4.6 Article

A probabilistic quantification of the anthropogenic component of twentieth century global warming

期刊

CLIMATE DYNAMICS
卷 40, 期 5-6, 页码 1087-1102

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00382-012-1585-8

关键词

Global warming; Probabilistic calculations; Climate; Human influences; Solar forcing; NADW; Aerosol forcing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper examines in detail the statement in the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report that Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. We use a quantitative probabilistic analysis to evaluate this IPCC statement, and discuss the value of the statement in the policy context. For forcing by greenhouse gases (GHGs) only, we show that there is a greater than 90 % probability that the expected warming over 1950-2005 is larger than the total amount (not just most) of the observed warming. This is because, following current best estimates, negative aerosol forcing has substantially offset the GHG-induced warming. We also consider the expected warming from all anthropogenic forcings using the same probabilistic framework. This requires a re-assessment of the range of possible values for aerosol forcing. We provide evidence that the IPCC estimate for the upper bound of indirect aerosol forcing is almost certainly too high. Our results show that the expected warming due to all human influences since 1950 (including aerosol effects) is very similar to the observed warming. Including the effects of natural external forcing factors has a relatively small impact on our 1950-2005 results, but improves the correspondence between model and observations over 1900-2005. Over the longer period, however, externally forced changes are insufficient to explain the early twentieth century warming. We suggest that changes in the formation rate of North Atlantic Deep Water may have been a significant contributing factor.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据