Advertisement

Climate Dynamics

, Volume 38, Issue 3–4, pp 455–473 | Cite as

Climate stability and sensitivity in some simple conceptual models

  • J. Ray Bates
Article

Abstract

A theoretical investigation of climate stability and sensitivity is carried out using three simple linearized models based on the top-of-the-atmosphere energy budget. The simplest is the zero-dimensional model (ZDM) commonly used as a conceptual basis for climate sensitivity and feedback studies. The others are two-zone models with tropics and extratropics of equal area; in the first of these (Model A), the dynamical heat transport (DHT) between the zones is implicit, in the second (Model B) it is explicitly parameterized. It is found that the stability and sensitivity properties of the ZDM and Model A are very similar, both depending only on the global-mean radiative response coefficient and the global-mean forcing. The corresponding properties of Model B are more complex, depending asymmetrically on the separate tropical and extratropical values of these quantities, as well as on the DHT coefficient. Adopting Model B as a benchmark, conditions are found under which the validity of the ZDM and Model A as climate sensitivity models holds. It is shown that parameter ranges of physical interest exist for which such validity may not hold. The 2 × CO2 sensitivities of the simple models are studied and compared. Possible implications of the results for sensitivities derived from GCMs and palaeoclimate data are suggested. Sensitivities for more general scenarios that include negative forcing in the tropics (due to aerosols, inadvertent or geoengineered) are also studied. Some unexpected outcomes are found in this case. These include the possibility of a negative global-mean temperature response to a positive global-mean forcing, and vice versa.

Keywords

Simple climate models Climate stability Climate sensitivity Aerosol forcing Geoengineering 

References

  1. Alexeev VA (2003) Sensitivity to CO2 doubling of an atmospheric GCM coupled to an oceanic mixed layer: a linear analysis. Clim Dyn 20:775–787Google Scholar
  2. Alexeev VA, Langen PL, Bates JR (2005) Polar amplification of surface warming on an aquaplanet in “ghost forcing” experiments without sea-ice feedbacks. Climate Dyn 24:655–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson TL, Charlson RJ, Schwartz SE, Knutti R, Boucher O, Rodhe H, Heintzenberg J (2003) Climate forcing by aerosols—a hazy picture. Science 300:1103–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andrews T, Forster PM, Gregory JM (2009) A surface energy perspective on climate change. J Clim 22:2557–2570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barkstrom BR (1984) The earth radiation budget experiment (ERBE). Bull Am Meteor Soc 65:1170–1185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bates JR (1999) A dynamical stabilizer in the climate system: a mechanism suggested by a simple model. Tellus 51A:349–372Google Scholar
  7. Bates JR (2004) On climate stability, climate sensitivity and the dynamics of the enhanced greenhouse effect. In: Paleoclimate and the earth climate system. Proceedings of the Milutin Milankovitch anniversary symposium, Belgrade, September 2004, pp 27–46. Serbian Academy of Sciences. Also available at www.dclimate.gfy.ku.dk
  8. Bates JR (2007) Some considerations of the concept of climate feedback. Quart J R Met Soc 133:545–560 (Erratum: p. 1071)Google Scholar
  9. Bony S et al (2006) How well do we understand and evaluate climate change feedback processes? J Clim 19:3445–3482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Budyko MI (1969) The effect of solar radiation variations on the climate of the Earth. Tellus 21:611–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cai M (2005) Dynamical amplification of polar warming. Geophys Res Lett 32:L22710, doi: 10.1029/2005GL024481
  12. Cai M (2006) Dynamical greenhouse-plus feedback and polar warming amplification. Part I: A dry radiative-transportive climate model. Clim Dyn, doi: 10.1007/s00382-005-0104-6
  13. Charney JG et al (1979) Carbon dioxide and climate: a scientific assessment. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Chung E-S, Yeomans D, Soden BJ (2010) An assessment of climate feedback processes using satellite observations of clear-sky OLR. Geophys Res Lett 37:L02702, doi: 10.1029/2009GL041889
  15. Crutzen PJ (2006) Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: a contribution to resolve a policy dilemma. Clim Change 77:211–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forster PMD, Gregory JM (2006) The climate sensitivity and its components diagnosed from Earth radiation budget data. J Clim 19:39–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Graversen RG, Mauritsen T, Tjernström M, Källen E, Svensson G (2008) Vertical structure of recent Arctic warming. Nature 541:53–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hansen J, Lacis A, Rind D, Russell G, Stone P, Fung I, Ruedy R, Lerner J (1984) Climate processes and climate sensitivity. Geophysical Monograph. Am Geophys Union 29:130–163Google Scholar
  19. Hansen J, Lacis A, Ruedy R, Sato M, Wilson H (1993) How sensitive is the world’s climate? Natl Geogr Res Explor 9:142–158Google Scholar
  20. Hansen J et al (2005) Earth’s energy imbalance: confirmation and implications. Science 308:1431–1435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harvey LD (2000) Global warming: the hard science. Prentice Hall, London, 336 pp.Google Scholar
  22. Hoffert MI, Covey C (1992) Deriving global climate sensitivity from palaeoclimate reconstructions. Nature 360:573–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holland MM, Bitz CM (2003) Polar amplification of climate change in coupled models. Clim Dyn 21:221–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. IPCC (2001) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. In: Houghton JT et al (eds) Contribution of working group I to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 881 pp.Google Scholar
  25. IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. In: Solomon S et al (eds) Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 966 pp.Google Scholar
  26. Langen PL, Alexeev VA (2007) Polar amplification as a preferred response in an idealized aquaplanet GCM. Clim Dyn 29:305–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lin B, Wong T, Wielicki BA, Hu Y-X (2005) Reply. J Climate 18:2128–2131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lindzen RS (1990) Dynamics in atmospheric physics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 310 pp.Google Scholar
  29. Lindzen RS (1993) Palaeoclimate sensitivity. Nature 363:25–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lindzen RS, Choi Y-S (2009) On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data. Geophys Res Lett 36:L16705, doi: 10.1029/2009GL039628
  31. Lindzen RS, Choi Y-S (2010) On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci (submitted)Google Scholar
  32. Lindzen RS, Chou M-D, Hou AY (2001) Does the earth have an adaptive infrared iris? Bull Am Meteor Soc 82:417–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. North GR, Cahalan RF, Coakley JA (1981) Energy balance climate models. Rev Geophys Space Phys 19:91–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. NRC (2005) Radiative forcing of climate change. National Research Council, Washington, DC, 207 pp.Google Scholar
  35. Pierrehumbert RT (2009) Principles of planetary climate. Available online at http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/ClimateBook/ClimateBook.html
  36. Ramanathan V (1981) The role of atmosphere-ocean interactions in the CO2 climate problem. J Atmos Sci 38:918–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ramanathan V, Carmichael G (2008) Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon. Nat Geosci 1:221–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ramanathan V, Crutzen PJ, Kiehl JT, Rosenfeld D (2001) Aerosols, climate and the hydrological cycle. Science 294:2119–2124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rasch PJ, Crutzen PJ, Coleman DB (2008) Exploring the geoengineering of climate using stratospheric sulfate aerosols: the role of particle size. Geophys Res Lett 35:L02809, doi: 10.1029/2007GL032179
  40. Raval A, Oort AH, Ramaswamy V (1994) Observed dependence of outgoing longwave radiation on sea surface temperature and moisture. J Clim 7:807–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roe GH (2009) Feedbacks, timescales and seeing red. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 37:93–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schneider EK (1990) Linear diagnosis of stationary waves in a general circulation model. J Atmos Sci 47:2925–2952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schwartz SE (2008) Reply to comments by G. Foster et al., R. Knutti et al., and N. Scafetta on “Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth’s climate system”. J Geophys Res 113:D15105, doi: 10.1029/2008JD009872
  44. Sellers WD (1969) A global climate model based on the energy balance of the earth-atmosphere system. J Appl Met 8:392–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Trenberth KE, Fasullo JT, O’Dell T, Wong T (2010) Relationships between tropical sea surface temperature and top-of-atmosphere radiation. Geophys Res Lett 37:L03702, doi: 10.1029/2009GL042314
  46. Vallis GK, Farneti F (2009) Meridional energy transport in the coupled atmosphere-ocean system: scaling and numerical experiments. Q J R Meteorol Soc 135:1643–1660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wallace JM, Hobbs PV (2006) Atmospheric science: an introductory survey, 2nd edn. Academic Press, London, 483 pp.Google Scholar
  48. Wielicki BA et al (1998) Clouds and the Earth’s radiant energy system (CERES): algorithm overview. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 36:1127–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Meteorology and Climate Centre, School of Mathematical SciencesUniversity College DublinDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations