lmd_Bony2013.bib

@comment{{This file has been generated by bib2bib 1.95}}

@comment{{Command line: /usr/bin/bib2bib --quiet -c 'not journal:"Discussions"' -c 'not journal:"Polymer Science"' -c '  author:"Bony"  ' -c year=2013 -c $type="ARTICLE" -oc lmd_Bony2013.txt -ob lmd_Bony2013.bib /home/WWW/LMD/public/Publis_LMDEMC3.link.bib}}

@article{2013ClDy...40.2123D,
  author = {{Dufresne}, J.-L. and {Foujols}, M.-A. and {Denvil}, S. and 
	{Caubel}, A. and {Marti}, O. and {Aumont}, O. and {Balkanski}, Y. and 
	{Bekki}, S. and {Bellenger}, H. and {Benshila}, R. and {Bony}, S. and 
	{Bopp}, L. and {Braconnot}, P. and {Brockmann}, P. and {Cadule}, P. and 
	{Cheruy}, F. and {Codron}, F. and {Cozic}, A. and {Cugnet}, D. and 
	{de Noblet}, N. and {Duvel}, J.-P. and {Ethé}, C. and {Fairhead}, L. and 
	{Fichefet}, T. and {Flavoni}, S. and {Friedlingstein}, P. and 
	{Grandpeix}, J.-Y. and {Guez}, L. and {Guilyardi}, E. and {Hauglustaine}, D. and 
	{Hourdin}, F. and {Idelkadi}, A. and {Ghattas}, J. and {Joussaume}, S. and 
	{Kageyama}, M. and {Krinner}, G. and {Labetoulle}, S. and {Lahellec}, A. and 
	{Lefebvre}, M.-P. and {Lefevre}, F. and {Levy}, C. and {Li}, Z.~X. and 
	{Lloyd}, J. and {Lott}, F. and {Madec}, G. and {Mancip}, M. and 
	{Marchand}, M. and {Masson}, S. and {Meurdesoif}, Y. and {Mignot}, J. and 
	{Musat}, I. and {Parouty}, S. and {Polcher}, J. and {Rio}, C. and 
	{Schulz}, M. and {Swingedouw}, D. and {Szopa}, S. and {Talandier}, C. and 
	{Terray}, P. and {Viovy}, N. and {Vuichard}, N.},
  title = {{Climate change projections using the IPSL-CM5 Earth System Model: from CMIP3 to CMIP5}},
  journal = {Climate Dynamics},
  keywords = {Climate, Climate change, Climate projections, Earth System Model, CMIP5, CMIP3, Greenhouse gases, Aerosols, Carbon cycle, Allowable emissions, RCP scenarios, Land use changes},
  year = 2013,
  month = may,
  volume = 40,
  pages = {2123-2165},
  abstract = {{We present the global general circulation model IPSL-CM5 developed to
study the long-term response of the climate system to natural and
anthropogenic forcings as part of the 5th Phase of the Coupled Model
Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). This model includes an interactive
carbon cycle, a representation of tropospheric and stratospheric
chemistry, and a comprehensive representation of aerosols. As it
represents the principal dynamical, physical, and bio-geochemical
processes relevant to the climate system, it may be referred to as an
Earth System Model. However, the IPSL-CM5 model may be used in a
multitude of configurations associated with different boundary
conditions and with a range of complexities in terms of processes and
interactions. This paper presents an overview of the different model
components and explains how they were coupled and used to simulate
historical climate changes over the past 150 years and different
scenarios of future climate change. A single version of the IPSL-CM5
model (IPSL-CM5A-LR) was used to provide climate projections associated
with different socio-economic scenarios, including the different
Representative Concentration Pathways considered by CMIP5 and several
scenarios from the Special Report on Emission Scenarios considered by
CMIP3. Results suggest that the magnitude of global warming projections
primarily depends on the socio-economic scenario considered, that there
is potential for an aggressive mitigation policy to limit global warming
to about two degrees, and that the behavior of some components of the
climate system such as the Arctic sea ice and the Atlantic Meridional
Overturning Circulation may change drastically by the end of the
twenty-first century in the case of a no climate policy scenario.
Although the magnitude of regional temperature and precipitation changes
depends fairly linearly on the magnitude of the projected global warming
(and thus on the scenario considered), the geographical pattern of these
changes is strikingly similar for the different scenarios. The
representation of atmospheric physical processes in the model is shown
to strongly influence the simulated climate variability and both the
magnitude and pattern of the projected climate changes.
}},
  doi = {10.1007/s00382-012-1636-1},
  adsurl = {http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ClDy...40.2123D},
  adsnote = {Provided by the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System}
}

@article{2013ClDy...40.2193H,
  author = {{Hourdin}, F. and {Grandpeix}, J.-Y. and {Rio}, C. and {Bony}, S. and 
	{Jam}, A. and {Cheruy}, F. and {Rochetin}, N. and {Fairhead}, L. and 
	{Idelkadi}, A. and {Musat}, I. and {Dufresne}, J.-L. and {Lahellec}, A. and 
	{Lefebvre}, M.-P. and {Roehrig}, R.},
  title = {{LMDZ5B: the atmospheric component of the IPSL climate model with revisited parameterizations for clouds and convection}},
  journal = {Climate Dynamics},
  keywords = {Climate modeling, Physical parameterizations, Shallow convection, Deep convection, Climate change projections},
  year = 2013,
  month = may,
  volume = 40,
  pages = {2193-2222},
  abstract = {{Based on a decade of research on cloud processes, a new version of the
LMDZ atmospheric general circulation model has been developed that
corresponds to a complete recasting of the parameterization of
turbulence, convection and clouds. This LMDZ5B version includes a
mass-flux representation of the thermal plumes or rolls of the
convective boundary layer, coupled to a bi-Gaussian statistical cloud
scheme, as well as a parameterization of the cold pools generated below
cumulonimbus by re-evaporation of convective precipitation. The
triggering and closure of deep convection are now controlled by lifting
processes in the sub-cloud layer. An available lifting energy and
lifting power are provided both by the thermal plumes and by the spread
of cold pools. The individual parameterizations were carefully validated
against the results of explicit high resolution simulations. Here we
present the work done to go from those new concepts and developments to
a full 3D atmospheric model, used in particular for climate change
projections with the IPSL-CM5B coupled model. Based on a series of
sensitivity experiments, we document the differences with the previous
LMDZ5A version distinguishing the role of parameterization changes from
that of model tuning. Improvements found previously in single-column
simulations of case studies are confirmed in the 3D model: (1) the
convective boundary layer and cumulus clouds are better represented and
(2) the diurnal cycle of convective rainfall over continents is delayed
by several hours, solving a longstanding problem in climate modeling.
The variability of tropical rainfall is also larger in LMDZ5B at
intraseasonal time-scales. Significant biases of the LMDZ5A model
however remain, or are even sometimes amplified. The paper emphasizes
the importance of parameterization improvements and model tuning in the
frame of climate change studies as well as the new paradigm that
represents the improvement of 3D climate models under the control of
single-column case studies simulations.
}},
  doi = {10.1007/s00382-012-1343-y},
  adsurl = {http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ClDy...40.2193H},
  adsnote = {Provided by the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System}
}

@article{2013ClDy...40.2167H,
  author = {{Hourdin}, F. and {Foujols}, M.-A. and {Codron}, F. and {Guemas}, V. and 
	{Dufresne}, J.-L. and {Bony}, S. and {Denvil}, S. and {Guez}, L. and 
	{Lott}, F. and {Ghattas}, J. and {Braconnot}, P. and {Marti}, O. and 
	{Meurdesoif}, Y. and {Bopp}, L.},
  title = {{Impact of the LMDZ atmospheric grid configuration on the climate and sensitivity of the IPSL-CM5A coupled model}},
  journal = {Climate Dynamics},
  keywords = {Climate modeling, Grid resolution, Climate change projections},
  year = 2013,
  month = may,
  volume = 40,
  pages = {2167-2192},
  abstract = {{The IPSL-CM5A climate model was used to perform a large number of
control, historical and climate change simulations in the frame of
CMIP5. The refined horizontal and vertical grid of the atmospheric
component, LMDZ, constitutes a major difference compared to the previous
IPSL-CM4 version used for CMIP3. From imposed-SST (Sea Surface
Temperature) and coupled numerical experiments, we systematically
analyze the impact of the horizontal and vertical grid resolution on the
simulated climate. The refinement of the horizontal grid results in a
systematic reduction of major biases in the mean tropospheric structures
and SST. The mid-latitude jets, located too close to the equator with
the coarsest grids, move poleward. This robust feature, is accompanied
by a drying at mid-latitudes and a reduction of cold biases in
mid-latitudes relative to the equator. The model was also extended to
the stratosphere by increasing the number of layers on the vertical from
19 to 39 (15 in the stratosphere) and adding relevant parameterizations.
The 39-layer version captures the dominant modes of the stratospheric
variability and exhibits stratospheric sudden warmings. Changing either
the vertical or horizontal resolution modifies the global energy balance
in imposed-SST simulations by typically several W/m$^{2}$ which
translates in the coupled atmosphere-ocean simulations into a different
global-mean SST. The sensitivity is of about 1.2 K per 1 W/m$^{2}$
when varying the horizontal grid. A re-tuning of model parameters was
thus required to restore this energy balance in the imposed-SST
simulations and reduce the biases in the simulated mean surface
temperature and, to some extent, latitudinal SST variations in the
coupled experiments for the modern climate. The tuning hardly
compensates, however, for robust biases of the coupled model. Despite
the wide range of grid configurations explored and their significant
impact on the present-day climate, the climate sensitivity remains
essentially unchanged.
}},
  doi = {10.1007/s00382-012-1411-3},
  adsurl = {http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ClDy...40.2167H},
  adsnote = {Provided by the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System}
}

@article{2013JAMES...5..692T,
  author = {{Tobin}, I. and {Bony}, S. and {Holloway}, C.~E. and {Grandpeix}, J.-Y. and 
	{Sèze}, G. and {Coppin}, D. and {Woolnough}, S.~J. and {Roca}, R.
	},
  title = {{Does convective aggregation need to be represented in cumulus parameterizations?}},
  journal = {Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems},
  keywords = {tropical deep convection, convective aggregation, satellite observations cloud-system resolving model, cumulus parameterization, large-scale circulation},
  year = 2013,
  month = dec,
  volume = 5,
  pages = {692-703},
  abstract = {{Tropical deep convection exhibits a variety of levels of aggregation
over a wide range of scales. Based on a multisatellite analysis, the
present study shows at mesoscale that different levels of aggregation
are statistically associated with differing large-scale atmospheric
states, despite similar convective intensity and large-scale forcings.
The more aggregated the convection, the dryer and less cloudy the
atmosphere, the stronger the outgoing longwave radiation, and the lower
the planetary albedo. This suggests that mesoscale convective
aggregation has the potential to affect couplings between moisture and
convection and between convection, radiation, and large-scale ascent. In
so doing, aggregation may play a role in phenomena such as ''hot spots''
or the Madden-Julian Oscillation. These findings support the need for
the representation of mesoscale organization in cumulus
parameterizations; most parameterizations used in current climate models
lack any such representation. The ability of a cloud system-resolving
model to reproduce observed relationships suggests that such models may
be useful to guide attempts at parameterizations of convective
aggregation.
}},
  doi = {10.1002/jame.20047},
  adsurl = {http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013JAMES...5..692T},
  adsnote = {Provided by the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System}
}

@article{2013JAMES...5..826Z,
  author = {{Zhang}, M. and {Bretherton}, C.~S. and {Blossey}, P.~N. and 
	{Austin}, P.~H. and {Bacmeister}, J.~T. and {Bony}, S. and {Brient}, F. and 
	{Cheedela}, S.~K. and {Cheng}, A. and {Genio}, A.~D. and {Roode}, S.~R. and 
	{Endo}, S. and {Franklin}, C.~N. and {Golaz}, J.-C. and {Hannay}, C. and 
	{Heus}, T. and {Isotta}, F.~A. and {Dufresne}, J.-L. and {Kang}, I.-S. and 
	{Kawai}, H. and {K{\"o}hler}, M. and {Larson}, V.~E. and {Liu}, Y. and 
	{Lock}, A.~P. and {Lohmann}, U. and {Khairoutdinov}, M.~F. and 
	{Molod}, A.~M. and {Neggers}, R.~A.~J. and {Rasch}, P. and {Sandu}, I. and 
	{Senkbeil}, R. and {Siebesma}, A.~P. and {Siegenthaler-Le Drian}, C. and 
	{Stevens}, B. and {Suarez}, M.~J. and {Xu}, K.-M. and {Salzen}, K. and 
	{Webb}, M.~J. and {Wolf}, A. and {Zhao}, M.},
  title = {{CGILS: Results from the first phase of an international project to understand the physical mechanisms of low cloud feedbacks in single column models}},
  journal = {Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems},
  keywords = {low cloud feedbacks, CGILS, single column models, large eddy models},
  year = 2013,
  month = dec,
  volume = 5,
  pages = {826-842},
  abstract = {{CGILS{\mdash}the CFMIP-GASS Intercomparison of Large Eddy Models (LESs)
and single column models (SCMs){\mdash}investigates the mechanisms of
cloud feedback in SCMs and LESs under idealized climate change
perturbation. This paper describes the CGILS results from 15 SCMs and 8
LES models. Three cloud regimes over the subtropical oceans are studied:
shallow cumulus, cumulus under stratocumulus, and well-mixed coastal
stratus/stratocumulus. In the stratocumulus and coastal stratus regimes,
SCMs without activated shallow convection generally simulated negative
cloud feedbacks, while models with active shallow convection generally
simulated positive cloud feedbacks. In the shallow cumulus alone regime,
this relationship is less clear, likely due to the changes in cloud
depth, lateral mixing, and precipitation or a combination of them. The
majority of LES models simulated negative cloud feedback in the
well-mixed coastal stratus/stratocumulus regime, and positive feedback
in the shallow cumulus and stratocumulus regime. A general framework is
provided to interpret SCM results: in a warmer climate, the moistening
rate of the cloudy layer associated with the surface-based turbulence
parameterization is enhanced; together with weaker large-scale
subsidence, it causes negative cloud feedback. In contrast, in the
warmer climate, the drying rate associated with the shallow convection
scheme is enhanced. This causes positive cloud feedback. These
mechanisms are summarized as the ''NESTS'' negative cloud feedback and the
''SCOPE'' positive cloud feedback (Negative feedback from Surface
Turbulence under weaker Subsidence{\mdash}Shallow Convection PositivE
feedback) with the net cloud feedback depending on how the two opposing
effects counteract each other. The LES results are consistent with these
interpretations.
}},
  doi = {10.1002/2013MS000246},
  adsurl = {http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013JAMES...5..826Z},
  adsnote = {Provided by the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System}
}

@article{2013ClDy...41.3339V,
  author = {{Vial}, J. and {Dufresne}, J.-L. and {Bony}, S.},
  title = {{On the interpretation of inter-model spread in CMIP5 climate sensitivity estimates}},
  journal = {Climate Dynamics},
  keywords = {Climate sensitivity, Feedback, Radiative forcing, Fast adjustment, Radiative kernel, CMIP5 climate model simulations, Climate change, Inter-model spread},
  year = 2013,
  month = dec,
  volume = 41,
  pages = {3339-3362},
  abstract = {{This study diagnoses the climate sensitivity, radiative forcing and
climate feedback estimates from eleven general circulation models
participating in the Fifth Phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison
Project (CMIP5), and analyzes inter-model differences. This is done by
taking into account the fact that the climate response to increased
carbon dioxide (CO$_{2}$) is not necessarily only mediated by
surface temperature changes, but can also result from fast land warming
and tropospheric adjustments to the CO$_{2}$ radiative forcing. By
considering tropospheric adjustments to CO$_{2}$ as part of the
forcing rather than as feedbacks, and by using the radiative kernels
approach, we decompose climate sensitivity estimates in terms of
feedbacks and adjustments associated with water vapor, temperature lapse
rate, surface albedo and clouds. Cloud adjustment to CO$_{2}$ is,
with one exception, generally positive, and is associated with a reduced
strength of the cloud feedback; the multi-model mean cloud feedback is
about 33 \% weaker. Non-cloud adjustments associated with temperature,
water vapor and albedo seem, however, to be better understood as
responses to land surface warming. Separating out the tropospheric
adjustments does not significantly affect the spread in climate
sensitivity estimates, which primarily results from differing climate
feedbacks. About 70 \% of the spread stems from the cloud feedback, which
remains the major source of inter-model spread in climate sensitivity,
with a large contribution from the tropics. Differences in tropical
cloud feedbacks between low-sensitivity and high-sensitivity models
occur over a large range of dynamical regimes, but primarily arise from
the regimes associated with a predominance of shallow cumulus and
stratocumulus clouds. The combined water vapor plus lapse rate feedback
also contributes to the spread of climate sensitivity estimates, with
inter-model differences arising primarily from the relative humidity
responses throughout the troposphere. Finally, this study points to a
substantial role of nonlinearities in the calculation of adjustments and
feedbacks for the interpretation of inter-model spread in climate
sensitivity estimates. We show that in climate model simulations with
large forcing (e.g., 4 {\times} CO$_{2}$), nonlinearities cannot be
assumed minor nor neglected. Having said that, most results presented
here are consistent with a number of previous feedback studies, despite
the very different nature of the methodologies and all the uncertainties
associated with them.
}},
  doi = {10.1007/s00382-013-1725-9},
  adsurl = {http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ClDy...41.3339V},
  adsnote = {Provided by the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System}
}

@article{2013NatGe...6..447B,
  author = {{Bony}, S. and {Bellon}, G. and {Klocke}, D. and {Sherwood}, S. and 
	{Fermepin}, S. and {Denvil}, S.},
  title = {{Robust direct effect of carbon dioxide on tropical circulation and regional precipitation}},
  journal = {Nature Geoscience},
  year = 2013,
  month = jun,
  volume = 6,
  pages = {447-451},
  abstract = {{Predicting the response of tropical rainfall to climate change remains a
challenge. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are expected to
affect the hydrological cycle through increases in global mean
temperature and the water vapour content of the atmosphere. However,
regional precipitation changes also closely depend on the atmospheric
circulation, which is expected to weaken in a warmer world. Here, we
assess the effect of a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations
on tropical circulation and precipitation by analysing results from a
suite of simulations from multiple state-of-the-art climate models, and
an operational numerical weather prediction model. In a scenario in
which humans continue to use fossil fuels unabated, about half the
tropical circulation change projected by the end of the twenty-first
century, and consequently a large fraction of the regional precipitation
change, is independent of global surface warming. Instead, these robust
circulation and precipitation changes are a consequence of the weaker
net radiative cooling of the atmosphere associated with higher
atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, which affects the strength of
atmospheric vertical motions. This implies that geo-engineering schemes
aimed at reducing global warming without removing carbon dioxide from
the atmosphere would fail to fully mitigate precipitation changes in the
tropics. Strategies that may help constrain rainfall projections are
suggested.
}},
  doi = {10.1038/ngeo1799},
  adsurl = {http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013NatGe...6..447B},
  adsnote = {Provided by the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System}
}

@article{2013Sci...340.1053S,
  author = {{Stevens}, B. and {Bony}, S.},
  title = {{What Are Climate Models Missing?}},
  journal = {Science},
  year = 2013,
  month = may,
  volume = 340,
  pages = {1053-1054},
  doi = {10.1126/science.1237554},
  adsurl = {http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013Sci...340.1053S},
  adsnote = {Provided by the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System}
}

@article{2013ClDy...40.2415B,
  author = {{Brient}, F. and {Bony}, S.},
  title = {{Interpretation of the positive low-cloud feedback predicted by a climate model under global warming}},
  journal = {Climate Dynamics},
  keywords = {Low-level cloud feedbacks, Climate change, Hierarchy of models, Moist static energy budget},
  year = 2013,
  month = may,
  volume = 40,
  pages = {2415-2431},
  abstract = {{The response of low-level clouds to climate change has been identified
as a major contributor to the uncertainty in climate sensitivity
estimates among climate models. By analyzing the behaviour of low-level
clouds in a hierarchy of models (coupled ocean-atmosphere model,
atmospheric general circulation model, aqua-planet model, single-column
model) using the same physical parameterizations, this study proposes an
interpretation of the strong positive low-cloud feedback predicted by
the IPSL-CM5A climate model under climate change. In a warmer climate,
the model predicts an enhanced clear-sky radiative cooling, stronger
surface turbulent fluxes, a deepening and a drying of the planetary
boundary layer, and a decrease of tropical low-clouds in regimes of weak
subsidence. We show that the decrease of low-level clouds critically
depends on the change in the vertical advection of moist static energy
from the free troposphere to the boundary-layer. This change is
dominated by variations in the vertical gradient of moist static energy
between the surface and the free troposphere just above the
boundary-layer. In a warmer climate, the thermodynamical relationship of
Clausius-Clapeyron increases this vertical gradient, and then the import
by large-scale subsidence of low moist static energy and dry air into
the boundary layer. This results in a decrease of the low-level
cloudiness and in a weakening of the radiative cooling of the boundary
layer by low-level clouds. The energetic framework proposed in this
study might help to interpret inter-model differences in low-cloud
feedbacks under climate change.
}},
  doi = {10.1007/s00382-011-1279-7},
  adsurl = {http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ClDy...40.2415B},
  adsnote = {Provided by the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System}
}

@article{2013ClDy...40.2089M,
  author = {{Mignot}, J. and {Bony}, S.},
  title = {{Presentation and analysis of the IPSL and CNRM climate models used in CMIP5}},
  journal = {Climate Dynamics},
  year = 2013,
  month = may,
  volume = 40,
  pages = {2089-2089},
  doi = {10.1007/s00382-013-1720-1},
  adsurl = {http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ClDy...40.2089M},
  adsnote = {Provided by the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System}
}

@article{2013PhT....66f..29S,
  author = {{Stevens}, B. and {Bony}, S.},
  title = {{Water in the atmosphere}},
  journal = {Physics Today},
  year = 2013,
  volume = 66,
  number = 6,
  pages = {29},
  doi = {10.1063/PT.3.2009},
  adsurl = {http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PhT....66f..29S},
  adsnote = {Provided by the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System}
}