Abstract
The estimated range of climate sensitivity, the equilibrium warming resulting from a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, has not decreased substantially in past decades. New statistical methods for estimating the climate sensitivity have been proposed and provide a better quantification of relative probabilities of climate sensitivity within the almost canonical range of 2–4.5 K; however, large uncertainties remain, in particular for the upper bound. Simple indices of spatial radiation patterns are used here to establish a relationship between an observable radiative quantity and the equilibrium climate sensitivity. The indices are computed for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3 (CMIP3) multimodel dataset and offer a possibility to constrain climate sensitivity by considering radiation patterns in the climate system. High correlations between the indices and climate sensitivity are found, for example, in the cloud radiative forcing of the incoming longwave surface radiation and in the clear-sky component of the incoming surface shortwave flux, the net shortwave surface budget, and the atmospheric shortwave attenuation variable β. The climate sensitivity was estimated from the mean of the indices during the years 1990–99 for the CMIP3 models. The surface radiative flux dataset from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) together with its top-of-atmosphere Energy Balanced and Filled equivalent (CERES EBAF) are used as a reference observational dataset, resulting in a best estimate for climate sensitivity of 3.3 K with a likely range of 2.7–4.0 K. A comparison with other satellite and reanalysis datasets show similar likely ranges and best estimates of 1.7–3.8 (3.3 K) [Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE)], 2.9–3.7 (3.3 K) [International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project radiative surface flux data (ISCCP-FD)], 2.8–4.1 (3.5 K) [NASA’s Modern Era Retrospective-Analysis for Research and Application (MERRA)], 3.0–4.2 (3.6 K) [Japanese 25-yr Reanalysis (JRA-25)], 2.7–3.9 (3.4 K) [European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts Re-Analysis (ERA-Interim)], 3.0–4.0 (3.5 K) [ERA-40], and 3.1–4.7 (3.6 K) for the NCEP reanalysis. For each individual reference dataset, the results suggest that values for the sensitivity below 1.7 K are not likely to be consistent with observed radiation patterns given the structure of current climate models. For the aggregation of the reference datasets, the climate sensitivity is not likely to be below 2.9 K within the framework of this study, whereas values exceeding 4.5 K cannot be excluded from this analysis. While these ranges cannot be interpreted properly in terms of probability, they are consistent with other estimates of climate sensitivity and reaffirm that the current climatology provides a strong constraint on the lower bound of climate sensitivity even in a set of structurally different models.
Corresponding author address: Markus Huber, Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, Universitätstrasse 16, CHN N 16.1, ETH Zürich, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland. Email: markus.huber@env.ethz.ch
