• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

RealClimate

Climate science from climate scientists...

  • Start here
  • Model-Observation Comparisons
  • Miscellaneous Climate Graphics
  • Surface temperature graphics
You are here: Home / Extras / Glossary / Climate sensitivity Sensibilité climatique

Climate sensitivity Sensibilité climatique

28 Nov 2004 by Gavin

Climate sensitivity is a measure of the equilibrium global surface air temperature change for a particular forcing. It is usually given as a °C change per W/m2 forcing. A standard experiment to determine this value in a climate model is to look at the doubled CO2 climate, and so equivalently, the climate sensitivity is sometimes given as the warming for doubled CO2 (i.e. from 280 ppm to 560 ppm). The forcing from doubled CO2 is around 4 W/m2 and so a sensitivity of 3°C for a doubling, is equivalent to a sensitivity of 0.75 °C/W/m2. The principal idea is that if you know the sum of the forcings, you can estimate what the eventual temperature change will be.

We should underscore that the concepts of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity are simply an empirical shorthand that climatologists find useful for estimating how different changes to the planet’s radiative balance will lead to eventual temperature changes. There are however some subtleties which rarely get mentioned. Firstly, there are a number of ways to define the forcings. The easiest is the ‘instantaneous forcing’ – the change is made and the difference in the net radiation at the tropopause is estimated. But it turns out that other definitions such as the ‘adjusted forcing’ actually give a better estimate of the eventual temperature change. These other forcings progressively allow more ‘fast’ feedbacks to operate (stratospheric temperatures are allowed to adjust for instance), but the calculations get progressively more involved.

Secondly, not all forcings are equal. Because of differences in vertical or horizontal distribution of forcings, some changes can have a more than proportional effect on temperatures. This can be described using a relative ‘efficacy’ factor that depends on the individual forcing. For instance, the effect of soot making snow and sea ice darker has a higher efficacy than an equivalent change in CO2 with the same forcing, mainly because there is a more important ice-albedo feedback in the soot case. The ideal metric of course would be a forcing that can be calculated easily and where every perturbation to the radiative balance had an relative efficacy of 1. Unfortunately, that metric has not yet been found!
La sensibilité climatique est une mesure de la variation de température d’équilibre globale de surface atmosphérique pour un forcage donné. Son unité est généralement des °C change par W/m2 de forçage. Pour déterminer sa valeur, une expérience classique est de regarder le climat pour une concentration en CO2 atmosphérique doublée ; ce qui fait que la sensibilité est donnée quelquefois donnée en terme de réchauffement pour un doublement du du CO2(c.a.d. une augmentation de 280 ppm a 560 ppm). Le forçage pour un doublement du CO2 est d’environ 4 W/m2 ce qui implique qu’une sensibilité de 3°C pour un doublement est équivalente a une sensibilité de 0.75 °C/W/m2. L’idée fondamentale est que si on connaît la somme de tous les forçages, il est alors possible d’estimer l’amplitude du changement de température induit.

Il est important de noter que les concepts de forçage radiatif et de sensibilité climatique sont des raccourcis empiriques que les climatologues trouvent utiles pour estimer l’impact de changements dans le bilan radiatif terrestre en termes de changements de températures. Quelques nuances doivent être mentionnées. Premièrement, il existe différentes manières de définir un forçage. La plus simple est le ‘forçage instantané’ – le changement est appliqué et la différence nette de radiation est estimée a la tropopause. Mais, en réalité, d’autres définitions, comme le ‘forçage ajusté’ donnent de meilleurs estimations du changement de température final. Ces autres forçages autorisent progressivement la mise en place de plus de rétroactions ‘rapides’ (les températures stratosphériques peuvent s’ajuster par exemple), mais le niveau de calcul augmente en retour.

Deuxièmement, tous les forçages ne sont pas égaux. En raison de différences dans les distributions verticales ou horizontales des forçages, certains changements peuvent avoir un effet sur les températures supérieur a celui directement proportionnel. Ceci peut être décrit comme un facteur relatif d’efficacité’, spécifique a chaque forçage. Par exemple, l’effet des suies a assombrir la neige et la glace de mer a une efficacité plus élevée qu’un changement équivalent en CO2 avec le même forçage, principalement en raison d’une rétro-action glace-albédo dans le cas des suies. Idéalement, un forçage pourrait être quantifiée par une méthode facile et dans laquelle chaque perturbation du bilan radiatif aurait une efficacité relative de 1. Malheureusement, une telle méthode n’a pas encore été trouvée !

Filed Under: Glossary

About Gavin

Primary Sidebar

Search

Search for:

Email Notification

get new posts sent to you automatically (free)
Loading

Recent Posts

  • Unforced Variations: Dec 2025
  • Who should pay?
  • Site updates etc.
  • Raising Climate Literacy
  • Unforced variations: Nov 2025
  • High-resolution ‘fingerprint’ images reveal a weakening Atlantic Ocean circulation (AMOC)

Our Books

Book covers
This list of books since 2005 (in reverse chronological order) that we have been involved in, accompanied by the publisher’s official description, and some comments of independent reviewers of the work.
All Books >>

Recent Comments

  • Susan Anderson on Unforced Variations: Dec 2025
  • One Anonymous Bloke on Unforced Variations: Dec 2025
  • Susan Anderson on Unforced Variations: Dec 2025
  • Piotr on Unforced Variations: Dec 2025
  • zebra on Who should pay?
  • Ray Ladbury on Who should pay?
  • Tomáš Kalisz on Unforced Variations: Dec 2025
  • Ray Ladbury on Who should pay?
  • Nigelj on Who should pay?
  • Nigelj on Raising Climate Literacy
  • Barry E Finch on Unforced Variations: Dec 2025
  • Ken Towe on Who should pay?
  • Atomsk’s Sanakan on Unforced variations: Nov 2025
  • patrick o twentyseven on Who should pay?
  • Atomsk’s Sanakan on Raising Climate Literacy
  • Atomsk’s Sanakan on Raising Climate Literacy
  • Susan Anderson on Who should pay?
  • Susan Anderson on Raising Climate Literacy
  • Radge Havers on Who should pay?
  • One Anonymous Bloke on Unforced Variations: Dec 2025
  • Ron R.. on Who should pay?
  • JCM on Raising Climate Literacy
  • Barry E Finch on Unforced Variations: Dec 2025
  • Barry E Finch on Unforced Variations: Dec 2025
  • Barton Paul Levenson on Raising Climate Literacy
  • Barton Paul Levenson on Who should pay?
  • MA Rodger on Unforced Variations: Dec 2025
  • zebra on Unforced Variations: Dec 2025
  • zebra on Unforced Variations: Dec 2025
  • ozajh on Who should pay?

Footer

ABOUT

  • About
  • Translations
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Page
  • Login

DATA AND GRAPHICS

  • Data Sources
  • Model-Observation Comparisons
  • Surface temperature graphics
  • Miscellaneous Climate Graphics

INDEX

  • Acronym index
  • Index
  • Archives
  • Contributors

Realclimate Stats

1,389 posts

15 pages

248,806 comments

Copyright © 2025 · RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.