Equilibrium climate sensitivity, the global surface temperature response to CO
2 doubling, has been persistently uncertain. Recent consensus places it likely within 1.5–4.5 K. Global climate models ...(GCMs), which attempt to represent all relevant physical processes, provide the most direct means of estimating climate sensitivity via CO
2 quadrupling experiments. Here we show that the closely related effective climate sensitivity has increased substantially in Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6), with values spanning 1.8–5.6 K across 27 GCMs and exceeding 4.5 K in 10 of them. This (statistically insignificant) increase is primarily due to stronger positive cloud feedbacks from decreasing extratropical low cloud coverage and albedo. Both of these are tied to the physical representation of clouds which in CMIP6 models lead to weaker responses of extratropical low cloud cover and water content to unforced variations in surface temperature. Establishing the plausibility of these higher sensitivity models is imperative given their implied societal ramifications.
Plain Language Summary
The severity of climate change is closely related to how much the Earth warms in response to greenhouse gas increases. Here we find that the temperature response to an abrupt quadrupling of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased substantially in the latest generation of global climate models. This is primarily because low cloud water content and coverage decrease more strongly with global warming, causing enhanced planetary absorption of sunlight—an amplifying feedback that ultimately results in more warming. Differences in the physical representation of clouds in models drive this enhanced sensitivity relative to the previous generation of models. It is crucial to establish whether the latest models, which presumably represent the climate system better than their predecessors, are also providing a more realistic picture of future climate warming.
Key Points
Climate sensitivity is larger on average in CMIP6 than in CMIP5 due mostly to a stronger positive low cloud feedback
This is due to greater reductions in low cloud cover and weaker increases in low cloud water content, primarily in the extratropics
These changes are related to model physics differences that are apparent in unforced climate variability
AN OVERVIEW OF CMIP5 AND THE EXPERIMENT DESIGN Taylor, Karl E.; Stouffer, Ronald J.; Meehl, Gerald A.
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society,
04/2012, Volume:
93, Issue:
4
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
Open access
The fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) will produce a state-of-the- art multimodel dataset designed to advance our knowledge of climate variability and climate change. ...Researchers worldwide are analyzing the model output and will produce results likely to underlie the forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Unprecedented in scale and attracting interest from all major climate modeling groups, CMIP5 includes “long term” simulations of twentieth-century climate and projections for the twenty-first century and beyond. Conventional atmosphere–ocean global climate models and Earth system models of intermediate complexity are for the first time being joined by more recently developed Earth system models under an experiment design that allows both types of models to be compared to observations on an equal footing. Besides the longterm experiments, CMIP5 calls for an entirely new suite of “near term” simulations focusing on recent decades and the future to year 2035. These “decadal predictions” are initialized based on observations and will be used to explore the predictability of climate and to assess the forecast system's predictive skill. The CMIP5 experiment design also allows for participation of stand-alone atmospheric models and includes a variety of idealized experiments that will improve understanding of the range of model responses found in the more complex and realistic simulations. An exceptionally comprehensive set of model output is being collected and made freely available to researchers through an integrated but distributed data archive. For researchers unfamiliar with climate models, the limitations of the models and experiment design are described.
By coordinating the design and distribution of global climate model simulations of the past, current, and future climate, the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) has become one of the ...foundational elements of climate science. However, the need to address an ever-expanding range of scientific questions arising from more and more research communities has made it necessary to revise the organization of CMIP. After a long and wide community consultation, a new and more federated structure has been put in place. It consists of three major elements: (1) a handful of common experiments, the DECK (Diagnostic, Evaluation and Characterization of Klima) and CMIP historical simulations (1850–near present) that will maintain continuity and help document basic characteristics of models across different phases of CMIP; (2) common standards, coordination, infrastructure, and documentation that will facilitate the distribution of model outputs and the characterization of the model ensemble; and (3) an ensemble of CMIP-Endorsed Model Intercomparison Projects (MIPs) that will be specific to a particular phase of CMIP (now CMIP6) and that will build on the DECK and CMIP historical simulations to address a large range of specific questions and fill the scientific gaps of the previous CMIP phases. The DECK and CMIP historical simulations, together with the use of CMIP data standards, will be the entry cards for models participating in CMIP. Participation in CMIP6-Endorsed MIPs by individual modelling groups will be at their own discretion and will depend on their scientific interests and priorities. With the Grand Science Challenges of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) as its scientific backdrop, CMIP6 will address three broad questions: – How does the Earth system respond to forcing? – What are the origins and consequences of systematic model biases? – How can we assess future climate changes given internal climate variability, predictability, and uncertainties in scenarios? This CMIP6 overview paper presents the background and rationale for the new structure of CMIP, provides a detailed description of the DECK and CMIP6 historical simulations, and includes a brief introduction to the 21 CMIP6-Endorsed MIPs.
We quantify forcing and feedbacks across available CMIP5 coupled atmosphere‐ocean general circulation models (AOGCMs) by analysing simulations forced by an abrupt quadrupling of atmospheric carbon ...dioxide concentration. This is the first application of the linear forcing‐feedback regression analysis of Gregory et al. (2004) to an ensemble of AOGCMs. The range of equilibrium climate sensitivity is 2.1–4.7 K. Differences in cloud feedbacks continue to be important contributors to this range. Some models show small deviations from a linear dependence of top‐of‐atmosphere radiative fluxes on global surface temperature change. We show that this phenomenon largely arises from shortwave cloud radiative effects over the ocean and is consistent with independent estimates of forcing using fixed sea‐surface temperature methods. We suggest that future research should focus more on understanding transient climate change, including any time‐scale dependence of the forcing and/or feedback, rather than on the equilibrium response to large instantaneous forcing.
Key Points
Range of eqm climate sensitivity (2.1‐4.7K) is similar to that found in CMIP3
Differences in cloud feedbacks continue to be a large source of this uncertainty
Some models show small deviations from linear behaviour
A historical context is provided for interpreting the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and transient climate response (TCR).
For the current generation of earth system models participating in ...the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6), the range of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS, a hypothetical value of global warming at equilibrium for a doubling of CO
2
) is 1.8°C to 5.6°C, the largest of any generation of models dating to the 1990s. Meanwhile, the range of transient climate response (TCR, the surface temperature warming around the time of CO
2
doubling in a 1% per year CO
2
increase simulation) for the CMIP6 models of 1.7°C (1.3°C to 3.0°C) is only slightly larger than for the CMIP3 and CMIP5 models. Here we review and synthesize the latest developments in ECS and TCR values in CMIP, compile possible reasons for the current values as supplied by the modeling groups, and highlight future directions. Cloud feedbacks and cloud-aerosol interactions are the most likely contributors to the high values and increased range of ECS in CMIP6.
A diagram has been devised that can provide a concise statistical summary of how well patterns match each other in terms of their correlation, their root‐mean‐square difference, and the ratio of ...their variances. Although the form of this diagram is general, it is especially useful in evaluating complex models, such as those used to study geophysical phenomena. Examples are given showing that the diagram can be used to summarize the relative merits of a collection of different models or to track changes in performance of a model as it is modified. Methods are suggested for indicating on these diagrams the statistical significance of apparent differences and the degree to which observational uncertainty and unforced internal variability limit the expected agreement between model‐simulated and observed behaviors. The geometric relationship between the statistics plotted on the diagram also provides some guidance for devising skill scores that appropriately weight among the various measures of pattern correspondence.
This study clarifies the causes of intermodel differences in the global-average temperature response to doubled CO₂, commonly known as equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). The authors begin by ...noting several issues with the standard approach for decomposing ECS into a sum of forcing and feedback terms. This leads to a derivation of an alternative method based on linearizing the effect of the net feedback. Consistent with previous studies, the new method identifies shortwave cloud feedback as the dominant source of intermodel spread in ECS. This new approach also reveals that covariances between cloud feedback and forcing, between lapse rate and longwave cloud feedbacks, and between albedo and shortwave cloud feedbacks play an important and previously underappreciated role in determining model differences in ECS. Defining feedbacks based on fixed relative rather than specific humidity (as suggested by Held and Shell) reduces the covariances between processes and leads to more straightforward interpretations of results.
Conservative mapping of data from one horizontal grid to another should preserve certain integral or mean properties of the original data. This may be essential in some model applications, including ...ensuring realistic exchange of energy and mass between coupled model components. It can also be essential for certain types of analysis, such as evaluating how far a system is from an equilibrium state. For some common grids, existing remapping algorithms may fail to perfectly represent the shapes and sizes of grid cells, which leads to errors in the remapped fields. A procedure is presented here that enables users to rely on the mapping weights generated by remapping algorithms but corrects for their deficiencies. With this procedure, for a given pair of source and destination grids, a single set of remapping weights can be applied to remap any variable, including those with grid cells that are partially or fully masked.
Using five climate model simulations of the response to an abrupt quadrupling of CO₂, the authors perform the first simultaneous model intercomparison of cloud feedbacks and rapid radiative ...adjustments with cloud masking effects removed, partitioned among changes in cloud types and gross cloud properties. Upon CO₂ quadrupling, clouds exhibit a rapid reduction in fractional coverage, cloud-top pressure, and optical depth, with each contributing equally to a 1.1 W m−2net cloud radiative adjustment, primarily from shortwave radiation. Rapid reductions in midlevel clouds and optically thick clouds are important in reducing planetary albedo in every model. As the planet warms, clouds become fewer, higher, and thicker, and global mean net cloud feedback is positive in all but one model and results primarily from increased trapping of longwave radiation. As was true for earlier models, high cloud changes are the largest contributor to intermodel spread in longwave and shortwave cloud feedbacks, but low cloud changes are the largest contributor to the mean and spread in net cloud feedback. The importance of the negative optical depth feedback relative to the amount feedback at high latitudes is even more marked than in earlier models. The authors show that the negative longwave cloud adjustment inferred in previous studies is primarily caused by a 1.3 W m−2cloud masking of CO₂ forcing. Properly accounting for cloud masking increases net cloud feedback by 0.3 W m−2K−1, whereas accounting for rapid adjustments reduces by 0.14 W m−2K−1the ensemble mean net cloud feedback through a combination of smaller positive cloud amount and altitude feedbacks and larger negative optical depth feedbacks.
PDF
