Climate Dynamics

, Volume 40, Issue 3–4, pp 1041–1053 | Cite as

Abrupt CO2 experiments as tools for predicting and understanding CMIP5 representative concentration pathway projections

  • Peter Good
  • Jonathan M. Gregory
  • Jason A. Lowe
  • Timothy Andrews
Article

Abstract

A fast simple climate modelling approach is developed for predicting and helping to understand general circulation model (GCM) simulations. We show that the simple model reproduces the GCM results accurately, for global mean surface air temperature change and global-mean heat uptake projections from 9 GCMs in the fifth coupled model inter-comparison project (CMIP5). This implies that understanding gained from idealised CO2 step experiments is applicable to policy-relevant scenario projections. Our approach is conceptually simple. It works by using the climate response to a CO2 step change taken directly from a GCM experiment. With radiative forcing from non-CO2 constituents obtained by adapting the Forster and Taylor method, we use our method to estimate results for CMIP5 representative concentration pathway (RCP) experiments for cases not run by the GCMs. We estimate differences between pairs of RCPs rather than RCP anomalies relative to the pre-industrial state. This gives better results because it makes greater use of available GCM projections. The GCMs exhibit differences in radiative forcing, which we incorporate in the simple model. We analyse the thus-completed ensemble of RCP projections. The ensemble mean changes between 1986–2005 and 2080–2099 for global temperature (heat uptake) are, for RCP8.5: 3.8 K (2.3 × 1024 J); for RCP6.0: 2.3 K (1.6 × 1024 J); for RCP4.5: 2.0 K (1.6 × 1024 J); for RCP2.6: 1.1 K (1.3 × 1024 J). The relative spread (standard deviation/ensemble mean) for these scenarios is around 0.2 and 0.15 for temperature and heat uptake respectively. We quantify the relative effect of mitigation action, through reduced emissions, via the time-dependent ratios (change in RCPx)/(change in RCP8.5), using changes with respect to pre-industrial conditions. We find that the effects of mitigation on global-mean temperature change and heat uptake are very similar across these different GCMs.

Keywords

Global climate change Sea-level Projections Simple models 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Joint DECC/Defra Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme (GA01101). For their roles in producing, coordinating, and making available the CMIP5 model output, we acknowledge the climate modeling groups (listed in Table 1 of this paper), the World Climate Research Programme’s (WCRP) Working Group on Coupled Modelling (WGCM), and the Global Organization for Earth System Science Portals (GO-ESSP). Helpful comments from two anonymous reviewers improved the clarity of this manuscript.

References

  1. Andrews T, Forster PM, Gregory JM (2009) A surface energy perspective on climate change. J Clim 22(10):2557–2570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews T, Ringer MA, Doutriaux-Boucher M, Webb MJ (2011) Sensitivity of an earth system climate model to idealised radiative forcing. Geophys Res Lett 39:L10702. doi: 10.1029/2012GL051942
  3. Chadwick R, Wu P, Good P, Andrews T (2012) Asymmetries in tropical rainfall and circulation patterns in idealised CO2 removal experiments. Clim Dyn. doi: 10.1007/s00382-012-1287-2
  4. Forster PMD, Taylor KE (2006) Climate forcings and climate sensitivities diagnosed from coupled climate model integrations. J Clim 19(23):6181–6194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Forster P, Ramaswamy V, Artaxo P, Berntsen T, Betts R, Fahey DW, Haywood J, Lean J, Lowe DC, Myhre G, Nganga J, Prinn R, Raga G, Schulz M, Van Dorland R (2007) Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) 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, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Good P, Gregory JM, Lowe JA (2011) A step-response simple climate model to reconstruct and interpret AOGCM projections. Geophys Res Lett 38:L01703. doi: 10.1029/2010GL045208
  7. Gregory JM, PM Forster (2008) Transient climate response estimated from radiative forcing and observed temperature change. J Geophys Res 113:D23105. doi: 10.1029/2008JD010405
  8. Gregory J, Webb M (2008) Tropospheric adjustment induces a cloud component in CO2 forcing. J Clim 21(1):58–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Hansen J et al (2005) Efficacy of climate forcings. J Geophys Res Atmos 110(D18):45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Huntingford C, Cox PM (2000) An analogue model to derive additional climate change scenarios from existing GCM simulations. Clim Dyn 16(8):575–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Knutti R et al (2008) A review of uncertainties in global temperature projections over the twenty-first century. J Clim 21(11):2651–2663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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 Z-C (2007) Global climate projections. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) 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, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Meinshausen M, Smith SJ, Calvin KV, Daniel JS, Kainuma MLT, Lamarque J-F, Matsumoto K, Montzka SA, Raper SCB, Riahi K, Thomson AM, Velders GJM, van Vuuren D (2011a). The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extension from 1765 to 2300. Clim Change (Special Issue). doi: 10.1007/s10584-011-0156-z
  15. Meinshausen M, Raper SCB, Wigley TML (2011b) Emulating coupled atmosphere-ocean and carbon cycle models with a simpler model, MAGICC6—part 1: model description and calibration. Atmos Chem Phys 11:1417–1456. doi: 10.5194/acp-11-1417-2011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Myhre G, Highwood EJ, Shine KP, Stordal F (1998) New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases. Geophys Res Lett 25(14):2715–2718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pardaens AK, Lowe JA, Brown S, Nicholls RJ, de Gusmao D (2011) Sea-level rise and impacts projections under a future scenario with large greenhouse gas emission reductions. Geophys Res Lett 38:L12604. doi: 10.1029/2011GL047678
  18. Raper SCB, Cubasch U (1996) Emulation of the results from a coupled general circulation model using a simple climate model. Geophys Res Lett 23(10):1107–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Raper SCB, Gregory JM, Osborn TJ (2001) Use of an upwelling-diffusion energy balance climate model to simulate and diagnose A/OGCM results. Clim Dyn 17(8):601–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Russell GL, Gornitz V, Miller JR (2000) Regional sea level changes projected by the NASA/GISS Atmosphere-Ocean Model. Clim Dyn 16(10–11):789–797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Santer B, Wigley T, Schlesinger M, Mitchell JFB (1990) Developing climate scenarios from equilibrium GCM results. Report no. 47, Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, HamburgGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Crown Copyright 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Good
    • 1
  • Jonathan M. Gregory
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jason A. Lowe
    • 1
  • Timothy Andrews
    • 1
  1. 1.Met Office Hadley CentreExeterUK
  2. 2.Department of Meteorology, Walker Institute for Climate System ResearchUniversity of ReadingReadingUK

Personalised recommendations