The aerosol pathway is crucial for observationally constraining climate sensitivity and anthropogenic forcing

Abstract. Climate sensitivity and aerosol forcing are two of the most central, but uncertain, quantities in climate science that are crucial for assessing historical climate as well as future climate projections. Here, we use a Bayesian approach to estimate inferred climate sensitivity and aerosol forcing using observations of temperature and global ocean heat content as well as prior knowledge of effective radiative forcing (ERF) over the industrial period. Due to limited information on uncertainties related to the time evolution of aerosol forcing, we perform a range of sensitivity analyses with idealized aerosol time evolution. The estimates are sensitive to the aerosol forcing pathway, with the mean estimate of inferred effective climate sensitivity ranging from 2.0 to 2.4 K, present-day (2019 relative to 1750) aerosol ERF ranging from −0.7 to −1.1 W m−2, and anthropogenic ERF ranging from 2.6 to 3.1 W m−2. Using observations and forcing up to and including 2022, the inferred effective climate sensitivity is 2.2 K with a 1.6 to 3.0 K 90 % uncertainty range. Analysis with more freely evolving aerosol forcing between 1950 and 2014 shows that a strong negative aerosol forcing trend in the latter part of the 20th century is not consistent with observations. Although we test our estimation method with strongly idealized aerosol ERF pathways, our posteriori estimates of the climate sensitivity consistently end up in the weaker end of the range assessed in the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR6). As our method only includes climate feedbacks that have occurred over the historical period, it does not include the pattern effect, i.e., where climate feedbacks are dependent on the pattern of warming which will likely change into the future. Adding the best estimate of the pattern effect from IPCC AR6, our climate sensitivity estimate is almost identical to the IPCC AR6 best estimate and very likely range.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Earth System Dynamics
Published
2024-11-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1435-2024
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Atmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.51

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The aerosol pathway is crucial for observationally constraining climate sensitivity and anthropogenic forcing

Trude Storelvmo, Ragnar Bang Huseby, Gunnar Myhre, Ragnhild Bieltvedt Skeie et al.
4 citations
Earth System Dynamics
Atmospheric chemistry and aerosols
1.51
article

The aerosol pathway is crucial for observationally constraining climate sensitivity and anthropogenic forcing

Trude Storelvmo, Ragnar Bang Huseby, Gunnar Myhre, Ragnhild Bieltvedt Skeie, Magne Aldrin, Terje K. Berntsen, Marit Holden
article en
4 citations

Abstract

Abstract. Climate sensitivity and aerosol forcing are two of the most central, but uncertain, quantities in climate science that are crucial for assessing historical climate as well as future climate projections. Here, we use a Bayesian approach to estimate inferred climate sensitivity and aerosol forcing using observations of temperature and global ocean heat content as well as prior knowledge of effective radiative forcing (ERF) over the industrial period. Due to limited information on uncertainties related to the time evolution of aerosol forcing, we perform a range of sensitivity analyses with idealized aerosol time evolution. The estimates are sensitive to the aerosol forcing pathway, with the mean estimate of inferred effective climate sensitivity ranging from 2.0 to 2.4 K, present-day (2019 relative to 1750) aerosol ERF ranging from −0.7 to −1.1 W m−2, and anthropogenic ERF ranging from 2.6 to 3.1 W m−2. Using observations and forcing up to and including 2022, the inferred effective climate sensitivity is 2.2 K with a 1.6 to 3.0 K 90 % uncertainty range. Analysis with more freely evolving aerosol forcing between 1950 and 2014 shows that a strong negative aerosol forcing trend in the latter part of the 20th century is not consistent with observations. Although we test our estimation method with strongly idealized aerosol ERF pathways, our posteriori estimates of the climate sensitivity consistently end up in the weaker end of the range assessed in the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC AR6). As our method only includes climate feedbacks that have occurred over the historical period, it does not include the pattern effect, i.e., where climate feedbacks are dependent on the pattern of warming which will likely change into the future. Adding the best estimate of the pattern effect from IPCC AR6, our climate sensitivity estimate is almost identical to the IPCC AR6 best estimate and very likely range.

Earth System DynamicsVol. 15(6)
Norwegian Computing Center (NO), University of Oslo (NO), CICERO Center for International Climate Research (NO)
Norges Forskningsråd, Horizon 2020
Climate action
Openalex Percentile: Top 19%
Atmospheric chemistry and aerosols
1.51
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.