Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A simple model perturbed physics study of the simulated climate sensitivity uncertainty and its relation to control climate biases

  • Published:
Climate Dynamics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study the relationship between climate model biases in the control climate and the simulated climate sensitivity are discussed on the basis of perturbed physics ensemble simulations with a globally resolved energy balance (GREB) model. It is illustrated that the uncertainties in the simulated climate sensitivity (estimated by the transient response to CO2 forcing scenarios in the twenty first century or idealized 2 × CO2 forcing experiments) can be conceptually split into two parts: a direct effect of the perturbed physics on the climate sensitivity independent of the control mean climate and an indirect effect of the perturbed physics by changing the control mean climate, which in turn changes the climate sensitivity, as the climate sensitivity itself is depending on the control climate. Biases in the control climate are negatively correlated with the climate sensitivity (colder climates have larger sensitivities), if no physics are perturbed. Perturbed physics that lead to warmer control climate, would in average also lead to larger climate sensitivities, if the control climate is held at the observed reference climate by flux corrections. Thus the effects of control biases and perturbed physics are opposing each other and are partially cancelling each other out. In the GREB model the biases in the control climate are the more important effect for the regional climate sensitivity uncertainties, but for the global mean climate sensitivity both, the biases in the control climate and the perturbed physics, are equally important.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bony S, Colman R, Kattsov VM, Allan RP, Bretherton CS, Dufresne JL, Hall A, Hallegatte S, Holland MM, Ingram W, Randall DA, Soden BJ, Tselioudis G, Webb MJ (2006) How well do we understand and evaluate climate change feedback processes? J Clim 19:3445–3482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bretherton CS, Widmann M, Dymnikov VP, Wallace JM, Blade I (1999) The effective number of spatial degrees of freedom of a time-varying field. J Clim 12:1990–2009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brierley CM, Thorpe AJ, Collins M (2009) An example of the dependence of the transient climate response on the temperature of the modelled climate state. Atmos Sci Lett 10:23–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caballero R, Huber M (2013) State-dependent climate sensitivity in past warm climates and its implications for future climate projections. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:14162–14167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cess RD, Potter GL, Blanchet JP, Boer GJ, Delgenio AD, Deque M, Dymnikov V, Galin V, Gates WL, Ghan SJ, Kiehl JT, Lacis AA, Letreut H, Li ZX, Liang XZ, Mcavaney BJ, Meleshko VP, Mitchell JFB, Morcrette JJ, Randall DA, Rikus L, Roeckner E, Royer JF, Schlese U, Sheinin DA, Slingo A, Sokolov AP, Taylor KE, Washington WM, Wetherald RT, Yagai I, Zhang MH (1990) Intercomparison and Interpretation of climate feedback processes in 19 atmospheric general-circulation models. J Geophys Res Atmos 95:16601–16615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins M, Booth BBB, Harris GR, Murphy JM, Sexton DMH, Webb MJ (2006) Towards quantifying uncertainty in transient climate change. Clim Dyn 27:127–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colman R, McAvaney B (2009) Climate feedbacks under a very broad range of forcing. Geophys Res Lett 36:L01702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dommenget D (2007) Evaluating EOF modes against a stochastic null hypothesis. Clim Dyn 28:517–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dommenget D (2012) Analysis of the model climate sensitivity spread forced by mean sea surface temperature biases. J Clim 25:7147–7162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dommenget D, Floter J (2011) Conceptual understanding of climate change with a globally resolved energy balance model. Clim Dyn 37:2143–2165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dommenget D, Haase S, Bayr T, Frauen C (2014) Analysis of the Slab Ocean El Nino atmospheric feedbacks in observed and simulated ENSO dynamics. Clim Dyn 42:3187–3205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleckler PJ, Taylor KE, Doutriaux C (2008) Performance metrics for climate models. J Geophys Res Atmos 113:D06104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins E, Sutton R (2009) The potential to narrow uncertainty in regional climate predictions. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 90:1095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson DLR, Keeley SPE, West A, Ridley J, Hawkins E, Hewitt HT (2013) Identifying uncertainties in Arctic climate change projections. Clim Dyn 40:2849–2865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonko AK, Shell KM, Sanderson BM, 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 25:5260–5272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manabe S, Bryan K (1985) Co2-induced change in a coupled ocean-atmosphere model and its paleoclimatic implications. J Geophys Res Oceans 90:1689–1707

    Google Scholar 

  • Meehl GA, Covey C, Delworth T, Latif M, McAvaney B, Mitchell JFB, Stouffer RJ, Taylor KE (2007a) The WCRP CMIP3 multimodel dataset—a new era in climate change research. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 88:1383

    Article  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 (eds) (2007b) Global climate projections. 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Meraner K, Mauritsen T, Voigt A (2013) Robust increase in equilibrium climate sensitivity under global warming. Geophys Res Lett 40:5944–5948

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy JM, Sexton DMH, Barnett DN, Jones GS, Webb MJ, Collins M (2004) Quantification of modelling uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change simulations. Nature 430:768–772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichler T, Kim J (2008) How well do coupled models simulate today’s climate? Bull Am Meteorol Soc 89:303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson BM (2011) A multimodel study of parametric uncertainty in predictions of climate response to rising greenhouse gas concentrations. J Clim 24:1362–1377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson BM, Piani C, Ingram WJ, Stone DA, Allen MR (2008a) Towards constraining climate sensitivity by linear analysis of feedback patterns in thousands of perturbed-physics GCM simulations. Clim Dyn 30:175–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson BM, Knutti R, Aina T, Christensen C, Faull N, Frame DJ, Ingram WJ, Piani C, Stainforth DA, Stone DA, Allen MR (2008b) Constraints on model response to greenhouse gas forcing and the role of subgrid-scale processes. J Clim 21:2384–2400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sausen R, Barthel K, Hasselmann K (1988) Coupled ocean-atmosphere models with flux correction. Clim Dyn 2:145–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider EK (1996) Flux correction and the simulation of changing climate. Ann Geophys Atmos Hydrosp Space Sci 14:336–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiogama H, Watanabe M, Yoshimori M, Yokohata T, Ogura T, Annan JD, Hargreaves JC, Abe M, Kamae Y, O’ishi R, Nobui R, Emori S, Nozawa T, Abe-Ouchi A, Kimoto M (2012) Perturbed physics ensemble using the MIROC5 coupled atmosphere-ocean GCM without flux corrections: experimental design and results parametric uncertainty of climate sensitivity. Clim Dyn 39:3041–3056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stainforth DA, Aina T, Christensen C, Collins M, Faull N, Frame DJ, Kettleborough JA, Knight S, Martin A, Murphy JM, Piani C, Sexton D, Smith LA, Spicer RA, Thorpe AJ, Allen MR (2005) Uncertainty in predictions of the climate response to rising levels of greenhouse gases. Nature 433:403–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stott PA, Kettleborough JA (2002) Origins and estimates of uncertainty in predictions of twenty-first century temperature rise. Nature 416:723–726

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yokohata T, Webb MJ, Collins M, Williams KD, Yoshimori M, Hargreaves JC, Annan JD (2010) Structural similarities and differences in climate responses to CO2 increase between two perturbed physics ensembles. J Clim 23:1392–1410

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I like to thank Gab Abramowitz, Tobias Bayr, Claudia Frauen, Thorsten Mauritsen, Erwan Monier and the anonymous referees for their comments and discussions, which helped to improve this article substantially. This work was supported by the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science (Grant CE110001028).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Earth, Atmosphere and Environment, Monash University, Clayton, Australia

    Dietmar Dommenget

Authors
  1. Dietmar Dommenget
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dietmar Dommenget.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dommenget, D. A simple model perturbed physics study of the simulated climate sensitivity uncertainty and its relation to control climate biases. Clim Dyn 46, 427–447 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-015-2591-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-015-2591-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation