Advertisement

Climate Dynamics

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 71–84 | Cite as

A climate change simulation starting from 1935

  • U Cubasch
  • G C Hegerl
  • A Hellbach
  • H Höck
  • U Mikolajewicz
  • B D Santer
  • R Voss
Article

Abstract

Due to restrictions in the available computing resources and a lack of suitable observational data, transient climate change experiments with global coupled ocean-atmosphere models have been started from an initial state at equilibrium with the present day forcing. The historical development of greenhouse gas forcing from the onset of industrialization until the present has therefore been neglected. Studies with simplified models have shown that this “cold start” error leads to a serious underestimation of the anthropogenic global warming. In the present study, a 150-year integration has been carried out with a global coupled ocean-atmosphere model starting from the greenhouse gas concentration observed in 1935, i.e., at an early time of industrialization. The model was forced with observed greenhouse gas concentrations up to 1985, and with the equivalent C02 concentrations stipulated in Scenario A (“Business as Usual”) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change from 1985 to 2085. The early starting date alleviates some of the cold start problems. The global mean near surface temperature change in 2085 is about 0.3 K (ca. 10%) higher in the early industrialization experiment than in an integration with the same model and identical Scenario A greenhouse gas forcing, but with a start date in 1985. Comparisons between the experiments with early and late start dates show considerable differences in the amplitude of the regional climate change patterns, particularly for sea level. The early industrialization experiment can be used to obtain a first estimate of the detection time for a greenhouse-gas-induced near-surface temperature signal. Detection time estimates are obtained using globally and zonally averaged data from the experiment and a long control run, as well as principal component time series describing the evolution of the dominant signal and noise modes. The latter approach yields the earliest detection time (in the decade 1990–2000) for the time-evolving near-surface temperature signal. For global-mean temperatures or for temperatures averaged between 45°N and 45°S, the signal detection times are in the decades 2015–2025 and 2005–2015, respectively. The reduction of the “cold start” error in the early industrialization experiment makes it possible to separate the near-surface temperature signal from the noise about one decade earlier than in the experiment starting in 1985. We stress that these detection times are only valid in the context of the coupled model's internally-generated natural variability, which possibly underestimates low frequency fluctuations and does not incorporate the variance associated with changes in external forcing factors, such as anthropogenic sulfate aerosols, solar variability or volcanic dust.

Keywords

Detection Time Cold Start Cold Start Problem Principal Component Time Series Climate Change Experiment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bakan S, Chlond A, Cubasch U, Feichter J, Graf HF, Grassl H, Hasselmann K, Kirchner I, Latif M, Roeckner E, Sausen R, Schlese U, Schriever D, Schult I, Schumann U, Sielmann F, Welke W (1991) Climate response to smoke from the burning oil wells in Kuwait. Nature 351:367–371Google Scholar
  2. Charlson RJ, Langer J, Rohde H, Leovy CB, Warren SG (1991) Perturbation of the Northern Hemisphere radiative balance by backscattering from anthropogenic sulfate aerosols. Tellus 43ab:152–163Google Scholar
  3. Cubasch U, Hasselmann K, Hock H, Maier-Reimer E, Mikolajewicz U, Santer BD, Sausen R (1992) Time-dependent greenhouse warming computations with a coupled ocean-atmosphere model. Clim Dyn 8:55–69Google Scholar
  4. Cubasch U, Santer BD, Hellbach A, Hegerl GC, Höck H, Maier-Reimer E, Mikolajewicz U, Stössel A, Voss R (1994) Monte Carlo climate change forecasts with a global coupled ocean-atmosphere model. Clim Dyn 10:1–19Google Scholar
  5. Fichefet T, Tricot C (1992) Influence of the starting date of model integration on projections of greenhouse-gas-induced climatic change. Geophys Res Lett 19:1771–1774Google Scholar
  6. Friis-Christensen E, Lassen K (1991) Length of the solar cycle: an indicator of soalar activity closely associated with climate. Science 254:698–700Google Scholar
  7. Hansen J, Fung I, Lacis A, Rind D, Lebedeff S, Ruedy R, Russel G (1988) Global climate changes as forecast by GISS 3-d model. J Geophys Res 93:9341–9364Google Scholar
  8. Hasselmann K, Sausen R, Maier-Reimer E, Voss R (1993) On the cold start problem with coupled atmosphere-ocean models. Clim Dyn 9:53–61Google Scholar
  9. Hegerl GC, von Storch H, Hasselmann K, Santer BD, Cubasch U, Jones PD (1994) Detecting anthropogenic climate change with an optimal fingerprint method. Rep. No. 142, MPI für Meteorologie, Hamburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  10. Houghton JT, Jenkins GJ, Ephraums JJ (eds) (1990) Climate change. The IPCC scientific assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  11. Houghton JT, Callander BA, Varney SK (eds) (1992) Climate change 1992. The supplementary report to the IPCC scientific assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  12. Jones PD, Briffa KR (1992) Global surface air temperature variations during the twentieth century: Part 1, spatial, temporal and seasonal details. The Holocene 2, 2:165–179CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Maier-Reimer E, Mikolajewicz U, Hasselmann K (1993) Mean circulation of the Hamburg LSG OGCM and its sensitivity of the thermohaline surface forcing. J Phys Oceanogr 23:731–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Manabe S, Stouffer RJ, Spelman MJ, Bryan K (1991) Transient responses of a coupled ocean-atmosphere model for gradual changes of atmospheric CO2. Part I: annual mean response. J Clim 4:785–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Manabe S, Spelman MJ, Stouffer RJ (1992) Transient responses of a coupled ocean-atmosphere model for gradual changes of atmospheric CO2. Part II: seasonal response. J Clim 5:105–126Google Scholar
  16. Meehl GA, Washington WM (1990) CO2 climate sensitivity and snow-sea-ice albedo parameterization in an atmospheric GCM coupled to a mixed layer ocean model. Clim Change 16:283–306Google Scholar
  17. Meehl GA, Washington WM, Karl TR (1993) Low-frequency variability and CO2 transient climate change. Part 1: time-averaged differences. Clim Dyn 8:117–133Google Scholar
  18. Mikolajewicz U, Maier-Reimer E (1990) Internal secular variability in an ocean circulation model. Clim Dyn 4:145–156Google Scholar
  19. Mikolajewicz U, Santer BD, Maier-Reimer E (1990) Ocean response to greenhouse warming. Nature 354:589–593Google Scholar
  20. Santer BD, Brüggemann W, Cubasch U, Hasselmann K, Höck H, Maier-Reimer E, Mikolajewicz U (1994) Signal-to-noise analysis of time-dependent greenhouse warming experiments. Part 1: pattern analysis. Clim Dyn 9:267–285Google Scholar
  21. Santer BD, Mikolajewicz U, Brüggemann W, Cubasch U, Hasselmann K, Höck H, Maier-Reimer E, Wigley TML (1995) Ocean variability and its influence on the detectability of greenhouse warming signals accepted by JGR (ocean)Google Scholar
  22. Santer BD, Cubasch U, Hegerl GC, Mikolajewicz U (1993b) The use of general circulation models in detecting climate change induced by greenhouse gases. PCMDI Report 10, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550Google Scholar
  23. Stouffer RJ, Manabe S, Vinnikov K Ya (1994) Model assessment of the role of natural variability in recent global warming. Nature 367:634–636Google Scholar
  24. Taylor KE, Penner JE (1994) Anthropogenic aerosols and climate change. Nature 369:734–737Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • U Cubasch
    • 1
  • G C Hegerl
    • 2
  • A Hellbach
    • 1
  • H Höck
    • 1
  • U Mikolajewicz
    • 2
  • B D Santer
    • 3
  • R Voss
    • 1
  1. 1.Deutsches KlimarechenzentrumHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Max-Planck-Institut für MeteorologieHamburgGermany
  3. 3.PCMDI/Lawrence Livermore National LaboratoryLivermoreUSA

Personalised recommendations