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.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Declining uncertainty in transient climate response as CO2 forcing dominates future climate change

Nature Geoscience volume 8, pages 181–185 (2015)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Carbon dioxide has exerted the largest portion of radiative forcing and surface temperature change over the industrial era, but other anthropogenic influences have also contributed1,2. However, large uncertainties in total forcing make it difficult to derive climate sensitivity from historical observations3,4,5,6,7. Anthropogenic forcing has increased between the Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC; refs 1, 8), although its relative uncertainty has decreased. Here we show, based on data from the two reports, that this evolution towards lower uncertainty can be expected to continue into the future. Because it is easier to reduce air pollution than carbon dioxide emissions and because of the long lifetime of carbon dioxide, the less uncertain carbon dioxide forcing is expected to become increasingly dominant. Using a statistical model, we estimate that the relative uncertainty in anthropogenic forcing of more than 40% quoted in the latest IPCC report for 2011 will be almost halved by 2030, even without better scientific understanding. Absolute forcing uncertainty will also decline for the first time, provided projected decreases in aerosols occur. Other factors being equal, this stronger constraint on forcing will bring a significant reduction in the uncertainty of observation-based estimates of the transient climate response, with a 50% reduction in its uncertainty range expected by 2030.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Anthropogenic forcing for four phases of IPCC reports and two RCPs.
Figure 2: Decadal RF change between 1970 and 2010 and for 2020 to 2030 for two RCPs.
Figure 3: Time evolution in RF and standard deviation in RF.
Figure 4: Uncertainty in TCR with RF and temperature change.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Myhre, G. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 659–740 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  3. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Andreae, M. O., Jones, C. D. & Cox, P. M. Strong present-day aerosol cooling implies a hot future. Nature 435, 1187–1190 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Knutti, R. & Hegerl, G. C. The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes. Nature Geosci. 1, 735–743 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Roe, G. H. & Armour, K. C. How sensitive is climate sensitivity? Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L14708 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Forster, P. et al. in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (eds Solomon, S. et al.) 129–134 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Urban, N. M. et al. Historical and future learning about climate sensitivity. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 2543–2552 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Isaksen, I. S. A. et al. Atmospheric composition change: Climate–chemistry interactions. Atmos. Environ. 43, 5138–5192 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Raes, F., Liao, H., Chen, W. T. & Seinfeld, J. H. Atmospheric chemistry–climate feedbacks. J. Geophys. Res. 115, D12121 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Shindell, D. T. et al. Improved attribution of climate forcing to emissions. Science 326, 716–718 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Crook, J. A. & Forster, P. M. A balance between radiative forcing and climate feedback in the modeled 20th century temperature response. J. Geophys. Res. 116, D17108 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Huber, M. & Knutti, R. Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance. Nature Geosci. 5, 31–36 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P. & von Schuckmann, K. Earth’s energy imbalance and implications. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11, 13421–13449 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ramanathan, V., Crutzen, P. J., Kiehl, J. T. & Rosenfeld, D. Atmosphere—aerosols, climate, and the hydrological cycle. Science 294, 2119–2124 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Boucher, O. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 571–657 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Haywood, J. & Schulz, M. Causes of the reduction in uncertainty in the anthropogenic radiative forcing of climate between IPCC (2001) and IPCC (2007). Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L20701 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Boucher, O. & Haywood, J. On summing the components of radiative forcing of climate change. Clim. Dynam. 18, 297–302 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Forest, C. E. et al. Quantifying uncertainties in climate system properties with the use of recent climate observations. Science 295, 113–117 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Knutti, R., Stocker, T. F., Joos, F. & Plattner, G. K. Constraints on radiative forcing and future climate change from observations and climate model ensembles. Nature 416, 719–723 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Peters, G. P. et al. The challenge to keep global warming below 2 degrees C. Nature Clim. Change 3, 4–6 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Murphy, D. M. Little net clear-sky radiative forcing from recent regional redistribution of aerosols. Nature Geosci. 6, 258–262 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Forster, P. M. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Meinshausen, M. et al. Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 degrees C. Nature 458, 1158–1162 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Prather, M. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 1395–1445 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Skeie, R. B. et al. Anthropogenic radiative forcing time series from pre-industrial times until 2010. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11, 11827–11857 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

G.M. was supported by the Norwegian Research Council project SLAC (208277). Norwegian Research Council project number 230619 supported a personal visit for P.F.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for International Climate and Environmental Research—Oslo (CICERO), Pb. 1129 Blindern, N-0318 Oslo, Norway

    Gunnar Myhre

  2. Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique, IPSL, CNRS/UPMC, 75252 Paris, France

    Olivier Boucher

  3. Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, IPSL, CEA/CNRS/UVSQ, 91191 Gif sur Yvette, France

    François-Marie Bréon

  4. School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK

    Piers Forster

  5. Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA

    Drew Shindell

Authors
  1. Gunnar Myhre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Olivier Boucher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. François-Marie Bréon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Piers Forster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Drew Shindell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

G.M., F-M.B. and D.S. initiated the study with additional contributions on the design of the study from P.F. and O.B. G.M., O.B., F-M.B., P.F. and D.S. performed the analysis and wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gunnar Myhre.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information (PDF 426 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Myhre, G., Boucher, O., Bréon, FM. et al. Declining uncertainty in transient climate response as CO2 forcing dominates future climate change. Nature Geosci 8, 181–185 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2371

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2371

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing