Advertisement

Climate Dynamics

, Volume 46, Issue 5–6, pp 1387–1396 | Cite as

Implications of recent multimodel attribution studies for climate sensitivity

  • Nicholas LewisEmail author
Article

Abstract

Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is inferred from estimates of instrumental-period warming attributable solely to greenhouse gases (AW), as derived in two recent multi-model detection and attribution (D&A) studies that apply optimal fingerprint methods with high spatial resolution to 3D global climate model simulations. This approach minimises the key uncertainty regarding aerosol forcing without relying on low-dimensional models. The “observed” AW distributions from the D&A studies together with an observationally-based estimate of effective planetary heat capacity (EHC) are applied as observational constraints in (AW, EHC) space. By varying two key parameters—ECS and effective ocean diffusivity—in an energy balance model forced solely by greenhouse gases, an invertible map from the bivariate model parameter space to (AW, EHC) space is generated. Inversion of the constrained (AW, EHC) space through a transformation of variables allows unique recovery of the observationally-constrained joint distribution for the two model parameters, from which the marginal distribution of ECS can readily be derived. The method is extended to provide estimated distributions for transient climate response (TCR). The AW distributions from the two D&A studies produce almost identical results. Combining the two sets of results provides best estimates (5–95 % ranges) of 1.66 (0.7–3.2) K for ECS and 1.37 (0.65–2.2) K for TCR, in line with those from several recent studies based on observed warming from all causes but with tighter uncertainty ranges than for some of those studies. Almost identical results are obtained from application of an alternative profile likelihood statistical methodology.

Keywords

Climate sensitivity Transient climate response Effective ocean diffusivity attributable warming AR5 Profile likelihood 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank Gregory Johnson for supplying the data underlying Box 3.1, Fig. 1 of AR5, Gareth Jones for supplying numerical results and other information relating to Jones et al. (2013), and Judith Curry, Jonathan Jones and Paul Kirwan and two reviewers for helpful comments that significantly improved the manuscript.

Supplementary material

382_2015_2653_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (276 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 276 kb)

References

  1. Aldrin M, Holden M, Guttorp P, Skeie RB, Myhre G, Berntsen TK (2012) Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations of hemispheric temperatures and global ocean heat content. Environmetrics 23:253–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen MR, Tett SFB (1999) Checking for model consistency in optimal fingerprinting. Clim Dyn 15:419–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen MR, Frame DJ, Huntingford C, Jones CD, Lowe JA, Meinshausen M, Meinshausen N (2009) Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne. Nature 458:1163–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrews DG, Allen MR (2008) Diagnosis of climate models in terms of transient climate response and feedback response time. Atmos Sci Lett 9:7–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andrews T, Gregory JM, Webb MJ (2014) The dependence of radiative forcing and feedback on evolving patterns of surface temperature change in climate models. J Clim 28:1630–1648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Armour KC, Bitz CM, Roe GR (2013) Time-varying climate sensitivity from regional feedbacks. J Clim 26:4518–4534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bindoff NL, Stott PA et al (2014) Detection and attribution of climate change: from global to regional. Climate change 2013: the physical science basis contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Collins M, Knutti R et al (2014) Long-term climate change: projections, commitments and irreversibility. Climate change 2013: the physical science basis contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  9. Enfield DB, Mestas-Nunez AM, Trimble PJ (2001) The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and its relationship to rainfall and river flows in the continental US. Geophys Res Lett 28:2077–2080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Forster PM de F, Taylor KE (2006) Climate forcings and climate sensitivities diagnosed from coupled climate model integrations. J Clim 19:6181–6194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frame DJ, Booth BBB, Kettleborough JA, Stainforth DA, Gregory JM, Collins M, Allen MR (2005) Constraining climate forecasts: the role of prior assumptions. Geophys Res Lett 32:L09702. doi: 10.1029/2004GL022241 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frame DJ, Stone DA, Stott PA, Allen MR (2006) Alternatives to stabilization scenarios. Geophys Res Lett 33:L14707. doi: 10.1029/2006GL025801 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gillett NP, Wehner MF, Tett SFB, Weaver AJ (2004) Testing the linearity of the response to combined greenhouse gas and sulfate aerosol forcing. Geophys Res Lett 31, 14, L14201:1–4. doi: 10.1029/2004GL020111
  14. Gillett NP, Arora VK, Flato GM, Scinocca JF, von Salzen K (2012) Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations. Geophys Res Lett 39:L01704. doi: 10.1029/2011GL050226 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gillett NP, Arora VK, Matthews D, Stott PA, Allen MR (2013) Constraining the ratio of global warming to cumulative CO2 emissions using CMIP5 simulations. J Clim. doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00476.1 Google Scholar
  16. Gordon C, Cooper C, Senior CA, Banks H, Gregory JM, Johns TC, Mitchell JFB, Wood RA (2000) The simulation of SST, sea ice extents and ocean heat transports in a version of the Hadley Centre coupled model without flux adjustments. Clim Dyn 16:147–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gregory JM, Forster PM (2008) Transient climate response estimated from radiative forcing and observed temperature change. J Geophys Res 113:D23105. doi: 10.1029/2008/JD010405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harris GR, Sexton DMH, Booth BBB, Collins M, Murphy JM (2013) Probabilistic projections of transient climate change. Clim Dyn 40:2937–2972. doi: 10.1007/s00382-012-1647-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hasselmann K (1997) Multi-pattern fingerprint method for detection and attribution of climate change. Clim Dyn 13:601–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hegerl G, Zwiers F (2011) Use of models in detection and attribution of climate change. WIREs Clim Change 2:570–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hegerl GC, von Storch S, Hasselmann K, Santer BD, Cubasch U, Jones PD (1996) Detecting greenhouse gas induced climate change with an optimal fingerprint method. J Clim 9:2281–2306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huang Y, Zhang M (2014) The implication of radiative forcing and feedback for meridional energy transport. Geophys Res Lett 41:1665–1672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Imbers J, Lopez A, Huntingford C, Allen M (2014) Sensitivity of climate change detection and attribution to the characterization of internal climate variability. J Clim 27:3477–3491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jones GS, Stott PA, Christidis N (2013) Attribution of observed historical near surface temperature variations to anthropogenic and natural causes using CMIP5 simulations. J Geophys Res Atmos. doi: 10.1002/jgrd.50239 Google Scholar
  25. Levitus S et al (2012) World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0–2000 m) 1955–2010. Geophys Res Lett 39:L10603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lewis N (2013) An objective Bayesian improved approach for applying optimal fingerprint techniques to estimate climate sensitivity. J Clim 26:7414–7429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lewis N (2014) Objective inference for climate parameters: Bayesian, transformation-of-variables, and profile likelihood approaches. J Clim 27:7270–7284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lewis N, Curry JA (2014) The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimates. Clim. Dyn. DOI  10.1007/s00382-014-2342-y
  29. Libardoni AG, Forest CE (2011) Sensitivity of distributions of climate system properties to the surface temperature dataset. Geophys Res Lett 38:L22705. doi: 10.1029/2011GL049431 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lyman JM, Johnson GC (2014) Estimating global ocean heat content changes in the upper 1800 m since 1950 and the influence of climatology choice. J Clim 27:1945–1957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mardia KV, Kent JT, Bibby JM (1979) Multivariate analysis. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Masters T (2014) Observational estimate of climate sensitivity from changes in the rate of ocean heat uptake and comparison to CMIP5 models. Clim Dyn 42:2173–2181. doi: 10.1007/s00382-013-1770-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Morice CP, Kennedy JJ, Rayner NA, Jones PD (2012) Quantifying uncertainties in global and regional temperature change using an ensemble of observational estimates: the HadCRUT4 data set. J Geophys Res 117:D08101. doi: 10.1029/2011JD017187 Google Scholar
  34. Myhre G, Shindell D et al (2014) Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. Climate change 2013: the physical science basis contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  35. Otto A, Otto FEL, Boucher O, Church J, Hegerl G, Forster PM, Gillett NP, Gregory J, Johnson GC, Knutti R, Lewis N, Lohmann U, Marotzke J, Myhre G, Shindell D, Stevens B, Allen MR (2013) Energy budget constraints on climate response. Nat Geosci 6:415–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pawitan Y (2001) In all likelihood: statistical modeling and inference using likelihood, Chap 3.4. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  37. Prather M, Flato G, Friedlingstein P, Jones C, Lamarque J-F, Liao H, Rasch P (eds) (2014) Annex II: climate system scenario tables. Climate change 2013: the physical science basis contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  38. Rhein M, Rintoul SR et al (2014) Observations: ocean. Climate change 2013: the physical science basis contribution of working group I to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  39. Ribes A, Terray L (2013) Application of regularised optimal fingerprinting to attribution. Part II: application to global near-surface temperature. Clim Dyn 41:2837–2853. doi: 10.1007/s00382-013-1736-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ring MJ, Lindner D, Cross EF, Schlesinger ME (2012) Causes of the global warming observed since the 19th century. Atmos Clim Sci 2:401–415Google Scholar
  41. Rose BEJ, Armour KC, Battisti DS, Feldl N, Koll DDB (2014) The dependence of transient climate sensitivity and radiative feedbacks on the spatial pattern of ocean heat uptake. Geophys Res Lett 41:1071–1078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schwartz SE (2012) Determination of Earth’s transient and equilibrium climate sensitivities from observations over the twentieth century: strong dependence on assumed forcing. Surv Geophys 33(3-4):745–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shindell DT (2014) Inhomogeneous forcing and transient climate sensitivity. Nat Clim Change. doi: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2136 Google Scholar
  44. Skeie RB, Berntsen T, Aldrin M, Holden M, Myhre G (2014) A lower and more constrained estimate of climate sensitivity using updated observations and detailed radiative forcing time series. Earth Syst Dyn 5:139–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sokolov AP, Forest CE, Stone PH (2003) Comparing oceanic heat uptake in AOGCM transient climate change experiments. J Clim 16:1573–1582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA (2012) An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93:485–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zelinka MD, Hartmann DL (2012) Climate feedbacks and their implications for poleward energy flux changes in a warming climate. J Clim 25:608–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BathUK

Personalised recommendations