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.

  • Letter
  • Published:

Equilibrium climate sensitivity in light of observations over the warming hiatus

Nature Climate Change volume 5, pages 449–453 (2015)Cite this article

Subjects

A Corrigendum to this article was published on 24 June 2015

This article has been updated

Abstract

A key uncertainty in projecting future climate change is the magnitude of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), that is, the eventual increase in global annual average surface temperature in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. The lower bound of the likely range for ECS given in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5; refs 1, 2) was revised downwards to 1.5 °C, from 2 °C in its previous report3, mainly as an effect of considering observations over the warming hiatus—the period of slowdown of global average temperature increase since the early 2000s. Here we analyse how estimates of ECS change as observations accumulate over time and estimate the contribution of potential causes to the hiatus. We find that including observations over the hiatus reduces the most likely value for ECS from 2.8 °C to 2.5 °C, but that the lower bound of the 90% range remains stable around 2 °C. We also find that the hiatus is primarily attributable to El Niño/Southern Oscillation-related variability and reduced solar forcing.

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

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

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

Figure 1: Comparison between observations on SAT anomaly and corresponding model output using the posterior PDF generated by using observations up to 2011.
Figure 2: The posterior marginal PDF of ECS estimated from historical observations over successively longer time periods.
Figure 3: Characteristics of PDFs of ECS and EVD as observations accumulates.

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 14 April 2015

    In the version of this Letter originally published, in the third paragraph, the section of text including ‘Our analysis differs... at depths below 700m (refs 5,8,13).’ was unclear and should have been: 'Our analysis differs from previous methodologically related statistical estimates of ECS in that we distinguish observations of global mean near-land surface temperature (GMLST) from those of global mean sea surface temperature (GMSST) and use ocean heat content (OHC) observations continuous over time to a greater depth (2,000m instead of 700 m), a potentially important addition as heat accumulation during the hiatus is thought to be particularly strong at depths below 700m (refs 5,8,13).' Further, in the Methods section, radiative forcing should have been described as effective radiative forcing. These errors have been corrected in all versions of the Letter.

  • 10 June 2015

    In the version of this Letter originally published, ref. 9 was incorrectly cited twice; the sentence including the second occurrence should have read: "In contrast to other studies4, we find that the recovery from Mt Pinatubo is stronger than the cooling caused by the small volcanoes that has occurred since the early 2000s." This error has been corrected in the online versions of the Letter.

References

  1. Bindoff, N. L. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 867–952 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Collins, M. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 1029–1136 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Meehl, G. A. et al. in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (eds Solomon, S. et al.) 747–845 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Huber, M. & Knutti, R. Natural variability, radiative forcing and climate response in the recent hiatus reconciled. Nature Geosci. 7, 651–656 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Meehl, G. A., Arblaster, J. M., Fasullo, J. T., Hu, A. & Trenberth, K. E. Model-based evidence of deep-ocean heat uptake during surface-temperature hiatus periods. Nature Clim. Change 1, 360–364 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kosaka, Y. & Xie, S-P. Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling. Nature 501, 403–407 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Trenberth, K. E. & Fasullo, J. T. An apparent hiatus in global warming? Earth’s Future 1, 19–32 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen, X. & Tung, K-K. Varying planetary heat sink led to global-warming slowdown and acceleration. Science 345, 897–903 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Santer, B. D. et al. Volcanic contribution to decadal changes on tropospheric temperature. Nature Geosci. 7, 185–189 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kaufmann, R. K., Kauppi, H., Mann, M. L. & Stock, J. H. Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998–2008. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 11790–11793 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Aldrin, M. et al. Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations of hemispheric temperatures and global ocean heat content. Environmetrics 23, 253–271 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Balmaseda, M. A., Trenberth, K. E. & Källén, E. Distinctive climate signals in reanalysis of global ocean heat content. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 1754–1759 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Trenberth, K. E., Caron, J. M., Stepaniak, D. P. & Worley, S. The evolution of ENSO and global atmospheric surface temperatures. J. Geophys. Res. 107, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2000JD000298 (2002)

  15. 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 

  16. Urban, N. M., Holden, P. B., Edwards, N. R., Sriver, R. L. & Keller, K. Historical and future learning about climate sensitivity. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 2543–2552 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Skeie, R. B., Berntsen, T., Aldrin, M., Holden, M. & Myhre, G. A lower and more constrained estimate of climate sensitivity using updated observations and detailed radiative forcing time series. Earth Syst. Dynam. 5, 139–175 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Smith, T. M., Reynolds, R. W., Peterson, T. C. & Lawrimore, J. Improvements to NOAA’s historical merged land–ocean surface temperature analysis (1880–2006). J. Clim. 21, 2283–2296 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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 

  20. Annan, J. D. & Hargreaves, J. C. On the generation and interpretation of probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity. Climatic Change 104, 423–436 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Forest, C. E., Stone, P. H., Sokolov, A. P., Allen, M. R. & Webster, M. D. Quantifying uncertainties in climate system properties with the use of recent climate observations. Science 295, 113–117 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Oppenheimer, M., O’Neill, B. C. & Webster, M. Negative learning. Climatic Change 89, 155–172 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hannart, A., Ghil, M., Dufresne, J-L. & Naveau, P. Disconcerting learning on climate sensitivity and the uncertain future of uncertainty. Climatic Change 119, 585–601 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Meinshausen, M. et al. The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extension from 1765 to 2300. Climatic Change 109, 213–241 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Myhre, G. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 659–740 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Crowley, T. J. & Unterman, M. B. Technical details concerning development of a 1200-yr proxy index for global volcanism. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 5, 187–197 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sato, M., Hansen, J. E., McCormick, M. P. & Pollack, J. B. Stratospheric aerosol optical depth, 1850–1990. J. Geophys. Res. 98, 22987–22994 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Levitus, S. et al. World ocean heat content and thermosteric sea level change (0–2000 m) 1955–2010. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L10603 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Tomassini, L., Reichert, P., Knutti, R., Stocker, T. F. & Borsuk, M. E. Robust Bayesian uncertainty analysis of climate system properties using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. J. Clim. 20, 1239–1254 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gelman, A. et al. Bayesian Data Analysis (Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

D.J.A.J. wants to thank the Swedish Energy Agency and Carl Bennet AB for financial support. C.T. was supported by the Regional and Global Climate Modeling Program (RGCM) of the US Department of Energy’s Office of Science (BER), Cooperative Agreement DE-FC02-97ER62402. O.H. was supported by the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation and the Swedish Research Council. C. Azar is acknowledged for useful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Physical Resource Theory, Department of Energy and Environment, Chalmers University of Technology, 412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden

    Daniel J. A. Johansson

  2. Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research, 1850 Table Mesa Drive 80305 Boulder, USA,

    Brian C. O’Neill & Claudia Tebaldi

  3. Department of Mathematical Sciences, Chalmers University of Technology, 412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden

    Olle Häggström

Authors
  1. Daniel J. A. Johansson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brian C. O’Neill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Claudia Tebaldi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Olle Häggström
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

D.J.A.J. designed and performed the research with input from the other authors. All authors contributed to writing the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel J. A. Johansson.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Johansson, D., O’Neill, B., Tebaldi, C. et al. Equilibrium climate sensitivity in light of observations over the warming hiatus. Nature Clim Change 5, 449–453 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2573

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2573

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced 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