Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Interactions between perturbations to different Earth system components simulated by a fully-coupled climate model

  • Published:
Climate Dynamics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We examine the global mean surface temperature and carbon cycle responses to the A1B emissions scenario for a new 57 member perturbed-parameter ensemble of simulations generated using the fully coupled atmosphere-ocean-carbon cycle climate model HadCM3C. The model variants feature simultaneous perturbation to parameters that control atmosphere, ocean, land carbon cycle and sulphur cycle processes in this Earth system model, and is the first experiment of its kind. The experimental design, based on four earlier ensembles with parameters varied within each individual Earth system component, allows the effects of interactions between uncertainties in the different components to be explored. A large spread in response is obtained, with atmospheric CO2 at the end of the twenty-first century ranging from 615 to 1,100 ppm. On average though, the mean effect of the parameter perturbations is to significantly reduce the amount of atmospheric CO2 compared to that seen in the standard HadCM3C model. Global temperature change for 2090–2099 relative to the pre-industrial period ranges from 2.2 to 7.5 °C, with large temperature responses occurring when atmospheric model versions with high climate sensitivities are combined with carbon cycle components that emit large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere under warming. A simple climate model, tuned to reproduce the responses of the separate Earth system component ensembles, is used to demonstrate that interactions between uncertainties in the different components play a significant role in determining the spread of responses in global mean surface temperature. This ensemble explores a wide range of interactions and response, and therefore provides a useful resource for the provision of regional climate projections and associated uncertainties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackerley D, Highwood EJ, Frame DJ, Booth BBB (2009) Changes in the global sulfate burden due to perturbations in global CO2 concentrations. J Clim 22:5421–5432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews T, Ringer MA, Doutriaux-Boucher M, Webb MJ, Collins WJ (2012) Sensitivity of an earth system climate model to idealized radiative forcing. Geophys Res Lett 39, doi:10.1029/2012GL051942

  • Betts RA (2000) Offset of the potential carbon sink from boreal forestation by decreases in surface albedo. Nature 408:187–190 doi:10.1038/35041545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth BBB, Dunstone NJ, Halloran PR, Andrews T, Bellouin N (2012a) Aerosols implicated as a prime driver of twentieth-century north atlantic climate variability. Nature 484:228–232 doi:10.1038/nature10946

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth BBB, Jones CD, Collins M, Totterdell IJ, Cox PM, Sitch S, Huntingford C, Betts RA, Harris GR, Lloyd J (2012b) High sensitivity of future global warming to land carbon cycle processes. Environ Res Lett 7:024002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth BBB, Bernie D, McNeall D, Hawkins E, Caesar J, Boulton C, Friedlingstein P, Sexton D (2012c) Scenario and modelling uncertainty in global mean temperature change derived from emission driven global climate models. Earth Syst Dyn Discuss 3:1055–1084 doi:10.5194/esdd-3-1055-2012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brierley CM, Collins M, Thorpe AJ (2010) The impact of perturbations to ocean-model parameters on climate and climate change in a coupled model. Clim Dyn 34:325-343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark RT, Murphy JM, Brown SJ (2010) Do global warming targets limit heatwave risk? Geophys Res Lett 37:L17703 doi:10.1029/2010GL043898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins M, Brierley CM, MacVean M, Booth BBB, Harris GR (2007) The sensitivity of the rate of transient climate change to ocean physics perturbations. J Clim 20:2315–2320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins M, Booth BBB, Bhaskaran B, Harris GR, Murphy JM, Sexton DMH, Webb MJ (2011a) Climate model errors, feedbacks and forcings: a comparison of perturbed physics and multi-model ensembles. Clim Dyn doi:10.10007/s00382-010-0808-0

  • Collins WJ, Bellouin N, Doutriaux-Boucher M, Gedney N, Halloran P, Hinton T, Hughes J, Jones CD, Joshi M, Liddicoat S, Martin G, O’Connor F, Rae J, Senior C, Sitch S, Totterdell I, Wiltshire A, Woodward S (2011b) Development and evaluation of an Earth-System model—HadGEM2. Geosci Model Dev 4:1051–1075 doi:10.5194/gmd-4-1051-2011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox PM, Huntingford C, Harding RJ (1998) A canopy conductance and photosynthesis model for use in a GCM land surface scheme. J Hydrol 213:79–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox PM, Betts RA, Jones CD, Spall SA, Totterdell I (2000) Acceleration of global warming due to carbon cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model. Nature 408:184–187 doi:10.1038/35041539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox PM (2001) Description of the TRIFFID dynamic global vegetation model. Hadley Centre Technical Note 24, Met Office Hadley Centre Exeter UK. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/archive/hadley-centre-technical-note-24

  • Doutriaux-Boucher M, Webb MJ, Gregory JM, Boucher O (2009) Carbon dioxide induced stomatal closure increases radiative forcing via a rapid reduction in low cloud. Geophys Res Lett 36, doi:10.1029/2008GL036273

  • Dufresne J, Bony S (2008) An assessment of the primary sources of spread of global warming estimates from coupled atmosphere-ocean models. J Clim 21:5135–5144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards NR, Cameron D, Rougier J (2011) Precalibrating an intermediate complexity climate model. Clim Dyn 47:1469–1482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Essery R, Best M, Cox PM (2001) MOSES 2.2 technical documentation. Hadley Centre Technical Note 30. Met Office Hadley Centre Exeter, UK. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/archive/hadley-centre-technical-note-30

  • Etheridge DM, Steele LP, Langenfelds RL, Francey RJ, Barnola JM, Morgan VI (1996) Natural and anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years from air in antarctic ice and firn. J Geophys Res 101:4115–4128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forster PMd, Taylor KE (2006) Climate forcings and climate sensitivities diagnosed from coupled climate model integrations. J Clim 19:6181–6194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedlingstein P, Cox P, Betts R, Bopp L, von Bloh W, Brovkin V, Cadule P, Doney S, Eby M, Fung I, Bala G, John J, Jones C, Joos F, Kato T, Kawamiya M, Knorr W, Lindsay K, Matthews HD, Raddatz T, Rayner P, Reick C, Roeckner E, Schnitzler K, Schnur R, Strassman K, Weaver AJ, Yoshikawa C, Zeng N (2006) Climate-carbon cycle feedback analysis: results from the C4MIP model intercomparison. J Clim 19:3337–3353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frieler K, Meinshausen M, Mengel M, Braun N, Hare W (2012) A scaling approach to probabilistic assessment of regional climate change J Clim 29:3117–3144 doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00199.1

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 16:147–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregory JM, Jones CD, Cadule P, Friedlingstein P (2009) Quantifying carbon-cycle feedbacks. J Clim 22:5232–5250 doi:10.1175/2009JCLI2949.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haney RL (1971) Surface thermal boundary condition for ocean circulation models. J Phys Oceanogr 1:241–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen J, Sato M, Ruedy R, Nazarenko L, Laics A, Schmidt GA, Russell G, Aleinov I, Bauer M, Bauer S, Bell N, Cairns B, Canuto V, Chandler M, Cheng Y, Del Genio A, 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 doi:10.1029/2005DJ005776

  • Harris GR, Sexton DMH, Collins M, Murphy JM (2012) Probabilistic projections of transient climate change. Clim Dyn. doi:10.1007/s00382-012-1647-y

  • Huntingford C, Lowe JA, Booth BBB, Jones CD, Harris GR, Gohar LK, Meir P (2009) Contributions of carbon cycle uncertainty to future climate projection spread. Tellus B 61B:355–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (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, UK and New York, USA

  • Jones CD, Cox PM, Huntingford C (2006) Climate-carbon cycle feedbacks under stabilization: uncertainty and observational constraints. Tellus 58

  • Jones CD, Lowe J, Liddicoat S, Betts R (2009) Committed terrestrial ecosystem changes due to climate change. Nature Geo Sci 2:484–487 doi:10.1038/NGEO555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joos F, Bruno M, Fink R, Siegenthaler U, Stocker TF (1996) An efficient and accurate representation of complex oceanic and biospheric models of anthropogenic carbon uptake. Tellus 48B:397–417

    Google Scholar 

  • Large WG, McWilliams JC, and Doney SC (1994) Oceanic vertical mixing: a review and a model with a nonlocal boundary layer. Rev Geophys 32:363–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKay MD, Beckman RJ, Conover WJ (1979) A comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 21:239–245

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA

  • Meinshausen M, Raper SCB, Wigley TML (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 8:6153–6272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moss RH, Edmonds JA, Hibbard KA, Manning MR, Rose SK, van Vuuren DP, Carter TR, Emori S, Kainuma M, Kram T, Meehl GA, Mitchell JFB, Nakicenovic N, Riahi K, Smith SJ, Stouffer RJ, Thomson AM, Weyant JP, Wilbanks TJ (2010) The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463:747–756 doi:10.1038/nature08823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 8:496–514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy JM, Booth BBB, Collins M, Harris GR, Sexton DMH, Webb MJ (2007) A methodology for probabilistic predictions of regional climate change from perturbed physics ensembles. Phil Trans Roy Soc A 365:1993

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy JM, Sexton DMH, Jenkins GJ, Boorman PM, Booth BBB, Brown CC, Clark RT, Collins M, Harris GR, Kendon EJ, Betts RA, Brown SJ, Howard TP, Humphrey KA, McCarthy MP, McDonald RE, Stephens A, Wallace C, Warren R, Wilby R, Wood RA (2009) UK climate projections science report: climate change projections. Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK. http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/content/view/824/517/

  • Myhre G, Highwood EJ, Shine KP, Stordal F (1998) New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases. Geophys Res Lett 25:2715–2718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakicenovic N, Alcamo J, Davis G, Vries Bd, Fenhann J, Gaffin S, Gregory K, Grubler A, Jung TY, adn E L La Rovere TK, Michaelis L, Moria S, Morita T, Pepper W, Pitcher H, Price L, Raihi K, Roehrl A, Rogner HH, Sankovski A, Schlesinger M, PShukla, Smith S, Swart R, van Rooijen S, Victor N, Dadi Z (2000) IPCC special report on emission scenarios. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • Palmer JR, Totterdell IJ (2001) Production and export in a global ocean ecosystem model. Deep Sea Res I 48:1169–1198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramaswamy V, Boucher O, Haigh J, Hauglustaine D, Haywood J, Myhre G, Nakajima T, Shi GY, Solomon S (2001) Radiative Forcing of Climate Change. In: Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden PJ, Dai X, Maskell K, Johnson CA (eds) 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, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 881 pp

  • Rowntree P (1998) Global average climate forcing and temperature response since 1750. Int J Climatol 18:355–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rougier J, Sexton DMH, Murphy JM, Stainforth DA (2009) Analyzing the climate sensitivity of the HadSM3 climate model using ensembles from different but related experiments. J Clim 22:1327–1353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson, BM, Piani C, Ingram WJ, Stone DA, and Allen MR (2008) Towards constraining climate sensitivity by linear analysis of feedback patterns in thousandsof perturbed-physics GCM simulations. Clim Dyn 30:175–190 doi:10.1007/s00382-007-0280-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarmiento JL, le Quéré C (1996) Oceanic carbon dioxide uptake in a model of century-scale global warming. Science 274:1346–1350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sexton DMH, Murphy JM, Collins M, Webb MJ (2012) Multivariate probabilistic projections using imperfect climate models part I: outline of methodology. Clim Dyn 38:2513–2542 doi:10.1007/s00382-011-1208-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sexton DMH, Murphy JM (2012) Multivariate probabilistic projections using imperfect climate models part II: robustness of methodological choices and consequences for climate sensitivity. Clim Dyn 38:2543–2558 doi:10.1007/s00382-011-1209-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiogama H, Hanasaki N, Masutomi Y, Nagashima T, Ogura T, Takahashi K, Hijioka Y, Takemura T, Nozawa T, Emori S (2010) Emission scenario dependencies in climate change assessments of the hydrological cycle. Clim Chang 99:321–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiogama H, Emori S, Hanasaki N, Abe M, Masutomi Y, Takahashi K, Nozawa T (2011) Observational constraints indicate risk of drying in the Amazon basin. Nature Comm 2. doi:10.1038/ncomms1252

  • Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Alley RB, Berntsen T, Bindoff NL, Chen Z, Chidthaisong A, Gregory JM, Hegerl GC, Heimann M, Hewitson B, Hoskins BJ, Joos F, Jouzel J, Kattsov V, Lohmann U, Matsuno T, Molina M, Nicholls N, Overpeck J, Raga G, Ramaswamy V, Ren J, Rusticucci M, Somerville R, Stocker TF, Whetton P, Wood RA, Wratt D (2007) Technical Summary. 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, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA

  • Stott PA, Jones GS, Lowe JA, Thorne P, Durman C, Johns TC, Thelen JC (2006) Transient climate simulations with the HadGEM1 climate model: causes of past warming and future climate change. J Clim 19:2763–2782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swann AL, Fung IY, Levis S, Bonan GB, Doney SC (2010) Arctic vegetation amplify high-latitude warming through the greenhouse effect. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:1295–1300 doi:10.1073/pnas.1116706108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor KE, Stouffer RJ, Meehl GA (2012) An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 93:485–498, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1

    Google Scholar 

  • Visbeck M, Marshall J, Haine T, Spall M (1997) Specification of eddy transfer coefficients in coarse resolution ocean circulation models. J Phys Oceanogr 27:381–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to a large number of colleagues at the Met Office Hadley Centre for technical advice and support, including Ian Edmond, Paul Halloran, Richard Hill, Bill Roseblade, Ian Totterdell and Simon Wilson. Ben Booth, Glen Harris, James Murphy and David Sexton were supported by the Joint DECC/Defra Met Office Hadley Centre Climate Programme (GA01101)

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ben B. B. Booth.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

PDF (921 KB)

Appendix: Spinning up the ESPPE simulations

Appendix: Spinning up the ESPPE simulations

ESPPE runs were started from a stable flux-adjusted control state of HadCM3C with standard parameters. In the initial “Haney” phase, sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and salinities were strongly relaxed towards pre-industrial conditions of 1860, using a relaxation coefficient for surface forcing of temperature H 0 = 81.88  Wm−2K−1 (Haney 1971; Collins et al. 2011a). Atmospheric CO2 concentration was held constant at an estimate for 1860 of 286.56 ppm, allowing the land and ocean models to take up or release the CO2 necessary to come into equilibrium with pre-industrial atmospheric conditions. We set equilibrium criteria for both the land and ocean of carbon uptake or loss of less than 0.4 GtCyr−1 (equivalent to a change of about 0.2 ppmyr−1 in atmospheric CO2 concentration), and for the vegetative and soil fractions of land carbon storage to be stable. The uptake and loss criterion for the land and ocean was chosen to ensure that any residual flux was smaller than 10 % of anthropogenic emission during the 1970’s (Ian Totterdell, pers. comm., 2008). It was found that most ocean models needed to expel a large amount of CO2 to approach equilibrium, requiring hundreds or even thousands of years of model integration. Fortunately, it turned out that intra-ensemble differences in ocean carbon cycle behaviour were largely controlled by two parameters that control horizontal and vertical mixing in the ocean. The first allows the sub-grid scale eddy driven ocean mixing resulting from baroclinic instability to depend on the local Richardson Number (Visbeck et al. 1997). The second affects the vertical mixing in the mixed layer and its interaction with the deeper ocean, where the parameter determines whether the LARGE scheme (Large et al. 1994) is implemented using a quadratic or cubic function for the shape function used to determine how the vertical diffusivity in the mixed layer varies with depth. By running long spin-up simulations sampling each of the four possible permutations (several thousand years) the resulting ocean carbon states could be substituted into all of the other ensemble members that shared those permutations. Subsequent spin-up of the larger ensemble subsequently only required 300–400 years for the ocean carbon stores to adjust to the other parameter perturbations and allowed ensemble members to quickly approach our ocean carbon criterion for the historical simulation. The land carbon cycle spins up rapidly, as the TRIFFID vegetation model (Cox et al. 1998; Cox. 2001) is able to run thousands of years very rapidly by coupling to the atmosphere only periodically.

Having achieved a stable surface temperature, ocean carbon state, and land carbon and vegetation states, the ocean heat and salinity fluxes that maintain the control climate during the last 50 years of the Haney phase were averaged to produce seasonally varying adjustment fields, updated every 5 days. The model was then run in “flux-adjusted” mode, where the correction fields were applied at the ocean surface rather than using the Haney term to relax to observed climatology. Use of flux-adjustments rather than relaxation allows the model to show more unforced variability, while remaining close to 1860 conditions on decadal timescales. More importantly, it allows us to run forced climate change experiments for different model parameters starting from realistic, stable control climates. Typically, on application of the flux adjustments there is a small adjustment in global mean surface temperature, and a small effect on ocean carbon uptake that quickly stabilizes.

Finally, the runs were put into “free-atmosphere” mode, where atmospheric CO2 is allowed to respond to uptake and loss by the ocean and land surface. Further small adjustments to surface temperature and oceanic and land surface CO2 uptake followed. CO2 concentration stabilized at values ranging from 282–291 ppm, similar to ice core observations for 1860 (Etheridge et al. 1996). Final global mean control temperatures ranged between 286–288 K. In all but four cases, ocean heat uptake stabilizes at less than 0.3 Wm−2. These simulations provided starting conditions for the ESPPE simulations of forced climate change.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lambert, F.H., Harris, G.R., Collins, M. et al. Interactions between perturbations to different Earth system components simulated by a fully-coupled climate model. Clim Dyn 41, 3055–3072 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-012-1618-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-012-1618-3

Keywords

Navigation