The question you want to know the answer to is, what is
the equilibrium sensitivity of the model?
The question you want to know the answer to is, what is
the equilibrium sensitivity of the planet?
An equilibrium sensitivity of 6 C per doubling is suggested there and this feedback would be only part of that slow response.
Knutti and Hegerl in the November, 2008 Natural Geoscience paper,
The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth's temperature to radiation changes, says various observations favor a climate sensitivity value of about 3 degrees C, with a likely range of about 2 — 4.5 degrees C per the following graphic whereas the current IPCC uncertainty is range is between 1.5 - 4.5 degrees C.
The first attempt at a consensus estimate of
the equilibrium sensitivity of climate to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations appeared in 1979, in the U.S. National Research Council report of J.G. Charney and associates.
With
an equilibrium sensitivity of about 0.8 degrees per W / m ^ 2, that's an increase of 0.78 degrees, or 0.195 C / decade
By focusing soley on the equilibrium climate sensitivity, the authors do miss a lot of features important to people about the overall climate system — for example, what's
the equilibrium sensitivity of the carbon cycle to the temperature change brought about by 2X CO2?
The current crop of models studied by the IPCC range from
an equilibrium sensitivity of about 1.5 °C at the low end to about 5 °C at the high end.
We show elsewhere (8) that a forcing of 1.08 W / m2 yields a warming of 3/4 °C by 2050 in transient climate simulations with a model having
equilibrium sensitivity of 3/4 °C per W / m2.
The current crop of models studied by the IPCC range from
an equilibrium sensitivity of about 1.5 °C at the low end to about 5 °C at the high end.
We show elsewhere (8) that a forcing of 1.08 W / m2 yields a warming of 3/4 °C by 2050 in transient climate simulations with a model having
equilibrium sensitivity of 3/4 °C per W / m2.
Not exact matches
A leaked draft copy
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fifth assessment report (AR5) surfaced earlier this summer and triggered a small tempest among climate bloggers, scientists and skeptics over revelations that a key metric, called the «
Equilibrium Climate
Sensitivity» (ECS), had been revised downward.
Specifically, the draft report says that «
equilibrium climate
sensitivity» (ECS)-- eventual warming induced by a doubling
of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which takes hundreds
of years to occur — is «extremely likely» to be above 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), «likely» to be above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) and «very likely» to be below 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 Fahrenheit).
The «
equilibrium»
sensitivity of the global surface temperature to solar irradiance variations, which is calculated simply by dividing the absolute temperature on the earth's surface (288K) by the solar constant (1365Wm - 2), is based on the assumption that the climate response is linear in the whole temperature band starting at the zero point.
Where (
equilibrium / effective) climate
sensitivity (S) is the only parameter being estimated, and the estimation method works directly from the observed variables (e.g., by regression, as in Forster and Gregory, 2006, or mean estimation, as in Gregory et al, 2002) over the instrumental period, then the JP for S will be almost
of the form 1 / S ^ 2.
We have often made the case here that
equilibrium climate
sensitivity is most likely to be around 0.75 + / - 0.25 C / (W / m2)(corresponding to about a 3 °C rise for a doubling
of CO2).
The happy band
of denialists (presumably the gang
of nine who advise Judge Alsup with their nonsense) have been «quietly but very busily investigating how much global warming we may cause, known as the «
equilibrium -
sensitivity» question.»
One common measure
of climate
sensitivity is the amount by which global mean surface temperature would change once the system has settled into a new
equilibrium following a doubling
of the pre-industrial CO2 concentration.
Climate
sensitivity is a measure
of the
equilibrium global surface air temperature change for a particular forcing.
Beyond
equilibrium climate
sensitivity -LSB-...] Newer metrics relating global warming directly to the total emitted CO2 show that in order to keep warming to within 2 °C, future CO2 emissions have to remain strongly limited, irrespective
of climate
sensitivity being at the high or low end.»
From the article: «The most likely value
of equilibrium climate
sensitivity based on the energy budget
of the most recent decade is 2.0 °C, with a 5 — 95 % confidence interval
of 1.2 — 3.9 °C»
Forecast temperature trends for time scales
of a few decades or less are not very sensitive to the model's
equilibrium climate
sensitivity (reference provided).
The real «
equilibrium climate
sensitivity,» which is the amount
of global warming to be expected for a doubling
of atmospheric CO2, is likely to be about 1 °C, some three times smaller than most models assumed.
The clearest indicator
of those differences is the ratio between transient and
equilibrium sensitivity.
Here's an interesting paper that is referenced in some
of the listed publications: Meraner et al. 2013, Robust increase in
equilibrium climate
sensitivity under global warming, GRL https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01099395/document
There have been quite a number
of papers published in recent years concerning «emergent constraints» on
equilibrium climate
sensitivity (ECS) in comprehensive global climate models (GCMs),
of both the current (CMIP5) and previous (CMIP3) generations.
It is worth adding though, that temperature trends over the next few decades are more likely to be correlated to the TCR, rather than the
equilibrium sensitivity, so if one is interested in the near - term implications
of this debate, the constraints on TCR are going to be more important.
Chris Colose @ 39 — Thanks as always, but I am baffled by your The larger thermal inertia
of the ocean is important, but the higher
sensitivity over land than in the ocean is also seen in
equilibrium simulations when the ocean has had time to «catch up,» so that argument doesn't hold as
equilibrium is approached.
In Part 1
of this article the nature and validity
of emergent constraints [1] on
equilibrium climate
sensitivity (ECS) in GCMs were discussed, drawing mainly on the analysis and assessment
of 19 such constraints in Caldwell et al. (2018), [2] who concluded that only four
of them were credible.
Charney (
equilibrium) climate
sensitivity is a (partial) indication
of the system repsonse to instantly doubling CO2.
In Part 1
of this article the nature and validity
of emergent constraints [i] on
equilibrium climate
sensitivity (ECS) in GCMs were discussed, drawing mainly on the analysis and assessment
of 19 such constraints in Caldwell et al (2018; henceforth Caldwell), [ii] who concluded that only four
of them were credible.
They conclude, based on study
of CMIP5 model output, that
equilibrium climate
sensitivity (ECS) is not a fixed quantity — as temperatures increase, the response is nonlinear, with a smaller effective ECS in the first decades
of the experiments, increasing over time.
What is the reason for the changed lower end
of the climate
equilibrium sensitivity likely interval since the last IPCC report, 1.5 - 4.5 K vs 2.0 - 4.5 K?
Inverse estimates
of aerosol forcing from detection and attribution studies and studies estimating
equilibrium climate
sensitivity (see Section 9.6 and Table 9.3 for details on studies).
First let's define the «
equilibrium climate
sensitivity» as the «
equilibrium change in global mean surface temperature following a doubling
of the atmospheric (equivalent) CO2 concentration.
ACT - activated clotting time (bleeding disorders) ACTH - adrenocorticotropic hormone (adrenal gland function) Ag - antigen test for proteins specific to a disease causing organism or virus Alb - albumin (liver, kidney and intestinal disorders) Alk - Phos, ALP alkaline phosphatase (liver and adrenal disorders) Allergy Testing intradermal or blood antibody test for allergen hypersensitivity ALT - alanine aminotransferase (liver disorder) Amyl - amylase enzyme — non specific (pancreatitis) ANA - antinuclear antibody (systemic lupus erythematosus) Anaplasmosis Anaplasma spp. (tick - borne rickettsial disease) APTT - activated partial thromboplastin time (blood clotting ability) AST - aspartate aminotransferase (muscle and liver disorders) Band band cell — type
of white blood cell Baso basophil — type
of white blood cell Bile Acids digestive acids produced in the liver and stored in the gall bladder (liver function) Bili bilirubin (bile pigment responsible for jaundice from liver disease or RBC destruction) BP - blood pressure measurement BUN - blood urea nitrogen (kidney and liver function) Bx biopsy C & S aerobic / anaerobic bacterial culture and antibiotic
sensitivity test (infection, drug selection) Ca +2 calcium ion — unbound calcium (parathyroid gland function) CBC - complete blood count (all circulating cells) Chol cholesterol (liver, thyroid disorders) CK, CPK creatine [phospho] kinase (muscle disease, heart disease) Cl - chloride ion — unbound chloride (hydration, blood pH) CO2 - carbon dioxide (blood pH) Contrast Radiograph x-ray image using injected radiopaque contrast media Cortisol hormone produced by the adrenal glands (adrenal gland function) Coomb's anti- red blood cell antibody test (immune - mediated hemolytic anemia) Crea creatinine (kidney function) CRT - capillary refill time (blood pressure, tissue perfusion) DTM - dermatophyte test medium (ringworm — dermatophytosis) EEG - electroencephalogram (brain function, epilepsy) Ehrlichia Ehrlichia spp. (tick - borne rickettsial disease) EKG, ECG - electrok [c] ardiogram (electrical heart activity, heart arryhthmia) Eos eosinophil — type
of white blood cell Fecal, flotation, direct intestinal parasite exam FeLV Feline Leukemia Virus test FIA Feline Infectious Anemia: aka Feline Hemotrophic Mycoplasma, Haemobartonella felis test FIV Feline Immunodeficiency Virus test Fluorescein Stain fluorescein stain uptake
of cornea (corneal ulceration) fT4, fT4ed, freeT4ed thyroxine hormone unbound by protein measured by
equilibrium dialysis (thyroid function) GGT gamma - glutamyltranferase (liver disorders) Glob globulin (liver, immune system) Glu blood or urine glucose (diabetes mellitus) Gran granulocytes — subgroup
of white blood cells Hb, Hgb hemoglobin — iron rich protein bound to red blood cells that carries oxygen (anemia, red cell mass) HCO3 - bicarbonate ion (blood pH) HCT, PCV, MHCT hematocrit, packed - cell volume, microhematocrit (hemoconcentration, dehydration, anemia) K + potassium ion — unbound potassium (kidney disorders, adrenal gland disorders) Lipa lipase enzyme — non specific (pancreatitis) LYME Borrelia spp. (tick - borne rickettsial disease) Lymph lymphocyte — type
of white blood cell MCHC mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (anemia, iron deficiency) MCV mean corpuscular volume — average red cell size (anemia, iron deficiency) Mg +2 magnesium ion — unbound magnesium (diabetes, parathyroid function, malnutrition) MHCT, HCT, PCV microhematocrit, hematocrit, packed - cell volume (hemoconcentration, dehydration, anemia) MIC minimum inhibitory concentration — part
of the C&S that determines antimicrobial selection Mono monocyte — type
of white blood cell MRI magnetic resonance imaging (advanced tissue imaging) Na + sodium ion — unbound sodium (dehydration, adrenal gland disease) nRBC nucleated red blood cell — immature red blood cell (bone marrow damage, lead toxicity) PCV, HCT, MHCT packed - cell volume, hematocrit, microhematocrit (hemoconcentration, dehydration, anemia) PE physical examination pH urine pH (urinary tract infection, urolithiasis) Phos phosphorus (kidney disorders, ketoacidosis, parathyroid function) PLI pancreatic lipase immunoreactivity (pancreatitis) PLT platelet — cells involved in clotting (bleeding disorders) PT prothrombin time (bleeding disorders) PTH parathyroid hormone, parathormone (parathyroid function) Radiograph x-ray image RBC red blood cell count (anemia) REL Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever / Ehrlichia / Lyme combination test Retic reticulocyte — immature red blood cell (regenerative vs. non-regenerative anemia) RMSF Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever SAP serum alkaline phosphatase (liver disorders) Schirmer Tear Test tear production test (keratoconjunctivitis sicca — dry eye,) Seg segmented neutrophil — type
of white blood cell USG Urine specific gravity (urine concentration, kidney function) spec cPL specific canine pancreatic lipase (pancreatitis)-- replaces the PLI test spec fPL specific feline pancreatic lipase (pancreatitis)-- replaces the PLI test T4 thyroxine hormone — total (thyroid gland function) TLI trypsin - like immunoreactivity (exocrine pancreatic insufficiency) TP total protein (hydration, liver disorders) TPR temperature / pulse / respirations (physical exam vital signs) Trig triglycerides (fat metabolism, liver disorders) TSH thyroid stimulating hormone (thyroid gland function) UA urinalysis (kidney function, urinary tract infection, diabetes) Urine Cortisol - Crea Ratio urine cortisol - creatine ratio (screening test for adrenal gland disease) Urine Protein - Crea Ratio urine protein - creatinine ratio (kidney disorders) VWF VonWillebrands factor (bleeding disorder) WBC white blood cell count (infection, inflammation, bone marrow suppression)
Using the middle
of the range
of climate
sensitivities of 3 oC
of warming at
equilibrium per doubling
of [CO2], a rise
of [CO2] from 280 - 310 ppm should give 0.44 oC at
equilibrium.
ignoring the energy cost
of water and latent heat transport [in the hydrologic cycle] leads to
equilibrium calculations overestimating the climate
sensitivity)...
A few things are unequivocal, perhaps (doubling from the present concentration
of CO2 will take 140 years [give or take]; the idea that the changes in climate since 1880 have been in the aggregate beneficial; it takes more energy to vaporize a kg
of water than to raise its temperature by 1K; ignoring the energy cost
of water and latent heat transport [in the hydrologic cycle] leads to
equilibrium calculations overestimating the climate
sensitivity), but most are propositions that I think need more research, but can't be refuted on present evidence.
To date, I think that the
sensitivity has been overestimated by the
equilibrium calculations and the GCMs, and the benefits
of increased CO2 over at least the next few decades have been underestimated.
While I'm posting (I can see how you guys get into this) I'm also very uncomfortable with your notion
of «tacit knowledge:» it certainly seems to be tacit knowledge in the blogosphere that the chances
of the climate
sensitivity (
equilibrium warming on indefinite stabilization at 560ppm CO2, for the non-enthusiasts) being greater than or equal to 6 degrees are too small to be worth worrying about (meaning down at the level
of an asteroid strike).
Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is 6 °C for doubled CO2 for the range
of climate states between glacial conditions and ice - free Antarctica.»
Andrew (23) and Bryan (35): The problem is that climate
sensitivity and thermal inertia could be traded off mathematically in producing a decent match with the observed temeperature record
of the 20th century (because it's out
of equilibrium.
So the marked early 20th century warming was likely a mixture
of recovery from volcanic forcing and accumulated (but masked) greenhouse forcing [the 1880 - 1940 [CO2] rise from ~ 290 — ~ 309 ppm was quite significant (equivalent to nearly 0.3 oC at
equilibrium with a mid-range climate
sensitivity)-RSB-.
Do be mindful that the references he makes present two different forms
of sensitivity —
equilibrium sensitivity & transcient
sensitivity or transcient cllmate response (TCR).
At the low end
of sensitivity, we are living in a period
of over reaction by the climate and the rate
of warming should tend to revert lower towards the
equilibrium value.
captdallas2 @ 130 — To become more impressed by the estimate
of about 3 K for Charney
equilibrium climate
sensitivity, read papers by Annan & Hargreaves.
The happy band
of denialists (presumably the gang
of nine who advise Judge Alsup with their nonsense) have been «quietly but very busily investigating how much global warming we may cause, known as the «
equilibrium -
sensitivity» question.»
The total surface and atmospheric forcings led Hansen et al. (1993) to infer an
equilibrium global climate
sensitivity of 3 + / - 1C for doubled CO2 forcing, equivalent to 3/4 + / - 1/4 CW ^ -1 m ^ -2.
Your attempt to estimate
equilibrium climate
sensitivity from the 20th C won't work because a) the forcings are not that well known (so the error in your estimate is large), b) the climate is not in
equilibrium — you need to account for the uptake
of heat in the ocean at least.