The effective climate feedback/sensitivity, including its components, is a robust first order feature of the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis (CCCma) coupled global climate model (GCM) and presumably of the climate system. Feedback/sensitivity characterizes the surface air temperature response to changes in radiative forcing and is constant, to first order, independent of the nature, history, and magnitude of the forcing and of the changing climate state. This "constancy" can only be approximate, however, and modest second order changes of 10–20% are found in stabilization simulations in which the forcing, based on the IS92a scenario, is fixed (stabilized) at year 2050 and 2100 values and the system is integrated for an additional 1000 years toward a new equilibrium. Both positive and negative feedback mechanisms tend to strengthen, with the balance tilted toward stronger negative feedback and hence weaker climate sensitivity, as the system evolves and warms. Some feedback mechanisms weaken locally, however, and an example of such is the ice/snow albedo feedback which is less effective in areas of the Northern Hemisphere where ice/snow has retreated. Changes in the geographical distribution of the feedbacks are modest and weakening feedback in one region is often counteracted by strengthening feedback in other regions so that global and zonal values do not reflect the dominance of a particular mechanism or region but rather the residual of changes in different components and regions. The overall 10–20% strengthening of the negative feedback (decrease in climate sensitivity) in the CCCma model contrasts with a weakening of negative feedback (increase in climate sensitivity) of over 20% in the Hadley Centre model under similar conditions. The different behaviour in the two models is due primarily to solar cloud feedback with a strengthening of the negative solar cloud feedback in the CCCma model contrasting with a weakening of it in the Hadley Centre model. The importance of processes which determine cloud properties and distribution is again manifest both in determining first order climate feedback/sensitivity and also in determining its second order variation with climate state.
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
We greatly appreciate the work of Greg Flato, Dave Ramsden, Cathy Reader, Warren Lee, and other members of CCCma in the production of the CGCM results analyzed here and of B. Pal in processing some of the results. D. Robataille reran part of the simulations to obtain the cloud forcing results. We thank Steve Lambert and Vivek Arora for helpful comments.
Boer GJ (1995) Some dynamical consequences of greenhouse gas warming. Atmos–Ocean 33: 731–751Google Scholar
Boer GJ, Yu B (2002) Climate sensitivity and response. Clim Dyn 20: 415–429Google Scholar
Boer GJ, Flato G, Reader MC, Ramsden D (2000a) A transient climate change simulation with greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing: experimental design and comparison with the instrumental record for the 20th century. Clim Dyn 16: 405–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boer GJ, Flato G, Ramsden D (2000b) A transient climate change simulation with greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing: projected climate for the 21th century. Clim Dyn 16: 427–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen CT, Ramaswamy V (1996a) Sensitivity of simulated global climate to perturbation in low cloud microphysical properties. Part I: globally uniform perturbations. J Clim 9: 1385–1402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen CT, Ramaswamy V (1996b) Sensitivity of simulated global climate to perturbation in low cloud microphysical properties. Part II: spatially localized perturbations. J Clim 9: 2788–2801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flato GM, Boer GJ, Lee W, McFarlane N, Ramsden D, Weaver A (2000) The CCCma global coupled model and its climate. Clim Dyn 16: 451–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster P, Blackburn M, Glover R, Shine K (2000) An examination of climate sensitivity for idealized climate change experiments in an intermediate general circulation model. Clim Dyn 16: 833–849Google Scholar
Hansen J, Sato M, Ruedy R (1997) Radiative forcing and climate response. J Geophys Res 192: 6831–6864Google Scholar
IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001, The Scientific Basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 881Google Scholar
Murphy JM (1995) Transient response of the Hadley Centre coupled ocean–atmosphere model to increasing carbon dioxide: Part III. Analysis of global-mean response using simple models. J Clim 8: 57–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pacanowski RC, Dixon K, Rosati A (1993) The GFDL modular ocean model users guide. Ocean Group Tech Rep 2., GFDL, Princeton, pp 46Google Scholar
Senior CA, Mitchell J (2000) The time-dependence of climate sensitivity. Geophys Res Lett 27: 2685– 2689Google Scholar
Shapiro R (1971) Smoothing, filtering and boundary effects. Rev Geophys Space Phys 8: 359–387Google Scholar
Watterson IG (2000) Interpretation of simulated global warming using a simple model. J Clim 13: 202–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar