scholarly journals Three flavors of radiative feedbacks and their implications for estimating Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity

Author(s):  
Maria Rugenstein ◽  
Kyle C. Armour
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yue Dong ◽  
Kyle C. Armour ◽  
Cristian Proistosescu ◽  
Timothy Andrews ◽  
David S. Battisti ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 1233-1258
Author(s):  
Manuel Schlund ◽  
Axel Lauer ◽  
Pierre Gentine ◽  
Steven C. Sherwood ◽  
Veronika Eyring

Abstract. An important metric for temperature projections is the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which is defined as the global mean surface air temperature change caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. The range for ECS assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report is between 1.5 and 4.5 K and has not decreased over the last decades. Among other methods, emergent constraints are potentially promising approaches to reduce the range of ECS by combining observations and output from Earth System Models (ESMs). In this study, we systematically analyze 11 published emergent constraints on ECS that have mostly been derived from models participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) project. These emergent constraints are – except for one that is based on temperature variability – all directly or indirectly based on cloud processes, which are the major source of spread in ECS among current models. The focus of the study is on testing if these emergent constraints hold for ESMs participating in the new Phase 6 (CMIP6). Since none of the emergent constraints considered here have been derived using the CMIP6 ensemble, CMIP6 can be used for cross-checking of the emergent constraints on a new model ensemble. The application of the emergent constraints to CMIP6 data shows a decrease in skill and statistical significance of the emergent relationship for nearly all constraints, with this decrease being large in many cases. Consequently, the size of the constrained ECS ranges (66 % confidence intervals) widens by 51 % on average in CMIP6 compared to CMIP5. This is likely because of changes in the representation of cloud processes from CMIP5 to CMIP6, but may in some cases also be due to spurious statistical relationships or a too small number of models in the ensemble that the emergent constraint was originally derived from. The emergently- constrained best estimates of ECS also increased from CMIP5 to CMIP6 by 12 % on average. This can be at least partly explained by the increased number of high-ECS (above 4.5 K) models in CMIP6 without a corresponding change in the constraint predictors, suggesting the emergence of new feedback processes rather than changes in strength of those previously dominant. Our results support previous studies concluding that emergent constraints should be based on an independently verifiable physical mechanism, and that process-based emergent constraints on ECS should rather be thought of as constraints for the process or feedback they are actually targeting.


2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xin-Yu WEN ◽  
Shao-Wu WANG ◽  
Yong LUO ◽  
Zong-Ci ZHAO ◽  
Jian-Bin HUANG

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roman Procyk ◽  
Shaun Lovejoy ◽  
Raphaël Hébert ◽  
Lenin Del Rio Amador

<p>We present the Fractional Energy Balance Equation (FEBE): a generalization of the standard EBE.  The key FEBE novelty is the assumption of a hierarchy of energy storage mechanisms: scaling energy storage.  Mathematically the storage term is of fractional rather than integer order.  The special half-order case (HEBE) can be classically derived from the continuum mechanics heat equation used by Budyko and Sellers simply by introducing a vertical coordinate and using the correct conductive-radiative surface boundary conditions (the FEBE is a mild extension).</p><div> <p>We use the FEBE to determine the temperature response to both historical forcings and to future scenarios.  Using historical data, we estimate the 2 FEBE parameters: its scaling exponent (<em>H</em> = 0.38±0.05; <em>H</em> = 1 is the standard EBE) and relaxation time (4.7±2.3 years, comparable to box model relaxation times). We also introduce two forcing parameters: an aerosol re-calibration factor, to account for their large uncertainty, and a volcanic intermittency exponent so that the intermittency volcanic signal can be linearly related to the temperature. The high frequency FEBE regime not only allows for modelling responses to volcanic forcings but also the response to internal white noise forcings: a theoretically motivated error model (approximated by a fractional Gaussian noise). The low frequency part uses historical data and long memory for climate projections, constraining both equilibrium climate sensitivity and historical aerosol forcings. <span>Parameters are estimated in a Bayesian framework using 5 global observational temperature series, and an error model which is a theoretical consequence of the FEBE forced by a Gaussian white noise.</span></p> <p>Using the CMIP5 Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) and CMIP6 Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) scenario, the FEBE projections to 2100 are shown alongside the CMIP5 MME. The Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity = 2.0±0.4 <sup>o</sup>C/CO<sub>2</sub> doubling implies slightly lower temperature increases.   However, the FEBE’s 90% confidence intervals are about half the CMIP5 size so that the new projections lie within the corresponding CMIP5 MME uncertainties so that both approaches fully agree.   The mutually agreement of qualitatively different approaches, gives strong support to both.  We also compare both generations of General Circulation Models (GCMs) outputs from CMIP5/6 alongside with the projections produced by the FEBE model which are entirely independent from GCMs, contributing to our understanding of forced climate variability in the past, present and future.</p> <p>Following the same methodology, we apply the FEBE to regional scales: estimating model and forcing parameters to produce climate projections at 2.5<sup>o</sup>x2.5<sup>o</sup> resolutions. We compare the spatial patterns of climate sensitivity and projected warming between the FEBE and CMIP5/6 GCMs. </p> </div>


2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (16) ◽  
Author(s):  
John P. Dunne ◽  
Michael Winton ◽  
Julio Bacmeister ◽  
Gokhan Danabasoglu ◽  
Andrew Gettelman ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (7) ◽  
pp. 702-702
Author(s):  
Daniel J. A. Johansson ◽  
Brian C. O'Neill ◽  
Claudia Tebaldi ◽  
Olle Häggström

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 1071-1078 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian E. J. Rose ◽  
Kyle C. Armour ◽  
David S. Battisti ◽  
Nicole Feldl ◽  
Daniel D. B. Koll

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document