Energy budget constraints on climate sensitivity in light of inconstant climate feedbacks (original) (raw)

Abstract

Global energy budget constraints1,2,3 suggest an equilibrium climate sensitivity around 2 °C, which is lower than estimates from palaeoclimate reconstructions4, process-based observational analyses5,6,7, and global climate model simulations8,9. A key assumption is that the climate sensitivity inferred today also applies to the distant future. Yet, global climate models robustly show that feedbacks vary over time, with a strong tendency for climate sensitivity to increase as equilibrium is approached9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18. Here I consider the implications of inconstant climate feedbacks for energy budget constraints on climate sensitivity. I find that the long-term value of climate sensitivity is, on average, 26% above that inferred during transient warming within global climate models, with a larger discrepancy when climate sensitivity is high. Moreover, model values of climate sensitivity inferred during transient warming are found to be consistent with energy budget observations1,2,3, indicating that the models are not overly sensitive. Using model-based estimates of how climate feedbacks will change in the future, in conjunction with recent energy budget constraints1,19, produces a current best estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.9 °C (1.7–7.1 °C, 90% confidence). These findings suggest that climate sensitivity estimated from global energy budget constraints is in agreement with values derived from other methods and simulated by global climate models.

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

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

$29.99 / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 print issues and online access

$209.00 per year

only $17.42 per issue

Buy this article

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

Additional access options:

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Otto, A. et al. Energy budget constraints on climate response. Nat. Geosci. 6, 415–416 (2013).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  2. Lewis, N. & Curry, J. A. The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimates. Clim. Dynam. 45, 1009–1023 (2015).
    Article Google Scholar
  3. Kummer, J. R. & Dessler, A. E. The impact of forcing efficacy on the equilibrium climate sensitivity. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 3565–3568 (2014).
    Article Google Scholar
  4. Royer, D. L. Climate sensitivity in the geologic past. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 44, 277–293 (2016).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  5. Fasullo, J. T. & Trenberth, K. E. A less cloudy future: the role of subtropical subsidence in climate sensitivity. Science 338, 792–794 (2012).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  6. Sherwood, S. C., Bony, S. & Dufresne, J.-L. Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing. Nature 505, 37–42 (2014).
    Article Google Scholar
  7. Tan, I., Storelvmo, T. & Zelinka, M. D. Observational constraints on mixed-phase clouds imply higher climate sensitivity. Science 352, 224–227 (2016).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  8. 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. Atmos. 118, 1139–1150 (2013).
    Article Google Scholar
  9. Geoffroy, O. et al. Transient climate response in a two-layer energy-balance model. Part II: representation of the efficacy of deep-ocean heat uptake and validation for CMIP5 AOGCMs. J. Clim. 26, 1859–1876 (2013).
    Article Google Scholar
  10. Senior, C. A. & Mitchell, J. F. B. Time-dependence of climate sensitivity. Geophys. Res. Lett. 27, 2685–2688 (2000).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  11. Winton, M., Takahashi, K. & Held, I. M. Importance of ocean heat uptake efficacy to transient climate change. J. Clim. 23, 2333–2344 (2010).
    Article Google Scholar
  12. Armour, K. C., Bitz, C. M. & Roe, G. H. Time-varying climate sensitivity from regional feedbacks. J. Clim. 26, 4518–4534 (2013).
    Article Google Scholar
  13. Li, C., von Storch, J.-S. & Marotzke, J. Deep-ocean heat uptake and equilibrium climate response. Clim. Dynam. 40, 1071–1086 (2013).
    Article Google Scholar
  14. Rose, B. E. J. et al. The dependence of transient climate sensitivity and radiative feedbacks on the spatial pattern of ocean heat uptake. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 1071–1078 (2014).
    Article Google Scholar
  15. Andrews, T., Gregory, J. M. & Webb, M. J. The dependence of radiative forcing and feedback on evolving patterns of surface temperature change in climate models. J. Clim. 28, 1630–1648 (2015).
    Article Google Scholar
  16. Gregory, J. M. & Andrews, T. Variation in climate sensitivity and feedback parameters during the historical period. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 3911–3920 (2016).
    Article Google Scholar
  17. Knutti, R. & Rugenstein, M. A. A. Feedbacks, climate sensitivity and the limits of linear models. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 373, 20150146 (2015).
    Article Google Scholar
  18. Rugenstein, M. A. A., Caldiera, K. & Knutti, R. Dependence of global radiative feedbacks on evolving patterns of surface heat fluxes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 9877–9885 (2016).
    Article Google Scholar
  19. Richardson, M. et al. Reconciled climate response estimates from climate models and the energy budget of Earth. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 931–935 (2016).
    Article Google Scholar
  20. Knutti, R. & Hegerl, G. C. The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes. Nat. Geosci. 1, 735–743 (2008).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  21. Gregory, J. M. et al. An observationally based estimate of the climate sensitivity. J. Clim. 15, 3117–3121 (2002).
    Article Google Scholar
  22. Roe, G. H. & Armour, K. C. How sensitive is climate sensitivity? Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L14708 (2011).
    Article Google Scholar
  23. Forster, P. M. Inference of climate sensitivity from analysis of Earth’s energy budget. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 44, 85–106 (2016).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  24. IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).
  25. Armour, K. C. et al. Southern Ocean warming delayed by circumpolar upwelling and equatorward transport. Nat. Geosci. 9, 549–554 (2016).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  26. Zhou, C., Zelinka, M. D. & Klein, S. A. Impact of decadal cloud variations on the Earth’s energy budget. Nat. Geosci. 9, 871–874 (2016).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  27. Marvel, K. et al. Implications for climate sensitivity from the response to individual forcings. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 386–389 (2015).
    Article Google Scholar
  28. Held, I. M. et al. Probing the fast and slow components of global warming by returning abruptly to preindustrial forcing. J. Clim. 23, 2418–2427 (2010).
    Article Google Scholar
  29. Baker, M. B. & Roe, G. H. The shape of things to come: Why is climate change so predictable? J. Clim. 22, 4574–4589 (2009).
    Article Google Scholar
  30. Knutti, R. et al. Challenges in combining projections from multiple climate models. J. Clim. 23, 2739–2758 (2010).
    Article Google Scholar
  31. Andrews, T., Gregory, J. M., Webb, M. J. & Taylor, K. E. Forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivity in CMIP5 coupled atmosphere-ocean climate models. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L09712 (2012).
    Google Scholar
  32. Myhre, G. et al. New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases. Geophys. Res. Lett. 25, 2715–2718 (1998).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  33. Kostov, Y., Armour, K. C. & Marshall, J. Impact of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation on ocean heat storage and transient climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 2108–2116 (2014).
    Article Google Scholar
  34. Meinshausen, M. et al. The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extension from 1765 to 2300. Climatic Change 109, 213–241 (2011).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Annan, J. D. & Hargreaves, J. C. On the generation and interpretation of probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity. Climatic Change 104, 423–436 (2011).
    Article Google Scholar
  37. Lewis, N. An objective Bayesian improved approach for applying optimal fingerprint techniques to estimate climate sensitivity. J. Clim. 26, 7414–7429 (2013).
    Article Google Scholar
  38. Annan, J. D. Recent developments in Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity. Curr. Clim. Change Rep. 1, 263–267 (2015).
    Article Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author thanks T. Andrews, J. Bloch-Johnson, A. Donohoe, P. Forster, R. Knutti, C. Proistosescu, G. Roe and M. Rugenstein for enlightening discussions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Oceanography and Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA
    Kyle C. Armour

Authors

  1. Kyle C. Armour
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence toKyle C. Armour.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Armour, K. Energy budget constraints on climate sensitivity in light of inconstant climate feedbacks.Nature Clim Change 7, 331–335 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3278

Download citation