Search for: All records

The transient climate response (TCR), defined to be the warming in near‐surface air temperature after 70 years of a 1% per year increase in CO₂, can be estimated from observed warming over the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Such analyses yield lower values than TCR estimated from global climate models (GCMs). This disagreement has been used to suggest that GCMs' climate may be too sensitive to increases in CO₂. Here we critically evaluate the methodology of the comparison using a large ensemble of a fully coupled GCM simulating the historical period, 1850–2005. We find that TCR estimated from model simulations of the historical period can be much lower than the model's true TCR, replicating the disagreement seen between observations and GCM estimates of TCR. This suggests that the disagreement could be explained entirely by the methodology of the comparison and undercuts the suggestions that GCMs overestimate TCR.

This study investigates potential biases between equilibrium climate sensitivity inferred from warming over the historical period (ECS_hist) and the climate system’s true ECS (ECS_true). This paper focuses on two factors that could contribute to differences between these quantities. First is the impact of internal variability over the historical period: our historical climate record is just one of an infinity of possible trajectories, and these different trajectories can generate ECS_histvalues 0.3 K below to 0.5 K above (5%–95% confidence interval) the average ECS_hist. Because this spread is due to unforced variability, I refer to this as the unforced pattern effect. This unforced pattern effect in the model analyzed here is traced to unforced variability in loss of sea ice, which affects the albedo feedback, and to unforced variability in warming of the troposphere, which affects the shortwave cloud feedback. There is also a forced pattern effect that causes ECS_histto depart from ECS_truedue to differences between today’s transient pattern of warming and the pattern of warming at 2×CO₂equilibrium. Changes in the pattern of warming lead to a strengthening low-cloud feedback as equilibrium is approached in regions where surface warming is delayed: the Southern Ocean, eastern Pacific, and North Atlantic near Greenland. This forced pattern effect causes ECS_histto be on average 0.2 K lower than ECS_true(~8%). The net effect of these two pattern effects together can produce an estimate of ECS_histas much as 0.5 K below ECS_true.

Abstract. Our climate is constrained by the balance between solar energy absorbed by the Earth and terrestrial energy radiated tospace. This energy balance has been widely used to infer equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from observations of20th-century warming. Such estimates yield lower values than other methods, and these have been influential in pushing downthe consensus ECS range in recent assessments. Here we test the method using a 100-member ensemble of the Max Planck Institute Earth System Model(MPI-ESM1.1) simulations of the period 1850–2005 with known forcing. We calculate ECS in each ensemble member usingenergy balance, yielding values ranging from 2.1 to 3.9K. The spread in the ensemble is related to the centralassumption in the energy budget framework: that global average surface temperature anomalies are indicative of anomaliesin outgoing energy (either of terrestrial origin or reflected solar energy). We find thatthis assumption is not well supportedover the historical temperature record in the model ensemble or more recent satellite observations. We find that framingenergy balance in terms of 500hPa tropical temperature better describes the planet's energy balance.