Advertisement

Climate Dynamics

, Volume 45, Issue 11–12, pp 3275–3297 | Cite as

Contributions of soil moisture interactions to climate change in the tropics in the GLACE–CMIP5 experiment

  • Wilhelm May
  • Arndt Meier
  • Markku Rummukainen
  • Alexis Berg
  • Frederique Chéruy
  • Stefan Hagemann
Article

Abstract

Contributions of changes in soil moisture to the projected climate change in the tropics at the end of the twenty first century are quantified using the simulations from five different global climate models, which contributed to the GLACE–CMIP5 experiment. “GLACE” refers to the Global Land Atmosphere Coupling Experiment and “CMIP5” to the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. This is done by relating the overall projected changes in climate to those changes in climate that are related to the projected changes in soil moisture. The study focusses on two particular aspects of the interactions of the soil moisture with climate, the soil moisture–temperature coupling and the soil moisture–precipitation coupling. The simulations show distinct future changes in soil moisture content in the tropics, with a general tendency of increases in the central parts of the tropics and decreases in the subtropics. These changes are associated with corresponding changes in precipitation, with an overall tendency of an approximate 5 % change in soil moisture in response to a precipitation change of 1 mm/day. All five individual models are characterized by the same qualitative behaviour, despite differences in the strength and in the robustness of the coupling between soil moisture and precipitation. The changes in soil moisture content are found to give important contributions to the overall climate change in the tropics. This is in particularly the case for latent and sensible heat flux, for which about 80 % of the overall changes are related to soil moisture changes. Similarly, about 80 % of the overall near-surface temperature changes (with the mean temperature changes in the tropics removed) are associated with soil moisture changes. For precipitation, on the other hand, about 30–40 % of the overall change can be attributed to soil moisture changes. The robustness of the contributions of the soil moisture changes to the overall climate change varies between the different meteorological variables, with a high degree of robustness for the surface energy fluxes, a fair degree for near-surface temperature and a low degree for precipitation. Similar to the coupling between soil moisture and precipitation, the five individual models are characterized by the same qualitative behaviour, albeit differences in the strength and the robustness of the contributions of the soil moisture change. This suggests that despite the regional differences in the projected climate changes between the individual models, the basic physical mechanisms governing the soil moisture–temperature coupling and the soil moisture–precipitation coupling work similarly in these models. The experiment confirms the conceptual models of the soil moisture–temperature coupling and the soil moisture–precipitation coupling described Seneviratne et al. (Earth-Sci Rev 99:125–161, 2010). For the soil moisture–temperature coupling, decreases (increases) in soil moisture lead to increasing (decreasing) sensible heat fluxes and near-surface temperatures. The soil moisture–precipitation coupling is part of a positive feedback loop, where increases (decreases) in precipitation cause increases (decreases) in soil moisture content, which, in turn, lead to increasing (decreasing) latent heat fluxes and precipitation.

Keywords

Tropics Climate change Soil moisture Soil moisture–temperature coupling Soil moisture–precipitation coupling 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research presented in this paper is a contribution to the Swedish strategic research area ModElling the Regional and Global Earth system, MERGE. Thanks to the modelling groups at GFDL, i.e., Kirsten Findell, and NCAR, i.e., David Lawrence, for sharing the data from their GLACE–CMIP5 simulations as well as people at ETHZ, i.e., Sonia Seneviratne and Martin Hirschi, for coordinating the GLACE–CMIP5 experiment and their help with the data. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions that helped to improve the manuscript.

References

  1. Balsamo G, Viterbo P, Beljaars A, van den Hurk B, Hirschi M, Betts AK, Scipal K (2009) A revised hydrology for the ECMWF model: verification from field site to terrestrial water storage and impact in the Integrated Forecast System. J Hydrometeorol 10:623–643. doi: 10.1175/2008JHM1068.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brovkin V, Raddatz T, Reick CH, Claussen M, Gayler V (2009) Global biogeophysical interactions between forest and climate. Geophys Res Lett 36:L07405. doi: 10.1029/2009GL037543 Google Scholar
  3. Cherchi A, Alessandri A, Masina S, Navarra A (2011) Effects of increased CO2 levels on monsoons. Clim Dyn 37:83–101. doi: 10.1007/s00382-010-0801-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chéruy F, Campoy A, Dupont J-C, Ducharne A, Hourdin F, Haeffelin M, Chiriaco M, Idelkadi A (2013) Combined influence of atmospheric physics and soil hydrology on the simulated meteorology at the SIRTA atmospheric observatory. Clim Dyn 40:2251–2269. doi: 10.1007/s00382-012-1469-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dufresne J-L et al (2013) Climate change projections using the IPSLCM5 Earth System Model: from CMIP3 to CMIP5. Clim Dyn 40:2123–2165. doi: 10.1007/s00382-012-1636-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dunne JP et al (2012) GFDL’s ESM2 global coupled climate–carbon Earth System Models. Part I: physical formulation and baseline simulation characteristics. J Clim 25:6646–6665. doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00560 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hagemann S, Loew A, Andersson A (2013) Combined evaluation of MPI-ESM land surface water and energy fluxes. J Adv Model Earth Syst 5:259–286. doi: 10.1029/2012MS000173 Google Scholar
  8. Hazeleger W et al (2012) EC-Earth V2.2: description and validation of a new seamless earth system prediction model. Clim Dyn 39:2611–2629. doi: 10.1007/s00382-011-1228-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hourdin F et al (2013) Impact of the LMDZ atmospheric grid configuration on the climate and sensitivity of the IPSL–CM5A coupled model. Clim Dyn 40:2167–2192. doi: 10.1007/s00382-012-1411-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Knutti R, Sedláček J (2012) Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projections. Nat Clim Change 3:369–373. doi: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1716 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Koster RD et al (2004) Regions of strong coupling between soil moisture and precipitation. Science 305:1138–1140. doi: 10.1126/science.1100217 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Koster RD et al (2010) Contribution of land surface initialization to subseasonal forecast skill: first results from a multi-model experiment. Geophys Res Lett 37:L02402. doi: 10.1029/2009GL041677 Google Scholar
  13. Lawrence DM et al (2011) Parameterization improvements and functional and structural advances in version 4 of the Community Land Model. J Adv Model Earth Syst 3:1–27. doi: 10.1029/2011MS000045 Google Scholar
  14. Madec G (2008) NEMO ocean engine. Nôte du Pole de modélisation de l’Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace 27:209Google Scholar
  15. Moss RH et al (2010) The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463:747–756. doi: 10.1038/nature08823 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Neale RB, Richter J, Park S, Lauritzen PH, Vavrus SJ, Rasch PJ, Zhang M (2013) The mean climate of the Community Atmosphere Model (CAM4) in forced SST and fully coupled experiments. J Clim 26:5150–5168. doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00236 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Oki T, Kanae S (2006) Global hydrological cycles and world water resources. Science 313:1068–1072. doi: 10.1126/science.1128845 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Orlowsky B, Seneviratne SI (2012) Global changes in extreme events: regional and seasonal dimension. Clim Change 110:669–696. doi: 10.1007/s10584-011-0122-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Orlowsky B, Seneviratne SI (2013) Elusive drought: uncertainty in observed trends and short- and long-term CMIP5 projections. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 17:1765–1781. doi: 10.5194/hess-17-1765-2013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Raddatz TJ et al (2007) Will the tropical land biosphere dominate the climate–carbon cycle feedback during the twentyfirst century? Clim Dyn 29:565–574. doi: 10.1007/s00382-007-0247-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Riahi K et al (2011) RCP 8.5—a scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions. Clim Change 109:33–57. doi: 10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Seneviratne SI, Corti T, Davin EL, Hirschi M, Jaeger EB, Lehner I, Orlowsky B, Teuling AJ (2010) Investigating soil moisture–climate interactions in a changing climate: a review. Earth-Sci Rev 99:125–161. doi: 10.1016/j.earscirev.2010.02.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Seneviratne SI et al (2013) Impact of soil moisture–climate feedbacks on CMIP5 projections: first results from the GLACE–CMIP5 experiments. Geophys Res Lett 40:5212–5217. doi: 10.1002/grl.50956 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shevliakova E et al (2009) Carbon cycling under 300 years of land use change: Importance of the secondary vegetation sink. Global Biogeochem Cycles 23:GB2022. doi: 10.1029/2007GB003176 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stevens B et al (2013) Atmospheric component of the MPI-M Earth System Model: ECHAM6. J Adv Model Earth Syst 5(2):146–172. doi: 10.1002/jame.20015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Taylor CM, de Jesu RAM, Guichard F, Harris PP, Dorigo WA (2012a) Afternoon rain more likely over dries soils. Nature 489:423–426. doi: 10.1038/nature11377 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA (2012b) An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93:485–498. doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Trenberth KE, Fasullo J, Kiehl J (2009) Earth’s global energy budget. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 90:311–323. doi: 10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang G (2005) Agricultural drought in a future climate: results from 15 global climate models participating in the IPCC 4th assessment. Clim Dyn 25:739–753. doi: 10.1007/s00382-005-0057-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wei J, Dirmeyer PA (2012) Dissecting soil moisture–precipitation coupling. Geophys Res Lett 39:L19711. doi: 10.1029/2012GL05303816702 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wilhelm May
    • 1
    • 2
  • Arndt Meier
    • 1
  • Markku Rummukainen
    • 1
  • Alexis Berg
    • 3
  • Frederique Chéruy
    • 4
  • Stefan Hagemann
    • 5
  1. 1.Centre for Environmental and Climate ResearchLund UniversityLundSweden
  2. 2.Research and Development DepartmentDanish Meteorological InstituteCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.International Research Institute for Climate and SocietyColumbia UniversityPalisadesUSA
  4. 4.CNRS/IPSL/LMDUniversity Pierre and Marie CurieParisFrance
  5. 5.Max-Planck-Institute for MeteorologyHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations