The impact of forcing efficacy on the equilibrium climate sensitivity
Abstract
Estimates of the Earth's equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from twentieth century observations predict a lower ECS than estimates from climate models, paleoclimate data, and interannual variability. Here we show that estimates of ECS from the twentieth century observations are sensitive to the assumed efficacy of aerosol and ozone forcing (efficacy for a forcer is the amount of warming per unit global average forcing divided by the warming per unit forcing from CO2). Previous estimates of ECS based on the twentieth century observations have assumed that the efficacy is unity, which in our study yields an ECS of 2.3 K (5%–95% confidence range of 1.6–4.1 K), near the bottom of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's likely range of 1.5–4.5 K. Increasing the aerosol and ozone efficacy to 1.33 increases the ECS to 3.0 K (1.9–6.8 K), a value in excellent agreement with other estimates. Forcing efficacy therefore provides a way to bridge the gap between the different estimates of ECS.
Number of times cited: 13
- Cristian Proistosescu and Peter J. Huybers, Slow climate mode reconciles historical and model-based estimates of climate sensitivity, Science Advances, 10.1126/sciadv.1602821, 3, 7, (e1602821), (2017).
- KEVIN DAYARATNA, ROSS McKITRICK and DAVID KREUTZER, EMPIRICALLY CONSTRAINED CLIMATE SENSITIVITY AND THE SOCIAL COST OF CARBON, Climate Change Economics, 08, 02, (1750006)
- J. M. Gregory and T. Andrews, Variation in climate sensitivity and feedback parameters during the historical period, Geophysical Research Letters, 43, 8, (3911-3920), (2016).
- Piers M. Forster, Inference of Climate Sensitivity from Analysis of Earth's Energy Budget, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 10.1146/annurev-earth-060614-105156, 44, 1, (85-106), (2016).
- Masakazu Yoshimori, Masahiro Watanabe, Hideo Shiogama, Akira Oka, Ayako Abe-Ouchi, Rumi Ohgaito and Youichi Kamae, A review of progress towards understanding the transient global mean surface temperature response to radiative perturbation, Progress in Earth and Planetary Science, 10.1186/s40645-016-0096-3, 3, 1, (2016).
- D. Paynter and T. L. Frölicher, Sensitivity of radiative forcing, ocean heat uptake, and climate feedback to changes in anthropogenic greenhouse gases and aerosols, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 120, 19, (9837-9854), (2015).
- Richard J. Millar, Alexander Otto, Piers M. Forster, Jason A. Lowe, William J. Ingram and Myles R. Allen, Model structure in observational constraints on transient climate response, Climatic Change, 10.1007/s10584-015-1384-4, 131, 2, (199-211), (2015).
- Kyle C. Armour, Energy budget constraints on climate sensitivity in light of inconstant climate feedbacks, Nature Climate Change, 10.1038/nclimate3278, 7, 5, (331-335), (2017)., (2017).
- Richard J. Millar, Jan S. Fuglestvedt, Pierre Friedlingstein, Joeri Rogelj, Michael J. Grubb, H. Damon Matthews, Ragnhild B. Skeie, Piers M. Forster, David J. Frame and Myles R. Allen, Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 °C, Nature Geoscience, 10.1038/ngeo3031, 10, 10, (741-747), (2017)., (2017).
- Mark Richardson, Kevin Cowtan, Ed Hawkins and Martin B. Stolpe, Reconciled climate response estimates from climate models and the energy budget of Earth, Nature Climate Change, 10.1038/nclimate3066, 6, 10, (931-935), (2016)., (2016).
- Kate Marvel, Gavin A. Schmidt, Ron L. Miller and Larissa S. Nazarenko, Implications for climate sensitivity from the response to individual forcings, Nature Climate Change, 10.1038/nclimate2888, 6, 4, (386-389), (2015)., (2015).
- Reto Knutti, Maria A. A. Rugenstein and Gabriele C. Hegerl, Beyond equilibrium climate sensitivity, Nature Geoscience, 10.1038/ngeo3017, 10, 10, (727-736), (2017).
- Iselin Medhaug, Martin B. Stolpe, Erich M. Fischer and Reto Knutti, Reconciling controversies about the ‘global warming hiatus’, Nature, 10.1038/nature22315, 545, 7652, (41-47), (2017).
