Cpt.UCLA Our work is motivated by two observations ‣ our understanding of cloud feedbacks is zonally symmetric. ‣ all pbl parameterizations strive to well.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Page 1© Crown copyright 2007 CFMIP2: Options for SST-forced and slab experiments Mark Ringer, Brian Soden Hadley Centre,UK & RSMA/MPO, US CFMIP/ENSEMBLES.

Advertisements

© Crown copyright Met Office Towards understanding the mechanisms responsible for different cloud-climate responses in GCMs. Mark Webb, Adrian Lock (Met.

Thoughts on Climate Theory Based on collaborations with Wenyu Zhou, Dargan Frierson, Sarah Kang, Erica Staehling, Gang Chen, Steve Garner, Ming Zhao Isaac.

1 Dynamical Polar Warming Amplification and a New Climate Feedback Analysis Framework Ming Cai Florida State University Tallahassee, FL 32306

Understanding Feedback Processes Outline Definitions Magnitudes and uncertainties Geographic distributions and priorities Observational requirements.

Lecture 8 Climate Feedback Processes GEU Forcing, Response, and Sensitivity Consider a climate forcing (e.g., a change in TOA net radiation balance,

Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Review June 30 - July 2, 2009 Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Review June 30 - July 2, 2009.

Unit 9: Circulation Patterns of the Atmosphere

Uganda’s climate: change and variability Prof Chris Reason, UCT & Lead Author, WG1 AR5 Regional circulation and climate Climate variability Long-term projections.

The Tropics: Climatology and Large-Scale Circulations

© Oxford University Press 2009 Part 7 Global warming─Are humans responsible? Quit 7.2What is the normal global distribution global distribution pattern.

Observed Tropical Expansion: Impact on the Hydrological and Energy Cycles New Investigator Research Summary Joel Norris (Lead PI, UC San Diego) Robert.

Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks Dennis L. Hartmann in collaboration with Mark Zelinka Department of Atmospheric Sciences University of Washington PCC Summer.

Double ITCZ Phenomena in GCM’s Marcus D. Williams.

DARGAN M. W. FRIERSON DEPARTMENT OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES DAY 16: 05/20/2010 ATM S 111, Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast.

Clouds and Climate: Cloud Response to Climate Change SOEEI3410 Ken Carslaw Lecture 5 of a series of 5 on clouds and climate Properties and distribution.

General circulation in the tropics

Low-Latitude Cloud Feedbacks CPT Chris Bretherton University of Washington, Seattle, USA Goal: Better simulation and understanding of low- latitude [boundary.

Clouds and Climate: Cloud Response to Climate Change ENVI3410 : Lecture 11 Ken Carslaw Lecture 5 of a series of 5 on clouds and climate Properties and.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California 1 Joao Teixeira, Brian.

Evening Discussion: Toward a better understanding of PBL cloud feedbacks on climate sensitivity Some introductory material Chris Bretherton University.

Motivation To understand how climate change may affect the North Atlantic and European regions, an understanding of the North Atlantic storm track is required.

Lesson 2 AOSC 621. Radiative equilibrium Where S is the solar constant. The earth reflects some of this radiation. Let the albedo be ρ, then the energy.

General Circulation of the Atmosphere René Garreaud

Climate Feedbacks Brian Soden Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science University of Miami.

Pacific vs. Indian Ocean warming: How does it matter for global and regional climate change? Joseph J. Barsugli Sang-Ik Shin Prashant D. Sardeshmukh NOAA-CIRES.

=(S,,0); 4=(S,,4000).

Towards stability metrics for cloud cover variation under climate change Rob Wood, Chris Bretherton, Matt Wyant, Peter Blossey University of Washington.

Simulations of Floods and Droughts in the Western U.S. Under Climate Change L. Ruby Leung Pacific Northwest National Laboratory US CLIVAR/NCAR ASP Researcher.

Class #13 Monday, September 27, 2010 Class #13: Monday, September 27 Chapter 7 Global Winds 1.

© Imperial College LondonPage 1 Solar Influence on Stratosphere-Troposphere Dynamical Coupling Isla Simpson, Joanna D. Haigh, Space and Atmospheric Physics,

TEMPLATE DESIGN © Total Amount Altitude Optical Depth Longwave High Clouds Shortwave High Clouds Shortwave Low Clouds.

Processes responsible for polar amplification of climate change Peter L. LangenCentre for Ice and Climate Niels Bohr InstituteUniversity of Copenhagen.

© Crown copyright Met Office CFMIP-2 techniques for understanding cloud feedbacks in climate models. Mark Webb (Met Office Hadley Centre) CFMIP/GCSS BLWG.

Sensitivity of Methane Lifetime to Sulfate Geoengineering: Results from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) Giovanni Pitari V. Aquila,

Thermohaline Circulation in the Coupled GISS/HYCOM Climate Simulation Shan Sun NASA/GISS Rainer Bleck Los Alamos National Laboratory.

The basic ingredients of the North Atlantic storm track David Brayshaw, Brian Hoskins and Mike Blackburn Brayshaw et al. (2008)

Evaluation of CMIP5 Simulated Clouds and TOA Radiation Budgets in the SMLs Using NASA Satellite Observations Erica K. Dolinar Xiquan Dong and Baike Xi.

The Greenhouse Effect. What controls climate? Energy from the Sun – Radiation! Consider the 4 inner planets of the solar system: SUN 342 W m W.

Lecture 5 The Climate System and the Biosphere. One significant way the ocean can influence climate is through formation of sea ice. Sea ice is much more.

Global Scale Energy Fluxes: Comparison of Observational Estimates and Model Simulations Aaron Donohoe -- MIT David Battisti -- UW CERES Science Team Meeting.

Projection of Global Climate Change. Review of last lecture Rapid increase of greenhouse gases (CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O) since 1750: far exceed pre-industrial.

Sensitivity to precipitable water content and profile Resolution and Dynamical Core Dependence of the Statistics of Atmospheric River events in Community.

Chapter 3 cont. (Heat & Temperatures). Heat & Temperature Basics temperature: the energy of molecular movement heat: a measure of the amount of energy.

Determination of Tropical Pacific Cloud Structures using AQUA MODIS Data Presented By: Terry Kubar Advisors: Dennis Hartmann and Rob Wood.

Seasonal Cycle of Climate Feedbacks in the NCAR CCSM3.0 Patrick Taylor CLARREO Science Team Meeting July 7, 2010 Patrick Taylor CLARREO Science Team Meeting.

KoreaCAM-EULAG February 2008 Implementation of a Non-Hydrostatic, Adaptive-Grid Dynamics Core in the NCAR Community Atmospheric Model William J. Gutowski,

Large Eddy Simulation of Low Cloud Feedback to a 2-K SST Increase Anning Cheng 1, and Kuan-Man Xu 2 1. AS&M, Inc., 2. NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton,

1. Introduction Boundary-layer clouds are parameterized in general circulation model (GCM), but simulated in Multi-scale Modeling Framework (MMF) and.

Typical Distributions of Water Characteristics in the Oceans.

Boundary Layer Clouds.

Radiative Feedback Analysis of CO2 Doubling and LGM Experiments ○ M. Yoshimori, A. Abe-Ouchi CCSR, University of Tokyo and T. Yokohata National Institute.

The MJO Response to Warming in Two Super-Parameterized GCMs

The Seasonality and Partitioning of Atmospheric Heat Transport in a Myriad of Different Climate States I. Introduction II. A simple energy balance model.

Climatic implications of changes in O 3 Loretta J. Mickley, Daniel J. Jacob Harvard University David Rind Goddard Institute for Space Studies How well.

Evaluation of radiative properties of low and high clouds in different regimes using satellite measurements Bing Lin 1, Pat Minnis 1, and Tai-Fang Fan.

- 200 hPa geopotential heights in the GDAS analysis are lower than in CDAS between 20 o N to the South Pole hPa geopotential heights are consistently.

- 200 hPa geopotential heights in the GDAS analysis are lower than in CDAS between 20 o N to the South Pole hPa geopotential heights are consistently.

Typical Distributions of Water Characteristics in the Oceans

Important data of cloud properties for assessing the response of GCM clouds in climate change simulations Yoko Tsushima JAMSTEC/Frontier Research Center.

Key ingredients in global hydrological response to external forcing Response to warming => Increased horizontal moisture fluxes => Poleward expansion of.

- 200 hPa geopotential heights in the GDAS analysis are lower than in CDAS over most of the planet except the North American continent, particularly from.

Status of CAM, March 2004 Phil Rasch. Differences between CAM2 and CAM3 (standard physics version) Separate liquid and ice phases Advection, sedimentation.

Energy constraints on Global Climate

Amanda Maycock & Piers Forster

Impact of the vertical resolution on Climate Simulation using CESM

NCAR-GFDL Workshops on Model Development

National Center for Atmospheric Research

Rob Wood, Chris Bretherton, Matt Wyant, Peter Blossey

Comparing the Greenhouse Sensitivities of CCM3 and ECHAM4.5

Presentation transcript:

cpt.UCLA Our work is motivated by two observations ‣ our understanding of cloud feedbacks is zonally symmetric. ‣ all pbl parameterizations strive to well represent the mixed layer limit (at the right time). Bjorn Stevens, Yunyan Zhang, Brian Medeiros

how earth-like are the aqua-planets? ‣ Motivation ‣ Methodology - the experiments ‣ Some results GFDL AM2 NCAR CAM3 ‣ A few extra CAM3 figures ‣ Discussion topics & the future

aqua planet - what & why simplified framework to help isolate feedbacks ‣ full 3D GCM with dynamics and physics ‣ prescribed SST ‣ no land or sea-ice ‣ perpetual equinox solar conditions (no seasons) ‣ gives a zonally symmetric configuration to compare with simple models useful for model intercomparison ‣ Is aqua planet sensitivity similar to full GCM? ‣ Do different GCMs have similar aqua planets?

APE start with full model (dynamics + physics) remove zonal asymmetry (land + sea-ice) prescribe SST (APE analytic expressions: “aqua,” “flat,” “qobs”) Warm SST by ≈ 2 K ‣ Where to have SST = 0? ‣ Preserve ∂ y SST (or do as good as we can) 1 “AQUA” SST ∝ sin 2 (α 1 ϕ ) 2 “FLAT” SST ∝ sin 4 (α 2 ϕ ) APE SSTs

SST + 2 warming equatorward of ~60 latitude ‣ maximum SST = 29 C (at equator) ‣ match gradient at a single latitude ‣ minimize RMS difference result is a modifed cess perturbation in the tropics and midlatitudes high latitude SST remains at 0 C “QOBS” SST = 0.5( “AQUA” + “FLAT” )

aqua planet +2K ‣ NCAR CAM3 & GFDL AM2 were run in the three APE configurations for 3.5 years each ‣ +2K runs were performed for all three APE SST profiles ‣ An additional “Cess” experiment was included with the full GCM (land & sea-ice)

CAM3 global sensitivity ‣ aqua planets slightly less sensitive than “cess” ‣ “Cess” has largest sensitivity, and smallest albedo changes ‣ climate sensitivity parameter: ratio of change in surface temperature to change in direct radiative forcing (dominated by change in OLR). ‣ cloud feedback parameter: ratio of change in total cloud forcing to direct radiative forcing. ‣ CAM cloud feedback is negative in all configurations

AM2 global sensitivity ‣ “Cess” has largest sensitivity, and smallest albedo changes (again) ‣ AM2 cloud feedback is positive in “Cess,” but negative in aqua planets (only globally) ‣ albedo change due almost entirely to cloud albedo for aqua planets, but not “Cess”

CAM3 tropical (30-30) sensitivity

AM2 tropical (30-30) sensitivity

compare global cloud response ‣ Very similar TOA radiative changes ‣ AM2 global cloud feedback changes sign in aqua planet ‣ “qobs” consistently most similar to full GCM

compare tropical cloud response TOA radiative forcing larger in CAM ‣ CAM radiative forcing similar to global forcing ‣ AM2 forcing about half global value Cloud feedback opposite sign between models intra-GCM tropical cloud feedback consistent in sign and magnitude

CAM3 clouds ‣ Aqua planets have larger changes in cloud fraction ‣ total & low cloud fraction change is consistent among configurations ‣ “qobs” is most CAM-like

AM2 clouds ‣ Tropics (30S-30N) show decrease in total cloud ‣ only “cess” shows increase in high clouds. ‣ Tropical total and low cloud changes have same sign among runs.

“qobs” cloud fractions

aqua planet convective precipitation ‣ very similar double ITCZ in QOBS ‣ change in +2 case is quite similar ‣ other configurations are also very alike, with exception of “aqua” (single ITCZ in AM2)

CAM vertical motion ‣ seasonal effects make “cess” look weakest ‣ wider SST maximum makes wider spaced ITCZs and weaker circulation ‣ double ITCZ in “qobs” and “flat” (and equatorial subsidence)

CAM liquid water ‣ more intense circulation in “aqua” and “qobs” (area of convection/susidence) ‣ warmer climate produces more cirrus in convective regions and more stratus in subsidence ‣ warmer climate has less mid-level cloud

‣ Aqua planet configuration does seem to have similar climate sensitivity as full GCM ‣ qualitatively captures response in omega space ‣ discriminates between AM and CAM cloud feedbacks ‣ reasonable predictor of low cloud response ‣ Caveats (how big, how long, how right?) more work... ‣ A laboratory for investigating climate feedbacks? summary

aqua planet ‣ Double ITCZ in qobs and flat, less pronounced in aqua and CAM ‣ subtropical local maxima in “aqua” and “flat?” ‣ difference dominated by poleward shift of ITCZs in “flat”

aqua planet ‣ qobs most similar in extratropics to CAM ‣ substantial poleward shift of midlatitude storms (stronger in aqua planet) ‣ aqua planets have more large-scale precipitation than CAM.

aqua planet