The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process agreed in Paris to limit global surface temperature rise to “well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels.” But what period is preindustrial? Somewhat remarkably, this is not defined within the UNFCCC’s many agreements and protocols. Nor is it defined in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) in the evaluation of when particular temperature levels might be reached because no robust definition of the period exists. Here we discuss the important factors to consider when defining a preindustrial period, based on estimates of historical radiative forcings and the availability of climate observations. There is no perfect period, but we suggest that 1720–1800 is the most suitable choice when discussing global temperature limits. We then estimate the change in global average temperature since preindustrial using a range of approaches based on observations, radiative forcings, global climate model simulations, and proxy evidence. Our assessment is that this preindustrial period was likely 0.55°–0.80°C cooler than 1986–2005 and that 2015 was likely the first year in which global average temperature was more than 1°C above preindustrial levels. We provide some recommendations for how this assessment might be improved in the future and suggest that reframing temperature limits with a modern baseline would be inherently less uncertain and more policy relevant.

/pdf/estimating-changes-in-global-temperature-since-the-1et753bmwu.pdf

Estimating Changes in Global Temperature since the Preindustrial Period

We have reconstructed the sunspot-group count, not by comparisons with other reconstructions and correcting those where they were deemed to be deficient, but by a re-assessment of original sources. The resulting series is a pure solar index and does not rely on input from other proxies, e.g. radionuclides, auroral sightings, or geomagnetic records. “Backboning” the data sets, our chosen method, provides substance and rigidity by using long-time observers as a stiffness character. Solar activity, as defined by the Group Number, appears to reach and sustain for extended intervals of time the same level in each of the last three centuries since 1700 and the past several decades do not seem to have been exceptionally active, contrary to what is often claimed.

Reconstruction of the Sunspot Group Number: The Backbone Method

New particle formation has been estimated to produce around half of cloud-forming particles in the present-day atmosphere, via gas-to-particle conversion. Here we assess the importance of new particle formation (NPF) for both the present-day and the preindustrial atmospheres. We use a global aerosol model with parametrizations of NPF from previously published CLOUD chamber experiments involving sulfuric acid, ammonia, organic molecules, and ions. We find that NPF produces around 67% of cloud condensation nuclei at 0.2% supersaturation (CCN0.2%) at the level of low clouds in the preindustrial atmosphere (estimated uncertainty range 45–84%) and 54% in the present day (estimated uncertainty range 38–66%). Concerning causes, we find that the importance of biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOCs) in NPF and CCN formation is greater than previously thought. Removing BVOCs and hence all secondary organic aerosol from our model reduces low-cloud-level CCN concentrations at 0.2% supersaturation by 26% in the present-day atmosphere and 41% in the preindustrial. Around three quarters of this reduction is due to the tiny fraction of the oxidation products of BVOCs that have sufficiently low volatility to be involved in NPF and early growth. Furthermore, we estimate that 40% of preindustrial CCN0.2% are formed via ion-induced NPF, compared with 27% in the present day, although we caution that the ion-induced fraction of NPF involving BVOCs is poorly measured at present. Our model suggests that the effect of changes in cosmic ray intensity on CCN is small and unlikely to be comparable to the effect of large variations in natural primary aerosol emissions.

/pdf/causes-and-importance-of-new-particle-formation-in-the-3uos1u3eg4.pdf

Causes and importance of new particle formation in the present-day and preindustrial atmospheres

New particle formation (NPF) represents the first step in the complex processes leading to formation of cloud condensation nuclei. Newly formed nanoparticles affect human health, air quality, weather, and climate. This review provides a brief history, synthesizes recent significant progresses, and outlines the challenges and future directions for research relevant to NPF. New developments include the emergence of state‐of‐the‐art instruments that measure prenucleation clusters and newly nucleated nanoparticles down to about 1 nm; systematic laboratory studies of multicomponent nucleation systems, including collaborative experiments conducted in the Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets chamber at CERN; observations of NPF in different types of forests, extremely polluted urban locations, coastal sites, polar regions, and high‐elevation sites; and improved nucleation theories and parameterizations to account for NPF in atmospheric models. The challenges include the lack of understanding of the fundamental chemical mechanisms responsible for aerosol nucleation and growth under diverse environments, the effects of SO2 and NOx on NPF, and the contribution of anthropogenic organic compounds to NPF. It is also critical to develop instruments that can detect chemical composition of particles from 3 to 20 nm and improve parameterizations to represent NPF over a wide range of atmospheric conditions of chemical precursor, temperature, and humidity.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2018JD029356

New Particle Formation in the Atmosphere: From Molecular Clusters to Global Climate

We have reconstructed the sunspot group count, not by comparisons with other reconstructions and correcting those where they were deemed to be deficient, but by a re-assessment of original sources. The resulting series is a pure solar index and does not rely on input from other proxies, e.g. radionuclides, auroral sightings, or geomagnetic records. 'Backboning' the data sets, our chosen method, provides substance and rigidity by using long-time observers as a stiffness character. Solar activity, as defined by the Group Number, appears to reach and sustain for extended intervals of time the same level in each of the last three centuries since 1700 and the past several decades do not seem to have been exceptionally active, contrary to what is often claimed.

Reconstruction of the Sunspot Group Number: the Backbone Method

Aims. Although the time of the Maunder minimum (1645–1715) is widely known as a period of extremely low solar activity, it is still being debated whether solar activity during that period might have been moderate or even higher than the current solar cycle #24. We have revisited all existing evidence and datasets, both direct and indirect, to assess the level of solar activity during the Maunder minimum. Methods. We discuss the East Asian naked-eye sunspot observations, the telescopic solar observations, the fraction of sunspot active days, the latitudinal extent of sunspot positions, auroral sightings at high latitudes, cosmogenic radionuclide data as well as solar eclipse observations for that period. We also consider peculiar features of the Sun (very strong hemispheric asymmetry of the sunspot location, unusual differential rotation and the lack of the K-corona) that imply a special mode of solar activity during the Maunder minimum. Results. The level of solar activity during the Maunder minimum is reassessed on the basis of all available datasets. Conclusions. We conclude that solar activity was indeed at an exceptionally low level during the Maunder minimum. Although the exact level is still unclear, it was definitely lower than during the Dalton minimum of around 1800 and significantly below that of the current solar cycle #24. Claims of a moderate-to-high level of solar activity during the Maunder minimum are rejected with a high confidence level.

/pdf/the-maunder-minimum-1645-1715-was-indeed-a-grand-minimum-a-2qec6f77jp.pdf

The Maunder minimum (1645–1715) was indeed a grand minimum: A reassessment of multiple datasets

Aims: Although the time of the Maunder minimum (1645--1715) is widely known as a period of extremely low solar activity, claims are still debated that solar activity during that period might still have been moderate, even higher than the current solar cycle #24. We have revisited all the existing pieces of evidence and datasets, both direct and indirect, to assess the level of solar activity during the Maunder minimum. 
Methods: We discuss the East Asian naked-eye sunspot observations, the telescopic solar observations, the fraction of sunspot active days, the latitudinal extent of sunspot positions, auroral sightings at high latitudes, cosmogenic radionuclide data as well as solar eclipse observations for that period. We also consider peculiar features of the Sun (very strong hemispheric asymmetry of sunspot location, unusual differential rotation and the lack of the K-corona) that imply a special mode of solar activity during the Maunder minimum. 
Results: The level of solar activity during the Maunder minimum is reassessed on the basis of all available data sets. 
Conclusions: We conclude that solar activity was indeed at an exceptionally low level during the Maunder minimum. Although the exact level is still unclear, it was definitely below that during the Dalton minimum around 1800 and significantly below that of the current solar cycle #24. Claims of a moderate-to-high level of solar activity during the Maunder minimum are rejected at a high confidence level.

Jezebel O'Reilly

Papers

The Maunder minimum (1645–1715) was indeed a grand minimum: A reassessment of multiple datasets

The Maunder minimum (1645--1715) was indeed a Grand minimum: A reassessment of multiple datasets