利用多种证据评估地球气候敏感性

IF 25.2 1区 地球科学 Q1 GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS Reviews of Geophysics Pub Date : 2020-07-22 DOI:10.1029/2019RG000678
S. C. Sherwood, M. J. Webb, J. D. Annan, K. C. Armour, P. M. Forster, J. C. Hargreaves, G. Hegerl, S. A. Klein, K. D. Marvel, E. J. Rohling, M. Watanabe, T. Andrews, P. Braconnot, C. S. Bretherton, G. L. Foster, Z. Hausfather, A. S. von der Heydt, R. Knutti, T. Mauritsen, J. R. Norris, C. Proistosescu, M. Rugenstein, G. A. Schmidt, K. B. Tokarska, M. D. Zelinka
{"title":"利用多种证据评估地球气候敏感性","authors":"S. C. Sherwood,&nbsp;M. J. Webb,&nbsp;J. D. Annan,&nbsp;K. C. Armour,&nbsp;P. M. Forster,&nbsp;J. C. Hargreaves,&nbsp;G. Hegerl,&nbsp;S. A. Klein,&nbsp;K. D. Marvel,&nbsp;E. J. Rohling,&nbsp;M. Watanabe,&nbsp;T. Andrews,&nbsp;P. Braconnot,&nbsp;C. S. Bretherton,&nbsp;G. L. Foster,&nbsp;Z. Hausfather,&nbsp;A. S. von der Heydt,&nbsp;R. Knutti,&nbsp;T. Mauritsen,&nbsp;J. R. Norris,&nbsp;C. Proistosescu,&nbsp;M. Rugenstein,&nbsp;G. A. Schmidt,&nbsp;K. B. Tokarska,&nbsp;M. D. Zelinka","doi":"10.1029/2019RG000678","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We assess evidence relevant to Earth's equilibrium climate sensitivity per doubling of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>, characterized by an effective sensitivity <i>S</i>. This evidence includes feedback process understanding, the historical climate record, and the paleoclimate record. An <i>S</i> value lower than 2 K is difficult to reconcile with any of the three lines of evidence. The amount of cooling during the Last Glacial Maximum provides strong evidence against values of <i>S</i> greater than 4.5 K. Other lines of evidence in combination also show that this is relatively unlikely. We use a Bayesian approach to produce a probability density function (PDF) for <i>S</i> given all the evidence, including tests of robustness to difficult-to-quantify uncertainties and different priors. The 66% range is 2.6–3.9 K for our Baseline calculation and remains within 2.3–4.5 K under the robustness tests; corresponding 5–95% ranges are 2.3–4.7 K, bounded by 2.0–5.7 K (although such high-confidence ranges should be regarded more cautiously). This indicates a stronger constraint on <i>S</i> than reported in past assessments, by lifting the low end of the range. This narrowing occurs because the three lines of evidence agree and are judged to be largely independent and because of greater confidence in understanding feedback processes and in combining evidence. We identify promising avenues for further narrowing the range in <i>S</i>, in particular using comprehensive models and process understanding to address limitations in the traditional forcing-feedback paradigm for interpreting past changes.</p>","PeriodicalId":21177,"journal":{"name":"Reviews of Geophysics","volume":"58 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":25.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1029/2019RG000678","citationCount":"455","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Assessment of Earth's Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence\",\"authors\":\"S. C. Sherwood,&nbsp;M. J. Webb,&nbsp;J. D. Annan,&nbsp;K. C. Armour,&nbsp;P. M. Forster,&nbsp;J. C. Hargreaves,&nbsp;G. Hegerl,&nbsp;S. A. Klein,&nbsp;K. D. Marvel,&nbsp;E. J. Rohling,&nbsp;M. Watanabe,&nbsp;T. Andrews,&nbsp;P. Braconnot,&nbsp;C. S. Bretherton,&nbsp;G. L. Foster,&nbsp;Z. Hausfather,&nbsp;A. S. von der Heydt,&nbsp;R. Knutti,&nbsp;T. Mauritsen,&nbsp;J. R. Norris,&nbsp;C. Proistosescu,&nbsp;M. Rugenstein,&nbsp;G. A. Schmidt,&nbsp;K. B. Tokarska,&nbsp;M. D. Zelinka\",\"doi\":\"10.1029/2019RG000678\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>We assess evidence relevant to Earth's equilibrium climate sensitivity per doubling of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub>, characterized by an effective sensitivity <i>S</i>. This evidence includes feedback process understanding, the historical climate record, and the paleoclimate record. An <i>S</i> value lower than 2 K is difficult to reconcile with any of the three lines of evidence. The amount of cooling during the Last Glacial Maximum provides strong evidence against values of <i>S</i> greater than 4.5 K. Other lines of evidence in combination also show that this is relatively unlikely. We use a Bayesian approach to produce a probability density function (PDF) for <i>S</i> given all the evidence, including tests of robustness to difficult-to-quantify uncertainties and different priors. The 66% range is 2.6–3.9 K for our Baseline calculation and remains within 2.3–4.5 K under the robustness tests; corresponding 5–95% ranges are 2.3–4.7 K, bounded by 2.0–5.7 K (although such high-confidence ranges should be regarded more cautiously). This indicates a stronger constraint on <i>S</i> than reported in past assessments, by lifting the low end of the range. This narrowing occurs because the three lines of evidence agree and are judged to be largely independent and because of greater confidence in understanding feedback processes and in combining evidence. We identify promising avenues for further narrowing the range in <i>S</i>, in particular using comprehensive models and process understanding to address limitations in the traditional forcing-feedback paradigm for interpreting past changes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21177,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reviews of Geophysics\",\"volume\":\"58 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":25.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1029/2019RG000678\",\"citationCount\":\"455\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reviews of Geophysics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019RG000678\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reviews of Geophysics","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019RG000678","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOCHEMISTRY & GEOPHYSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 455

摘要

我们评估了与大气CO2每增加一倍的地球平衡气候敏感性相关的证据,其特征是有效敏感性s。这些证据包括反馈过程理解、历史气候记录和古气候记录。低于2k的S值很难与三条证据线中的任何一条相一致。末次盛冰期的冷却量提供了强有力的证据,证明S值不大于4.5 K。其他证据综合起来也表明这是相对不可能的。我们使用贝叶斯方法为给定所有证据的S生成概率密度函数(PDF),包括对难以量化的不确定性和不同先验的鲁棒性测试。66%的范围是2.6-3.9 K的基线计算,并保持在2.3-4.5 K的稳健性测试;对应的5-95%范围为2.3-4.7 K,以2.0-5.7 K为界(尽管这种高置信度范围应更谨慎地看待)。这表明,通过提高范围的低端,对S的约束比过去评估中报告的更强。之所以会出现这种缩小,是因为三条证据线是一致的,并且被认为在很大程度上是独立的,也因为对理解反馈过程和综合证据的信心增强了。我们确定了进一步缩小S范围的有希望的途径,特别是使用综合模型和过程理解来解决解释过去变化的传统强迫反馈范式的局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
An Assessment of Earth's Climate Sensitivity Using Multiple Lines of Evidence

We assess evidence relevant to Earth's equilibrium climate sensitivity per doubling of atmospheric CO2, characterized by an effective sensitivity S. This evidence includes feedback process understanding, the historical climate record, and the paleoclimate record. An S value lower than 2 K is difficult to reconcile with any of the three lines of evidence. The amount of cooling during the Last Glacial Maximum provides strong evidence against values of S greater than 4.5 K. Other lines of evidence in combination also show that this is relatively unlikely. We use a Bayesian approach to produce a probability density function (PDF) for S given all the evidence, including tests of robustness to difficult-to-quantify uncertainties and different priors. The 66% range is 2.6–3.9 K for our Baseline calculation and remains within 2.3–4.5 K under the robustness tests; corresponding 5–95% ranges are 2.3–4.7 K, bounded by 2.0–5.7 K (although such high-confidence ranges should be regarded more cautiously). This indicates a stronger constraint on S than reported in past assessments, by lifting the low end of the range. This narrowing occurs because the three lines of evidence agree and are judged to be largely independent and because of greater confidence in understanding feedback processes and in combining evidence. We identify promising avenues for further narrowing the range in S, in particular using comprehensive models and process understanding to address limitations in the traditional forcing-feedback paradigm for interpreting past changes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Reviews of Geophysics
Reviews of Geophysics 地学-地球化学与地球物理
CiteScore
50.30
自引率
0.80%
发文量
28
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: Geophysics Reviews (ROG) offers comprehensive overviews and syntheses of current research across various domains of the Earth and space sciences. Our goal is to present accessible and engaging reviews that cater to the diverse AGU community. While authorship is typically by invitation, we warmly encourage readers and potential authors to share their suggestions with our editors.
期刊最新文献
Carbon Mineralization in Fractured Mafic and Ultramafic Rocks: A Review Global Land Subsidence: Impact of Climate Extremes and Human Activities Dynamics, Monitoring, and Forecasting of Tephra in the Atmosphere Age of Stratospheric Air: Progress on Processes, Observations, and Long-Term Trends Managing Induced Seismicity Risks From Enhanced Geothermal Systems: A Good Practice Guideline
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1