Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Reconciled climate response estimates from climate models and the energy budget of Earth

Abstract

Climate risks increase with mean global temperature1, so knowledge about the amount of future global warming should better inform risk assessments for policymakers. Expected near-term warming is encapsulated by the transient climate response (TCR), formally defined as the warming following 70 years of 1% per year increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration, by which point atmospheric CO2 has doubled. Studies based on Earth’s historical energy budget have typically estimated lower values of TCR than climate models, suggesting that some models could overestimate future warming2. However, energy-budget estimates rely on historical temperature records that are geographically incomplete and blend air temperatures over land and sea ice with water temperatures over open oceans. We show that there is no evidence that climate models overestimate TCR when their output is processed in the same way as the HadCRUT4 observation-based temperature record3,4. Models suggest that air-temperature warming is 24% greater than observed by HadCRUT4 over 1861–2009 because slower-warming regions are preferentially sampled and water warms less than air5. Correcting for these biases and accounting for wider uncertainties in radiative forcing based on recent evidence, we infer an observation-based best estimate for TCR of 1.66 °C, with a 5–95% range of 1.0–3.3 °C, consistent with the climate models considered in the IPCC 5th Assessment Report.

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

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

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

Figure 1: Median CMIP5-simulated temperature series from the temperature reconstruction method compared with the HadCRUT4 observational series.
Figure 2: Histograms of TCR calculated for CMIP5 simulations with the observation-based HadCRUT4-derived value also shown as a vertical line.
Figure 3: Energy budget estimates of TCR using the Otto et al.2 energy-budget calculation applied to historical-RCP8.5 simulations.
Figure 4: Comparison of modelled and observed TCR estimated from Earth’s historical energy budget.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. IPCC Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (eds Field, C. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015); https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-FrontMatterA_FINAL.pdf

  2. Otto, A. et al. Energy budget constraints on climate response. Nature Geosci. 6, 415–416 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. 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. 117, D08101 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cowtan, K. et al. Robust comparison of climate models with observations using blended land air and ocean sea surface temperatures. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 6526–6534 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Richter, I. & Xie, S.-P. Muted precipitation increase in global warming simulations: a surface evaporation perspective. J. Geophys. Res. 113, D24118 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J. & Meehl, G. A. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 485–498 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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 

  8. 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 

  9. Bengtsson, L. & Schwartz, S. E. Determination of a lower bound on Earth’s climate sensitivity. Tellus B 65, 21533 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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 

  11. Cowtan, K. & Way, R. G. Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 140, 1935–1944 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hansen, J. Efficacy of climate forcings. J. Geophys. Res. 110, D18104 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Shindell, D. & Faluvegi, G. Climate response to regional radiative forcing during the twentieth century. Nature Geosci. 2, 294–300 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Shindell, D. et al. Spatial scales of climate response to inhomogeneous radiative forcing. J. Geophys. Res. 115, D19110 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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 

  16. Marvel, K., Schmidt, G. A., Miller, R. L. & Nazarenko, L. S. Implications for climate sensitivity from the response to individual forcings. Nature Clim. Change 6, 386–389 (2015).

    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. Huber, M., Beyerle, U. & Knutti, R. Estimating climate sensitivity and future temperature in the presence of natural climate variability. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 2086–2092 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Schmidt, G. A., Shindell, D. T. & Tsigaridis, K. Reconciling warming trends. Nature Geosci. 7, 158–160 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Rose, B. E. J., Armour, K. C., Battisti, D. S., Feldl, N. & Koll, D. D. B. 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 

  21. 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 

  22. 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 

  23. Ramanathan, V. The role of ocean-atmosphere interactions in the CO2 climate problem. J. Atmos. Sci. 38, 918–930 (1981).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Santer, B. D. et al. Interpreting differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. Science 287, 1227–1232 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Riahi, K. et al. RCP 8.5—a scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions. Climatic Change 109, 33–57 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. 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. 118, 4001–4024 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Goody, R. & Yung, Y. L. Atmospheric Radiation Theoretical Basics 388–425 (Oxford Univ. Press, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  28. DeAngelis, A. M., Qu, X., Zelinka, M. D. & Hall, A. An observational radiative constraint on hydrologic cycle intensification. Nature 528, 249–253 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Thorne, P. W. et al. Guiding the creation of a comprehensive surface temperature resource for twenty-first-century climate science. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 92, ES40–ES47 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  30. The Copenhagen Accord FCCC/CP/2009/11/Add.1 (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2009).

Download references

Acknowledgements

M.R. is funded by the Cloudsat and OCO-2 projects. The research described in this paper was performed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, sponsored by NASA. E.H. is funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council and the National Centre for Atmospheric Science. We thank Piers Forster for providing support regarding CMIP5 radiative forcing time series and R. Knutti, P. Jacobs and P. Kalmus for substantial helpful comments. M.R. thanks G. Stephens for advisory support and helpful scientific discussions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

M.R. performed the main analysis, produced the figures and drafted the article. K.C. provided code for temperature reconstruction methods and performed sensitivity tests. E.H. provided input on experimental design and helped write the article, M.B.S. provided input on experimental design, helped write the article and performed sensitivity tests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark Richardson.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information (PDF 2530 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Richardson, M., Cowtan, K., Hawkins, E. et al. Reconciled climate response estimates from climate models and the energy budget of Earth. Nature Clim Change 6, 931–935 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3066

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3066

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing