The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
claims is essentially Fig. 8 , which is based on ref. 37 but is generally attributed to ref. 38. What is shown in this figure is the meridional distribution of surface temperature for various past climates scaled by the change in global mean temperature. The fact that temperatures so scaled seem to lie on a single curve has led to the conclusion that mean temperature determines the meridional distribution uniquely. However, the “universality” of the relation is almost certainly an artifact of the fact that equatorial temperature changes are, according to this curve, very small. Thus, climate changes involving primarily changes in the equator-to-pole temperature difference will inevitably scale approximately with the mean temperature, since changes in the mean temperature are simply a residual of the changes in the equator-to-pole temperature when equatorial temperatures are approximately fixed. If, as suggested by GCM results in Fig. 6 , equatorial temperature changes are not much smaller than extratropical changes, then the “universality” of the curve in Fig. 8 would disappear. In either case, we no longer have any direct relation between global mean temperature and overall climate. This is consistent with the fact that we have no convincing mechanism whereby changes in mean temperature automatically determine the changes in meridional heat flux. At the same time, we do have mechanisms for changing the meridional heat flux even in the absence of changes in the mean external radiative forcing ( 32 ). In view of the above, there appears to be little reason to assume the modest changes in mean temperature that are claimed for increased CO2 will automatically be associated with major global climate change. Similarly, there is no reason to suppose that a climate insensitive to changing CO2 cannot, nonetheless, undergo profound climate change.
F IG . 8. Universal latitude variation of climate change. Based on ref. 37 .
The brief conclusion of this paper is that current GCMs are inadequate for the purpose of convincingly determining whether the small changes in TOA flux associated with an increase in CO2 are capable of producing significant climate change. However, we may not be dependent on uncertain models to ascertain climate sensitivity. Observations can potentially directly and indirectly be used to evaluate climate sensitivity to forcing of the sort produced by increasing CO2 even without improved GCMs. The observations needed for direct assessment are, indeed, observations that we are currently capable of making, and it is possible that the necessary observations may already be in hand, though the accuracy requirements may be greater than current data provide. Still, the importance of the question suggests that such avenues be adequately explored. Since the feedbacks involved in climate sensitivity are atmospheric, they are associated with short time scales. Oceanic delays are irrelevant, since observed surface temperatures are forcing the flux changes we are concerned with. The needed length of record must be determined empirically. Indirect estimates, based on response to volcanos, suggest sensitivity may be as small as 0.3–0.5°C for a doubling of CO2, which is well within the range of natural variability. This is not to suggest that such change cannot be detected; rather, it is a statement that the anticipated change is well within the range of what the earth regularly deals with. It is further noted that the common assertion that even small changes in mean temperature can lead to major changes in climate distribution is ill-founded and, likely, wrong.
Work reported here was done cooperatively with E. Schneider, C. Giannitsis, and D. Kirk-Davidoff. This work was supported by Grant 914441-ATM from the National Science Foundation and Grant NAGW 525 from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Ten percent of this research was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Institute of Global Environmental Change (NIGEC) through the NIGEC Northeast Regional Center at Harvard University (Department of Energy Cooperative Agreement DEFC03–90ER61010) and through the Computer Hardware, Advanced Mathematics and Model Physics program. Financial support does not constitute an endorsement by the Department of Energy of the views expressed in this article.
1. Möller, F. & Manabe, S. ( 1961 ) Z. Meteorol.15 , 3–8 .
2. Lindzen, R. S. ( 1993 ) Annu. Rev. Fl. Mech.26 , 353–378 .
3. Gleckler, P. J. , Randall, D. A. , Boer, R. , Colman, G. , Dix, M. , Galin, V., Helfand, M. , Kiehl, J. , Kichl, A. , Kitch, A. , Lau, W. , Liang, X.-Z. , Lykossov, V. , McAvaney, B. , Miyakoda, K. & Planton, S. ( 1994 ) Cloud-Radiative Effects on Implied Oceanic Energy Transports as Simulated by Atmospheric General Circulation Models , Report No. 15 of the Program for Climate Model Diagnostics and Intercomparisons ( Lawrence Livermore Radiation Laboratory , Livermore, CA ).
4. Gates, W. L. , Cubasch, U. , Meehl, G. , Mitchell, J. & Stouffer, R. ( 1993 ) An Intercomparison of Selected Features of the Control Climates Simulated by Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere General Circulation Models ( World Meteorological Organization , Geneva ), Publ. WMO/TD-No. 574 .
5. Chou, M. D. , Krats, D. P. & Ridgway, W. ( 1991 ) J. Climate4, 424–437 .
6. Thompson, S. L. & Warren, S. G. ( 1982 ) J. Atmos. Sci. 39 , 2667–2680 .
7. Manabe, S. & Wetherald, R. T. ( 1967 ) J. Atmos. Sci.24 , 241–259 .
8. Shine, K. P. & Sinha, A. ( 1991 ) Nature (London)354 , 382–384 .
9. Telegadas, K. & London, J. ( 1956 ) A Physical Model of Northern Hemisphere Troposphere for Winter and Summer ( Research Div. College of Engineering , New York Univ., New York ), Scientific Report No. 1, Contract AF19(122)-165 .
10. Peixoto, J. P. & Oort, A. H. ( 1992 ) Physics of Climate ( Am. Inst. Phys. , New York ).
11. Elliot, W. P. & Gaffen, D. J. ( 1991 ) Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc.72 , 1507–1520 .
12. Sun, D.-Z. & Lindzen, R. S. ( 1993 ) J. Atmos. Sci.50 , 1643–1660 .
13. Sun, D.-Z. & Held, I. M. ( 1996 ) J. Clim.9 , 665–675 .
14. DelGenio, A. D. , Lacis, A. A. & Ruedy, R. A. ( 1991 ) Nature (London)351 , 382–385 .
15. Wade, C. G. ( 1994 ) J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech.11 , 687–700 .
16. Schmetz, J. & van de Berg, L. ( 1994 ) Geophys. Res. Lett.21 , 573–576 .
17. Lee, W.-J. & Mak, M. ( 1994 ) J. Atmos. Sci.51 , 2137–2144 .
18. Lindzen, R. S. , Kirtman, B. , Kirk-Davidoff, D. & Schneider, E. ( 1994 ) J. Climate8 , 1681–1684 .
20. Wallace, J. M. , Zhang, Y. & Renwick, J. A. ( 1995 ) Science270 , 780–783 .
21. Lindzen, R. S. ( 1991 ) Prospects for Tropical Modeling, Proceedings of the European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecast Conference on Tropical Meteorology, Reading (internal report, available from ECMWF, Shinfield Park, Reading RG2 9AX, U.K.) .
22. MacCracken, M. C. & Luther, F. M. , eds. ( 1991 ) Projecting the Climatic Effects of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide ( U.S. Dept. of Energy