Advertisement

Climate Dynamics

, Volume 42, Issue 7–8, pp 1807–1818 | Cite as

Adjusted radiative forcing and global radiative feedbacks in CNRM-CM5, a closure of the partial decomposition

  • Olivier GeoffroyEmail author
  • David Saint-Martin
  • Aurore Voldoire
  • David Salas y Mélia
  • Stéphane Sénési
Article

Abstract

This study provides a comprehensive global analysis of the climate radiative feedbacks and the adjusted radiative forcing for a CO2 increase perturbation in the CNRM-CM5 climate model using the partial radiative perturbations (PRP) method. Some methodological key points of the PRP are investigated, with a particular focus on the consideration of the effect of fast adjustments. First, the standard PRP method is applied by neglecting certain fast adjustments. The effect of the field decorrelation is highlighted by performing a PRP across two different periods of a control experiment and by analyzing second-order terms. Sensitivity tests to the field substitution frequency, the sampling period and the perturbed experiment used are performed. The impact of the definition of the top of the climate system (top-of-the-atmosphere or tropopause) in the feedback estimate is also discussed. Secondly, the fast adjustment processes are taken into account by combining the PRP framework with the method of linear regression of the partial net radiative flux change against the mean surface air temperature change using a step forcing experiment. This method allows us to quantify the contribution of the different constituents to the forcing adjustment and to improve the estimation of the radiative feedbacks. It is shown that such decomposition allows the retrieval of the adjusted radiative forcing, the radiative feedbacks and the climate sensitivity as estimated with the linear regression method with a high level of accuracy, validating the partial decomposition.

Keywords

Radiative feedback Forcing adjustment Partial radiative perturbation Climate sensitivity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We gratefully thank the two anonymous reviewers for their comments that helped us to improve the manuscript. We also thank Hervé Douville and Lorenzo Tomassini for discussions. This work was supported by the European Union FP7 Integrated Project COMBINE.

References

  1. Bony S et al (2006) How well do we understand and evaluate climate change feedback processes? J Clim 19:3445–3482Google Scholar
  2. Cess RD et al (1996) Cloud feedback in atmospheric general circulation models: an update. J Geophys Res 101:12791–12794Google Scholar
  3. Colman RA, McAvaney BJ (1997) A study of GCM climate feedbacks from perturbed SST experiments. J Geophys Res 102:19383–19402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Colman RA (2003) A Comparison of climate feedbacks in general circulation models. Clim Dyn 20:865–873Google Scholar
  5. Colman RA, McAvaney BJ (2011) On tropospheric adjustment to forcing and climate feedbacks. Clim Dyn 36:1649–1658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crook JA, Forster PM, Stuber N (2011) Spatial patterns of modeled climate feedback and contributions to temperature response and polar amplification. J Clim 24:3575–3592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dufresne J-L, Bony S (2008) An assessment of the primary sources of spread of global warming estimates from coupled atmosphere-ocean models. J Atmos Sci 21:5135–5144Google Scholar
  8. Geoffroy O, Saint-Martin D, Ribes A (2012) Quantifying the sources of spread in climate change experiments. Geophys Res Lett 39:L24703 doi: 10.1029/2012GL054172 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Geoffroy O, Saint-Martin D, Bellon G, Voldoire A, Olivié DJL, Tytéca S (2013) Transient climate response in a two-layer energy-balance model. Part II: representation of the efficacy of deep-ocean heat uptake and validation for CMIP5 AOGCMs. J Clim 26:1859–1876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gregory J, Webb M (2008) Tropospheric adjustment induces a cloud component in CO2 forcing. J Clim 21:58–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gregory JM et al (2004) A new method for diagnosing radiative forcing and climate sensitivity. Geophys Res Lett 31:L03205 doi: 10.1029/2003GL018747
  12. Hansen J, Lacis A, Rind D, Russell G, Stone P, Fung I, Ruedy R, Lemer J (1984) Climate sensitivity: analysis of feedback mechanisms. Climate processes and climate sensitivity (eds) American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp 130–163Google Scholar
  13. Hansen J, Sato M, Ruedy R (1997) Radiative forcing and climate response. J Geophys Res 102:6831–6864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Held IM, Shell KM (2012) Using relative humidity as a state variable in climate feedback analysis. J Clim 25:2578–2582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Knutti R, Hegerl GC (2008) The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes. Nat Geosci 1:735–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lal M, V Ramanathan (1984) The effects of moist convection and water vapor radiative processes on climate sensitivity. J Atmos Sci 41:2238–2249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Li C, von Storch J-S, Marotzke J (2012) Deep-ocean heat uptake and equilibrium climate response. Clim Dyn. doi: 10.1007/s00382-012-1350-z
  18. Schlesinger ME (1988) Quantitative analysis of feedbacks in climate model simulations of CO2-induced warming. Physically based modelling and simulation of climate and climatic change: part 2. In: Schlesinger ME (ed) NATO ASI Series C: mathematical and physical sciences, vol 243. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Berlin, pp 653–735Google Scholar
  19. Schneider EK, Kirtman BP, Lindzen RS (1999) Tropospheric water vapor and climate sensitivity. J Atmos Sci 56:1649–1658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Senior CA, Mitchell JFB (2000) The time dependence of climate sensitivity. Geophys Res Lett 27:2685–2688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Soden BJ, Held IM (2006) An assessment of climate feedbacks in coupled ocean-atmosphere models. J Clim 19:3354–3360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Soden BJ, Held IM, Colman RA, Shell KM, Kiehl JT, Shields CA (2008) Quantifying climate feedbacks using radiative kernels. J Clim 21:3504–3520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stein U, Alpert P (1993) Factor separation in numerical simulations. J Atmos Sci 50:2107–2115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tomassini L, Geoffroy O, Dufresne J-L, Idelkadi A, Cagnazzo C, Block K, Mauritsen T, Giorgetta M, Quaas J (2013) The respective roles of surface temperature driven feedbacks and tropospheric adjustment to CO2 in CMIP5 transient climate simulations. Clim Dyn. doi: 10.1007/s00382-013-1682-3
  25. Voldoire A et al (2012) The CNRM-CM5.1 global climate model: description and basic evaluation. Clim Dyn. doi: 10.1007/s00382-011-1259
  26. Wetherald RT, Manabe S (1988) Cloud feedback processes in a general circulation model. J Atmos Sci 45:1397–1415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Winton M (2006) Surface albedo feedback estimates for the AR4 climate models. J Clim 19:359–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Winton M, Takahashi K, Held IM (2010) Importance of ocean heat uptake efficacy to transient climate change. J Clim 23:2333–2344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yoshimori M, Broccoli AJ (2008) Equilibrium response of an atmospheremixed layer ocean model to different radiative forcing agents: global and zonal mean response. J Clim 21:4399–4423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zhang MH, Hack JJ, Kiehl JT, Cess RD (1994) Diagnostic study of climate feedback processes in atmospheric general circulation models. J Geophys Res 99:5525–5537CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olivier Geoffroy
    • 1
    Email author
  • David Saint-Martin
    • 1
  • Aurore Voldoire
    • 1
  • David Salas y Mélia
    • 1
  • Stéphane Sénési
    • 1
  1. 1.CNRM/GAME (Météo-France/CNRS)ToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations