By Nic Lewis
Plain language summary
- A new paper by Andrew Dessler et al. claims, based on 100 simulations of the historical period (1850 to date) by the MPI‑ESM1.1 climate model, that estimates of climate sensitivity using the energy-budget method can vary widely due to internal climate system variability.
- I calculated what effect the uncertainty implied by the internal variability affecting the MPI‑ESM1.1 simulations had on the distribution of the primary climate sensitivity estimate in the recent Lewis & Curry energy-budget paper.
- The result was a marginal narrowing of the Lewis & Curry sensitivity estimate. This is because the allowance for internal variability by Lewis & Curry is larger than internal variability in MPI‑ESM1.1.
- Since historical period energy-budget sensitivity estimates are much more imprecise for other reasons, internal variability contributes little to their total uncertainty; it is an unimportant factor.
- Nothing in the new Dessler et al. paper indicates that the Lewis & Curry energy-budget climate sensitivity estimates are likely to be biased low.
Climate scientist Andrew Dessler has two interlinked short papers on climate sensitivity estimation out, one as an unpublished non-peer reviewed preprint. I focus here on the published study (hereafter Dessler18).
The abstract reads:
Our climate is constrained by the balance between solar energy absorbed by the Earth and terrestrial energy radiated to space. This energy balance has been widely used to infer equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from observations of 20th-century warming. Such estimates yield lower values than other methods and these have been influential in pushing down the consensus ECS range in recent assessments. Here we test the method using a 100- member ensemble of the MPI-ESM1.1 climate model simulations of the period 1850-2005 with known forcing. We calculate ECS in each ensemble member using energy balance, yielding values ranging from 2.1 to 3.9 K.The spread in the ensemble is related to the central hypothesis in the energy budget framework: that global average surface temperature anomalies are indicative of anomalies in outgoing energy (either of terrestrial origin or reflected solar energy). We find that assumption is not well supported over the historical temperature record in the model ensemble or more recent satellite observations. We find that framing energy balance in terms of 500-hPa tropical temperature better describes the planet’s energy balance.
Of direct relevance to the new Lewis and Curry paper (hereafter LC18)</sup3, Dessler18 states:
With respect to precision of the estimates, our analysis shows that λand ECS estimated from the historical record can vary widely simply due to internal variability.
Andrew Dessler has been using the Dessler18 results to criticise energy budget ECS estimates, such as that in LC18. He tweeted:
New Lewis and Curry paper is out! Unfortunately for them, it’s already shown to be wrong! Our recent paper showed that the methodology produces answers that can deviate significantly from reality.
In reality, the LC18 results are untouched by the Dessler18 findings, as I shall show.
Dessler, A.E., P.M. Forster, 2018. An estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity from interannual variability. Preprint of submitted manuscript.
via Watts Up With That?
April 30, 2018 at 11:37AM