Articles | Volume 24, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-2679-2024
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-2679-2024
Opinion
 | Highlight paper
 | 
29 Feb 2024
Opinion | Highlight paper |  | 29 Feb 2024

Opinion: Can uncertainty in climate sensitivity be narrowed further?

Steven C. Sherwood and Chris E. Forest

Related authors

TorchClim v1.0: a deep-learning plugin for climate model physics
David Fuchs, Steven C. Sherwood, Abhnil Prasad, Kirill Trapeznikov, and Jim Gimlett
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5459–5475, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5459-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5459-2024, 2024
Short summary
Tipping points in ocean and atmosphere circulations
Sina Loriani, Yevgeny Aksenov, David Armstrong McKay, Govindasamy Bala, Andreas Born, Cristiano M. Chiessi, Henk Dijkstra, Jonathan F. Donges, Sybren Drijfhout, Matthew H. England, Alexey V. Fedorov, Laura Jackson, Kai Kornhuber, Gabriele Messori, Francesco Pausata, Stefanie Rynders, Jean-Baptiste Salée, Bablu Sinha, Steven Sherwood, Didier Swingedouw, and Thejna Tharammal
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2589,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2589, 2023
Short summary
Emergent constraints on equilibrium climate sensitivity in CMIP5: do they hold for CMIP6?
Manuel Schlund, Axel Lauer, Pierre Gentine, Steven C. Sherwood, and Veronika Eyring
Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 1233–1258, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-1233-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-1233-2020, 2020
Short summary
Amplified warming of seasonal cold extremes relative to the mean in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics
Mia H. Gross, Markus G. Donat, Lisa V. Alexander, and Steven C. Sherwood
Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 97–111, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-97-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-97-2020, 2020
Short summary
The Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) Diagnostic Codes Catalogue – metrics, diagnostics and methodologies to evaluate, understand and improve the representation of clouds and cloud feedbacks in climate models
Yoko Tsushima, Florent Brient, Stephen A. Klein, Dimitra Konsta, Christine C. Nam, Xin Qu, Keith D. Williams, Steven C. Sherwood, Kentaroh Suzuki, and Mark D. Zelinka
Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 4285–4305, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4285-2017,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4285-2017, 2017
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Climate and Earth System | Research Activity: Atmospheric Modelling and Data Analysis | Altitude Range: Troposphere | Science Focus: Physics (physical properties and processes)
Too cold, too saturated? Evaluating climate models at the gateway to the Arctic
Felix Pithan, Ann Kristin Naumann, and Marion Maturilli
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 3269–3285, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-3269-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-3269-2025, 2025
Short summary
Modelled surface climate response to effusive Icelandic volcanic eruptions: sensitivity to season and size
Tómas Zoëga, Trude Storelvmo, and Kirstin Krüger
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 2989–3010, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-2989-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-2989-2025, 2025
Short summary
Contrasting the roles of regional anthropogenic aerosols from the western and eastern hemispheres in driving the 1980–2020 Pacific multi-decadal variations
Chenrui Diao, Yangyang Xu, Aixue Hu, and Zhili Wang
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 2167–2180, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-2167-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-2167-2025, 2025
Short summary
A new method for diagnosing effective radiative forcing from aerosol–cloud interactions in climate models
Brandon M. Duran, Casey J. Wall, Nicholas J. Lutsko, Takuro Michibata, Po-Lun Ma, Yi Qin, Margaret L. Duffy, Brian Medeiros, and Matvey Debolskiy
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 2123–2146, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-2123-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-2123-2025, 2025
Short summary
Climate variability can outweigh the influence of climate mean changes for extreme precipitation under global warming
Kalle Nordling, Nora L. S. Fahrenbach, and Bjørn H. Samset
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 1659–1684, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-1659-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-1659-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Andrews, T., Bodas-Salcedo, A., Gregory, J. M., Dong, Y., Armour, K. C., Paynter, D., Lin, P., Modak, A., Mauritsen, T., Cole, J. N. S., Medeiros, B., Benedict, J. J., Douville, H., Roehrig, R., Koshiro, T., Kawai, H., Ogura, T., Dufresne, J.-L., Allan, R. P., and Liu, C.: On the Effect of Historical SST Patterns on Radiative Feedback, J. Geophys. Res., 127, 36675, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD036675, 2022. a
Andronova, N. and Schlesinger, M.: Objective estimation of the probability density function for climate sensitivity, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 22605–22611, https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD000259, 2001. a
Arrhenius, S.: On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, Phil. Mag., 41, 237–276, 1896. a
Brown, R. M., Chalk, T. B., Crocker, A. J., Wilson, P. A., and Foster, G. L.: Late Miocene cooling coupled to carbon dioxide with Pleistocene-like climate sensitivity, Nat. Geosci., 15, 664+, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-022-00982-7, 2022. a
Ceppi, P. and Nowack, P.: Observational evidence that cloud feedback amplifies global warming, P. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 118, e2026290118, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2026290118, 2021. a
Executive editor
Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), with a specific definition, has been used as a convenient measure, encapsulated in a single number, of the response of the climate to increases in long-lived greenhouse gases. The authors recall some of the history of how ECS has been estimated, by models and observations, including paleoclimate data and note recent progress in reducing uncertainty in the value of ECS. However they also note that there are important aspects of future potential climate change that are not captured by the ECS measure and therefore that there will be limited usefulness in too strong a focus on reducing uncertainty in ECS alone.
Short summary
The most fundamental parameter used to gauge the severity of future climate change is the so-called equilibrium climate sensitivity, which measures the warming that would ultimately occur due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Due to recent advances it is now thought to probably lie in the range 2.5–4 °C. We discuss this and the issues involved in evaluating and using the number, pointing to some pitfalls in current efforts but also possibilities for further progress.
Share
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint