Response of the NCAR Climate System Model to Increased CO2 and the Role of Physical Processes

Gerald A. Meehl National Center for Atmospheric Research,* Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by Gerald A. Meehl in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
William D. Collins National Center for Atmospheric Research,* Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by William D. Collins in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Byron A. Boville National Center for Atmospheric Research,* Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by Byron A. Boville in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Jeffrey T. Kiehl National Center for Atmospheric Research,* Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by Jeffrey T. Kiehl in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
T. M. L. Wigley National Center for Atmospheric Research,* Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by T. M. L. Wigley in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Julie M. Arblaster National Center for Atmospheric Research,* Boulder, Colorado

Search for other papers by Julie M. Arblaster in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Abstract

The global warming resulting from increased CO2 is addressed in the context of two regional processes that contribute to climate change in coupled climate models, the “El Niño–like” response (slackening of the equatorial Pacific SST gradient) and sea-ice response at high latitudes. The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Climate System Model (CSM) response is compared with results from a coupled model that produces comparatively greater global warming, the NCAR U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) global coupled model. In an experiment where atmospheric CO2 is increased 1% yr−1 compound, globally averaged surface air temperature increase near the time of CO2 doubling for the CSM is 1.43°C (3.50°C for the DOE model). Analysis of a simple coupled model shows the CSM equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2 is comparable to that from the slab ocean version (about 2.1°C). One process that contributes to global warming (estimated to be about 5% in one slab ocean model), as well as to significant Pacific region climate effects, is the El Niño–like response. It is a notable feature in the DOE model and some other global coupled models but does not occur in the CSM. The authors show that cloud responses are a major determining factor. With increased CO2, there are negative net cloud-forcing differences in the western equatorial Pacific in the CSM and DOE models, but large positive differences in the DOE model and negative differences in the CSM in the eastern equatorial Pacific. This produces asymmetric cloud radiative forcing contributing to an El Niño–like response in the DOE model and not in the CSM. To remove the amplifying effects of ocean dynamics and to identify possible parameter-dependent processes that could contribute to such cloud forcing changes, the authors analyze slab ocean versions of the coupled models in comparison with a slab ocean configuration of the atmospheric model in the CSM [Community Climate Model Version 3 (CCM3)] that includes prognostic cloud liquid water. The latter shows a change in sign (from negative to positive) of the net cloud forcing in the eastern equatorial Pacific with doubled CO2, similar to the DOE model, in comparison with the CCM3 version with diagnostic cloud liquid water. Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (prescribed SST) experiments show that all three atmospheric models (DOE, CCM3 with diagnostic cloud liquid water, and CCM3 with prognostic cloud liquid water) perform poorly relative to observations in terms of cloud radiative forcing, though CCM3 with prognostic cloud liquid water is slightly superior to the others. Another process that contributes to climate response to increasing CO2 is sea-ice changes, which are estimated to enhance global warming by roughly 20% in the CSM and 37% in the DOE model. Sea-ice retreat with increasing CO2 in the CSM is less than in the DOE model in spite of identical sea-ice formulations. Results from the North Atlantic and Greenland–Iceland–Norwegian (GIN) Sea region show that the surface energy budget response is controlled primarily by surface albedo (related to ice area changes) and cloud changes. However, a more important factor is the poleward ocean heat transport associated with changes in meridional overturning in the GIN Sea. With increased CO2, the transport of warmer water from the south into this region in the DOE model is greater in comparison with that of the CSM. This leads to a larger ice reduction in the DOE model, thus also contributing to the enhanced contribution from ice albedo feedback in the DOE model in comparison with the CSM.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Gerald A. Meehl, NCAR/CGD, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000.

Abstract

The global warming resulting from increased CO2 is addressed in the context of two regional processes that contribute to climate change in coupled climate models, the “El Niño–like” response (slackening of the equatorial Pacific SST gradient) and sea-ice response at high latitudes. The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Climate System Model (CSM) response is compared with results from a coupled model that produces comparatively greater global warming, the NCAR U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) global coupled model. In an experiment where atmospheric CO2 is increased 1% yr−1 compound, globally averaged surface air temperature increase near the time of CO2 doubling for the CSM is 1.43°C (3.50°C for the DOE model). Analysis of a simple coupled model shows the CSM equilibrium sensitivity to doubled CO2 is comparable to that from the slab ocean version (about 2.1°C). One process that contributes to global warming (estimated to be about 5% in one slab ocean model), as well as to significant Pacific region climate effects, is the El Niño–like response. It is a notable feature in the DOE model and some other global coupled models but does not occur in the CSM. The authors show that cloud responses are a major determining factor. With increased CO2, there are negative net cloud-forcing differences in the western equatorial Pacific in the CSM and DOE models, but large positive differences in the DOE model and negative differences in the CSM in the eastern equatorial Pacific. This produces asymmetric cloud radiative forcing contributing to an El Niño–like response in the DOE model and not in the CSM. To remove the amplifying effects of ocean dynamics and to identify possible parameter-dependent processes that could contribute to such cloud forcing changes, the authors analyze slab ocean versions of the coupled models in comparison with a slab ocean configuration of the atmospheric model in the CSM [Community Climate Model Version 3 (CCM3)] that includes prognostic cloud liquid water. The latter shows a change in sign (from negative to positive) of the net cloud forcing in the eastern equatorial Pacific with doubled CO2, similar to the DOE model, in comparison with the CCM3 version with diagnostic cloud liquid water. Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (prescribed SST) experiments show that all three atmospheric models (DOE, CCM3 with diagnostic cloud liquid water, and CCM3 with prognostic cloud liquid water) perform poorly relative to observations in terms of cloud radiative forcing, though CCM3 with prognostic cloud liquid water is slightly superior to the others. Another process that contributes to climate response to increasing CO2 is sea-ice changes, which are estimated to enhance global warming by roughly 20% in the CSM and 37% in the DOE model. Sea-ice retreat with increasing CO2 in the CSM is less than in the DOE model in spite of identical sea-ice formulations. Results from the North Atlantic and Greenland–Iceland–Norwegian (GIN) Sea region show that the surface energy budget response is controlled primarily by surface albedo (related to ice area changes) and cloud changes. However, a more important factor is the poleward ocean heat transport associated with changes in meridional overturning in the GIN Sea. With increased CO2, the transport of warmer water from the south into this region in the DOE model is greater in comparison with that of the CSM. This leads to a larger ice reduction in the DOE model, thus also contributing to the enhanced contribution from ice albedo feedback in the DOE model in comparison with the CSM.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Gerald A. Meehl, NCAR/CGD, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000.

Save
  • Bonan, G. B., 1998: The land surface climatology of the NCAR land surface model (LSM 1.0) coupled to the NCAR Community Climate Model (CCM3). J. Climate,11, 1307–1326.

  • Bony, S., K.-M. Lau, and Y. C. Sud, 1997: Sea surface temperature and large-scale circulation influences on tropical greenhouse effect and cloud radiative forcing. J. Climate,10, 2055–2077.

  • Boville, B. A., and P. R. Gent, 1998: The NCAR Climate System Model, version one. J. Climate,11, 1115–1130.

  • Cane, M. A., A. C. Clement, A. Kaplan, Y. Kushnir, D. Pozdnyakov, R. Seager, S. E. Zebiak, and R. Murtugudde, 1997: Twentieth-century sea surface temperature trends. Science,275, 957–960.

  • Cess, R. D., and Coauthors, 1996: Cloud feedback in atmospheric general circulation models: An update. J. Geophys. Res.,101, 12 791–12 794.

  • Chou, M.-D., W. Zhao, and S.-H. Chou, 1998: Radiation budgets and cloud radiative forcing in the Pacific warm pool during TOGA COARE. J. Geophys. Res.,103, 16 967–16 977.

  • Collins, M., 2000: The El Niño–Southern Oscillation in the second Hadley Centre coupled model and its response to greenhouse warming. J. Climate,13, 1299–1312.

  • Dickinson, R. E., G. A. Meehl, and W. M. Washington, 1987: Ice-albedo feedback in a CO2 doubling simulation. Climatic Change,10, 241–248.

  • Gates, W. L., 1992: AMIP: The Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,73, 1962–1970.

  • Gent, P., F. Bryan, G. Danabasoglu, S. Doney, W. Holland, W. Large, and J. McWilliams, 1998: The NCAR Climate System Model global ocean component. J. Climate,11, 1287–1306.

  • Hack, J. J., 1998: Sensitivity of the simulated climate to a diagnostic formulation for cloud liquid water. J. Climate,11, 1497–1515.

  • Jones, P. D., 1988: The influence of ENSO on global temperatures. Climate Monit.,17, 80–89.

  • Kattenberg, A., and Coauthors, 1996: Climate models—Projection of future climate. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, IPCC Second Assessment Report, J. T. Houghton et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, 285–357.

  • Kiehl, J. T., J. J. Hack, G. Bonan, B. Boville, B. P. Briegleb, D. Williamson, and P. Rasch, 1996: Description of the NCAR Community Climate Model (CCM3). NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-420+STR, 152 pp. [Available from NCAR, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307.].

  • ——, ——, ——, ——, D. Williamson, and P. Rasch, 1998: The National Center for Atmospheric Research Community Climate Model (CCM3). J. Climate,11, 1131–1149.

  • Kitoh, A., S. Yukimoto, A. Noda, and T. Motoi, 1997: Simulated changes in the Asian summer monsoon at times of increased atmospheric CO2. J. Meteor. Soc. Japan,75, 1019–1031.

  • Knutson, T. R., and S. Manabe, 1995: Time-mean response over the tropical Pacific due to increased CO2 in a coupled ocean–atmosphere model. J. Climate,8, 2181–2199.

  • ——, and ——, 1998: Model assessment of decadal variability and trends in the tropical Pacific Ocean. J. Climate,11, 2273–2296.

  • Levitus, S., 1982: Climatological Atlas of the World Ocean. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA Professional Paper No. 13, 173 pp. and 17 microfiche. [Available from U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.].

  • Maruyama, K., H. Hirakuchi, J. Tsutsui, N. Nakashiki, S. Kadokura, and M. Kadoyu, 1997: Global warming projection for 125 years using NCAR CSM coupled model. CRIEPI Tech. Rep. U97834, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Tokyo, Japan, 24 pp. [Available from CRIEPI, 1646 Abiko Abiko-shi, Chiba 270-1194, Japan.].

  • Meehl, G. A., 1996: Vulnerability of fresh water resources to climate change in the tropical Pacific region. J. Water, Air Soil Pollut.,92, 203–213.

  • ——, 1997: Modification of surface fluxes from component models in global coupled models. J. Climate,10, 2811–2825.

  • ——, and W. M. Washington, 1990: CO2 climate sensitivity and snow–sea-ice albedo parameterization in an atmospheric GCM coupled to a mixed-layer ocean model. Climatic Change,16, 283–306.

  • ——, and ——, 1993: South Asian summer monsoon variability in a model with doubled atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Science,260, 1101–1104.

  • ——, and ——, 1995: Cloud albedo feedback and the super greenhouse effect in a global coupled GCM. Climate Dyn.,11, 399–411.

  • ——, and ——, 1996: El Niño–like climate change in a model with increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Nature,382, 56–60.

  • ——, and J. Arblaster, 1998: The Asian–Australian monsoon and El Niño–Southern Oscillation in the NCAR Climate System Model. J. Climate,11, 1357–1387.

  • ——, G. W. Branstator, and W. M. Washington, 1993: Tropical Pacific interannual variability and CO2 climate change. J. Climate,6, 42–63.

  • ——, W. M. Washington, D. J. Erickson III, B. P. Briegleb, and P. J. Jaumann, 1996: Climate change from increased CO2 and direct and indirect effects of sulfate aerosols. Geophys. Res. Lett.,23, 3755–3758.

  • ——, G. J. Boer, C. Covey, M. Latif, and R. J. Stouffer, 1997: Intercomparison makes for a better climate model. Eos, Trans. Amer. Geophys. Union,78, 445–446, 451.

  • ——, W. M. Washington, J. M. Arblaster, T. W. Bettge, and W. G. Strand, 2000: Anthropogenic forcing and decadal climate variability in sensitivity experiments of twentieth- and twenty-first-century climate. J. Climate, in press.

  • Murphy, J. M., 1995: Transient response of the Hadley Centre coupled ocean–atmosphere model to increasing carbon dioxide. Part III:Analysis of global-mean response using simple models. J. Climate,8, 496–514.

  • Nicholls, N., G. V. Gruza, J. Jouzel, T. R. Karl, L. A. Ogallo, and D. E. Parker, 1992: Observed climate variability and change. Climate Change 1992: The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment, J. T. Houghton, B. A. Callander, and S. K. Varney, Eds., Cambridge University Press, 133–192.

  • Power, S. B., and A. C. Hirst, 1997: Eddy parameterization and the oceanic response to idealized global warming. Climate Dyn.,13, 417–428.

  • Raper, S. C. B., and U. Cubasch, 1996: Emulation of the results from a coupled general circulation model using a simple climate model. Geophys. Res. Lett.,23, 1107–1110.

  • Rasch, P. J., and J. E. Kristjansson, 1998: A comparison of the CCM3 model climate using diagnosed and predicted condensate parameterizations. J. Climate,11, 1587–1614.

  • Robock, A., 1983: Ice and snow feedbacks and the latitudinal and seasonal distribution of climate sensitivity. J. Atmos. Sci.,40, 986–997.

  • Schlesinger, M. E., 1989: Quantitative analysis of feedbacks in climate model simulations. Understanding Climate Change, Geophys. Monogr., No. 52, Amer. Geophys. Union, 177–187.

  • Senior, C. A., 1999: Comparison of mechanisms of cloud-climate feedbacks in GCMs. J. Climate,12, 1480–1489.

  • Spelman, M. J., and S. Manabe, 1984: Influence of oceanic heat transport upon the sensitivity of a model climate. J. Geophys. Res.,89, 571–586.

  • Tett, S., 1995: Simulation of El Niño–Southern Oscillation–like variability in a global AOGCM and its response to CO2 increase. J. Climate,8, 1473–1502.

  • Timmermann, A., J. Oberhuber, A. Bacher, M. Esch, M. Latif, and E. Roeckner, 1999: Increased El Niño frequency in a climate model forced by future greenhouse warming. Nature,398, 694–697.

  • Washington, W. M., and G. A. Meehl, 1984: Seasonal cycle experiment on the climate sensitivity due to a doubling of CO2 with an atmospheric general circulation model coupled to a simple mixed layer ocean model. J. Geophys. Res.,89, 9475–9503.

  • ——, and ——, 1993: Greenhouse sensitivity experiments with penetrative cumulus convection and tropical cirrus albedo effects. Climate Dyn.8, 211–223.

  • ——, and ——, 1996. High latitude climate change in a global coupled ocean–atmosphere–sea ice model with increased atmospheric CO2. J. Geophys. Res.,101, 12 795–12 801.

  • ——, and Coauthors, 2000: Parallel Climate Model (PCM) control and 1% per year CO2 simulations with a ⅔ degree ocean model and a 27-km dynamical sea ice model. Climate Dyn., in press.

  • Weatherly, J. W., B. P. Briegleb, W. G. Large, and J. A. Maslanik, 1998: Sea ice and polar climate in the NCAR CSM. J. Climate,11, 1472–1486.

  • Wigley, T. M. L., and S. C. B. Raper, 1992: Implications for climate and sea level of revised IPCC emissions scenarios. Nature,357, 293–300.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 858 381 48
PDF Downloads 231 67 8