A new paper suggesting temperatures might not rise as much as
some models predict in the near future has been interpreted in some
corners - notably by
Matt Ridley in the Times - as a sign that climate
change no longer poses a problem. But the authors have spoken out
against Ridley's arguments, highlighting why pinpointing earth's
sensitivity to greenhouse gases relies on more than one
estimate.
The story stems from a
letter in Nature Geoscience on Sunday with a new
estimate of what scientists call equilibrium climate
sensitivity. That's the total warming we can expect from a
doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, compared with
pre-industrial levels.
Climate sensitivity is important because the higher it is, the
more warming there will be. In its 2007 report, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated a likely
range of between
two and 4.5 degrees Celsius, with a best estimate of three
degrees.
More than one way to estimate climate
sensitivity
There are different ways to go about calculating climate
sensitivity - which is part of the reason the IPCC's range is so
large. The new study used what's called an energy budget
model, which used land, atmosphere, ice and ocean temperatures
between 1970 to 2009 to see how warming in all parts of the climate
system has changed in that time. We wrote more about the new paper
here.
Scientists can also use natural recorders of temperature -
called
climate proxies - to look at how earth's temperature
has changed in response to greenhouse gases throughout its distant
past. The third way is using complex climate models to simulate how
processes affecting temperature rise are likely to evolve in the
future.
Uncertainties about some of these processes -
particularly how clouds affect the rate of warming - means climate
model estimates can vary quite widely.
Read more