Parties to the Paris Agreement agreed to holding global average temperature increases “well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels”. Monitoring the contributions of human-induced climate forcings to warming so far is key to understanding progress towards these goals. Here we use climate model simulations from the Detection and Attribution Model Intercomparison Project, as well as regularized optimal fingerprinting, to show that anthropogenic forcings caused 0.9 to 1.3 °C of warming in global mean near-surface air temperature in 2010–2019 relative to 1850–1900, compared with an observed warming of 1.1 °C. Greenhouse gases and aerosols contributed changes of 1.2 to 1.9 °C and −0.7 to −0.1 °C, respectively, and natural forcings contributed negligibly. These results demonstrate the substantial human influence on climate so far and the urgency of action needed to meet the Paris Agreement goals.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $17.42 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
All figures in this manuscript use CMIP6 data available at https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/projects/cmip6/. The DOIs of the CMIP6 datasets (CMIP6 historical, DAMIP and ScenarioMIP) used from each model are: ACCESS-ESM1-5: https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.2288, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.14362 and https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.2291; BCC-CSM2-MR: https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.1725, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.1726 and https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.1732; CanESM5: https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.1303, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.1305 and https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.1317; CESM2: https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.2185, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.2187 and https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.2201; CNRM-CM6-1: https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.1375, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.1376 and https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.1384; FGOALS-g3: https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.1783, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.2048 and https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.2056; GFDL-ESM4: https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.1407, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.1408 and https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.1414; GISS-E2-1-G: https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.1400, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.2062 and https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.2074; HadGEM3-GC31-LL: https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.419, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.471 and https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.10845; IPSL-CM6A-LR: https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.1534, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.13801 and https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.1532; MIROC6: https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.881, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.894 and https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.898; MRI-ESM2-0: https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.621, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.634 and https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.638; NorESM2-LM: https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.502, https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.580 and https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.604. HadCRUT4 data (version 18.104.22.168, downloaded 24 March 2020) are available at https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/, GISTEMP data (version 4 with 1,200 km smoothing, downloaded 13 April 2020) are available at https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ and NOAAGlobalTemp data (version 5.0.0, downloaded 13 April 2020) are available at https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/noaa-merged-land-ocean-global-surface-temperature-analysis-noaaglobaltemp-v5, and HadCRUT.22.214.171.124 data are available at https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut5.
The analysis code used in this study is based on ESMValTool and is available at https://github.com/ESMValGroup/ESMValTool/tree/gillett20.
Stott, P. A. & Tett, S. F. B. Scale-dependent detection of climate change. J. Clim. 11, 3282–3294 (1998).
Allen, M. R. & Tett, S. F. B. Checking for model consistency in optimal fingerprinting. Clim. Dyn. 15, 419–434 (1999).
Hegerl, G. C. et al. Multi-fingerprint detection and attribution analysis of greenhouse gas, greenhouse gas-plus-aerosol and solar forced climate change. Clim. Dyn. 13, 613–634 (1997).
Adoption of the Paris Agreement FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 (UNFCCC, 2015).
Cowtan, K. et al. Robust comparison of climate models with observations using blended land air and ocean sea surface temperatures. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 6526–6535 (2015).
Richardson, M., Cowtan, K. & Millar, R. J. Global temperature definition affects achievement of long-term climate goals. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 054004 (2018).
Schurer, A. et al. Estimating the transient climate response from observed warming. J. Clim. 31, 8645–8663 (2018).
Bindoff, N. L. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) Ch. 10 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
Schurer, A. P., Mann, M. E., Hawkins, E., Tett, S. F. B. & Hegerl, G. C. Importance of the pre-industrial baseline for likelihood of exceeding Paris goals. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 563–567 (2017).
IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (WMO, 2018).
Morice, C. P., Kennedy, J. J., Rayner, N. A. & Jones, P. D. Quantifying uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an ensemble of observational estimates: the HadCRUT4 data set. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD017187 (2012).
Eyring, V. et al. Overview of the coupled model intercomparison project phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 1937–1958 (2016).
O’Neill, B. C. et al. The scenario model intercomparison project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3461-2016 (2016).
Allen, M. R. et al. in Special Report on Global warming of 1.5°C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) Ch. 1 (WMO, 2018).
Rogelj, J., Forster, P. M., Kriegler, E., Smith, C. J. & Séférian, R. Estimating and tracking the remaining carbon budget for stringent climate targets. Nature 571, 335–342 (2019).
Morice, C. P. et al. An updated assessment of near-surface temperature change from 1850: The HadCRUT5 dataset. J. Geophys. Res. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD032361 (2020).
Lenssen, N. J. L. et al. Improvements in the GISTEMP uncertainty model. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 124, 6307–6326 (2019).
Huang, B. et al. Uncertainty estimates for sea surface temperature and land surface air temperature in NOAAGlobalTemp version 5. J. Clim. 33, 1351–1379 (2020).
Gillett, N. P. et al. The detection and attribution model intercomparison project (DAMIP v1.0) contribution to CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 3685–3697 (2016).
Ziehn, T. et al. The Australian Earth System Model: ACCESS-ESM1.5. J. South. Hemisph. Earth Syst. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1071/es19035 (2020).
Wu, T. et al. The Beijing Climate Center Climate System Model (BCC-CSM): the main progress from CMIP5 to CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1573-2019 (2019).
Swart, N. C. et al. The Canadian Earth System Model version 5 (CanESM5.0.3). Geosci. Model Dev. 12, 4823–4873 (2019).
Danabasoglu, G. et al. The Community Earth System Model version 2 (CESM2). J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001916 (2020).
Voldoire, A. et al. Evaluation of CMIP6 DECK experiments with CNRM-CM6-1. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001683 (2019).
Li, L. J. et al. The Flexible Global Ocean–Atmosphere–Land System Model grid‐point version 3 (FGOALS‐g3): description and evaluation. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS002012 (2020).
Dunne, J. P. et al. The GFDL Earth System Model version 4.1 (GFDL-ESM4.1): overall coupled model description and simulation characteristics. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS002015 (2020).
Kelley, M. et al. GISS-E2.1: configurations and climatology. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS002025 (2020).
Williams, K. D. et al. The Met Office Global Coupled Model 3.0 and 3.1 (GC3.0 and GC3.1) configurations. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017MS001115 (2018).
Boucher, O. et al. Presentation and evaluation of the IPSL-CM6A-LR climate model. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS002010 (2020).
Tatebe, H. et al. Description and basic evaluation of simulated mean state, internal variability, and climate sensitivity in MIROC6. Geosci. Model Dev. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2727-2019 (2019).
Yukimoto, S. et al. The Meteorological Research Institute Earth System Model version 2.0, MRI-ESM2.0: description and basic evaluation of the physical component. J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn 97, 931–965 (2019).
Seland, Ø. et al. Overview of the Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM2) and key climate response of CMIP6 DECK, historical, and scenario simulations. Geosci. Model Dev. 13, 6165–6200 (2020).
Ribes, A. & Terray, L. Application of regularised optimal fingerprinting to attribution. Part II: application to global near-surface temperature. Clim. Dyn. 41, 2837–2853 (2013).
Gillett, N. P., Arora, V. K., Matthews, D. & Allen, M. R. Constraining the ratio of global warming to cumulative CO2 emissions using CMIP5 simulations. J. Clim. 26, 6844–6858 (2013).
Jones, G. S., Stott, P. A. & Christidis, N. Attribution of observed historical near-surface temperature variations to anthropogenic and natural causes using CMIP5 simulations. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118, 4001–4024 (2013).
Ribes, A., Planton, S. & Terray, L. Application of regularised optimal fingerprinting to attribution. Part I: method, properties and idealised analysis. Clim. Dyn. 41, 2817–2836 (2013).
Shiogama, H. et al. Predicting future uncertainty constraints on global warming projections. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep18903 (2016).
Annan, J. D. & Hargreaves, J. C. Reliability of the CMIP3 ensemble. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL041994 (2010).
Haustein, K. et al. A real-time global warming index. Sci. Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-14828-5 (2017).
Zelinka, M. D. et al. Causes of higher climate sensitivity in CMIP6 models. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085782 (2020).
Tokarska, K. B. et al. Past warming trend constrains future warming in CMIP6 models. Sci. Adv. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz9549 (2020).
Liang, Y., Gillett, N. P. & Monahan, A. H. Climate model projections of 21st century global warming constrained using the observed warming trend. Geophys. Res. Let. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL086757 (2020).
Eyring, V. et al. ESMValTool (version 1.0)—a community diagnostic and performance metrics tool for routine evaluation of Earth system models in CMIP. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 1747–1802 (2016).
Kirchmeier-Young, M. C., Zwiers, F. W. & Gillett, N. P. Attribution of extreme events in Arctic sea ice extent. J. Clim. 30, 553–571 (2017).
Parsons, L. A., Brennan, M. K., Wills, R. C. J. & Proistosescu, C. Magnitudes and spatial patterns of interdecadal temperature variability in CMIP6. Geophys. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL086588 (2020).
We thank D. Stone, N. Bellouin, S. Ying, G. Schmidt and M. Winton for helpful comments on the analysis and manuscript, L. Bock for assistance with ESMValTool, and C. Morice and N. Rayner for provision of HadCRUT5 data. We acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme, which, through its Working Group on Coupled Modelling, coordinated and promoted CMIP6. We thank the modelling groups for producing and making available their model output and the Earth System Grid Federation for archiving the data and providing access. HS was supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Techology, Japan (grant JPMXD0717935457).
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information Nature Climate Change thanks the anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended Data Fig. 1 Global mean surface temperature (GMST) anomalies in all DAMIP historical simulations.
The multi-model mean and 5–95% ensemble ranges, based on all available simulations with equal weight given to each model, are shown. HadCRUT4 GMST is shown in black on the top graph.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Results of a regression in which observed changes are decomposed into the response to natural forcings, well-mixed greenhouse gases, and other anthropogenic forcings.
As Fig. 2, except that the right panels show the results of a three-way regression of observations onto the simulated response to natural forcings (NAT), well-mixed greenhouse gases only (GHG), and other anthropogenic forcings (OTH), consisting of aerosols, ozone and land-use change. In this figure ozone and land-use change are grouped with aerosols, instead of with well-mixed greenhouse gases, as in Fig. 2.
As Fig. 2, except using GISTEMP in place of HadCRUT4.
As Fig. 2, except using NOAAGlobalTemp in place of HadCRUT4.
As Fig. 2, except using 5-yr mean hemispheric means in place of 5-yr mean GMST in the regressions.
Extended Data Fig. 6 Regression coefficients derived using each of the 100 ensemble members of HadCRUT411.
Results are shown for two-way (a) and three-way (b) multi-model regression analyses, as shown in Fig. 2a,b, except using each of the 100 members of the HadCRUT4 ensemble dataset in turn.
Extended Data Fig. 7 The ratio of 2010–2019 warming relative to 1850–1900 in GSAT to HadCRUT4-masked GMST and globally-complete GMST.
The ratio of changes in GSAT to HadCRUT4-masked GMST is shown in (a), and the ratio of changes in GSAT to globally-complete GMST is shown in (b) for each individual historical-ssp245 simulation of each model.
As Fig. 2e,f, except that in each case uncertainties in attributable temperature change are calculated in two ways. Bars show confidence intervals calculated, as in the main analysis, accounting for uncertainty in the ensemble mean simulated 2010–2019 GSAT changes in the case of the individual model analyses, and accounting for uncertainties in the ratio of GSAT to GMST and observational uncertainty, in the case of the multi-model analysis. Horizontal ticks show confidence ranges neglecting these sources of uncertainty. The latter calculation corresponds to multiplying the 5–95% confidence range on the regression coefficient by the corresponding ensemble mean simulated 2010–2019 GSAT change.
About this article
Cite this article
Gillett, N.P., Kirchmeier-Young, M., Ribes, A. et al. Constraining human contributions to observed warming since the pre-industrial period. Nat. Clim. Chang. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00965-9