4.5 Article

The utility of the historical record for assessing the transient climate response to cumulative emissions

Publisher

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2016.0449

Keywords

climate change; carbon cycle; carbon budgets; Paris Agreement

Funding

  1. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/P014844/1]
  2. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/P014844/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. NERC [NE/P014844/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The historical observational record offers a way to constrain the relationship between cumulative carbon dioxide emissions and global mean warming. We use a standard detection and attribution technique, along with observational uncertainties to estimate the all-forcing or 'effective' transient climate response to cumulative emissions (TCRE) from the observational record. Accounting for observational uncertainty and uncertainty in historical non-CO2 radiative forcing gives a best-estimate from the historical record of 1.84 degrees C/TtC (1.43-2.37 degrees C/TtC 5-95% uncertainty) for the effective TCRE and 1.31 degrees C/TtC (0.88-2.60 degrees C/TtC 5-95% uncertainty) for the CO2-only TCRE. While the best-estimate TCRE lies in the lower half of the IPCC likely range, the high upper bound is associated with the not-ruled-out possibility of a strongly negative aerosol forcing. Earth System Models have a higher effective TCRE range when compared like-for-like with the observations over the historical period, associated in part with a slight underestimate of diagnosed cumulative emissions relative to the observational best-estimate, a larger ensemble mean-simulated CO2-induced warming, and rapid post-2000 non-CO2 warming in some ensemble members. This article is part of the theme issue 'The Paris Agreement: understanding the physical and social challenges for a warming world of 1.5 degrees C above preindustrial levels'.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available