Advertisement

Climate Dynamics

, Volume 35, Issue 7–8, pp 1257–1287 | Cite as

Emulating AOGCM results using simple climate models

  • Dirk OliviéEmail author
  • Nicola Stuber
Article

Abstract

Three simple climate models (SCMs) are calibrated using simulations from atmosphere ocean general circulation models (AOGCMs). In addition to using two conventional SCMs, results from a third simpler model developed specifically for this study are obtained. An easy to implement and comprehensive iterative procedure is applied that optimises the SCM emulation of global-mean surface temperature and total ocean heat content, and, if available in the SCM, of surface temperature over land, over the ocean and in both hemispheres, and of the global-mean ocean temperature profile. The method gives best-fit estimates as well as uncertainty intervals for the different SCM parameters. For the calibration, AOGCM simulations with two different types of forcing scenarios are used: pulse forcing simulations performed with 2 AOGCMs and gradually changing forcing simulations from 15 AOGCMs obtained within the framework of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The method is found to work well. For all possible combinations of SCMs and AOGCMs the emulation of AOGCM results could be improved. The obtained SCM parameters depend both on the AOGCM data and the type of forcing scenario. SCMs with a poor representation of the atmosphere thermal inertia are better able to emulate AOGCM results from gradually changing forcing than from pulse forcing simulations. Correct simultaneous emulation of both atmospheric temperatures and the ocean temperature profile by the SCMs strongly depends on the representation of the temperature gradient between the atmosphere and the mixed layer. Introducing climate sensitivities that are dependent on the forcing mechanism in the SCMs allows the emulation of AOGCM responses to carbon dioxide and solar insolation forcings equally well. Also, some SCM parameters are found to be very insensitive to the fitting, and the reduction of their uncertainty through the fitting procedure is only marginal, while other parameters change considerably. The very simple SCM is found to reproduce the AOGCM results as well as the other two comparably more sophisticated SCMs.

Keywords

Simple climate models Energy balance models Pulse response Inverse modelling 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Jan Fuglestvedt and Ragnhild Bieltvedt Skeie for the use of their SCM and many helpful discussions, and David Salas-Mélia for his help with the CNRM-CM3 simulations. We also thank Keith Shine for advice, fruitful discussions and valuable comments on draft versions of this paper. We acknowledge the modelling groups, the Programme for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI) and the WCRP’s Working Group on Coupled Modelling (WGCM) for their roles in making available the WCRP CMIP3 multi-model dataset. Support of this dataset is provided by the Office of Science, US Department of Energy. This work was supported by the European Union FP6 Integrated Project QUANTIFY (http://www.pa.op.dlr.de/quantify/) under contract no. 003893 (GOCE).

References

  1. Cariolle D, Lasserre-Bigory A, Royer JF (1990) A general circulation model simulation of the springtime Antarctic ozone decrease and its impact on mid-latitudes. J Geophys Res 95:1883–1898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cubasch U, Meehl GA, Boer GJ, Stouffer RJ, Dix M, Noda A, Senior CA, Raper SCB, Yap KS (2001) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Contribution of working group I to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, chap Projections of future climate change, pp 526–582Google Scholar
  3. de Forster PM, Taylor KE (2006) Climate forcings and climate sensitivities diagnosed from coupled climate model integrations. J Clim 19:6181–6194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Foreman SJ (1990) Ocean model mixed layer formulation. Unified model documentation paper 41, Met. Office, UKGoogle Scholar
  5. Forster PM, Blackburn M, Glover R, Shine KP (2000) An examination of climate sensitivity for idealised climate change experiments in an intermediate general circulation model. Clim Dyn 16:833–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gordon C, Cooper C, Senior CA, Banks H, Gregory JM, Johns TC, Mitchell JFB, Wood RA (2000) The simulation of sst, sea ice extents and ocean heat transports in a version of the Hadley Centre coupled model without flux adjustments. Clim Dyn 16:147–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gregory JM, Ingram WJ, Palmer MA, Jones GS, Stott PA, Thorpe RB, Lowe JA, Johns TC, Williams KD (2004) A new method for diagnosing radiative forcing and climate sensitivity. Geophys Res Lett 31:L03205 doi: 10.1029/2003GL018747 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Guémas V, Salas-Mélia D (2008) Simulation of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation in an atmosphere–ocean global coupled model. Part I: a mechanism governing the variability of ocean convection in a preindustrial experiment. Clim Dyn 31:29–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hansen J, Sato M, Ruedy R, Nazarenko L, Lacis A, Schmidt G, Russell G, Aleinov I, Bauer M, Bauer S, Bell N, Cairns B, Canuto V, Chandler M, Cheng Y, Genio AD, Faluvegi G, Fleming E, Friend A, Hall T, Jackman C, Kelley M, Kiang N, Koch D, Lean J, Lerner J, Lo K, Menon S, Miller R, Minnis P, Novakov T, Oinas V, Perlwitz J, Perlwitz J, Rind D, Romanou A, Shindell D, Stone P, Sun S, Tausnev N, Thresher D, Wielicki B, Wong T, Yao M, Zhang S (2005) Efficacy of climate forcings. J Geophys Res 110(D18104). doi: 10.1029/2005JD005776
  10. Harvey D, Gregory J, Hoffert M, Jain A, Lal M, Leemans R, Raper S, Wigley T, de Wolde J (1997) An introduction to simple climate models used in the IPCC second assessment report. Tech. rep., IPCCGoogle Scholar
  11. Hasselman K, Sausen R, Maier-Reimer E, Voss R (1993) On the cold start problem in transient simulations with coupled atmosphere–ocean models. Clim Dyn 9:53–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Houghton JT, Jenkins GJ, Ephraums JJ (eds) (1990) Climate change: the IPCC scientific assessment. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Houghton JT, Filho LGM, Callander BA, Harris N, Kattenberg A, Maskell K (eds) (1996) Climate change 1995: the science of climate change. Contribution of working group I to the second assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 572 ppGoogle Scholar
  14. Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden PJ, Dai X, Maskell K, Johnson CA (eds) (2001) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Contribution of working group I to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 881 ppGoogle Scholar
  15. Joshi M, Shine K, Ponater M, Stuber N, Sausen R, Li L (2003) A comparison of climate response to different radiative forcings in three general circulation models: towards an improved metric of climate change. Clim Dyn 20:843–854Google Scholar
  16. Kraus EB, Turner JS (1967) A one dimensional model of the seasonal thermocline. Part II. Tellus 19:98–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Levitus S, Antonov JI, Boyer TP, Stephens C (2000) Warming of the world ocean. Science 287:2225–2229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Levitus S, Antonov JI, Wang J, Delworth TL, Dixon KW, Broccoli AJ (2001) Anthropogenic warming of earth’s climate system. Science 292:267–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Levitus S, Antonov J, Boyer T (2005) Warming of the world ocean, 1955–2003. Geophys Res Lett 32: L02604. doi: 10.1029/2004GL021592 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Madec G, Delecluse P, Imbard M, Lévy C (1998) OPA version 8.1 Ocean General Circulation Model Reference Manual. Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace, Laboratoire d’Océanographie Dynamique et de Climatologie, Université Paris VI, Paris 75252, France. http://www.lodyc.jussieu.fr/opa/Docu_Free/Doc_models/Doc_OPA8.1.pdf/
  21. McAveney BJ, Covey C, Joussaume S, Kattsov V, Kitoh A, Ogana W, Pitman A, Weaver AJ, Wood RA, Zhao ZC (2001) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Contribution of working group I to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, chap Model evaluation, pp 471–524Google Scholar
  22. Meehl GA, Stocker TF, Collins WD, Friedlingstein P, Gaye AT, Gregory JM, Kitoh A, Knutti R, Murphy JM, Noda A, Raper SCB, Watterson IG, Weaver AJ, Zhao ZC (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, chap Global climate projections, pp 747–845Google Scholar
  23. Meinshausen M, Raper S, Wigley T (2008) Emulating IPCC AR4 atmosphere–ocean and carbon cycle models for projecting global-mean, hemispheric and land/ocean temperatures: MAGICC 6.0. Atmos Chem Phys Discuss 8:6153–6272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 8:496–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Oki T, Sud YC (1998) Design of total runoff integrating pathways (trip) a global river channel network. Earth Interactions 2, paper 1Google Scholar
  26. Oki T, Wishimyra T, Dirmeyer P (1999) Assessment of annual runoff from land surface models using total runoff integrating pathways (trip). J Meteorol Soc Jpn 77:235–255Google Scholar
  27. Osborn TJ, Raper SCB, Briffa KR (2006) Simulated climate change during the last 1000 years: comparing the ECHO-g general circulation model with the MAGICC simple climate model. Clim Dyn 27:185–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ponater M, Pechtl S, Sausen R, Schumann U, Hüttig G (2006) A state-of-the-art assessment of the potential of the cryoplane technology to reduce aircraft climate impact. Atmos Environ 40:6928–6944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pope VD, Gallani ML, Rowntree PR, Stratton RA (2000) The impact of new physical parametrizations in the Hadley Centre climate model: HADAM3. Clim Dyn 16:123–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Randall DA, Wood RA, Bony S, Colman R, Fichefet T, Fyfe J, Kattsov V, Pitman A, Shukla J, Srinivasan J, Stouffer RJ, Sumi A, Taylor KE (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, chap Climate models and their evaluation, pp 589–662Google Scholar
  31. Raper SCB, Cubasch U (1996) Emulation of the results from a general circulation model using a simple climate model. Geophys Res Lett 23:1107–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Raper SCB, Gregory JM, Osborn TJ (2001) Use of an upwelling-diffusion energy balance climate model to simulate and diagnose AOGCM results. Clim Dyn 17:601–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Raper SCB, Gregory JM, Stouffer RJ (2002) The role of climate sensitivity and ocean heat uptake on AOGCM transient temperature response. J Clim 15:124–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Salas-Mélia D (2002) A global coupled sea ice–ocean model. Ocean Model 4:137–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Salas-Mélia D, Chauvin F, Déqué M, Douville H, Guérémy JF, Marquet P, Planton S, Royer J, Tyteca S (2005) Description and validation of the CNRM-CM3 global coupled model. Tech. Rep. 103, CNRMGoogle Scholar
  36. Sausen R, Schumann U (2000) Estimates of the climate response to aircraft CO2 and NOX emissions scenarios. Clim Chang 44:27–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schlesinger ME, Jiang X (1990) Simple model representation of atmopshere–ocean GCMs and estimation of the time scale of CO2-induced climate change. J Clim 3:1297–1315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schlesinger ME, Jiang X (1991) Revised projections of future greenhouse warming. Nature 350:219–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schlesinger ME, Ramankutty N (1992) Implications for global warming of intercycle solar irradiance variations. Nature 360:330–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schlesinger ME, Jiang X, Charlson RJ (1992) Implications of anthropogenic atmospheric sulphate for the sensitivity of the climate system. Reprinted from Climate Change and Energy PolicyGoogle Scholar
  41. Shine KP, Fuglestvedt J, Hailemariam K, Stuber N (2005) Alternatives to the global warming potential for comparing climate impacts of emissions of greenhouse gases. Clim Chang. doi: 10.1007/s10584-005-1146-9
  42. Skeie RB, Fuglestvedt J, Berntsen T, Lund MT, Myhre G, Rypdal K (2009) Global temperature change from the transport sectors: historical development and future scenarios. Atmos Environ 43:6260–6270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt K, Tignor MMB, Miller HL (eds) (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 996 ppGoogle Scholar
  44. Stott PA, Tett SF, Jones GS, Allen MR, Mitchell JF, Jenkins GJ (2000) External control of 20th century temperature by natural and anthropogenic forcings. Science 290:2133–2137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stuber N, Ponater M, Sausen R (2005) Why radiative forcing might fail as a predictor of climate change. Clim Dyn 24:497–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tarantola A (2005) Inverse problem theory and methods for model parameter estimation. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, 342 ppGoogle Scholar
  47. Tett SFB, Jones GS, Stott PA, Hill DC, Mitchell JFB, Allen MR, Ingram WJ, Johns TC, Johnson CE, Jones A, Roberts DL, Sexton DMH, Woodage M (2002) Estimates of natural and anthropogenic contributions to twentieth century temperature change. J Geophys Res 107(D16):4306. doi: 10.1029/2000JD000028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. van Vuuren DP, Weyant J, de la Chesnaye F (2006) Multi-gas scenarios to stabilize radiative forcing. Energy Econ 28:102–120. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2005.10.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wigley TML (1998) The kyoto protocol: CO2, CH4, and climate implications. Geophys Res Lett 25:2285–2288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wigley TML, Raper CSB (2001) Interpretation of high projections for global-mean warming. Nature 293:451–454Google Scholar
  51. Wigley TML, Raper CSB (2002) Reasons for larger warming projections in the IPCC third assessment report. J Clim 15:2945–2952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wigley TML, Raper SCB (1987) Thermal expansion of sea water associated with global warming. Nature 330:127–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wigley TML, Raper SCB (1992) Implications for climate and sea level of revised IPCC emissions scenarios. Nature 357:293–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre National de Recherches MétéorologiquesToulouseFrance
  2. 2.Department of MeteorologyUniversity of ReadingReadingUK

Personalised recommendations