Subscribe in a reader

	It's the sun
	Climate's changed before
	There is no consensus
	Surface temp is unreliable
	Models are unreliable
	It's cooling
	Ice age predicted in the 70's
	Al Gore got it wrong
	We're heading into an ice age
	CO2 lags temperature
	View All Arguments...

Latest Posts

• Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?
• A new twist on mid-century cooling
• April update on global cooling 2008
• Is Pacific Decadal Oscillation the Smoking Gun?
• Can animals and plants adapt to global warming?
• Did global warming stop in 1998?
• Do cosmic rays cause clouds?
• Cartoon about global warming alarmism
• La Nina watch: March update
• The Mystery of the Vanishing Ocean Heat
• Global warming stopped in 1981... no, wait! 1991!
• Determining the long term solar trend
• Comparing IPCC projections to observations
• Climate change on Mars
• Global cooling: the new kid on the block
• What 1970's science said about global cooling
• Has solar cycle 24 begun?
• Empirical evidence for positive feedback
• Al Gore and Dr Thompson's thermometer
• Does model uncertainty exagerate global warming projections?
• Are we heading into a new Little Ice Age?
• Did global warming cause Hurricane Katrina?
• What does CO2 lagging temperature mean?
• Svensmark and Friis-Christensen rebut Lockwood's solar paper
• Evaporating the water vapor argument
• They predicted an ice age in the 70's
• Do 500 scientists refute anthropogenic global warming?
• Climate change on Jupiter
• Schulte vs Oreskes on consensus, Round 2
• Do growing glaciers disprove global warming?

Climate sensitivity is low

What the science says...

Climate sensitivity is expressed as the global temperature change for a particular forcing (eg - °C change per W/m² forcing). More commonly, it's given as the warming for doubled CO2 (i.e. from 280 ppm to 560 ppm).

Climate sensitivity from models

The first estimates of climate sensitivity came from climate models.

• In the 1979 Charney report, two models from Suki Manabe and Jim Hansen estimated a sensitivity range between 1.5 to 4.5°C.
• Forest 2002 uses a fingerprinting approach on modern temperature records and finds a range 1.4 to 7.7°C.
• Knutti 2005 uses modelling (entering different sensitivities then comparing to seasonal responses) to find a climate sensitivity range 1.5 to 6.5°C - with 3 to 3.5 most likely
• Hegerl 2006 looks at paleontological data over the past 6 centuries to calculates a range 1.5 to 6.2°C.
• Annan 2006 combines results from a variety of independent methods to narrow climate sensitivity to around 2.5 to 3.5°C.
• Royer 2007 examines temperature response to CO2 over the past 420 million years and determines climate sensitivity cannot be lower than 1.5°C (with a best fit of 2.8°C).

Climate sensitivity from empirical observations

There have been a number of studies that calculate climate sensitivity directly from empirical observations, independent of models.

• Hansen 1993 looks at the last 20,000 years when the last ice age ended and empirically calculates a climate sensitivity of 3 ± 1°C.
• Lorius 1990 examined Vostok ice core data and calculates a range of 3 to 4°C.
• Hoffert 1992 reconstructs two paleoclimate records (one colder, one warmer) to yield a range 1.4 to 3.2°C.
• Gregory 2002 used observations of ocean heat uptake to calculate a minimum climate sensitivity of 1.5.
• Tung 2007 performs statistical analysis on 20th century temperature response to the solar cycle to calculate a range 2.3 to 4.1°C.

Stephen Schwartz climate sensitivity of 1.1°C

A recent paper Heat capacity, time constant and sensitivity of Earth's climate system determines a climate sensitivity of 1.1 ± 0.5°C (Schwartz 2007). Sensitivity is calculated as the quotient of the climate's "time constant" and global heat capacity. The "time constant", the time for the climate system to return to equilibrium after a perturbation, is a key aspect of his paper. Schwartz examines results from various time series analyses and estimates a time constant of 5 years.

However, as Schwartz points out in his study, climate recovers at different rates depending on the nature of the forcing causing the perturbation. A short term change such as a volcanic eruption results in a short time constant of a few years. A long term increase in CO2 levels results in a recovery spanning decades. Schwartz rightly points out "as the duration of volcanic forcing is short, the response time may not be reflective of that which would characterize a sustained forcing such as that from increased greenhouse gases because of lack of penetration of the thermal signal into the deep ocean."

Nevertheless, Schwartz filters out long term changes by detrending the time series data which has the effect of biasing the result towards a shorter time constant. The time constant for non-detrended data yields a time constant of 15 to 17 years. Consequently, the estimated time constant of 5 years is questionable - a value the final result hinges on.