Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Personal tools

Sections
You are here: Home / Publications / Peer-reviewed papers / lmd_Dufresne2006_abstracts.html

lmd_Dufresne2006_abstracts.html

2006 .

(4 publications)

F. Hourdin, I. Musat, S. Bony, P. Braconnot, F. Codron, J.-L. Dufresne, L. Fairhead, M.-A. Filiberti, P. Friedlingstein, J.-Y. Grandpeix, G. Krinner, P. Levan, Z.-X. Li, and F. Lott. The LMDZ4 general circulation model: climate performance and sensitivity to parametrized physics with emphasis on tropical convection. Climate Dynamics, 27:787-813, December 2006. [ bib | DOI | ADS link ]

The LMDZ4 general circulation model is the atmospheric component of the IPSL CM4 coupled model which has been used to perform climate change simulations for the 4th IPCC assessment report. The main aspects of the model climatology (forced by observed sea surface temperature) are documented here, as well as the major improvements with respect to the previous versions, which mainly come form the parametrization of tropical convection. A methodology is proposed to help analyse the sensitivity of the tropical Hadley Walker circulation to the parametrization of cumulus convection and clouds. The tropical circulation is characterized using scalar potentials associated with the horizontal wind and horizontal transport of geopotential (the Laplacian of which is proportional to the total vertical momentum in the atmospheric column). The effect of parametrized physics is analysed in a regime sorted framework using the vertical velocity at 500 hPa as a proxy for large scale vertical motion. Compared to Tiedtkes convection scheme, used in previous versions, the Emanuels scheme improves the representation of the Hadley Walker circulation, with a relatively stronger and deeper large scale vertical ascent over tropical continents, and suppresses the marked patterns of concentrated rainfall over oceans. Thanks to the regime sorted analyses, these differences are attributed to intrinsic differences in the vertical distribution of convective heating, and to the lack of self-inhibition by precipitating downdraughts in Tiedtkes parametrization. Both the convection and cloud schemes are shown to control the relative importance of large scale convection over land and ocean, an important point for the behaviour of the coupled model.

W. D. Collins, V. Ramaswamy, M. D. Schwarzkopf, Y. Sun, R. W. Portmann, Q. Fu, S. E. B. Casanova, J.-L. Dufresne, D. W. Fillmore, P. M. D. Forster, V. Y. Galin, L. K. Gohar, W. J. Ingram, D. P. Kratz, M.-P. Lefebvre, J. Li, P. Marquet, V. Oinas, Y. Tsushima, T. Uchiyama, and W. Y. Zhong. Radiative forcing by well-mixed greenhouse gases: Estimates from climate models in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres), 111:14317, July 2006. [ bib | DOI | ADS link ]

The radiative effects from increased concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases (WMGHGs) represent the most significant and best understood anthropogenic forcing of the climate system. The most comprehensive tools for simulating past and future climates influenced by WMGHGs are fully coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models (AOGCMs). Because of the importance of WMGHGs as forcing agents it is essential that AOGCMs compute the radiative forcing by these gases as accurately as possible. We present the results of a radiative transfer model intercomparison between the forcings computed by the radiative parameterizations of AOGCMs and by benchmark line-by-line (LBL) codes. The comparison is focused on forcing by CO2, CH4, N2O, CFC-11, CFC-12, and the increased H2O expected in warmer climates. The models included in the intercomparison include several LBL codes and most of the global models submitted to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). In general, the LBL models are in excellent agreement with each other. However, in many cases, there are substantial discrepancies among the AOGCMs and between the AOGCMs and LBL codes. In some cases this is because the AOGCMs neglect particular absorbers, in particular the near-infrared effects of CH4 and N2O, while in others it is due to the methods for modeling the radiative processes. The biases in the AOGCM forcings are generally largest at the surface level. We quantify these differences and discuss the implications for interpreting variations in forcing and response across the multimodel ensemble of AOGCM simulations assembled for the IPCC AR4.

K. D. Williams, M. A. Ringer, C. A. Senior, M. J. Webb, B. J. McAvaney, N. Andronova, S. Bony, J.-L. Dufresne, S. Emori, R. Gudgel, T. Knutson, B. Li, K. Lo, I. Musat, J. Wegner, A. Slingo, and J. F. B. Mitchell. Evaluation of a component of the cloud response to climate change in an intercomparison of climate models. Climate Dynamics, 26:145-165, February 2006. [ bib | DOI | ADS link ]

Most of the uncertainty in the climate sensitivity of contemporary general circulation models (GCMs) is believed to be connected with differences in the simulated radiative feedback from clouds. Traditional methods of evaluating clouds in GCMs compare time-mean geographical cloud fields or aspects of present-day cloud variability, with observational data. In both cases a hypothetical assumption is made that the quantity evaluated is relevant for the mean climate change response. Nine GCMs (atmosphere models coupled to mixed-layer ocean models) from the CFMIP and CMIP model comparison projects are used in this study to demonstrate a common relationship between the mean cloud response to climate change and present-day variability. Although atmosphere-mixed-layer ocean models are used here, the results are found to be equally applicable to transient coupled model simulations. When changes in cloud radiative forcing (CRF) are composited by changes in vertical velocity and saturated lower tropospheric stability, a component of the local mean climate change response can be related to present-day variability in all of the GCMs. This suggests that the relationship is not model specific and might be relevant in the real world. In this case, evaluation within the proposed compositing framework is a direct evaluation of a component of the cloud response to climate change. None of the models studied are found to be clearly superior or deficient when evaluated, but a couple appear to perform well on several relevant metrics. Whilst some broad similarities can be identified between the 60degN-60degS mean change in CRF to increased CO2 and that predicted from present-day variability, the two cannot be quantitatively constrained based on changes in vertical velocity and stability alone. Hence other processes also contribute to the global mean cloud response to climate change.

S. Bony, R. Colman, V. M. Kattsov, R. P. Allan, C. S. Bretherton, J.-L. Dufresne, A. Hall, S. Hallegatte, M. M. Holland, W. Ingram, D. A. Randall, B. J. Soden, G. Tselioudis, and M. J. Webb. How Well Do We Understand and Evaluate Climate Change Feedback Processes? Journal of Climate, 19:3445, 2006. [ bib | DOI | ADS link ]

Contact information

EMC3 group

LMD/CNRS/UPMC
Case 99
Tour 45-55, 3ème étage
4 Place Jussieu
75252 Paris Cedex 05
FRANCE
Tel: 33 + 1 44 27 27 99
      33 + 6 16 27 34 18 (Dr F. Cheruy)
Tel: 33 + 1 44 27 35 25 (Secretary)
Fax: 33 + 1 44 27 62 72
email: emc3 at lmd.jussieu.fr

Map of our location

EUREC4A campaign

logo_eurec4a.fc481ace.png

Click the above logo for
the operationnal center.
Today's LMDZ meteogram