Letter | Published:

Reconciled climate response estimates from climate models and the energy budget of Earth

Nature Climate Change volume 6, pages 931935 (2016) | Download Citation

Abstract

Climate risks increase with mean global temperature1, so knowledge about the amount of future global warming should better inform risk assessments for policymakers. Expected near-term warming is encapsulated by the transient climate response (TCR), formally defined as the warming following 70 years of 1% per year increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration, by which point atmospheric CO2 has doubled. Studies based on Earth’s historical energy budget have typically estimated lower values of TCR than climate models, suggesting that some models could overestimate future warming2. However, energy-budget estimates rely on historical temperature records that are geographically incomplete and blend air temperatures over land and sea ice with water temperatures over open oceans. We show that there is no evidence that climate models overestimate TCR when their output is processed in the same way as the HadCRUT4 observation-based temperature record3,4. Models suggest that air-temperature warming is 24% greater than observed by HadCRUT4 over 1861–2009 because slower-warming regions are preferentially sampled and water warms less than air5. Correcting for these biases and accounting for wider uncertainties in radiative forcing based on recent evidence, we infer an observation-based best estimate for TCR of 1.66 °C, with a 5–95% range of 1.0–3.3 °C, consistent with the climate models considered in the IPCC 5th Assessment Report.

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.

    Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (eds Field, C. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015);

  2. 2.

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

  3. 3.

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

  4. 4.

    et al. Robust comparison of climate models with observations using blended land air and ocean sea surface temperatures. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 6526–6534 (2015).

  5. 5.

    & Muted precipitation increase in global warming simulations: a surface evaporation perspective. J. Geophys. Res. 113, D24118 (2008).

  6. 6.

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

  7. 7.

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

  8. 8.

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

  9. 9.

    & Determination of a lower bound on Earth’s climate sensitivity. Tellus B 65, 21533 (2013).

  10. 10.

    & The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimates. Clim. Dynam. 45, 1009–1023 (2015).

  11. 11.

    & Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 140, 1935–1944 (2014).

  12. 12.

    Efficacy of climate forcings. J. Geophys. Res. 110, D18104 (2005).

  13. 13.

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

  14. 14.

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

  15. 15.

    & The impact of forcing efficacy on the equilibrium climate sensitivity. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 3565–3568 (2014).

  16. 16.

    , , & Implications for climate sensitivity from the response to individual forcings. Nature Clim. Change 6, 386–389 (2015).

  17. 17.

    & Feedbacks, climate sensitivity and the limits of linear models. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 373, 20150146 (2015).

  18. 18.

    , & Estimating climate sensitivity and future temperature in the presence of natural climate variability. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 2086–2092 (2014).

  19. 19.

    , & Reconciling warming trends. Nature Geosci. 7, 158–160 (2014).

  20. 20.

    , , , & The dependence of transient climate sensitivity and radiative feedbacks on the spatial pattern of ocean heat uptake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 1071–1078 (2014).

  21. 21.

    , & Importance of ocean heat uptake efficacy to transient climate change. J. Clim. 23, 2333–2344 (2010).

  22. 22.

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

  23. 23.

    The role of ocean-atmosphere interactions in the CO2 climate problem. J. Atmos. Sci. 38, 918–930 (1981).

  24. 24.

    et al. Interpreting differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. Science 287, 1227–1232 (2000).

  25. 25.

    et al. RCP 8.5—a scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions. Climatic Change 109, 33–57 (2011).

  26. 26.

    , & Attribution of observed historical near-surface temperature variations to anthropogenic and natural causes using CMIP5 simulations. J. Geophys. Res. 118, 4001–4024 (2013).

  27. 27.

    & Atmospheric Radiation Theoretical Basics 388–425 (Oxford Univ. Press, 1989).

  28. 28.

    , , & An observational radiative constraint on hydrologic cycle intensification. Nature 528, 249–253 (2015).

  29. 29.

    et al. Guiding the creation of a comprehensive surface temperature resource for twenty-first-century climate science. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 92, ES40–ES47 (2011).

  30. 30.

    The Copenhagen Accord FCCC/CP/2009/11/Add.1 (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2009).

Download references

Acknowledgements

M.R. is funded by the Cloudsat and OCO-2 projects. The research described in this paper was performed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, sponsored by NASA. E.H. is funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council and the National Centre for Atmospheric Science. We thank Piers Forster for providing support regarding CMIP5 radiative forcing time series and R. Knutti, P. Jacobs and P. Kalmus for substantial helpful comments. M.R. thanks G. Stephens for advisory support and helpful scientific discussions.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91109, USA

    • Mark Richardson
  2. Department of Chemistry, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK

    • Kevin Cowtan
  3. National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB, UK

    • Ed Hawkins
  4. Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland

    • Martin B. Stolpe

Authors

  1. Search for Mark Richardson in:

  2. Search for Kevin Cowtan in:

  3. Search for Ed Hawkins in:

  4. Search for Martin B. Stolpe in:

Contributions

M.R. performed the main analysis, produced the figures and drafted the article. K.C. provided code for temperature reconstruction methods and performed sensitivity tests. E.H. provided input on experimental design and helped write the article, M.B.S. provided input on experimental design, helped write the article and performed sensitivity tests.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Richardson.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    Supplementary Information

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3066