Advertisement

Climate Dynamics

, Volume 42, Issue 1–2, pp 69–81 | Cite as

On the persistent spread in snow-albedo feedback

  • Xin QuEmail author
  • Alex Hall
Article

Abstract

Snow-albedo feedback (SAF) is examined in 25 climate change simulations participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project version 5 (CMIP5). SAF behavior is compared to the feedback’s behavior in the previous (CMIP3) generation of global models. SAF strength exhibits a fivefold spread across CMIP5 models, ranging from 0.03 to 0.16 W m−2 K−1 (ensemble-mean = 0.08 W m−2 K−1). This accounts for much of the spread in 21st century warming of Northern Hemisphere land masses, and is very similar to the spread found in CMIP3 models. As with the CMIP3 models, there is a high degree of correspondence between the magnitudes of seasonal cycle and climate change versions of the feedback. Here we also show that their geographical footprint is similar. The ensemble-mean SAF strength is close to an observed estimate of the real climate’s seasonal cycle feedback strength. SAF strength is strongly correlated with the climatological surface albedo when the ground is covered by snow. The inter-model variation in this quantity is surprisingly large, ranging from 0.39 to 0.75. Models with large surface albedo when these regions are snow-covered will also have a large surface albedo contrast between snow-covered and snow-free regions, and therefore a correspondingly large SAF. Widely-varying treatments of vegetation masking of snow-covered surfaces are probably responsible for the spread in surface albedo where snow occurs, and the persistent spread in SAF in global climate models.

Keywords

Snow-albedo feedback Spread Seasonal cycle 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Both authors are supported by DOE’s Regional and Global Climate Modeling Program under the project “Identifying Robust Cloud Feedbacks in Observations and Model” (contract DE-AC52-07NA27344). We acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme’s Working Group on Coupled Modelling, which is responsible for CMIP, and we thank the climate modeling groups (listed in Table 1 of this paper) for producing and making available their model output. For CMIP the U.S. Department of Energy’s Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison provides coordinating support and led development of software infrastructure in partnership with the Global Organization for Earth System Science Portals. MODIS data is distributed by the Land Processes Distributed Active Archive Center, located at the US Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science Center (lpdaac.usgs.gov). ERA-Interim data is downloaded from http://www.ecmwf.int/products/data/archive/ and CERES data from http://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/. We thank Dr. Mark Flanner and another anonymous reviewer for their constructive comments on the original manuscript.

References

  1. Andrews T, Gregory JM, Webb MJ, Taylor KE (2012) Forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivity in CMIP5 coupled atmosphere-ocean climate models. Geophys Res Lett 39:L09712. doi: 10.1029/2012GL051607 Google Scholar
  2. Bao Q et al (2013) The flexible global ocean-atmosphere-land system model, spectral version 2: FGOALS-s2. Adv Atm Sci 30:561–576. doi: 10.1007/s00376-012-2113-9
  3. Bentsen M et al (2012) The Norwegian Earth system model, NorESM1-M —part 1: description and basic evaluation. Geosci Model Dev Discuss 5:2843–2931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bony S et al (2006) How well do we understand climate change feedback processes? J Climate 19:3445–3482. doi: 10.1175/JCLI3819.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brovkin V, Boysen L, Raddatz T, Gayler V, Loew A, Claussen M (2013) Evaluation of vegetation cover and land-surface albedo in MPI-ESM CMIP5 simulations. J Adv Model Earth Syst 4. doi: 10.1029/2012MS000169
  6. Budyko MI (1969) The effect of solar radiation variations on the climate of the earth. Tellus 21:611–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cess RD et al (1991) Interpretation of snow-climate feedback as produced by 17 general circulation models. Science 253:888–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chylek P, Li J, Dubey MK, Wang M, Lesins G (2011) Observed and model simulated 20th century Arctic temperature variability: Canadian earth system model CanESM2. Atmos Chem Phys Discuss 11:22893–22907. http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/11/22893/2011/doi:10.5194/acpd-11-22893-2011
  9. Collier M, Uhe P (2012) CMIP5 datasets from the ACCESS1.0 and ACCESS1.3 coupled climate models. CAWCR Technical Report No. 059. The Centre for Australian Weather and Climate ResearchGoogle Scholar
  10. Dee DP et al (2011) The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system. Q J R Meteorol Soc 137:553–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Donner LJ et al (2011) The dynamical core, physical parameterizations, and basic simulation characteristics of the atmospheric component AM3 of the GFDL Global Coupled Model CM3. J Clim 24:3484–3519Google Scholar
  12. Donohoe A, Battisti DS (2011) Atmospheric and surface contributions to planetary albedo and their relationship to the total meridional energy transport. J Climate 24:4402–4418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dufresne J-L et al (2013) Climate change projections using the IPSL-CM5 Earth system model: from CMIP3 to CMIP5. Clim Dy 40:2123–2165. doi: 10.1007/s00382-12-1636-1
  14. 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 25:6646–6665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Flanner MG, Shell KM, Barlage M, Perovich DK, Tschudi MA (2011) Radiative forcing and albedo feedback from the Northern Hemisphere cryosphere between 1979 and 2008. Nature Geosci 4:151–155. doi: 10.1038/ngeo1062 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fletcher CG, Zhao H, Kushner PJ, Fernandes R (2012) Using models and satellite observations to evaluate the strength of snow albedo feedback. J Geophys Res 117:D11117. doi: 10.1029/2012JD017724 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gent PR et al (2011) The community climate system model version 4. J Clim 24:4973–4991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hall A (2004) The role of surface albedo feedback in climate. J Clim 17:1550–1568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hall A, Qu X (2006) Using the current seasonal cycle to constrain snow albedo feedback in future climate change. Geophys Res Lett 33:L03502. doi: 10.1029/2005GL025127 Google Scholar
  20. Hall A, Qu X, Neelin JD (2008) Improving predictions of summer climate change in the United States. Geophys Res Lett 35:L01702 doi: 10.1029/2007GL032012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jin Y, Schaaf CB, Woodcock CE, Gao F, Li X, Strahler AH, Lucht W, Liang S (2003) Consistency of MODIS surface bidirectional reflectance distribution function and albedo retrievals: 2. Valid J Geophys Res 108(D5):4159. doi: 10.1029/2002JD002804 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Levis S, Bonan GB, Lawrence PJ (2007) Present-day springtime high-latitude surface albedo as a predictor of simulated climate sensitivity. Geophys Res Lett 34:L17703. doi: 10.1029/2007GL030775 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martin GM et al (2011) The HadGEM2 family of Met Office Unified Model Climate configurations. Geosci Model Dev 4:723–757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Qu X, Hall A (2006) Assessing snow albedo feedback in simulated climate change. J Climate 19:2617–2630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Qu X, Hall A (2007) What controls the strength of snow-albedo feedback? J Clim 20:3971–3981CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Randall DA et al (1994) Analysis of snow feedbacks in 14 general circulation models. J Geophys Res 99:20757–20772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Robock A (1980) The seasonal cycle of snow cover, sea ice and surface albedo. Mon Wea Rev 108:267–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Robock A (1983) Ice and snow feedbacks and the latitudinal and seasonal distribution of climate sensitivity. J Atmos Sci 40:986–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Robock A (1985) An updated climate feedback diagram. Bull Am Meteor Soc 66:786–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rossow WB, Schiffer RA (1991) ISCCP cloud data products. Bull Am Meteor Soc 72:2–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rotstayn LD et al (2010) Improved simulation of Australian climate and ENSO-related rainfall variability in a GCM with an interactive aerosol treatment. Int J Climatol 30:1067–1088Google Scholar
  32. Schneider SH, Dickinson RE (1974) Climate modeling. Rev Geophys Space Phys 12:447–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sellers WD (1969) A global climatic model based on the energy balance of the earth-atmosphere system. J Appl Meteor 8:392–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Soden BJ, Held IM, Colman R, Shell KM, Kiehl JT, Shields CA (2008) Quantifying climate feedbacks using radiative kernels. J Clim 21:3504–3520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Voldoire A et al (2012) The CNRM-CM5.1 global climate model: description and basic evaluation. Clim Dyn 1–31. doi: 10.1007/s00382-011-1259-y
  37. Volodin EM, Dianskii NA, Gusev AV (2010) Simulating present day climate with the INMCM4.0 Coupled model of the atmospheric and oceanic general circulations. Atmospheric and Ocean Phys 46:414–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Watanabe M et al (2010) Improved climate simulation by MIROC5: mean states, variability, and climate sensitivity. J Clim 23:6312–6335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Watanabe S et al (2011) MIROC-ESM: model description and basic results of CMIP5-20c3m experiments. Geosci Model Dev Discuss 4:1063–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wielicki BA, Barkstrom BR, Harrison EF, Lee RB, Smith GL, Cooper JE (1996) Clouds and the earth’s radiant energy system (CERES): an earth observing system experiment. Bull Am Meteor Soc 77:853–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Winton M (2006) Surface Albedo feedback estimates for the AR4 climate models. J Clim 19:359–365. doi: 10.1175/JCLI3624.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wu T et al (2010) The Beijing Climate Center atmospheric general circulation model: description and its performance for the present-day climate. Clim Dyn 34:123–147. doi: 10.1007/s00382-008-0487-2 Google Scholar
  43. Yu Y, Zheng W, Wang B, Liu H, Liu J (2011) Versions g1.0 and g1.1 of the LASG/IAP flexible global ocean-atmosphere-land system model. Adv Atmos Sci 28:99–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yukimoto S et al (2011) Meteorological research institute-earth system model version 1 (MRI-ESM1): model description. Technical report of the Meteorological Research Institute, No. 64Google Scholar
  45. Zelinka MD, Hartmann DL (2012) Climate feedbacks and their implications for poleward energy flux changes in a warming climate. J Clim 25:608–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations