* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download 040521_Cloud_Feeback_Presentation_Wood
Fred Singer wikipedia , lookup
Global warming controversy wikipedia , lookup
Climate change denial wikipedia , lookup
Economics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change adaptation wikipedia , lookup
Politics of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Citizens' Climate Lobby wikipedia , lookup
Climate governance wikipedia , lookup
Climate engineering wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Tuvalu wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Global warming wikipedia , lookup
Media coverage of global warming wikipedia , lookup
Numerical weather prediction wikipedia , lookup
Scientific opinion on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Public opinion on global warming wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on Australia wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Years of Living Dangerously wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Atmospheric model wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Climate sensitivity wikipedia , lookup
Cloud Feedback Reading Group May 21, 2004 Discussion of Cess et. al. (1989) Discussion of Cess et. al. (1996) Cloud-Climate Feedback as Produced by different General Circulation Models 1989 Paper A. Summary 1. Intercomparison of 14 atmospheric GCMs 2. Climate change interpretation: 2-step process involving forcing and then subsequent response 2. Sea-surface perturbations used as proxy for climate change 3. Threefold variation in global climate sensitivity among models a. mostly due to differences in models of depiction of cloud-climate feedback b. cloud feedback ranged from modest negative to strong positive B. Radiative Forcing, G 1. G = F - Q F: Global mean emitted IR flux at TOA Q: Global mean downwelling solar radiation F, Q: climate change responses to radiative forcing C. Climate Sensitivity, λ 1. TS = λG Thus, according to definition of G, λ = 1 / [F/ TS - Q/ TS ] 2. As λ↑, there is increased climate change for a given forcing 3. Example: Basic Temperature-Radiation Negative Feedback a. Q/ TS = 0, F = εσT4, F/ TS = 4F/TS = 3.3 Wm-2K-1 (using F = 240 Wm-2 and TS = 288K thus, λ = 0.3 Km2W-1 b. when positive water vapor feedback is included, λ is increased to 0.5 Km2W-1 (this feedback does not include the effect of clouds) 4. Cloud-climate feedbacks a. Considerably more complex: i.e. a reduction in clouds increases IR emission at TOA, but also increases absorption of solar radiation due to decreased albedo D. Method 1. For each model integration, λ is produced along with λC, a clear-sky sensitivity 2. ±2 K sea-surface perturbations, with perpetual July simulation, and fixed sea ice constraint a. Inverse of a climate change simulation, in that climate change is prescribed, and forcing is then determined b. Eliminates need for models to equilibrate to the ocean 3. Grid sizes ranged from 2.8º x 2.8º to 5.0º x 7.5º E. Reconciliation of clouds by models 1. Stratiform a. All models (except ECMWF & ECMWF/UH) allow stratiform clouds to be formed when the relative humidity exceeds a prescribed value (usually ~ 90%) b. ECMWF & ECMWF/UH use vertical velocity/lapse rate 2. Convective Clouds a. Much less consistency among models i. 6 of the GCMs calculate convective clouds in much the same way as stratiform clouds ii. Others: parameterization of convective clouds F. Cloud Radiative Forcing (CRF) versus Cloud Feedback 1. CRF: radiative impact of clouds on Earth’s radiation budget: CRF = FC – F + Q – QC (subscript c: clear-sky) CRF > 0: clouds produce warming 2. Cloud Feedback (λ/ λC) λ/ λC = 1 + ∆CRC/G If ∆CRC = 0, climate sensitivity parameter is the same as the clear-sky sensitivity λ/ λC > 1: positive feedback (same as ∆CRC/G > 0, which is used in 1996 paper) G. Results 1. λC for all the models is rather similar Mean λC = 0.47 Km2W-1, Standard Deviation of 0.04 (Small Range) 2. Much larger range of λ among the models (0.39 ≤ λ ≤ 1.11) Mean λ = 0.68 Km2W-1, Standard Deviation of 0.24 3. Consequent λ/ λC range: 0.70 (modest negative feedback) to 2.47 (strong positive) Mean ∆CRC/G = 0.45 II. 1996 Cess et. Al. paper A. Main purpose 1. intercomparison of 19 GCMs (rather than 14 as in ’89) 2. Assess differences in feedbacks with revised GCMs B. Procedure 1. Perpetual July simulation (same as before) 2. Fixed soil moisture (to eliminate effect of excessive continental drying) 3. Fixed sea ice/snow C. Some Revisions made to GCMs 1. ECHAM GCM: inclusion of prognostic water content, cloud optical properties related to cloud water content, different radiative transfer code, updated convective scheme a. These changes reduced cloud feedback b. In ’90 run, clouds were too bright, leading to large SW positive cloud feedback when climate was warmed 2. GISS GCM also incorporated interactive cloud optical properties with ’96 run D. General Results 1. Reduction in mean feedback (∆CRF/G) from earlier runs a. 1989: (∆CRF/G) = 0.45 b. 1990: (∆CRF/G) = 0.38 c. 1996: (∆CRF/G) = 0.11 2. General convergence of models to less positive cloud feedback 3. However, in many cases there are different explanations as to why the models produce similar feedbacks a. ex. CCC: near zero feedback as both SW and LW feedback components are very small b. ECMWF, DNM, and CSIRO: nearly compensating LW and SW components E. Some Concluding Remarks 1. 1996 model runs: generally modest positive cloud feedback a. Exception: LMD, which has a much larger LW cloud feedback component than all the other models (similar to the ’90 run) 2. Smaller variation of net cloud feedback among models a. This does not necessarily mean, however, that the accuracy of the revised models is higher 3. Both 1989 and 1996 papers warn that execution of 2 K perturbation may yield different results than would occur with real climate change a. But, such a study is important to attempt to quantitatively assess importance of clouds in climate change