Exactly how sensitive is our climate? It may not matter...

Oct 26, 2007
Exactly how sensitive is our climate? It may not matter...
Fixing carbon dioxide targets too early in the process of climate change could be dangerous, according to Oxford University researchers.

Scientists from Oxford University have suggested that climate researchers and policy makers ought to worry less about working out exactly how sensitive Earth's climate will be to a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

In this week's Science, Dr Myles Allen and Dr Dave Frame argue that while placing an upper limit on climate sensitivity is difficult, it may also be much less relevant to policy than is usually assumed. Dr Allen and Dr Frame’s article accompanies a paper by Gerard Roe and Marcia Baker that shows it will remain difficult to infer a robust distribution for climate sensitivity from any observations we can make of current climate.

‘No one denies that quantifying climate system feedbacks is a crucial part of our attempts to understand the climate change problem,’ said Dr Myles Allen of Oxford University's Department of Physics, ‘but putting an upper bound on climate sensitivity has become something of a Holy Grail for climate researchers. What we are suggesting is that this may not be possible or very helpful.'

Uncertainties in how climate processes feed into one another are partly to blame, as are the different statistical methods that could be used to calculate such an upper limit. If the world really does warm by 4 degrees Celsius or more the climate will be so different from what we know today that predicting when this warming will stop is all but impossible. Dr Allen and Dr Frame believe that, in trying to define an upper limit, climate modellers have to make too many assumptions about what is likely to happen – assumptions that are impossible to test.

'The only way our descendants would find out if the climate sensitivity is really as high as 5 degrees Celsius is to stubbornly hold greenhouse gas concentrations constant for centuries at a specified target level,' said Dr Frame, who is based in the Oxford University Centre for the Environment. 'In reality our descendants will continually revise their targets for atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in the light of the climate changes they actually observe.'

The real danger, Drs Allen and Frame suggest, comes from trying to fix a target concentration of carbon dioxide too early in the process of climate change and not adapting as new observations come along. Dr Allen comments: 'providing our descendants have the good sense to adapt their policies to the emerging climate change signal they probably won't care about how sensitive our climate is because they will have been smart enough to limit the damage.'

The development of more adaptive climate policy frameworks has support from other quarters, too. Gary Yohe, Woodhouse/Sysco Professor of Economics at Wesleyan University, said: ‘Climate policies must be predictable, but they must also adjust to new information: the challenge is to design a transparent process whereby climate policies can be adjusted in the light of genuinely new information without becoming subject to political whims.’

The perspectives article, entitled ‘Call off the quest’, by Dr Myles Allen and Dr Dave Frame is published in Science on 26 October 2007.

Source: Oxford University

Explore further: Scientists may be cracking mystery of big 1872 earthquake

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Why the renewable target should be ramped up, not cut

Jul 11, 2014

It's hard to predict which of Australia's climate policies will survive, or perhaps even thrive, in the current parliament. But our research suggests that if the Abbott government wants to cut long-term power ...

Sophisticated simulations predict future warming

May 22, 2012

The chances of our planet being hit by a global warming of 3 degrees Celsius by 2050 is as likely as it being hit by an increase of 1.4 degrees, new research shows. Presented in the journal Nature Geoscience, the British study ...

Save 'trillionth tonne' warn Oxford scientists

Apr 30, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Emitting carbon dioxide slower will not prevent dangerous climate change unless it involves phasing out carbon dioxide emissions altogether, before we reach an upper limit of one trillion ...

Recommended for you

Questions of continental crust

15 hours ago

Geological processes shape the planet Earth and are in many ways essential to our planet's habitability for life. One important geological process is plate tectonics – the drifting, colliding and general ...

Better forecasts for sea ice under climate change

Nov 25, 2014

University of Adelaide-led research will help pinpoint the impact of waves on sea ice, which is vulnerable to climate change, particularly in the Arctic where it is rapidly retreating.

User comments : 4

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

SDMike
4 / 5 (3) Oct 26, 2007
And so a photo of a COOLING TOWER emitting water vapor illustrates CO2???? It's probably a nuclear power plant. Linked to setting co2 targets how???
fredrick
2 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2007
how can you be sure that's a nuclear power plant? The rest of it might be hidden behind the tree...

And besides which, the article was mainly about estimating climate change sensitivity, not CO2 emmisions. The picture has nothing really to do with what the article says, its just an iconic picture of a power plant's cooling tower - which is most often associated with CO2 rises, as most people don't know that it is the smoke stacks which emit the really bad stuff.

Or one could argue that water vapor IS a greenhouse gas, so I guess that does contribute too. But really I think its just a picture, and quite a lot of the pictures in news articles only have loose connections to the subject - can you draw a picture of climate change sensitivity?
Argiod
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2007
"...the challenge is to design a transparent process whereby climate policies can be adjusted in the light of genuinely new information without becoming subject to political whims..."

Yeah, right. And if I had a square ass, I'd shit cubes!
lengould100
not rated yet Apr 30, 2009
Agreed, the nuclear plant's cooling tower was the first thing i noticed at the top, and i was hunting for any relationship all through the article. Very distracting.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.