LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Yokohata, Tokuta; Emori, Seita; Nozawa, Toru; Ogura, Tomoo; Kawamiya, Michio; Tsushima, Yoko; Suzuki, Tatsuo; Yukimoto, Seiji; Abe-Ouchi, Ayako; Hasumi, Hiroyasu; Sumi, Akimasa; Kimoto, Masahide (2008)
Publisher: Co-Action Publishing
Journal: Tellus A
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
We compared the climate response of doubled CO2 equilibrium experiments (2 × CO2) by atmosphere–slab ocean coupled general circulation models (ASGCMs) and that of 1% per year CO2 increase experiments (1%CO2 by atmosphere–ocean coupled general circulation models (AOGCMs) using eight state-of-the-art climate models. Climate feedback processes in 2 × CO2 are different from those in 1%CO2, and the equilibrium climate sensitivity (T2×) in 2 × CO2 is different from the effective climate sensitivity (T2×,eff) in 1%CO2. The difference between T2× and T2×,eff is from −1.3 to 1.6 K, a large part of which can be explained by the difference in the ice-albedo and cloud feedback. The largest contribution is cloud SW feedback, and the difference in cloud SW feedback for 2 × CO2 and 1%CO2 could be determined by the distribution of the SAT anomaly which causes differences in the atmospheric thermal structure. An important factor which determines the difference in ice-albedo feedback is the initial sea ice distribution at the Southern Ocean, which is generally overestimated in 2 × CO2 as compared to 1%CO2 and observation. Through the comparison of climate feedback processes in 2 ×CO2 and 1%CO2, the possible behaviour of the time evolution of T2×,eff is discussed.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Boer, G. J. and Yu, B. 2003. Dynamical aspects of climate sensitivity. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 1135, doi:10.1029/2002GL016549.
    • Bony, S. and Dufresne, J.-L. 2005. Marine boundary layer clouds at the heart of tropical cloud feedback uncertainties in climate models. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L20806, doi:10.1029/2005GL023851.
    • Cess, R. D., Potter, G. L., Blanchet, J. P., Boer, G. L., Del Genio, A. D. and co-authors. 1990. Intercomparison and interpretation of climate feedback processes in 19 atmospheric general circulation models. J. Geophys. Res. 95, 16 601-16 615.
    • Collins, W. D., Rasch, P. J., Boville, B. A., Hack, J. J., McCaa, J. R. and co-authors. 2004. Description of the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM3.0). Technical Note TN-464+STR, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, 214pp.
    • Collins, W. D., Booth, B. B. B., Harris, G. R., Murphy, J. M., Sexton, D. M. H. and co-authors. 2006. Towards quantifying uncertainty in transient climate change. Clim. Dyn. 27, 127-147.
    • Colman, R. A. 2003. A comparison of climate feedbacks in general circulation model. Clim. Dyn. 20, 865-873.
    • Diansky, N. A., Bagno, A. V. and Zalensny, V. B. 2002. Sigma model of global ocean circulation and its sensitivity to variations in wind stress. Izv. Atmos. Ocean. Phys. 38, 477-494.
    • Flato, G. M. 2005. The Third Generation Coupled Global Climate Model (CGCM3). http://www.cccma.bc.ec.gc.ca/models/cgcm3.shtml.
    • Forster, P. M. D. and Taylor, K. E. 2006. Climate Forcings and climate sensitivities diagnosed from coupled climate model integrations. J. Clim. 19, 6181-6194.
    • Galin, V. Ya, Volodin, E. M. and Smyshliaev, S. P. 2003. Atmospheric general circulation model of INM RAS with ozone dynamics. Russ. Meteorol. Hydrol. 5, 13-22.
    • GFDL GAMDT (The GFDL Global Atmospheric Model Development Team) 2004. The new GFDL global atmosphere and land model AM2- LM2: evaluation with prescribed SST simulations. J. Clim. 17, 4641- 4673.
    • Gnanadesikan, A., Dixon, K. W., Barreiro, M., Beesley, J. A., Cooke, W. F. and co-authors. 2004. GFDL's CM2 global coupled climate models.Part 2: The baseline ocean simulation. J. Clim. 19, 675- 697.
    • Gregory, J. M. and Webb, M. J. 2008. Tropospheric adjustment induces a cloud component in CO2 forcing. J. Clim. 21, 58-71.
    • Harris, G. R., Sexton, D. M. H., Booth, B. B. B., Colllins, M., Murphy, J. M. and co-authors. 2006. Frequency distributions of transient regional climate change from perturbed physics ensembles of general circulation model simulations. Clim. Dyn. 27, 357-375.
    • Johns, T. C., Durman, C. F., Banks, H. T., Roberts, M. J., McLaren, A. J. and co-authors. 2006. The new Hadley Center climate model (HadGEM1): evaluation of coupled simulations. J. Clim. 19, 1327- 1353.
    • K-1 model developers 2004. K-1 coupled GCM (MIROC) description. In: K-1 Tec. Rep. 1 (eds S. Emori and H. Hasumi), Univ. of Tokyo, Tokyo, 1-34.
    • Kiehl, J. T., Shields, C. A., Hack, J. J. and Collins, W. D., 2006. The Climate sensitivity of the Communiti Climate System Model Version 3. J. Clim. 19, 2584-2596.
    • Lindzen, R. S. and Farrell, B. F. 1980. A simple approximate result for maximum growth rate of baroclinic instabilities. J. Atmos. Sci. 37, 1648-1654.
    • Martin, G. M., Dearden, C., Greeves, C., Hinton, T., Inness, P. and co-authors. 2004. Evaluation of the Atmospheric Performance of HadGAM/GEM1. Hadley Centre Technical Note No. 54, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research/Met Office, Exeter.
    • McFarlane, N. A., Boer, G. J., Blanchet, J.-P. and Lazare, M. 1992. The Canadian Climate Centre second-generation general circulation model and its equilibrium climate. J. Clim. 5, 1013-1044.
    • Meehl, G. A., Covey, C., Delworth, T., Latif, M., McAvaney, B. and co-authors. 2007a. The WCRP CMIP3 multimodel dataset: A new era in climate change research. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc. 88, 1383- 1394.
    • Meehl, G. A., Stocker, T. F., Collins, W. D., Friedlingstein, P., Gaye, A. T. and co-authors. 2007b. Global climate projection. In: Climate Change 2007 The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Groupe I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds S. Susan, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis and co-editors), Cambridge University Press, New York, 747-845.
    • Murphy, J. M. 1995. Transient response of the Hadley Centre coupled ocean-atmophere model to increasing carbon dixide. Part III: analysis of global mean response using simple models. J. Clim. 8, 496- 514.
    • Ogura, T., Emori, S., Webb, M. J., Tsushima, Y., Yokohata, T. and coauthors. 2008. Towards understanding cloud response in atmospheric GCMs: the use of tendency diagnostics. J. Meteorol. Soc. Japan 86, 69-79.
    • Pacanowski, R. C., Dixon, K. and Rosati, A. 1993. The GFDL Modular Ocean Model Users Guide, Version 1.0. GFDL Ocean Group Technical Report No. 2, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton.
    • Raper, S. C., Gregory, J. M. and Stouffer, R. J. 2002. The role of climate sensitivity and ocean heat uptake on AOGCM transient temperature response. J. Clim. 15, 124-130.
    • Rayner, N. A., Parker, D. E., Horton, E. B., Folland, C. K., Alexander, L. V. and co-authors. 2003. Global analyses of sea surface temperature, sea ice, and night marine air temperature since the late nineteenth century. J. Geophys. Res. 108, 4407, doi:10.1029/2002JD002670.
    • Randall, D. A., Wood, R. A., Bony, S., Colman, R., Fichefet, T. and co-authors. 2007. Climate models and their evaluation. In: Climate Change 2007 The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Groupe I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (eds S. Susan, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis and co-editors), Cambridge University Press, New York, 589-662.
    • Rind, D. R., Hearly, C., Parkinson, C. and Martinson, D. 1995. The role of sea ice in 2 X CO2 climate model sensitivity. Part I: the total influence of sea ice thickness and extent. J. Clim. 8, 449- 463.
    • Russel, J. L., Dixon, K. W., Gnanadesikan, A. and Stouffer, R. J. 2006. The southern hemisphere westerlies in a warming world: Propping open the door to the deep ocean. J. Clim. 19, 6832-6390.
    • Roberts, M. J. 2004. The Ocean Component of HadGEM1. GMR Report Annex IV.D.3, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research/Met Office, Exeter.
    • Senior, C. A. and Mitchell, J. F. B. 1993. Carbon dioxide and climate: the impact of cloud parameterization. J. Clim. 6, 393-418.
    • Senior, C. A. and Mitchell, J. F. B. 2000. The time-dependence of climate sensitivity. Geophys. Res. Lett. 27, 2685-2688.
    • Shibata, K., Yoshimura, H., Oizumi, M., Hosaka, M. and Sugi, M. 1999. A simulation of troposphere, stratosphere and mesosphere with an MRI/JMA98 GCM. Papers in Meteorology and Geophysics 50, 15- 53.
    • Smith, R. D. and Gent, P. R. 2004. Reference Manual for the Parallel Ocean Program (POP), Ocean Component of the Community Climate System Model (CCSM2.0 and 3.0). Technical Report LA-UR-02- 2484, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos.
    • Soden, B. J. and Held, I. M. 2006. An assessment of climate feedbacks in coupled ocean-atmosphere models. J. Clim. 19, 3354-3360.
    • Soden, B. J., Broccoli, R. S. and Helmer, R. S. 2004. On the use of cloud forcing to estimate cloud feedback. J. Clim. 17, 3661-3665.
    • Spelman, M. J. and Manabe, S. 1984. Influence of oceanic heat transport upon the sensitivity of a model cli mate. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 571-586.
    • Stouffer, M. J. 2004. Time scales of climate response. J. Clim. 17, 209- 217.
    • Taylor, K. E., Crucifix, M., Braconnot, P., Hewitt, C. D., Doutriaux, C. and co-authors. 2007. Estimating short-wave radiative forcing and response in climate models. J. Clim. 20, 2530-2543.
    • Tsushima, Y., Emori, S., Ogura, T., Kimoto, M., Webb, M. J. and coauthors. 2006. Importance of th mixed-phase cloud distribution in the control climate for assessing the response of clouds to carbon dioxide increase: a multi-model study. Clim. Dyn. 27, 113-126.
    • Watterson, I. G. 2000. Interpretation of simulated global warming using a simple model. J. Clim. 13, 202-215.
    • Webb, M. J., Senior, C. A., Sexton, D. M. H., Ingram, W. J., Williams, K. D. and co-authors. 2006. On the contribution of local feedback mechanisms to the range of climate sensitivity in two GCM ensembles. Clim. Dyn. 26, 145-165.
    • Wetherald, R. T. and Manabe, S. 1988. Cloud feedback processes in a general circulation model. J. Atms. Sci. 45, 1397-1415.
    • Williams, K. and Tsedoius, J. 2007. GCM intercomparison of global cloud regimes: present-day evaluation and climate change response. Clim. Dyn. 26, 145-165.
    • Williams, K., Ringer, M., Senior, C. A., Webb, M. J., McAvaney, B. J. and co-authors. 2006. Evaluation of a component of the cloud response to climate change in an intercomparison of climate models. Clim. Dyn. 26, 145-165.
    • Williams, K. D., Ingram, W. J. and Gregory, J. M. 2008. Time variation of climate sensitivity in GCMs. J. Clim. doi:10.1175/2008JCLI2371.1.
    • Winton, M. 2006. Surface albedo feedback estimates for the AR4 climate models. J. Clim. 19, 359-365.
    • Yin, J. H. 2005. A consistent poleward shift of the storm track in simulation of 21st century climate. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L18701, doi:10.1029/2005GL023684.
    • Yokohata, T., Emori, S., Nozawa, T., Ogura, T., Tsushima, Y. and coauthors. 2005a. Climate response to volcanic forcing: Validation of climate sensitivity of a coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation model. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L21710, doi:10.1029/2005GL023542.
    • Yokohata, T., Emori, S., Nozawa, T., Ogura, T., Tsushima, Y. and coauthors. 2005b. A simple scheme for climate feedback analysis. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L19703, doi:10.1029/2005GL023673.
    • Yokohata, T., Emori, S., Nozawa, T., Ogura, T., Okada, N. and coauthors. 2007. Different transient climate responses of two versions of an atmosphere-ocean coupled general circulation model. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L02707, doi:10.1029/2006GL027966.
    • Yukimoto, S., Noda, A., Kitoh, A., Sugi, M., Kitamura, Y. and coauthors. 2001. The new Meteorological Research Institute global ocean-atmosphere coupled GCM (MRI-CGCM2)-Model climate and variability. Papers in Meteorology and Geophysics 51, 47- 88.
  • No related research data.
  • Discovered through pilot similarity algorithms. Send us your feedback.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article

Collected from