Realistic Climate Models Exhibit Greenhouse Gas Sensitivity

A consideration of the role of sootlike particulates and ozone implies that the climate should will not be insensitive to increasing levels of greenhouse gases. David Biello reports

 

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


On March 12, researchers reported that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere moved above 400 parts-per-million en route to a springtime peak. During spring, trees and other plants begin to draw down CO2 levels to fuel leaf growth. But this is the second time in as many years that levels have risen above 400 ppm, a mark never before experienced in the entire time our species has walked the Earth.
 
So the important question is: exactly how sensitive is the Earth's climate to these ever-increasing greenhouse gases? Will warming happen gradually or quickly, and to what extent? Even more importantly, how can we find out without the potentially catastrophic experiment we are presently running?

A recent study suggests that other greenhouse gases may be the key to answering this question. Specifically soot-like air pollution and ozone. Taking into account the unique characteristics of this localized air pollution suggests that the climate is "very unlikely" to be insensitive. The research appears in the journal Nature Climate Change. [Drew T. Shindell, Inhomogeneous forcing and transient climate sensitivity]

That means climate change with an increase of more than a degree Celsius compared with the last century is very likely already. It's going to take cutting out most further greenhouse gas pollution to restrain further global warming.
 
—David Biello
 
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
 
[Scientific American is part of the Nature Publishing Group.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe