4.7 Article

Exploiting the Abrupt 4 x CO2 Scenario to Elucidate Tropical Expansion Mechanisms

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLIMATE
卷 32, 期 3, 页码 859-875

出版社

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0330.1

关键词

Atmospheric circulation; Hadley circulation; Meridional overturning circulation; Climate change; General circulation models

资金

  1. NOAA Climate and Global Change Postdoctoral Fellowship Program
  2. U.S. National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Future emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere are projected to result in significant circulation changes. One of the most important changes is the widening of the tropical belt, which has great societal impacts. Several mechanisms (changes in surface temperature, eddy phase speed, tropopause height, and static stability) have been proposed to explain this widening. However, the coupling between these mechanisms has precluded elucidating their relative importance. Here, the abrupt quadrupled-CO2 simulations of phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) are used to examine the proposed mechanisms. The different time responses of the different mechanisms allow us to disentangle and evaluate them. As suggested by earlier studies, the Hadley cell edge is found to be linked to changes in subtropical baroclinicity. In particular, its poleward shift is accompanied by an increase in subtropical static stability (i.e., a decrease in temperature lapse rate) with increased CO2 concentrations. These subtropical changes also affect the eddy momentum flux, which shifts poleward together with the Hadley cell edge. Transient changes in tropopause height, eddy phase speed, and surface temperature, however, were found not to accompany the poleward shift of the Hadley cell edge. The widening of the Hadley cell, together with the increase in moisture content, accounts for most of the expansion of the dry zone. Eddy moisture fluxes, on the other hand, are found to play a minor role in the expansion of the dry zone.

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