Climate Dynamics

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 371–390 | Cite as

The energy cycle in atmospheric models

Article

Abstract

The energy cycle characterizes basic aspects of the physical behaviour of the climate system. Terms in the energy cycle involve first and second order climate statistics (means, variances, covariances) and the intercomparison of energetic quantities offers physically motivated “second order” insight into model and system behaviour. The energy cycle components of 12 models participating in AMIP2 are calculated, intercompared and assessed against results based on NCEP and ERA reanalyses. In general, models simulate a modestly too vigorous energy cycle and the contributions to and reasons for this are investigated. The results suggest that excessive generation of zonal available potential energy is an important driver of the overactive energy cycle through “generation push” while excessive dissipation of eddy kinetic energy in models is implicated through “dissipation pull‘’. The study shows that “ensemble model” results are best or among the best in the comparison of energy cycle quantities with reanalysis-based values. Thus ensemble approaches are apparently “best” not only for the simulation of 1st order climate statistics as in Lambert and Boer (Clim Dyn 17:83–106, 2001) but also for the higher order climate quantities entering the energy cycle.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The model data was obtained from PCMDI as part of the AMIP2 intercomparison project. We appreciate the comments of J. Fyfe and G. Flato on an earlier version of the manuscript.

References

  1. Boer GJ (1982) Diagnostic equations in isobaric coordinates. Mon Wea Rev 110:1801–1820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boer GJ (2000a) Analysis and verification of model climate, chap 3. Numerical modelling of the Global Atmosphere, NATO Science Series. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 59–82Google Scholar
  3. Boer GJ (2000b) Climate model intercomparison, chap 19. Numerical modelling of the Global Atmosphere, NATO Science Series. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 443–464Google Scholar
  4. Boer GJ, Lambert SJ (2001) Second-order space-time climate difference statistics. Climate Dyn 17:213–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boer GJ (2003) Multi-model ensemble long-timescale potential predictability. In: Proceedings of the 18th stanstead seminar, Lennoxville, 16–20 June 2003Google Scholar
  6. Boer GJ, Arpe K, Blackburn M, Déqué M, Gates WL, Hart TL, le Treut H, Roeckner E, Sheinin DA, Simmonds I, Smith RNB, Tokioka T, Wetherald RT, Williamson D (1992) Some results from an intercomparison of climates simulated by 14 atmospheric general circulation models. J Geophys Res 97:12771–12786Google Scholar
  7. Gates WL (1987) Problems and prospects in climate modeling. In: Radok U (ed) Toward understanding climate change. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 5–34Google Scholar
  8. Gates WL (1992) AMIP: the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project. Bull Am Meteor Soc 73:1962–1970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gates WL, Boyle JS, Covey C, Dease CG, Doutriaux CM, Drach RS, Fiorino M, Gleckler PJ, Hnilo JJ, Marlais SM, Phillips TJ, Potter GL, Santer BD, Sperber KR, Taylor KE, Williams DN (1999) An overview of the results of the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP). Bull Am Meteor Soc 80:29–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kalnay E, Kanamitsu M, Kistler R, Collins W, Deaven D, Gandin L, Iredell M, Saha S, White G, Woollen J, Zhu Y, Leetmaa A, Reynolds B, Chelliah M, Ebisuzaki W, Higgins W, Janowiak J, Mo KC, Ropelewski C, Wang J, Roy Jenne, Dennis Joseph (1996) The NCEP/NCAR 40-year reanalysis project. Bull Am Meteor Soc 77:437–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lambert SJ, Boer GJ (2001) CMIP1 evaluation and intercomparison of coupled climate models. Clim Dyn 17:83–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lorenz EN (1955) Available potential energy and the maintenance of the general circulation. Tellus 7:157–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Peixoto JP, Oort A (1992) Physics of climate. American Institute of Physics, New York, 520 ppGoogle Scholar
  14. Taylor KE (2001) Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in single diagram. J Geophys Res 106:7183–7192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Uppala SM, Kållberg PW, Simmons AJ, Andrae U, da Costa Bechtold V, Fiorino M, Gibson JK, Haseler J, Hernandez A, Kelly GA, Li X, Onogi K, Saarinen S, Sokka N, Allan RP, Andersson E, Arpe K, Balmaseda MA, Beljaars ACM, van de Berg L, Bidlot J, Bormann N, Caires S, Chevallier F, Dethof A, Dragosavac M, Fisher M, Fuentes M, Hagemann S, Hólm E, Hoskins BJ, Isaksen L, Janssen PAEM, Jenne R, McNally AP, Mahfouf J-F, Morcrette J-J, Rayner NA, Saunders RW, Simon P, Sterl A, Trenberth KE, Untch A, Vasiljevic D, Viterbo P, Woollen J (2005) The ERA-40 re-analysis. Q J R Meteorol Soc 131:2961–3012. doi: 10.1256/ qj.04.176 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Canadian Crown Copyright 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Environment CanadaUniversity of VictoriaVictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations