Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Implications for climate sensitivity from the response to individual forcings

This article has been updated

Abstract

Climate sensitivity to doubled CO2 is a widely used metric for the large-scale response to external forcing. Climate models predict a wide range for two commonly used definitions: the transient climate response (TCR: the warming after 70 years of CO2 concentrations that rise at 1% per year), and the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS: the equilibrium temperature change following a doubling of CO2 concentrations). Many observational data sets have been used to constrain these values, including temperature trends over the recent past1,2,3,4,5,6, inferences from palaeoclimate7,8 and process-based constraints from the modern satellite era9,10. However, as the IPCC recently reported11, different classes of observational constraints produce somewhat incongruent ranges. Here we show that climate sensitivity estimates derived from recent observations must account for the efficacy of each forcing active during the historical period. When we use single-forcing experiments to estimate these efficacies and calculate climate sensitivity from the observed twentieth-century warming, our estimates of both TCR and ECS are revised upwards compared to previous studies, improving the consistency with independent constraints.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Model historical and single-forcing transient and equilibrium sensitivities.
Figure 2: Sensitivity estimates from observations.

Change history

  • 10 March 2016

    In the version of this Letter originally published online, there was an error in the definition of F 2 × CO 2 in equation (2). The historical instantaneous radiative forcing time series was also updated to reflect land use change, which was inadvertently excluded from the forcing originally calculated from ref. 22. This has resulted in minor changes to data in Figs 1 and 2, as well as in the corresponding main text and Supplementary Information. In addition, the end of the paragraph beginning' Scaling ΔF for each of the single-forcing runs...' should have read '...the CO2-only runs' (not 'GHG-only runs'). The conclusions of the Letter are not affected by these changes. All errors have been corrected in all versions of the Letter. The authors thank Nic Lewis for his careful reading of the original manuscript that resulted in the identification of these errors.

References

  1. 1

    Forest, C. E., Stone, P. H., Sokolov, A. P., Allen, M. R. & Webster, M. D. Quantifying uncertainties in climate system properties with the use of recent climate observations. Science 295, 113–117 (2002).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Forest, C. E., Stone, P. H. & Sokolov, A. P. Estimated PDFs of climate system properties including natural and anthropogenic forcings. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33, L01705 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Lewis, N. & Curry, J. A. The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimates. Clim. Dynam. 45, 1009–1023 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Ring, M. J., Lindner, D., Cross, E. F. & Schlesinger, M. E. Causes of the global warming observed since the 19th century. Atmos. Clim. Sci. 02, 401–415 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Aldrin, M. et al. Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations of hemispheric temperatures and global ocean heat content. Environmetrics 23, 253–271 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    PALAEOSENS Project Members Making sense of palaeoclimate sensitivity. Nature 491, 683–691 (2012).

  8. 8

    Hargreaves, J. C., Annan, J. D., Yoshimori, M. & Abe-Ouchi, A. Can the Last Glacial Maximum constrain climate sensitivity? Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L24702 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Sherwood, S. C., Bony, S. & Dufresne, J. Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing. Nature 505, 37–42 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Fasullo, J. T. & Trenberth, K. E. A less cloudy future: the role of subtropical subsidence in climate sensitivity. Science 338, 792–794 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Collins, M. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 1029–1136 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Hansen, J. et al. in Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity Vol. 29 (eds Hansen, J. E. & Takahashi, T.) 130–163 (American Geophysical Union, 1984).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Hansen, J. E. et al. Efficacy of climate forcings. J. Geophys. Res. 110, D18104 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Stuber, N., Ponater, M. & Sausen, R. Why radiative forcing might fail as a predictor of climate change. Clim. Dynam. 24, 497–510 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Köhler, P. et al. What caused Earth’s temperature variations during the last 800,000 years? Data-based evidence on radiative forcing and constraints on climate sensitivity. Quat. Sci. Rev. 29, 129–145 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Schmittner, A. et al. Climate sensitivity estimated from temperature reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum. Science 334, 1385–1388 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Rose, B. E., Armour, K. C., Battisti, D. S., Feldl, N. & Koll, D. D. The dependence of transient climate sensitivity and radiative feedbacks on the spatial pattern of ocean heat uptake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 1071–1078 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Winton, M., Takahashi, K. & Held, I. M. Importance of ocean heat uptake efficacy to transient climate change. J. Clim. 23, 2333–2344 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Armour, K. C., Bitz, C. M. & Roe, G. H. Time-varying climate sensitivity from regional feedbacks. J. Clim. 26, 4518–4534 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Kummer, J. R. & Dessler, A. E. The impact of forcing efficacy on the equilibrium climate sensitivity. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 3565–3568 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Shindell, D. T. Inhomogeneous forcing and transient climate sensitivity. Nature Clim. Change 4, 274–277 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Miller, R. L. et al. CMIP5 historical simulations (1850–2012) with GISS ModelE2. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 6, 441–477 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Nazarenko, L. et al. Future climate change under rcp emission scenarios with GISS ModelE2. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 7, 244–267 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Schmidt, G. A. et al. Configuration and assessment of the GISS ModelE2 contributions to the CMIP5 archive. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 6, 141–184 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Gregory, J. M. et al. A new method for diagnosing radiative forcing and climate sensitivity. Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L03205 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Hansen, J. E. et al. Forcings and chaos in interannual to decadal climate change. J. Geophys. Res. 102, 25679–25720 (1997).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Gregory, J. M., Andrews, T. & Good, P. The inconstancy of the transient climate response parameter under increasing CO2 . Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 373, 20140417 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Shindell, D. & Faluvegi, G. Climate response to regional radiative forcing during the twentieth century. Nature Geosci. 2, 294–300 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Tomassini, L., Reichert, P., Knutti, R., Stocker, T. F. & Borsuk, M. E. Robust bayesian uncertainty analysis of climate system properties using Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods. J. Clim. 20, 1239–1254 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Merlis, T. M., Held, I. M., Stenchikov, G. L., Zeng, F. & Horowitz, L. W. Constraining transient climate sensitivity using coupled climate model simulations of volcanic eruptions. J. Clim. 27, 7781–7795 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Climate modelling at GISS is supported by the NASA Modeling, Analysis and Prediction Program and resources supporting this work were provided by the NASA High-End Computing (HEC) Program through the NASA Center for Climate Simulation (NCCS) at Goddard Space Flight Center. The authors thank D. McNeall and E. Hawkins for advice on figures, and E. Hawkins, J. Gregory, M. Webb, K. Taylor and R. Pincus for helpful discussions.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

K.M. and G.A.S. designed the research and wrote the paper, with input from R.L.M. R.L.M. and L.S.N. provided the forcing data. L.S.N. ran the climate model experiments. All authors contributed to the interpretation of the results.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Kate Marvel, Gavin A. Schmidt or Ron L. Miller.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Marvel, K., Schmidt, G., Miller, R. et al. Implications for climate sensitivity from the response to individual forcings. Nature Clim Change 6, 386–389 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2888

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links