Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 5 of 5 items for

  • Author or Editor: Peter M. Cox x
  • All content x
Clear All Modify Search
Chris D. Jones, Matthew Collins, Peter M. Cox, and Steven A. Spall

Abstract

There is significant interannual variability in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) even when the effect of anthropogenic sources has been accounted for. This variability is well correlated with the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle. This behavior of the natural carbon cycle provides a valuable mechanism for validating carbon cycle models. The model in turn is a valuable tool for examining the processes involved in the relationship between ENSO and the carbon cycle.

A GCM coupled climate–carbon cycle model is used to study the mechanisms involved. The model simulates the observed temperature, precipitation, and CO2 response of the climate to the ENSO cycle. Climatic changes over land during El Niño events lead to decreased gross primary productivity and increased plant and soil respiration, and hence the terrestrial biosphere becomes a source of CO2 to the atmosphere. Conversely, during El Niño events, the ocean becomes a sink of CO2 because of reduction of equatorial Pacific outgassing as a result of decreased upwelling of carbon-rich deep water. During La Niña events the opposite occurs; the land becomes a sink and the ocean a source of CO2.

The magnitude of the model's response is such that the terrestrial biosphere releases about 1.8 GtC yr−1 for an El Niño with a Niño-3 index of magnitude 1 °C, and the oceans take up about 0.5 GtC yr−1. (1 GtC = 1015 g of carbon). The net global response is thus an increase in atmospheric CO2 of about 0.6 ppmv yr−1. This is in close agreement with the sensitivity of the observed CO2 record to ENSO events.

Full access
Jose A. Marengo, Luiz E.O.C. Aragão, Peter M. Cox, Richard Betts, Duarte Costa, Neil Kaye, Lauren T. Smith, Lincoln M. Alves, and Vera Reis
Full access
Randal D. Koster, Y. C. Sud, Zhichang Guo, Paul A. Dirmeyer, Gordon Bonan, Keith W. Oleson, Edmond Chan, Diana Verseghy, Peter Cox, Harvey Davies, Eva Kowalczyk, C. T. Gordon, Shinjiro Kanae, David Lawrence, Ping Liu, David Mocko, Cheng-Hsuan Lu, Ken Mitchell, Sergey Malyshev, Bryant McAvaney, Taikan Oki, Tomohito Yamada, Andrew Pitman, Christopher M. Taylor, Ratko Vasic, and Yongkang Xue

Abstract

The Global Land–Atmosphere Coupling Experiment (GLACE) is a model intercomparison study focusing on a typically neglected yet critical element of numerical weather and climate modeling: land–atmosphere coupling strength, or the degree to which anomalies in land surface state (e.g., soil moisture) can affect rainfall generation and other atmospheric processes. The 12 AGCM groups participating in GLACE performed a series of simple numerical experiments that allow the objective quantification of this element for boreal summer. The derived coupling strengths vary widely. Some similarity, however, is found in the spatial patterns generated by the models, with enough similarity to pinpoint multimodel “hot spots” of land–atmosphere coupling. For boreal summer, such hot spots for precipitation and temperature are found over large regions of Africa, central North America, and India; a hot spot for temperature is also found over eastern China. The design of the GLACE simulations are described in full detail so that any interested modeling group can repeat them easily and thereby place their model’s coupling strength within the broad range of those documented here.

Full access
Zhichang Guo, Paul A. Dirmeyer, Randal D. Koster, Y. C. Sud, Gordon Bonan, Keith W. Oleson, Edmond Chan, Diana Verseghy, Peter Cox, C. T. Gordon, J. L. McGregor, Shinjiro Kanae, Eva Kowalczyk, David Lawrence, Ping Liu, David Mocko, Cheng-Hsuan Lu, Ken Mitchell, Sergey Malyshev, Bryant McAvaney, Taikan Oki, Tomohito Yamada, Andrew Pitman, Christopher M. Taylor, Ratko Vasic, and Yongkang Xue

Abstract

The 12 weather and climate models participating in the Global Land–Atmosphere Coupling Experiment (GLACE) show both a wide variation in the strength of land–atmosphere coupling and some intriguing commonalities. In this paper, the causes of variations in coupling strength—both the geographic variations within a given model and the model-to-model differences—are addressed. The ability of soil moisture to affect precipitation is examined in two stages, namely, the ability of the soil moisture to affect evaporation, and the ability of evaporation to affect precipitation. Most of the differences between the models and within a given model are found to be associated with the first stage—an evaporation rate that varies strongly and consistently with soil moisture tends to lead to a higher coupling strength. The first-stage differences reflect identifiable differences in model parameterization and model climate. Intermodel differences in the evaporation–precipitation connection, however, also play a key role.

Full access
Lifeng Luo, Alan Robock, Konstantin Y. Vinnikov, C. Adam Schlosser, Andrew G. Slater, Aaron Boone, Pierre Etchevers, Florence Habets, Joel Noilhan, Harald Braden, Peter Cox, Patricia de Rosnay, Robert E. Dickinson, Yongjiu Dai, Qing-Cun Zeng, Qingyun Duan, John Schaake, Ann Henderson-Sellers, Nicola Gedney, Yevgeniy M. Gusev, Olga N. Nasonova, Jinwon Kim, Eva Kowalczyk, Kenneth Mitchell, Andrew J. Pitman, Andrey B. Shmakin, Tatiana G. Smirnova, Peter Wetzel, Yongkang Xue, and Zong-Liang Yang

Abstract

The Project for Intercomparison of Land-Surface Parameterization Schemes phase 2(d) experiment at Valdai, Russia, offers a unique opportunity to evaluate land surface schemes, especially snow and frozen soil parameterizations. Here, the ability of the 21 schemes that participated in the experiment to correctly simulate the thermal and hydrological properties of the soil on several different timescales was examined. Using observed vertical profiles of soil temperature and soil moisture, the impact of frozen soil schemes in the land surface models on the soil temperature and soil moisture simulations was evaluated.

It was found that when soil-water freezing is explicitly included in a model, it improves the simulation of soil temperature and its variability at seasonal and interannual scales. Although change of thermal conductivity of the soil also affects soil temperature simulation, this effect is rather weak. The impact of frozen soil on soil moisture is inconclusive in this experiment due to the particular climate at Valdai, where the top 1 m of soil is very close to saturation during winter and the range for soil moisture changes at the time of snowmelt is very limited. The results also imply that inclusion of explicit snow processes in the models would contribute to substantially improved simulations. More sophisticated snow models based on snow physics tend to produce better snow simulations, especially of snow ablation. Hysteresis of snow-cover fraction as a function of snow depth is observed at the catchment but not in any of the models.

Full access