• Berger, A. L., 1978: Long-term variations of daily insolation and Quaternary climatic changes. J. Atmos. Sci., 35 , 23622367.

  • Boer, G. J., and B. Yu, 2003: Climate sensitivity and climate state. Climate Dyn., 21 , 167176.

  • Bony, S., and Coauthors, 2006: How well do we understand and evaluate climate change feedback processes? J. Climate, 19 , 34453482.

  • Broccoli, A. J., 2000: Tropical cooling at the Last Glacial Maximum: An atmosphere-mixed layer ocean model simulation. J. Climate, 13 , 951976.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cess, R. D., and Coauthors, 1990: Intercomparison and interpretation of climate feedback processes in 19 atmospheric general circulation models. J. Geophys. Res., 95 , 1660116615.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cess, R. D., and Coauthors, 1996: Cloud feedback in atmospheric general circulation models: An update. J. Geophys. Res., 101 , 1279112794.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Colman, R., 2003: A comparison of climate feedbacks in general circulation models. Climate Dyn., 20 , 865873.

  • Colman, R. A., and B. J. McAvaney, 1997: A study of general circulation model climate feedbacks determined from perturbed sea surface temperature experiments. J. Geophys. Res., 102 , 1938319402.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Covey, C., K. E. Taylor, and R. E. Dickinson, 1991: Upper limit for sea ice albedo feedback contribution to global warming. J. Geophys. Res., 96 , 91699174.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Crucifix, M., 2006: Does the Last Glacial Maximum constrain climate sensitivity? Geophys. Res. Lett., 33 .L18701, doi:10.1029/2006GL027137.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cubasch, U., and Coauthors, 2001: Projections of future climate change. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, J. T. Houghton et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, 525–582.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Foley, J. A., K. E. Taylor, and S. J. Ghan, 1991: Planktonic dimethylsulfide and cloud albedo: An estimate of the feedback response. Climatic Change, 18 , 115.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GFDL Global Atmospheric Model Development Team, 2004: The new GFDL global atmosphere and land model AM2–LM2: Evaluation with prescribed SST simulations. J. Climate, 17 , 46414673.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hansen, J., and Coauthors, 2005: Efficacy of climate forcings. J. Geophys. Res., 110 .D18104, doi:10.1029/2005JD005776.

  • Hansen, J. E., A. Lacis, D. Rind, G. Russell, P. Stone, I. Fung, R. Ruedy, and J. Lerner, 1984: Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms. Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, J. E. Hansen and T. Takahashi, Eds., Amer. Geophys. Union, 130–163.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hewitt, C. D., and J. F. B. Mitchell, 1997: Radiative forcing and response of a GCM to ice age boundary conditions: Cloud feedback and climate sensitivity. Climate Dyn., 13 , 821834.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Johns, T. C., R. E. Carnell, J. F. Crossley, J. M. Gregory, J. F. B. Mitchell, C. A. Senior, S. F. B. Tett, and R. A. Wood, 1997: The second Hadley Centre coupled ocean–atmosphere GCM: Model description, spinup and validation. Climate Dyn., 13 , 103134.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Joussaume, S., and K. E. Taylor, 2000: The paleoclimate modelling intercomparison project. Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project (PMIP): Proceedings of the Third PMIP Workshop, P. Braconnot, Ed., WCRP Rep. WCRP-111, WMO Tech. Doc. 1007, 9–24.

  • Masson, V., and Coauthors, 2006: Past and future polar amplification of climate change: Climate mode intercomparison and ice-core constraints. Climate Dyn., 26 , 513529.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 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 , 496514.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Peltier, W. R., 1994: Ice age palaeotopography. Science, 265 , 195201.

  • Qu, X., and A. Hall, 2006: Assessing snow albedo feedback in simulated climate change. J. Climate, 19 , 26172630.

  • Schlesinger, M. E., 1989: Quantitative Analysis of Feedbacks in Climate Model Simulations. Geophys. Monogr., Vol. 52, Amer. Geophys. Union, 187 pp.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Senior, C. A., and J. F. B. Mitchell, 1993: Carbon dioxide and climate: The impact of cloud parameterization. J. Climate, 6 , 393418.

  • Soden, B. J., and I. M. Held, 2006: An assessment of climate feedbacks in coupled ocean–atmosphere models. J. Climate, 19 , 33543360.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Soden, B. J., A. J. Broccoli, and R. S. Hemler, 2004: On the use of cloud forcing to estimate cloud feedback. J. Climate, 17 , 36613665.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Stephens, G. L., 2005: Cloud feedbacks in the climate system: A critical review. J. Climate, 18 , 237273.

  • Taylor, K. E., C. D. Hewitt, P. Braconnot, A. J. Broccoli, C. Doutriaux, and J. F. B. Mitchell, 2000: Analysis of forcing, response and feedbacks in a paleoclimate modeling experiment. Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project (PMIP): Proceedings of the Third PMIP Workshop, P. Braconnot, Ed., WCRP Rep. WCRP-111, WMO Tech. Doc. 1007, 43–49.

  • Webb, M. J., and Coauthors, 2006: On the contribution of local feedback mechanisms to the range of climate sensitivity in two GCM ensembles. Climate Dyn., 27 , 1738.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wetherald, R. T., and S. Manabe, 1988: Cloud feedback processes in a general circulation model. J. Atmos. Sci., 45 , 13971415.

  • Winton, M., 2005: Simple optical models for diagnosing surface–atmosphere shortwave interactions. J. Climate, 18 , 37963805.

  • Winton, M., 2006: Surface albedo feedback estimates for the AR4 climate models. J. Climate, 19 , 359365.

  • Yokohata, T., S. Emori, T. Nozawa, Y. Tsushima, T. Ogura, and M. Kimoto, 2005: A simple scheme for climate feedback analysis. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32 .L19703, doi:10.1029/2005GL023673.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Zhang, M. H., R. D. Cess, J. J. Hack, and J. T. Kiehl, 1994: Diagnostic study of climate feedback processes in atmospheric GCMs. J. Geophys. Res., 99 , 55255537.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 22 22 22
PDF Downloads 17 17 17

Estimating Shortwave Radiative Forcing and Response in Climate Models

View More View Less
  • a *Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California
  • | + Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Met Office, Exeter, United Kingdom
  • | # Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, CEA-DSM, Saclay, France
  • | @ Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey
Restricted access

Abstract

Feedback analysis in climate models commonly involves decomposing any change in the system’s energy balance into radiative forcing terms due to prescribed changes, and response terms due to the radiative effects of changes in model variables such as temperature, water vapor, clouds, sea ice, and snow. The established “partial radiative perturbation” (PRP) method allows an accurate separation of these terms, but requires processing large volumes of model output with an offline version of the model’s radiation code. Here, we propose an “approximate PRP” (APRP) method for the shortwave that provides an accurate estimate of the radiative perturbation, but derived from a quite modest amount of monthly mean model output.

The APRP method is based on a simplified shortwave radiative model of the atmosphere, where surface absorption and atmospheric scattering and absorption are represented by means of three parameters that are diagnosed for overcast and clear-sky portions of each model grid cell. The accuracy of the method is gauged relative to full PRP calculations in two experiments: one in which carbon dioxide concentration is doubled and another in which conditions of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) are simulated. The approximate PRP method yields a shortwave cloud feedback accurate in the global mean to within 7%. Forcings and feedbacks due to surface albedo and noncloud atmospheric constituents are also well approximated with errors of order 5%–10%. Comparison of two different model simulations of the LGM shows that the regional and global differences in their ice sheet albedo forcing fields are clearly captured by the APRP method. Hence this method is an efficient and satisfactory tool for studying and intercomparing shortwave forcing and feedbacks in climate models.

& Current affiliation: Institut d’Astronomie et de Géophysique Georges Lemaître, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

Corresponding author address: K. E. Taylor, Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, L-103, Livermore, CA 94550. Email: taylor13@llnl.gov

Abstract

Feedback analysis in climate models commonly involves decomposing any change in the system’s energy balance into radiative forcing terms due to prescribed changes, and response terms due to the radiative effects of changes in model variables such as temperature, water vapor, clouds, sea ice, and snow. The established “partial radiative perturbation” (PRP) method allows an accurate separation of these terms, but requires processing large volumes of model output with an offline version of the model’s radiation code. Here, we propose an “approximate PRP” (APRP) method for the shortwave that provides an accurate estimate of the radiative perturbation, but derived from a quite modest amount of monthly mean model output.

The APRP method is based on a simplified shortwave radiative model of the atmosphere, where surface absorption and atmospheric scattering and absorption are represented by means of three parameters that are diagnosed for overcast and clear-sky portions of each model grid cell. The accuracy of the method is gauged relative to full PRP calculations in two experiments: one in which carbon dioxide concentration is doubled and another in which conditions of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) are simulated. The approximate PRP method yields a shortwave cloud feedback accurate in the global mean to within 7%. Forcings and feedbacks due to surface albedo and noncloud atmospheric constituents are also well approximated with errors of order 5%–10%. Comparison of two different model simulations of the LGM shows that the regional and global differences in their ice sheet albedo forcing fields are clearly captured by the APRP method. Hence this method is an efficient and satisfactory tool for studying and intercomparing shortwave forcing and feedbacks in climate models.

& Current affiliation: Institut d’Astronomie et de Géophysique Georges Lemaître, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

Corresponding author address: K. E. Taylor, Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, L-103, Livermore, CA 94550. Email: taylor13@llnl.gov

Save