Climate Dynamics

, Volume 41, Issue 11–12, pp 3339–3362 | Cite as

On the interpretation of inter-model spread in CMIP5 climate sensitivity estimates

Article

Abstract

This study diagnoses the climate sensitivity, radiative forcing and climate feedback estimates from eleven general circulation models participating in the Fifth Phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5), and analyzes inter-model differences. This is done by taking into account the fact that the climate response to increased carbon dioxide (CO2) is not necessarily only mediated by surface temperature changes, but can also result from fast land warming and tropospheric adjustments to the CO2 radiative forcing. By considering tropospheric adjustments to CO2 as part of the forcing rather than as feedbacks, and by using the radiative kernels approach, we decompose climate sensitivity estimates in terms of feedbacks and adjustments associated with water vapor, temperature lapse rate, surface albedo and clouds. Cloud adjustment to CO2 is, with one exception, generally positive, and is associated with a reduced strength of the cloud feedback; the multi-model mean cloud feedback is about 33 % weaker. Non-cloud adjustments associated with temperature, water vapor and albedo seem, however, to be better understood as responses to land surface warming. Separating out the tropospheric adjustments does not significantly affect the spread in climate sensitivity estimates, which primarily results from differing climate feedbacks. About 70 % of the spread stems from the cloud feedback, which remains the major source of inter-model spread in climate sensitivity, with a large contribution from the tropics. Differences in tropical cloud feedbacks between low-sensitivity and high-sensitivity models occur over a large range of dynamical regimes, but primarily arise from the regimes associated with a predominance of shallow cumulus and stratocumulus clouds. The combined water vapor plus lapse rate feedback also contributes to the spread of climate sensitivity estimates, with inter-model differences arising primarily from the relative humidity responses throughout the troposphere. Finally, this study points to a substantial role of nonlinearities in the calculation of adjustments and feedbacks for the interpretation of inter-model spread in climate sensitivity estimates. We show that in climate model simulations with large forcing (e.g., 4 × CO2), nonlinearities cannot be assumed minor nor neglected. Having said that, most results presented here are consistent with a number of previous feedback studies, despite the very different nature of the methodologies and all the uncertainties associated with them.

Keywords

Climate sensitivity Feedback Radiative forcing Fast adjustment Radiative kernel CMIP5 climate model simulations Climate change Inter-model spread 

References

  1. Andrews T, Forster P (2008) CO2 forcing induces semi-direct effects with consequences for climate feedback interpretations. Geophys Res Lett 35:L04,802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews T, Gregory J, Webb M, Taylor K (2012) Forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivity in CMIP5 coupled atmosphere-ocean climate models. Geophys Res Lett 39(9):L09,712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arrhenius S (1896) On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground. Lond Edinb Dublin Philos Mag J Sci 41(251):237–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Block K, Mauritsen T (2013) Forcing and feedback in the MPI-ESM-LR coupled model under abruptly quadrupled CO2. J Adv Model Earth Syst (submitted)Google Scholar
  5. Boer G, Yu B (2003) Climate sensitivity and climate state. Clim Dyn 21(2):167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bony S, Dufresne J (2005) Marine boundary layer clouds at the heart of tropical cloud feedback uncertainties in climate models. Geophys Res Lett 23:L20,806Google Scholar
  7. Bony S, Dufresne JL, Treut HL, Morcrette JJ, Senior C (2004) On dynamic and thermodynamic components of cloud changes. Clim Dyn 22:71–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bony S, Colman R, Kattsov V, Allan R, Bretherton C, Dufresne J, Hall A, Hallegatte S, Holland M, Ingram W, et al (2006) How well do we understand and evaluate climate change feedback processes? J Clim 19(15):3445–3482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bony S, Stevens B, Held I, Mitchell J, Dufresne JL, Emanuel K, Friedlingstein P, Griffies S, Senior C (2013a) Carbon dioxide and climate: perspectives on a scientific assessment. In: Hurrel J, Asran G (eds) Climate science for serving society: research, modelling and prediction priorities. Springer, MonographGoogle Scholar
  10. Bony S, Bellon G, Klocke D, Sherwood S, Fermepin S, Denvil S (2013b) Robust direct effect of carbon dioxide on tropical circulation and regional precipitation. Nat Geosci (in press)Google Scholar
  11. Cess R, Potter G, Blanchet J, Boer G, Del Genio A, Deque M, Dymnikov V, Galin V, Gates W, Ghan S, et al (1990) Intercomparison and interpretation of climate feedback processes in 19 atmospheric general circulation models. J Geophys Res 95(16):601,216Google Scholar
  12. Charney JG, et al (1979) Carbon dioxide and climate: a scientific assessment : report of an ad hoc study group on carbon dioxide and climate, woods hole, Massachusetts, July 23–27, 1979 to the climate research board, assembly of mathematical and physical sciences, National Research Council. National Academy of Sciences: available from Climate Research Board, http://books.google.com/books?id=cj0rAAAAYAAJ
  13. Colman R, McAvaney B (2011) On tropospheric adjustment to forcing and climate feedbacks. Clim Dyn 36(9):1649–1658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Denman K, Brasseur G, Chidthaisong A, Ciais P, Cox P, Dickinson R, Hauglustaine D, Heinze C, Holland E, Jacob D, et al (2007) Couplings between changes in the climate system and biogeochemistry. Climate change 2007: the physical science basis contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change [Solomon S, D Qin, M Manning, Z Chen, M Marquis, KB Averyt, MTignor and HL Miller (eds)]Google Scholar
  15. Dufresne JL, Bony S (2008) An assessment of the primary sources of spread of global warming estimates from coupled atmosphere-ocean models. J Clim 21:5135–5144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Forster P, Ramaswamy V, Artaxo P, Berntsen T, Betts R, Fahey D, Haywood J, Lean J, Lowe D, Myhre G, et al (2007) Changes in atmospheric constituents and in radiative forcing. Climate change 2007: the physical science basis contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change [Solomon, S, D Qin, M Manning, Z Chen, M Marquis, KB Averyt, MTignor and HL Miller (eds)]Google Scholar
  17. Gregory J, Webb M (2008) Tropospheric adjustment induces a cloud component in CO2 forcing. J Clim 21:58–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gregory JM, Ingram WJ, Palmer MA, Jones GS, Thorpe PASRB, Lowe JA, Johns TC, Williams KD (2004) A new method for diagnosing radiative forcing and climate sensitivity. Geophys Res Lett 31:L03,205Google Scholar
  19. Hansen J, Sato M, Ruedy R, Nazarenko L, Lacis A, Schmidt G, Russell G, Aleinov I, Bauer M, Bauer S, et al (2005) Efficacy of climate forcings. J Geophys Res 110(D18):D18,104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Held I, Soden B (2000) Water vapor feedback and global warming 1. Annu Rev Energy Environ 25(1):441–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Held IM, Shell KM (2012) Using relative humidity as a state variable in climate feedback analysis. J Clim 25(8):2578–2582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jonko A, Shell K, Sanderson B, Danabasoglu G (2012) Climate feedbacks in CCSM3 under changing CO2 forcing. Part I: adapting the linear radiative kernel technique to feedback calculations for a broad range of forcings. J Clim 25(15):5260–5272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Knutti R, Hegerl G (2008) The equilibrium sensitivity of the earth’s temperature to radiation changes. Nat Geosci 1(11):735–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mauritsen T, Graversen RG, Klocke D, Langen PL, Bjorn S, Tomassini L (2013) Climate feedback efficiency and synergy. Clim Dyn (submitted)Google Scholar
  25. Randall D, Wood R, Bony S, Colman R, Fichefet T, Fyfe J, Kattsov V, Pitman A, Shukla J, Srinivasan J, et al (2007) Climate models and their evaluation. Clim Change 323Google Scholar
  26. Shell KM, Kiehl JT, Shields CA (2008) Using the radiative kernel technique to calculate climate feedbacks in NCAR’s community atmospheric model. J Clim 21:2269–2282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Soden B, Held I (2006) An assessment of climate feedbacks in coupled ocean-atmosphere models. J Clim 19(14):3354–3360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Soden B, Held I, Colman R, Shell K, Kiehl J, Shields C (2008) Quantifying climate feedbacks using radiative kernels. J Clim 21(14):3504–3520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Soden BJ, Broccoli AJ, Hemler RS (2004) On the use of cloud forcing to estimate cloud feedback. J Clim 19:3661–3665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA (2012) An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93(4):485–498. doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1 Google Scholar
  31. Webb M, Senior C, Sexton D, Ingram W, Williams K, Ringer M, McAvaney B, Colman R, Soden B, Gudgel R, et al (2006) On the contribution of local feedback mechanisms to the range of climate sensitivity in two GCM ensembles. Clim Dyn 27(1):17–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wetherald RT, Manabe S (1988) Cloud feedback processes in a general circulation model. J Atmos Sci 45:1397–1415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhang M, et al. (2012) CGILS: first results from an international project to understand the physical mechanisms of low cloud feedbacks in general circulation models. Bull Am Meteorol Soc (submitted)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jessica Vial
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jean-Louis Dufresne
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sandrine Bony
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique (LMD)Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)Paris Cedex 05France
  2. 2.Université Pierre et Marie Curie (UPMC)Paris Cedex 05France

Personalised recommendations