skip to main content


Title: Differences in Radiative Forcing, Not Sensitivity, Explain Differences in Summertime Land Temperature Variance Change Between CMIP5 and CMIP6
Abstract

How summertime temperature variability will change with warming has important implications for climate adaptation and mitigation. CMIP5 simulations indicate a compound risk of extreme hot temperatures in western Europe from both warming and increasing temperature variance. CMIP6 simulations, however, indicate only a moderate increase in temperature variance that does not covary with warming. To explore this intergenerational discrepancy in CMIP results, we decompose changes in monthly temperature variance into those arising from changes in sensitivity to forcing and changes in forcing variance. Across models, sensitivity increases with local warming in both CMIP5 and CMIP6 at an average rate of 5.7 ([3.7, 7.9]; 95% c.i.) × 10−3°C per W m−2per °C warming. We use a simple model of moist surface energetics to explain increased sensitivity as a consequence of greater atmospheric demand (∼70%) and drier soil (∼40%) that is partially offset by the Planck feedback (∼−10%). Conversely, forcing variance is stable in CMIP5 but decreases with warming in CMIP6 at an average rate of −21 ([−28, −15]; 95% c.i.) W2 m−4per °C warming. We examine scaling relationships with mean cloud fraction and find that mean forcing variance decreases with decreasing cloud fraction at twice the rate in CMIP6 than CMIP5. The stability of CMIP6 temperature variance is, thus, a consequence of offsetting changes in sensitivity and forcing variance. Further work to determine which models and generations of CMIP simulations better represent changes in cloud radiative forcing is important for assessing risks associated with increased temperature variance.

 
more » « less
Award ID(s):
1903657
NSF-PAR ID:
10364704
Author(s) / Creator(s):
 ;  ;  ;  ;  
Publisher / Repository:
DOI PREFIX: 10.1029
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Earth's Future
Volume:
10
Issue:
2
ISSN:
2328-4277
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. null (Ed.)
    Abstract Radiative feedbacks depend on the spatial patterns of sea surface temperature (SST) and thus can change over time as SST patterns evolve—the so-called pattern effect. This study investigates intermodel differences in the magnitude of the pattern effect and how these differences contribute to the spread in effective equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) within CMIP5 and CMIP6 models. Effective ECS in CMIP5 estimated from 150-yr-long abrupt4×CO2 simulations is on average 10% higher than that estimated from the early portion (first 50 years) of those simulations, which serves as an analog for historical warming; this difference is reduced to 7% on average in CMIP6. The (negative) net radiative feedback weakens over the course of the abrupt4×CO2 simulations in the vast majority of CMIP5 and CMIP6 models, but this weakening is less dramatic on average in CMIP6. For both ensembles, the total variance in the effective ECS is found to be dominated by the spread in radiative response on fast time scales, rather than the spread in feedback changes. Using Green’s functions derived from two AGCMs shows that the spread in feedbacks on fast time scales may be primarily due to differences in atmospheric model physics, whereas the spread in feedback evolution is primarily governed by differences in SST patterns. Intermodel spread in feedback evolution is well explained by differences in the relative warming in the west Pacific warm-pool regions for the CMIP5 models, but this relation fails to explain differences across the CMIP6 models, suggesting that a stronger sensitivity of extratropical clouds to surface warming may also contribute to feedback changes in CMIP6. 
    more » « less
  2. Abstract

    We examine the response of globally averaged precipitation to global warming—the hydrologic sensitivity (HS)—in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6) multi‐model ensemble. Multi‐model mean HS is 2.5% K−1(ranging from 2.1–3.1% K−1across models), a modest decrease compared to CMIP5 (where it was 2.6% K−1). This new set of simulations is used as an out‐of‐sample test for observational constraints on HS proposed based on CMIP5. The constraint based on clear‐sky shortwave absorption sensitivity to water vapor has weakened, and it is argued that a proposed constraint based on surface low cloud longwave radiative effects does not apply to HS. Finally, while a previously proposed mechanism connecting HS and climate sensitivity via low clouds is present in the CMIP6 ensemble, it is not an important factor for variations in HS. This explains why HS is uncorrelated with climate sensitivity across the CMIP5 and CMIP6 ensembles.

     
    more » « less
  3. null (Ed.)
    Abstract An effective method to understand cloud processes and to assess the fidelity with which they are represented in climate models is the cloud controlling factor framework, in which cloud properties are linked with variations in large-scale dynamical and thermodynamical variables. This study examines how midlatitude cloud radiative effects (CRE) over oceans co-vary with four cloud controlling factors: mid-tropospheric vertical velocity, estimated inversion strength (EIS), near-surface temperature advection, and sea surface temperature (SST), and assesses their representation in CMIP6 models with respect to observations and CMIP5 models. CMIP5 and CMIP6 models overestimate the sensitivity of midlatitude CRE to perturbations in vertical velocity, and underestimate the sensitivity of midlatitude shortwave CRE to perturbations in EIS and temperature advection. The largest improvement in CMIP6 models is a reduced sensitivity of CRE to vertical velocity perturbations. As in CMIP5 models, many CMIP6 models simulate a shortwave cloud radiative warming effect associated with a poleward shift in the Southern Hemisphere (SH) midlatitude jet stream, an effect not present in observations. This bias arises because most models’ shortwave CRE are too sensitive to vertical velocity perturbations and not sensitive enough to EIS perturbations, and because most models overestimate the SST anomalies associated with SH jet shifts. The presence of this bias directly impacts the transient surface temperature response to increasing greenhouse gases over the Southern Ocean, but not the global-mean surface temperature. Instead, the models’ climate sensitivity is correlated with their shortwave CRE sensitivity to surface temperature advection perturbations near 40°S, with models with more realistic values of temperature advection sensitivity generally having higher climate sensitivity. 
    more » « less
  4. Abstract. Climate simulation uncertainties arise from internal variability, model structure, and external forcings. Model intercomparisons (such as the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project; CMIP) and single-model large ensembles have provided insight into uncertainty sources. Under the Community Earth System Model (CESM) project, large ensembles have been performed for CESM2 (a CMIP6-era model) and CESM1 (a CMIP5-era model). We refer to these as CESM2-LE and CESM1-LE. The external forcing used in these simulations has changed to be consistent with their CMIP generation. As a result, differences between CESM2-LE and CESM1-LE ensemble means arise from changes in both model structure and forcing. Here we present new ensemble simulations which allow us to separate the influences of these model structural and forcing differences. Our new CESM2 simulations are run with CMIP5 forcings equivalent to those used in the CESM1-LE. We find a strong influence of historical forcing uncertainty due to aerosol effects on simulated climate. For the historical period, forcing drives reduced global warming and ocean heat uptake in CESM2-LE relative to CESM1-LE that is counteracted by the influence of model structure. The influence of the model structure and forcing vary across the globe, and the Arctic exhibits a distinct signal that contrasts with the global mean. For the 21st century, the importance of scenario forcing differences (SSP3–7.0 for CESM2-LE and RCP8.5 for CESM1-LE) is evident. The new simulations presented here allow us to diagnose the influence of model structure on 21st century change, despite large scenario forcing differences, revealing that differences in the meridional distribution of warming are caused by model structure. Feedback analysis reveals that clouds and their impact on shortwave radiation explain many of these structural differences between CESM2 and CESM1. In the Arctic, albedo changes control transient climate evolution differences due to structural differences between CESM2 and CESM1.

     
    more » « less
  5. null (Ed.)
    We compare atmospheric temperature changes in satellite data and in older and newer multi-model and single-model ensembles performed under phases 5 and 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5 and CMIP6). In the lower stratosphere, multi-decadal stratospheric cooling during the period of strong ozone depletion is smaller in newer CMIP6 simulations than in CMIP5 or satellite data. In the troposphere, however, despite differences in the forcings and climate sensitivity of the CMIP5 and CMIP6 ensembles, their ensemble-average global warming over the satellite era is remarkably similar. We also examine four well-understood properties of tropical behavior governed by basic physical processes. The first three properties are ratios between trends in water vapor (WV) and trends in sea surface temperature (SST), the temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT), and the temperature of the mid- to upper troposphere (TMT). The fourth property is the ratio between TMT and SST trends. All four trend ratios are tightly constrained in CMIP simulations. Observed ratios diverge markedly when calculated with SST, TLT, and TMT trends produced by different groups. Observed data sets with larger warming of the tropical ocean surface and tropical troposphere yield atmospheric moistening that is closer to model results. For the TMT/SST ratio, model-data consistency depends on the selected combination of observed data sets used to estimate TMT and SST trends. If model expectations of these four covariance relationships are realistic, one interpretation of our findings is that they reflect a systematic low bias in satellite tropospheric temperature trends. Alternately, the observed atmospheric moistening signal may be overestimated. Given the large structural uncertainties in observed tropical TMT and SST trends, and because satellite WV data are available from one group only, it is difficult to determine which interpretation is more credible. Nevertheless, our analysis illustrates the diagnostic power of simultaneously considering multiple complementary variables and points towards possible problems with certain observed data sets. 
    more » « less