

    et al. A comparison of climate response to different radiative forcings in three general circulation models: towards an improved metric of climate change. Clim. Dynam. 20, 843–854 (2003).

  18. 18.

    , & Why radiative forcing might fail as a predictor of climate change. Clim. Dynam. 24, 497–510 (2005).

  19. 19.

    & Climate sensitivity and response. Clim. Dynam. 20, 415–429 (2003).

  20. 20.

    et al. Spatial scales of climate response to inhomogeneous radiative forcing. J. Geophys. Res. 115, D19110 (2010).

  21. 21.

    & Climate trade-off between black carbon and carbon dioxide emissions. Energy Policy 36, 193–200 (2008).

  22. 22.

    , , & Quantifying uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an ensemble of observational estimates: The HadCRUT4 data set. J. Geophys. Res. 117, D08101 (2012).

  23. 23.

    & Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. doi: (2014).

  24. 24.

    et al. The representative concentration pathways: An overview. Climatic Change 109, 5–31 (2011).

  25. 25.

    , & Time-varying climate sensitivity from regional feedbacks. J. Clim. 26, 4518–4534 (2013).

  26. 26.

    , & Global warming under old and new scenarios using IPCC climate sensitivity range estimates. Nature Clim. Change 2, 248–253 (2012).

  27. 27.

    & Near-term climate mitigation by short-lived forcers. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 14202–14206 (2013).

  28. 28.

    et al. Simultaneously mitigating near-term climate change and improving human health and food security. Science 335, 183–189 (2012).

  29. 29.

    et al. Making sense of palaeoclimate sensitivity. Nature 491, 683–691 (2012).

  30. 30.

    et al. Interactive ozone and methane chemistry in GISS-E2 historical and future climate simulations. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 13, 2653–2689 (2013).

Download references

Acknowledgements

I acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme’s Working Group on Coupled Modelling and the US Department of Energy’s Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, and I thank the climate modelling groups from CMIP and the Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Model Intercomparison Project (listed in Supplementary Table 1) for making available their model output. I thank G. Faluvegi and G. Milly for assistance with data analysis and US taxpayers and D. Considine for their support through NASA’s Modeling, Analysis and Prediction Program.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York 10025, USA

    • Drew T. Shindell

Authors

  1. Search for Drew T. Shindell in:

Competing interests

The author declares no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Drew T. Shindell.

Supplementary information

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2136

Further reading