Report ponders: How sensitive is climate to CO2?

Sep 26, 2013 by Karl Ritter
In this Dec. 3, 2009 file photo smoke billows from chimneys of the cooling towers of a coal-fired power plant in Dadong, Shanxi province, China. Scientists are more confident than ever that pumping carbon dioxide into the air by burning fossil fuels is warming the planet. By how much is something governments and scientists meeting in Stockholm will try to pin down with as much precision as possible Friday Sept. 27, 2013 in a seminal report on global warming. (AP Photo/Andy Wong, File)

Scientists are more confident than ever that pumping carbon dioxide into the air by burning fossil fuels is warming the planet. The question is, by how much?

It's something that officials and scientists meeting in Stockholm will try to pin down as precisely possible Friday in a seminal report on global .

Future global warming levels depend on two major factors. One is how much more carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases are pumped into the air and how quickly.

The other is the rate at which those gases cause warming, sort of like a revving car engine. With that rate, called "climate sensitivity," scientists are trying to figure out how much warming would happen with different levels of . The higher the climate sensitivity or rate, the higher the warming per ton of emitted.

The values adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are important because they could affect how hard governments try to rein in CO2 emissions—which are still going up largely due to the rapid expansion of China and other .

A lower value may reduce the world's sense of urgency in making a costly energy transformation from oil, coal and gas to renewable sources like solar or wind power—or in halting the destruction of the Earth's forests, which capture CO2.

"It's a key part of the climate problem," said Chris Field, a Carnegie Institution scientist who is a leader in the IPCC but wasn't involved in the report due Friday.

The , which explains how CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, was discovered in the 19th century but scientists are still struggling to quantify it.

The IPCC is expected to say Friday that it's 95 percent certain that more than half the surface warming of the Earth that has been observed since 1951 is due to the CO2 emissions resulting from human activities.

Climate sensitivity is a measure of how much temperatures would go up if the concentration of CO2 doubled in the atmosphere.

In its third assessment, the IPCC estimated this as a likely range of 1.5-4.5 degrees Celsius (2.7-8.1 Fahrenheit). The fourth report, in 2007, raised the lower end of that range to 2 C (3.6 F), and gave a best estimate of 3 C (5.4 F).

Now, new research has shown that the upward move may have been too hasty, and there's a discussion in Stockholm over whether to bring the lower end back down to 1.5 C (2.7 F).

It may seem like a minor detail, but it makes a difference to governments, which want to know how much CO2 emissions need to be cut to prevent temperatures from increasing more than 2 C (3.6 F) compared to before humans started . That's the limit they have agreed to in U.N. climate talks. Temperatures have already gone up about 0.8 C (1.4 F).

Reducing the lower range of climate sensitivity "would mean that we have a better chance of staying below 2 degrees than we thought before," said Kaisa Kosonen, a Greenpeace climate activist. "But I wouldn't bet on it because they are not lowering the higher end of the range."

In leaked comments on a June draft of the IPCC report, the British government called "a key issue of concern" that helps give policy-makers a sense of how big a threat climate change is.

The United States, Australia and Norway have called for the authors to provide a single value as their best estimate in addition to a range, to give policy-makers better guidance.

Meanwhile, EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard is downplaying the discussion.

"You don't need to have the last decimal to see that the overall number isn't looking good," she said in a comment emailed by her spokesman.

Some scientists resist giving a single value because it could give the false impression that there's more certainty than there really is about how sensitive the climate is to CO2. That doesn't mean they doubt that CO2 serves as an engine of warming—the question is whether it's a four-cylinder or a V8.

"We know a great deal of the mechanism by which CO2 causes warming," said Field, the Carnegie scientist. "There is still uncertainty about how much a range of feedbacks either amplify or suppress that warming."

Explore further: UN report to point to mounting climate challenge

2.9 /5 (8 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

UN report to point to mounting climate challenge

Sep 21, 2013

Scientists will hike pressure next week on the UN's troubled climate talks as they release a report pointing to the dizzying challenge of meeting the international body's target for global warming.

Climate chief warns of 'urgency' as CO2 levels rise

Apr 29, 2013

The UN's climate chief called for urgency Monday as she opened a new round of global talks amid warnings that Earth-warming carbon dioxide levels were approaching a symbolic threshold never seen in human ...

10 things to know about the IPCC climate panel

Sep 26, 2013

Here are 10 things to know about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.N.-sponsored scientific group that will present a landmark report on global warming Friday.

Recommended for you

NASA image: Signs of deforestation in Brazil

11 hours ago

Multiple fires are visible in in this image of the Para and Mato Grosso states of Brazil. Many of these were most likely intentionally set in order to deforest the land. Deforestation is the removal of a ...

Sunblock poses potential hazard to sea life

12 hours ago

The sweet and salty aroma of sunscreen and seawater signals a relaxing trip to the shore. But scientists are now reporting that the idyllic beach vacation comes with an environmental hitch. When certain sunblock ...

Is falling recycling rate due to 'green fatigue'?

12 hours ago

It's been suggested that a recent fall in recycling rates is due to green fatigue, caused by the confusing number of recycling bins presented to householders for different materials. Recycling rates woul ...

Study to inform Maryland decision on "fracking"

15 hours ago

The Maryland Department of Environment and Department of Health and Mental Hygiene released on August 18, 2014, a report by the University of Maryland School of Public Health, which assesses the potential ...

User comments : 5

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Lurker2358
1.5 / 5 (16) Sep 26, 2013
Some scientists resist giving a single value because it could give the false impression that there's more certainty than there really is about how sensitive the climate is to CO2.


Isn't that a cop-out...

Nearly everything else in science is given with a best measure or best estimate, plus or minus the margins of error. i.e. "5 +/-0.1", or "3 +0.2/-0.1", etc.

The Alchemist
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 26, 2013
This is plain funny. Supposedly accredited/reliable sources right?
Just to cut the Jordian Knot, there is no way to have a linear dependance on CO2 vs temperature.
Just imagine a Gedankin experiment where we can control the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, like a thermostat-except instead of heat we control CO2 %. Let turn the dial to zero and let it go to equilibrium: What happens? Does the Earth's temperature fall the 1.7 degrees? If so, how fast? Overnight?
No, it causes a change in the equilibrium, mostly causing a change in precipitation, but I will let the forum discuss/think about the change.
Now what if we pop it up from there to where it is now, what will happen then? (First lets take an average, not the reading from the top of increasingly active volcanos-but that's another topic.) Will the temperature skyrocket? What does that even mean to raise the temperature of the Earth. Adding CO2 is like adding acid to a buffered solution, though even less intuitive.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (18) Sep 26, 2013
"was discovered in the 19th century but scientists are still struggling to quantify it."
No wonder I can't find a first principle theory quantifying the heat 'trapped' by CO2.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 27, 2013
Some scientists resist giving a single value because it could give the false impression that there's more certainty than there really is about how sensitive the climate is to CO2.


Isn't that a cop-out...

Nearly everything else in science is given with a best measure or best estimate, plus or minus the margins of error. i.e. "5 +/-0.1", or "3 +0.2/-0.1", etc.



As does the IPCC with their +1.5 to +4.5C
That is as narrow as they can go for error bounds at 95% confidence level.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (17) Sep 27, 2013
Anyone care to explain how the GCM determine the effect of CO2?
Is it from first principles or do they fit empirical data to the model (tweaking)?