4.7 Article

Structural Similarities and Differences in Climate Responses to CO2 Increase between Two Perturbed Physics Ensembles

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLIMATE
卷 23, 期 6, 页码 1392-1410

出版社

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/2009JCLI2917.1

关键词

-

资金

  1. MEXT, Japan
  2. Joint DECC, Defra and MoD Integrated Climate Programme-DECC/Defra [GA01101, CBC/2B/0417 Annex C5]
  3. MoE, Japan [S-5]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of the two perturbed physics ensembles (PPE) generated using structurally different GCMs, Model for Interdisciplinary Research on Climate (MIROC3.2) and the Third Hadley Centre Atmospheric Model with slab ocean (HadSM3), is investigated. A method to quantify the shortwave (SW) cloud feedback by clouds with different cloud-top pressure is developed. It is found that the difference in the ensemble means of the ECS between the two ensembles is mainly caused by differences in the SW low-level cloud feedback. The ensemble mean SW cloud feedback and ECS of the MIROC3.2 ensemble is larger than that of the HadSM3 ensemble. This is likely related to the 1XCO2 low-level cloud albedo of the former being larger than that of the latter. It is also found that the largest contribution to the within-ensemble variation of ECS comes from the SW low-level cloud feedback in both ensembles. The mechanism that causes the within-ensemble variation is different between the two ensembles. In the HadSM3 ensemble, members with large 1XCO2 low-level cloud albedo have large SW cloud feedback and large ECS; ensemble members with large 1XCO2 cloud cover have large negative SW cloud feedback and relatively low ECS. In the MIROC3.2 ensemble, the 1XCO2 low-level cloud albedo is much more tightly constrained, and no relationship is found between it and the cloud feedback. These results indicate that both the parametric uncertainties sampled in PPEs and the structural uncertainties of GCMs are important and worth further investigation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据