Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Modelling the Anthropocene  (Read 35178 times)

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #150 on: August 22, 2017, 05:51:50 PM »
The linked references discusses the level of modeling effort recommended to reduce uncertainty of projecting future changes in the ENSO due to internal variability:

Xiao-Tong Zheng, Chang Hui & Sang-Wook Yeh (2017), "Response of ENSO amplitude to global warming in CESM large ensemble: uncertainty due to internal variability", Climate Dynamics, pp 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-017-3859-7

https://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-017-3859-7?utm_content=bufferc17f2&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Abstract: "El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is the dominant mode of variability in the coupled ocean-atmospheric system. Future projections of ENSO change under global warming are highly uncertain among models. In this study, the effect of internal variability on ENSO amplitude change in future climate projections is investigated based on a 40-member ensemble from the Community Earth System Model Large Ensemble (CESM-LE) project. A large uncertainty is identified among ensemble members due to internal variability. The inter-member diversity is associated with a zonal dipole pattern of sea surface temperature (SST) change in the mean along the equator, which is similar to the second empirical orthogonal function (EOF) mode of tropical Pacific decadal variability (TPDV) in the unforced control simulation. The uncertainty in CESM-LE is comparable in magnitude to that among models of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5), suggesting the contribution of internal variability to the intermodel uncertainty in ENSO amplitude change. However, the causations between changes in ENSO amplitude and the mean state are distinct between CESM-LE and CMIP5 ensemble. The CESM-LE results indicate that a large ensemble of ~15 members is needed to separate the relative contributions to ENSO amplitude change over the twenty-first century between forced response and internal variability."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #151 on: August 31, 2017, 06:20:52 PM »
The linked reference uses a climate model to help quantify the impact of "Earth greening" on global warming & found that global land-surface warming was decreased by about 12% (over the past 30 years) due to this consideration.  This makes me wonder what will happen if/when "Earth greening" moves in the negative direction due to climate and land use stresses on vegetation:

Zhenzhong Zeng et. al. (2017), "Climate mitigation from vegetation biophysical feedbacks during the past three decades", Nature Climate Change  7, 432–436, doi:10.1038/nclimate3299

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n6/full/nclimate3299.html?foxtrotcallback=true

Abstract: "The surface air temperature response to vegetation changes has been studied for the extreme case of land-cover change; yet, it has never been quantified for the slow but persistent increase in leaf area index (LAI) observed over the past 30 years (Earth greening). Here we isolate the fingerprint of increasing LAI on surface air temperature using a coupled land–atmosphere global climate model prescribed with satellite LAI observations. We find that the global greening has slowed down the rise in global land-surface air temperature by 0.09 ± 0.02 °C since 1982. This net cooling effect is the sum of cooling from increased evapotranspiration (70%), changed atmospheric circulation (44%), decreased shortwave transmissivity (21%), and warming from increased longwave air emissivity (−29%) and decreased albedo (−6%). The global cooling originated from the regions where LAI has increased, including boreal Eurasia, Europe, India, northwest Amazonia, and the Sahel. Increasing LAI did not, however, significantly change surface air temperature in eastern North America and East Asia, where the effects of large-scale atmospheric circulation changes mask local vegetation feedbacks. Overall, the sum of biophysical feedbacks related to the greening of the Earth mitigated 12% of global land-surface warming for the past 30 years."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #152 on: September 12, 2017, 10:16:39 PM »
The linked comparison study provides insights into issues such as those raised by Sherwood et al (2014).  While the reference makes no definitive conclusions, it does highlight the importance of correctly modeling slow response feedback mechanisms associated with the ocean heat uptake (particularly in the (Equatorial Pacific) since 1750:

Kuan-Man Xu et al (9 September 2017), "Differences in the hydrological cycle and sensitivity between multiscale modeling frameworks with and without a higher-order turbulence closure", JAMES, DOI: 10.1002/2017MS000970

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017MS000970/full

Abstract: "Current conventional global climate models (GCMs) produce a weak increase in global-mean precipitation with anthropogenic warming in comparison with the lower tropospheric moisture increases. The motive of this study is to understand the differences in the hydrological sensitivity between two multiscale modeling frameworks (MMFs) that arise from the different treatments of turbulence and low clouds in order to aid to the understanding of the model spread among conventional GCMs. We compare the hydrological sensitivity and its energetic constraint from MMFs with (SPCAM-IPHOC) or without (SPCAM) an advanced higher-order turbulence closure. SPCAM-IPHOC simulates higher global hydrological sensitivity for the slow response but lower sensitivity for the fast response than SPCAM. Their differences are comparable to the spreads of conventional GCMs. The higher sensitivity in SPCAM-IPHOC is associated with the higher ratio of the changes in latent heating to those in net atmospheric radiative cooling, which is further related to a stronger decrease in the Bowen ratio with warming than in SPCAM. The higher sensitivity of cloud radiative cooling resulting from the lack of low clouds in SPCAM is another major factor in contributing to the lower precipitation sensitivity. The two MMFs differ greatly in the hydrological sensitivity over the tropical lands, where the simulated sensitivity of surface sensible heat fluxes to surface warming and CO2 increase in SPCAM-IPHOC is weaker than in SPCAM. The difference in divergences of dry static energy flux simulated by the two MMFs also contributes to the difference in land precipitation sensitivity between the two models."

Edit, see also:

Sherwood, S.C., Bony, S. and Dufresne, J.-L., (2014) "Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing", Nature; Volume: 505, pp 37–42, doi:10.1038/nature12829

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v505/n7481/full/nature12829.html

Fasullo, J.T. and Trenberth, K.E., (2012), "A Less Cloudy Future: The Role of Subtropical Subsidence in Climate Sensitivity", Science, vol. 338, pp. 792-794, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1227465.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6108/792
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #153 on: September 12, 2017, 10:44:09 PM »
The unusually high Pacific trade winds in recent decades is frequently associated with the faux hiatus; and the linked reference discusses bias in CMIP5 projections that resulted in under-predictions of the strength of these Pacific trade winds during the faux hiatus.

Jules B. Kajtar, Agus Santoso, Shayne McGregor, Matthew H. England & Zak Baillie (2017), "Model under-representation of decadal Pacific trade wind trends and its link to tropical Atlantic bias", Climate Dynamics", doi:10.1007/s00382-017-3699-5

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-017-3699-5

Abstract: "The strengthening of the Pacific trade winds in recent decades has been unmatched in the observational record stretching back to the early twentieth century. This wind strengthening has been connected with numerous climate-related phenomena, including accelerated sea-level rise in the western Pacific, alterations to Indo-Pacific ocean currents, increased ocean heat uptake, and a slow-down in the rate of global-mean surface warming. Here we show that models in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 underestimate the observed range of decadal trends in the Pacific trade winds, despite capturing the range in decadal sea surface temperature (SST) variability. Analysis of observational data suggests that tropical Atlantic SST contributes considerably to the Pacific trade wind trends, whereas the Atlantic feedback in coupled models is muted. Atmosphere-only simulations forced by observed SST are capable of recovering the time-variation and the magnitude of the trade wind trends. Hence, we explore whether it is the biases in the mean or in the anomalous SST patterns that are responsible for the under-representation in fully coupled models. Over interannual time-scales, we find that model biases in the patterns of Atlantic SST anomalies are the strongest source of error in the precipitation and atmospheric circulation response. In contrast, on decadal time-scales, the magnitude of the model biases in Atlantic mean SST are directly linked with the trade wind variability response."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

6roucho

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 290
  • Finance geek
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #154 on: September 13, 2017, 08:14:04 PM »
AnruptSLR, how do you read so much and so widely? You're a machine!

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #155 on: September 14, 2017, 04:22:32 PM »
AnruptSLR, how do you read so much and so widely? You're a machine!

As noted in the Adapting to the Anthropocene thread, by "... the recursive application of: deductive logic, inductive logic, the reduction of entropy, concentration/focus/effort/work and letting go of preconditioning ... "
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #156 on: September 19, 2017, 07:58:38 PM »
Given the complex nature of climate change, I think that CMIP6 and similarly future modeling efforts would do well to follow the advice given in the linked reference to combine "… dynamical modeling with data-driven methodological approaches (i.e., neural networks and Granger causality) …".

Fulvio Mazzocchi & Antonello Pasini (31 May 2017), "Climate model pluralism beyond dynamical ensembles", Wires: Climate Change, DOI: 10.1002/wcc.477

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.477/full

Abstract: "Using pluralist research strategies can be a profitable way to study complex systems. This contribution focuses on the approaches for studying the climate that make use of multiple different models, aiming to increase the reliability (in terms of robustness) of attribution results. This Opinion article argues that the traditional approach, which is based on ensemble runs of global climate models, only partially allows the application of a robustness scheme, owing to the difficulty to match or evaluate the conditions required for robustness (i.e., independence or heterogeneity among models). An alternative ‘multi-approach’ strategy is advanced, beyond dynamical modeling but still preserving the idea of model pluralism. Such a strategy, which uses a set of ensembles of different model types by combining dynamical modeling with data-driven methodological approaches (i.e., neural networks and Granger causality), seems to better match the condition of independence. In addition, neural networks and Granger causality lead to achievements in attribution studies that can complement those obtained by dynamical modeling."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #157 on: September 29, 2017, 03:40:48 PM »
The linked opinion piece describes actual and proposed systemic changes to CESM made in an effort to try to help modelers to gain a better understanding of the various Earth's Systems.  If this is done with sincerity it is a good idea; however, if managers/policy makers see that this affords them an opportunity to put their collective thumb on the modeling process/outcome then it is a bad idea:

Title: "When Less Is More: Opening the Door to Simpler Climate Models"

https://eos.org/opinions/when-less-is-more-opening-the-door-to-simpler-climate-models?utm_source=eos&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EosBuzz092917

Extract: "Earth system models are resource intensive and complex. To cut through this complexity, the Community Earth System Model project will now be embracing a hierarchy of simpler climate models.

In a nutshell, ESMs may be good for simulating the climate system but may not be as valuable for understanding it. So we have now added a new set of tools within the Community Earth System Model (CESM) project: a hierarchy of simpler models to foster this understanding. Specifically, we are happy to announce that the next version of CESM will include two simple atmospheric models: a “dynamical core” and an “aquaplanet.”

We conclude by emphasizing one crucial point in Held’s proposal: Models in the hierarchy must be of lasting value. ESMs are constantly under development to promptly incorporate the latest findings or methods. However, we believe that at least some of the models in the hierarchy need to be forcefully shielded from the relentless cycle of model improving and updating. If those models are well chosen, their value will come precisely from the fact that they are not being updated. Because they remain unchanged, we will be able to understand them in great depth and thus close the gap between simulation and understanding—the ultimate motivation of this entire exercise."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #158 on: September 30, 2017, 06:23:48 PM »
The linked reference examines the output from CMIP5 projections to better differentiate between fast and slow components of the extratropical atmospheric circulation response to stepped radiative forcing.  I note that CMIP5 does not consider hosing from ice sheet mass loss & thus does not consider ice-climate feedback.  Nevertheless, the findings do indicate: (1) a fast response within 5 to 10 years of the stepped forcing; (2) an increase in ENSO activity (& increase in associated positive feedback mechanisms); and (3) an increase in Antarctic Amplification.  Hopefully, CMIP6 will consider freshwater hosing and ice-climate feedback.

Paulo Ceppi, Giuseppe Zappa, and Theodore G. Shepherd (28 September 2017), "Fast and slow components of the extratropical atmospheric circulation response to CO2 forcing", Journal of Climate, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0323.1

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0323.1?utm_content=buffer2cb5c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Abstract: "Poleward shifts of the extratropical atmospheric circulation are a common response to CO2 forcing in global climate models (GCMs), but little is known about the time dependence of this response. Here it is shown that in coupled climate models, the long-term evolution of sea surface temperatures (SSTs) induces two distinct time scales of circulation response to step-like CO2 forcing. In most Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 GCMs as well as in the multi-model mean, all of the poleward shift of the midlatitude jets and Hadley cell edge occurs in a fast response within 5 to 10 years of the forcing, during which less than half of the expected equilibrium warming is realized. Compared with this fast response, the slow response over subsequent decades to centuries features stronger polar amplification (especially in the Antarctic), enhanced warming in the Southern Ocean, an El Niño-like pattern of tropical Pacific warming, and weaker land-sea contrast. Atmosphere-only GCM experiments demonstrate that the SST evolution drives the difference between the fast and slow circulation responses, although the direct radiative effect of CO2 also contributes to the fast response. It is further shown that the fast and slow responses determine the long-term evolution of the circulation response to warming in the RCP4.5 scenario. The results imply that shifts in midlatitude circulation generally scale with the radiative forcing, rather than with global-mean temperature change. A corollary is that time slices taken from a transient simulation at a given level of warming will considerably overestimate the extratropical circulation response in a stabilized climate."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #159 on: October 06, 2017, 06:49:20 PM »
The linked article recommends that future climate change projections should account for the effects of future volcanic eruptions, and I note that this should include the eruption of halogen emitting volcanoes in the WAIS:

Title: "5 links between erupting volcanoes and climate change"

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060062893

Extract: "The effects of volcanoes need to be accounted for in future climate change predictions, according to a study published in August in Nature Climate Change. As researchers make future predictions from climate models, they need to factor in major eruptions over the next century, said Ed Hawkins, a climatologist at the University of Reading. To accurately forecast how climate change will transform the planet, researchers must account for temporary periods of cooling that come from volcanoes, according to Hawkins.

"Including some eruptions makes the changes in global temperature more variable, but as the effects of eruptions are only temporary they will not counteract the warming from greenhouse gases over the next century," he wrote in an email."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #160 on: October 06, 2017, 08:46:27 PM »
The former ACME project is now the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) Project

Title: "Energy Exascale Earth System Model"

https://climatemodeling.science.energy.gov/projects/energy-exascale-earth-system-model

Extract: "The Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) project, previously known as ACME, is central to ESM as well as many of the Climate and Environmental Sciences Division activities, as it is developing a computationally advanced coupled climate-energy model to investigate the challenges posed by the interactions of weather-climate scale variability with energy and related sectors. The E3SM model simulates the fully coupled Earth system at high-resolution (15-25km, including higher resolution within regionally refined areas) and is incorporating coupling with energy, water, land-use and related energy-relevant activities, with a focus on near-term hind-casts (1970-2015) for model validation and a near-term projection (2015-2050) as needed for energy sector planning."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #161 on: October 15, 2017, 06:00:03 PM »
While the linked reference's study of an Earth-like terra-planet may be of somewhat academic interest for newly discovered planets, the authors do note its possible relevance to an imaginary drop from present day conditions to the Snowball Earth state:

Kalidindi, S., Reick, C. H., Raddatz, T., and Claussen, M.: Two drastically different climate states on an Earth-like terra-planet, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2017-84, in review, 2017.

https://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2017-84/

Abstract. We study an Earth-like terra-planet with an overland recycling mechanism bringing fresh water back from higher latitudes to the lower latitudes. By performing model simulations for such a planet we find two drastically different climate states for the same set of boundary conditions and parameter values: A Cold and Wet (CW) state (present-day Earth-like climate) with dominant low-latitude precipitation and, a Hot and Dry (HD) state with only high-latitude precipitation. We notice that for perpetual equinox conditions, both climate states are stable below a certain threshold value of background soil albedo while above the threshold only the CW state is stable. Starting from the HD state and increasing background soil albedo above the threshold causes an abrupt shift from the HD state to the CW state resulting in a sudden cooling of about 35 °C globally which is of the order of the temperature difference between the present-day and the Snowball Earth state. In contrast to the Snowball Earth instability, we find that the sudden cooling in our study is driven by the cloud albedo feedback rather than the snow-albedo feedback. Also, when albedo in the CW state is reduced back to zero the terra-planet does not display a closed hysteresis. This is due to the high cloud cover in the CW state hiding the surface from solar irradiation. As a result, this reduction of background surface albedo has only a minor effect on the top of the atmosphere radiation balance, thereby making it impossible to heat the planet sufficiently strongly to switch back to the HD state. Additional simulations point to a similar abrupt transition from HD state to the CW state for non-zero obliquity which is the only stable state in this configuration. Our study also has implications for the habitability of Earth-like terra-planets. At the inner edge of the habitable zone, the higher cloud cover in the CW state cools the planet and may prevent the onset of a runaway greenhouse state. At the outer edge, the resupply of water at lower latitudes stabilizes the greenhouse effect and keeps the planet in the HD state and may prevent water from getting trapped at higher latitudes in frozen form. Overall, the existence of bi-stability in the presence of an overland recycling mechanism hints at the possibility of a wider habitable zone for Earth-like terra-planets at lower obliquities.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #162 on: October 16, 2017, 01:32:36 AM »
The linked reference discusses a climate model of intermediate sophistication that represents an initial effort to model Earth Systems subject to changing from on climate state to another due to periodic climate attractors:

Valerio Lucarini and Tamás Bódai (2017), "Edge states in the climate system: exploring global instabilities and critical transitions", Nonlinearity 30 R32, https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6544/aa6b11

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6544/aa6b11/meta

Abstract: "Multistability is a ubiquitous feature in systems of geophysical relevance and provides key challenges for our ability to predict a system's response to perturbations. Near critical transitions small causes can lead to large effects and—for all practical purposes—irreversible changes in the properties of the system. As is well known, the Earth climate is multistable: present astronomical and astrophysical conditions support two stable regimes, the warm climate we live in, and a snowball climate characterized by global glaciation. We first provide an overview of methods and ideas relevant for studying the climate response to forcings and focus on the properties of critical transitions in the context of both stochastic and deterministic dynamics, and assess strengths and weaknesses of simplified approaches to the problem. Following an idea developed by Eckhardt and collaborators for the investigation of multistable turbulent fluid dynamical systems, we study the global instability giving rise to the snowball/warm multistability in the climate system by identifying the climatic edge state, a saddle embedded in the boundary between the two basins of attraction of the stable climates. The edge state attracts initial conditions belonging to such a boundary and, while being defined by the deterministic dynamics, is the gate facilitating noise-induced transitions between competing attractors. We use a simplified yet Earth-like intermediate complexity climate model constructed by coupling a primitive equations model of the atmosphere with a simple diffusive ocean. We refer to the climatic edge states as Melancholia states and provide an extensive analysis of their features. We study their dynamics, their symmetry properties, and we follow a complex set of bifurcations. We find situations where the Melancholia state has chaotic dynamics. In these cases, we have that the basin boundary between the two basins of attraction is a strange geometric set with a nearly zero codimension, and relate this feature to the time scale separation between instabilities occurring on weather and climatic time scales. We also discover a new stable climatic state that is similar to a Melancholia state and is characterized by non-trivial symmetry properties."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Adam Ash

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 264
    • View Profile
    • The 100 metre line
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #163 on: October 26, 2017, 09:43:29 PM »

Burial-induced oxygen-isotope re-equilibration of fossil foraminifera explains ocean paleotemperature paradoxes
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01225-9

According to the current methodology, the temperature of the ocean depths, and the surface of the polar ocean, was some 15C (59F) higher 100 million years ago, compared to now.

These estimates have been challenged, however, by a joint team of researchers from the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL).

In their study, published in Nature Communications, the team posits that ocean temperatures may have remained relatively stable throughout this period, raising serious concerns about the current level of climate change being experienced by Mother Earth.

sidd

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1922
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #164 on: October 27, 2017, 12:01:01 AM »
If that Bernard paper holds up, it answers the question as to why the polar oceans in Cretaceous and Paleogene were so much warmer. The answer is that they were not, and the equator to pole gradient was larger than supposed.

"Furthermore, the present study suggests that the vertical and latitudinal temperature gradients of the late Cretaceous and Paleogene oceans were likely not very different from the current ones."

Fig 4 tells the story. I attach.

sidd

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #165 on: October 27, 2017, 03:13:24 PM »
Tropical-Extratropical telecommunications (particularly w.r.t. ENSO patterns) are of fundamental importance for understanding numerous feedback mechanisms including Arctic Amplification and Hansen's ice-climate feedback (especially w.r.t. WAIS stability):

Cristiana Stan, David M. Straus, Jorgen S. Frederiksen, Hai Lin, Eric D. Maloney & Courtney Schumacher
 (24 October 2017), "Review of Tropical-Extratropical Teleconnections on Intraseasonal Time Scales", Review of Geophysics, DOI: 10.1002/2016RG000538

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016RG000538/abstract

Abstract: "The interactions and teleconnections between the tropical and midlatitude regions on intraseasonal time scales are an important modulator of tropical and extratropical circulation anomalies and their associated weather patterns. These interactions arise due to the impact of the tropics on the extratropics, the impact of the midlatitudes on the tropics, and two-way interactions between the regions. Observational evidence, as well as theoretical studies with models of complexity ranging from the linear barotropic framework to intricate Earth system models, suggest the involvement of a myriad of processes and mechanisms in generating and maintaining these interconnections. At this stage, our understanding of these teleconnections is primarily a collection of concepts; a comprehensive theoretical framework has yet to be established. These intraseasonal teleconnections are increasingly recognized as an untapped source of potential subseasonal predictability. However, the complexity and diversity of mechanisms associated with these teleconnections, along with the lack of a conceptual framework to relate them, prevent this potential predictability from being translated into realized forecast skill. This review synthesizes our progress in understanding the observed characteristics of intraseasonal tropical-extratropical interactions and their associated mechanisms, identifies the significant gaps in this understanding, and recommends new research endeavors to address the remaining challenges."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #166 on: October 27, 2017, 04:57:53 PM »
The linked article indicates that in order to more accurately model the Atlantic Meridional Mode, cloud feedback needs to be positive:

Myers, T.A., Mechoso, C.R. & DeFlorio, M.J. (2017), "Importance of positive cloud feedback for tropical Atlantic interhemispheric climate variability", Clim Dy., https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-017-3978-1

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-017-3978-1?utm_content=buffer90766&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Abstract: "Over the tropical Atlantic during boreal spring, average interhemispheric differences in sea-surface temperature (SST) coincide with a coherent pattern of interannual climate variability often referred to as the Atlantic Meridional Mode. This includes anomalous SST and sea-level pressure roughly anti-symmetric about the equator, as well as cross-equatorial near-surface winds directed toward the warmer hemisphere. Within subtropical marine boundary layer cloud regions in both hemispheres, enhanced cloudiness associated with this variability is co-located with cool SST, a strong temperature inversion, and cold horizontal surface temperature advection, while reduced cloudiness is associated with the opposite meteorological conditions. This is indicative a positive cloud feedback that reinforces the underlying SST anomalies. The simulation of this feedback varies widely among models participating in phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. Models that fail to simulate this feedback substantially underestimate the amplitudes of typical tropical Atlantic interhemispheric variability in cloudiness off of the equator, SST, and atmospheric circulation. Models that correctly reproduce a positive cloud feedback generally produce higher and more realistic amplitudes of variability, but with substantial scatter. Marine boundary layer clouds therefore appear to be a key element of springtime coupled atmosphere–ocean variability over the tropical Atlantic. A markedly more successful simulation of this variability in climate models may be obtained by better representing boundary layer cloud processes."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #167 on: October 27, 2017, 05:46:28 PM »
If that Bernard paper holds up, it answers the question as to why the polar oceans in Cretaceous and Paleogene were so much warmer. The answer is that they were not, and the equator to pole gradient was larger than supposed.

I think that the key take away message here is that current climate models have likely been calibrated to over predict the amount of heat energy that the oceans will absorb with continuing radiative forcing; which will leave more heat in the atmosphere resulting in more rapid increases in GMSTA (global mean surface temperature anomalies), which implies that ECS is likely towards the upper end of model projections.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #168 on: October 30, 2017, 03:19:01 PM »
If you want a model to indicate that you will succeed, all you have to do is to jack around with your assumption/input; and then claim plausible deniability when your projects don't match the future reality. 

Title: "Guest post: Who will deliver the negative emissions needed to avoid 2C warming?"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-who-will-deliver-the-negative-emissions-needed-to-avoid-2c-warming

Extract: "“Negative emissions”, also known as “carbon dioxide removal” (CDR), refers to a group of approaches and technologies that take CO2 from the atmosphere and store it on land, underground or in the oceans.

Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) also indicate that it is cheaper to have large-scale CDR in the future, than to have deeper mitigation now.

Love it or hate it, it may be that CDR is simply unavoidable if society wants to stabilise temperatures. If one can accept that we need CDR, the real debate becomes at what scale.

The land areas required for such large-scale CDR would be the size of India, or even larger."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #169 on: October 30, 2017, 07:21:01 PM »
The linked open access reference discusses improvements to modeling global soil carbon:

Kefeng Wang, Changhui Peng, Qiuan Zhu, Xiaolu Zhou, Meng Wang, Kerou Zhang & Gangsheng Wang (27 October 2017), "Modeling Global Soil Carbon and Soil Microbial Carbon by Integrating Microbial Processes into the Ecosystem Process Model TRIPLEX-GHG", JAMES, DOI: 10.1002/2017MS000920 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017MS000920/full

Abstract: "Microbial physiology plays a critical role in the biogeochemical cycles of the Earth system. However, most traditional soil carbon models are lacking in terms of the representation of key microbial processes that control the soil carbon response to global climate change. In this study, the improved process-based model TRIPLEX-GHG was developed by coupling it with the new MEND (Microbial-ENzyme-mediated Decomposition) model to estimate total global soil organic carbon (SOC) and global soil microbial carbon. The new model (TRIPLEX-MICROBE) shows considerable improvement over the previous version (TRIPLEX-GHG) in simulating SOC. We estimated the global soil carbon stock to be approximately 1195 Pg C, with 348 Pg C located in the high northern latitudes, which is in good agreement with the well-regarded Harmonized World Soil Database (HWSD) and the Northern Circumpolar Soil Carbon Database (NCSCD). We also estimated the global soil microbial carbon to be 21 Pg C, similar to the 23 Pg C estimated by Xu et al. (2014). We found that the microbial carbon quantity in the latitudinal direction showed reversions at approximately 30°N, near the equator and at 25°S. A sensitivity analysis suggested that the tundra ecosystem exhibited the highest sensitivity to a 1°C increase or decrease in temperature in terms of dissolved organic carbon (DOC), microbial biomass carbon (MBC), and mineral-associated organic carbon (MOC). However, our work represents the first step toward a new generation of ecosystem process models capable of integrating key microbial processes into soil carbon cycles."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #170 on: November 12, 2017, 01:01:03 AM »
The linked reference uses a ESM to study the impacts of freshwater hosing from the Greenland Ice Sheet.  While this is valuable information, studying the impacts of abrupt freshwater hosing from the WAIS would be even more useful:

Haijun Yang, Qin Wen, Jie Yao & Yuxing Wang (2017), "Bjerknes Compensation in Meridional Heat Transport under Freshwater Forcing and the Role of Climate Feedback", Journal of Climate, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0824.1

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0824.1

Abstract: "Using a coupled Earth climate model, freshwater forcing experiments are performed to study the Bjerknes compensation (BJC) between meridional atmosphere heat transport (AHT) and meridional ocean heat transport (OHT). Freshwater hosing in the North Atlantic weakens the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) and thus reduces the northward OHT in the Atlantic significantly, leading to a cooling (warming) in the surface layer in the Northern (Southern) Hemisphere. This results in an enhanced Hadley cell and northward AHT. Meanwhile, the OHT in the Indo-Pacific is increased in response to the Hadley cell change, partially offsetting the reduced OHT in the Atlantic. Two compensations occur here: compensation between the AHT and the Atlantic OHT, and that between the Indo-Pacific OHT and the Atlantic OHT. The AHT change undercompensates the OHT change by about 60% in the extratropics, while the former overcompensates the latter by about 30% in the tropics due to the Indo-Pacific change. The BJC can be understood from the viewpoint of large-scale circulation change. However, the intrinsic mechanism of BJC is related to the climate feedback of the Earth system. The authors’ coupled model experiments confirm that the occurrence of BJC is an intrinsic requirement of local energy balance, and local climate feedback determines the extent of BJC, consistent with previous theoretical results. Even during the transient period of climate change, the BJC is well established when the ocean heat storage is slowly varying and its change is much weaker than the net local heat flux change at the ocean surface. The BJC can be deduced from the local climate feedback. Under the freshwater forcing, the overcompensation in the tropics is mainly caused by the positive longwave feedback related to clouds, and the undercompensation in the extratropics is due to the negative longwave feedback related to surface temperature change. Different dominant feedbacks determine different BJC scenarios in different regions, which are in essence constrained by local energy balance."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

Juan C. García

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 491
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #171 on: December 07, 2017, 09:03:29 PM »
Maybe we should have a topic for evaluating the different climate models. But I don't want to be the person that will open it, because I don't know enough about models.

Anyway, I believe that this news has not been include on this Forum and I find appropiate to included it here.

The most accurate climate change models predict the most alarming consequences, study finds

Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/12/06/the-most-accurate-climate-change-models-predict-the-most-alarming-consequences-study-claims/?wpisrc=nl_green&wpmm=1
Which is the best answer to Sep-2012 ASI lost (compared to 1979-2000)?
50% [NSIDC Extent] or
73% [PIOMAS Volume]

Volume is harder to measure than extent, but 3-dimensional space is real, 2D's hide ~50% thickness gone.
-> IPCC/NSIDC trends [based on extent] underestimate the real speed of ASI lost.

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #172 on: December 15, 2017, 07:36:57 PM »
The linked reference studies the IPO behavior focused on CMIP5 simulations and confirms the importance of correctly modeling the" Tropical-extratropical interactions via both an 'atmospheric bridge' and 'oceanic tunnel' mechanisms:

Benjamin J Henley et al (2017), "Spatial and temporal agreement in climate model
simulations of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation", Environ. Res. Lett. 12 044011, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa5cc8

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa5cc8/pdf

Extract: "Tropical-extratropical interactions via an atmospheric ‘bridge’ (Newman et al 2016) and oceanic ‘tunnel’ (Farneti et al 2014) are likely component mechanisms that contribute to the decadal-scale variability evident in the IPO and PDO indices."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #173 on: December 15, 2017, 10:03:39 PM »
Maybe we should have a topic for evaluating the different climate models. But I don't want to be the person that will open it, because I don't know enough about models.

Anyway, I believe that this news has not been include on this Forum and I find appropiate to included it here.

The most accurate climate change models predict the most alarming consequences, study finds

Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/12/06/the-most-accurate-climate-change-models-predict-the-most-alarming-consequences-study-claims/?wpisrc=nl_green&wpmm=1

Juan,

I don't want to open a separate folder to compare different climate model projections (as it would be too difficult), but I concur that higher performance models project higher values of climate sensitivity as indicated by the following reposted information and images:

The first linked reference cites findings from an improved version of CESM that increases ESS from 4.1C to 5.6C.  If this is actually experienced this coming century, this is bad news for both people & the current biota:

William R. Frey & Jennifer E. Kay (2017), "The influence of extratropical cloud phase and amount feedbacks on climate sensitivity", Climate Dynamics; pp 1–20, doi:10.1007/s00382-017-3796-5

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-017-3796-5?utm_content=bufferfdbc0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Abstract: "Global coupled climate models have large long-standing cloud and radiation biases, calling into question their ability to simulate climate and climate change. This study assesses the impact of reducing shortwave radiation biases on climate sensitivity within the Community Earth System Model (CESM). The model is modified by increasing supercooled cloud liquid to better match absorbed shortwave radiation observations over the Southern Ocean while tuning to reduce a compensating tropical shortwave bias. With a thermodynamic mixed-layer ocean, equilibrium warming in response to doubled CO2 increases from 4.1 K in the control to 5.6 K in the modified model. This 1.5 K increase in equilibrium climate sensitivity is caused by changes in two extratropical shortwave cloud feedbacks. First, reduced conversion of cloud ice to liquid at high southern latitudes decreases the magnitude of a negative cloud phase feedback. Second, warming is amplified in the mid-latitudes by a larger positive shortwave cloud feedback. The positive cloud feedback, usually associated with the subtropics, arises when sea surface warming increases the moisture gradient between the boundary layer and free troposphere. The increased moisture gradient enhances the effectiveness of mixing to dry the boundary layer, which decreases cloud amount and optical depth. When a full-depth ocean with dynamics and thermodynamics is included, ocean heat uptake preferentially cools the mid-latitude Southern Ocean, partially inhibiting the positive cloud feedback and slowing warming. Overall, the results highlight strong connections between Southern Ocean mixed-phase cloud partitioning, cloud feedbacks, and ocean heat uptake in a climate forced by greenhouse gas changes."

&

The second linked reference provides satellite evidence that the CMIP5 projections substantially underestimate the positive feedback from precipitating clouds.  This is more evidence that consensus science has underestimated climate sensitivity:

J.-L. F. Li, Wei-Liang Lee, Yi-Hui Wang, Mark Richardson, Jia-Yuh Yu, E. Suhas, Eric Fetzer, Min-Hui Lo & Qing Yue (2016), "Assessing the Radiative Impacts of Precipitating Clouds on Winter Surface Air Temperatures and Land Surface Properties in GCMs Using Observations", JGR: Atmospheres, DOI: 10.1002/2016JD025175


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016JD025175/abstract


Abstract: "Using CloudSat-CALIPSO ice water, cloud fraction and radiation; CERES radiation and long-term station-measured surface air temperature (SAT), we identified a substantial underestimation of the total ice water path, total cloud fraction, land surface radiative flux, land surface temperature (LST) and SAT during Northern Hemisphere winter in CMIP5 models. We perform sensitivity experiments with the NCAR Community Earth System Model version 1 (CESM1) in fully coupled modes to identify processes driving these biases. We found that biases in land surface properties are associated with the exclusion of downwelling long-wave heating from precipitating ice during Northern Hemisphere winter. The land surface temperature biases introduced by the exclusion of precipitating ice radiative effects in CESM1 and CMIP5 both spatially correlate with winter biases over Eurasia and North America. The underestimated precipitating ice radiative effect leads to colder LST, associated surface energy-budget adjustments and cooler SAT. This bias also shifts regional soil moisture state from liquid to frozen, increases snow cover and depresses evapotranspiration (ET) and total leaf area index (TLAI) in Northern Hemisphere winter. The inclusion of the precipitating ice radiative effects largely reduces the model biases of surface radiative fluxes (more than 15 W m-2), SAT (up to 2-4 K), snow cover and ET (25-30%), compared with those without snow-radiative effects."

&

The third linked (open access) reference provides a comparison of the best 2014 version of Community Earth Systems Model run to date (CESM-H), and a standard ESM run (CESM-S) such as that used for AR5.  The article, the attached image (and caption) and extracts, make it very clear that while the CESM-H run is not perfect (i.e. there is still a reason to run ACME/E3SM), it is a substantial improvement about the AR5 generation of climate models, and it projects higher increases in mean global temperature increases, and less sea ice (see the figure 1) than the AR5 generation of projections.

R. Justin Small, Julio Bacmeister, David Bailey, Allison Baker, Stuart Bishop, Frank Bryan, Julie Caron, John Dennis, Peter Gent, Hsiao-ming Hsu, Markus Jochum, David Lawrence, Ernesto Muñoz, Pedro diNezio, Tim Scheitlin, Robert Tomas, Joseph Tribbia, Yu-heng Tseng, & Mariana Vertenstein, (December 2014), "A new synoptic scale resolving global climate simulation using the Community Earth System Model", JAMES, Volume 6, Issue 4, Pages 1065–1094, DOI: 10.1002/2014MS000363

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/2014MS000363/

Abstract: "High-resolution global climate modeling holds the promise of capturing planetary-scale climate modes and small-scale (regional and sometimes extreme) features simultaneously, including their mutual interaction. This paper discusses a new state-of-the-art high-resolution Community Earth System Model (CESM) simulation that was performed with these goals in mind. The atmospheric component was at 0.25° grid spacing, and ocean component at 0.1°. One hundred years of “present-day” simulation were completed. Major results were that annual mean sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific and El-Niño Southern Oscillation variability were well simulated compared to standard resolution models. Tropical and southern Atlantic SST also had much reduced bias compared to previous versions of the model. In addition, the high resolution of the model enabled small-scale features of the climate system to be represented, such as air-sea interaction over ocean frontal zones, mesoscale systems generated by the Rockies, and Tropical Cyclones. Associated single component runs and standard resolution coupled runs are used to help attribute the strengths and weaknesses of the fully coupled run. The high-resolution run employed 23,404 cores, costing 250 thousand processor-hours per simulated year and made about two simulated years per day on the NCAR-Wyoming supercomputer “Yellowstone.”"


Extracts: "The high-resolution CESM was run under “present-day” (year 2000) greenhouse gas conditions (fixed CO2 concentration of 367 ppm). This was chosen so that direct comparisons could be made with recent-era observations of fine-scale and large-scale phenomena. The prognostic carbon-nitrogen cycle was not used in this simulation.

In the following, this simulation will be referred to as CESM-High Resolution (CESM-H).

The interpretation of the model data employed in this paper is that the CESM-H and CESM-S are the best simulations available at their respective resolutions, for the same model version, and for year 2000 conditions."


Caption for the first image: "Time series of globally averaged quantities for 100 years of CESM-H (thick black line) and 166 years of CESM-S (thin gray line). (a) Top of atmosphere net radiation, positive incoming to Earth. Data are 10 year running mean. (b) Surface (including ocean, land, ice) temperature, 10 year running average. Sea ice area in (c) Northern Hemisphere and (d) Southern Hemisphere. (e) Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), 12 month running averages, (f) transport through Drake Passage due to Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC), annual values."

The following link provides public access to various model run outputs:

http://www.earthsystemgrid.org/

Also, Proistosescu & Huybers (2017) show that HadGEM2-ES indicate a range of ECS of from 6 to 8C (see the third & fourth images)

Cristian Proistosescu and Peter J. Huybers (05 Jul 2017), "Slow climate mode reconciles historical and model-based estimates of climate sensitivity", Science Advances, Vol. 3, no. 7, e1602821, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1602821

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/7/e1602821

For other efforts to improve the state-of-the-art in ESM projections see also:

https://www.wcrp-climate.org/wgcm-overview
&
https://www.wcrp-climate.org/wgcm-cmip/wgcm-cmip6
&
https://eos.org/project-updates/a-more-powerful-reality-test-for-climate-models

Caption for fourth image: "Fig. 1. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) facilitates the comparison of results from various climate models. Shown here are relative error measures of different developmental tests of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) model. Results are based on the global seasonal cycle climatology (1980–2005) computed from Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP) experiments. Rows and columns represent individual variables and models, respectively. The error measure is a spatial root-mean-square error (RMSE) that treats each variable separately. The color scale portrays this RMSE as a relative error by normalizing the result by the median error of all model results [Gleckler et al., 2008]. For example, a value of 0.20 indicates that a model’s RMSE is 20% larger than the median error for that variable across all simulations on the figure, whereas a value of –0.20 means the error is 20% smaller than the median error. The four triangles in grid square show the relative error with respect to the four seasons (in clockwise order, with December–January–February (DJF) at the top; MAM = March–April–May, JJA = June–July–August, and SON = September–October–November). The reference data sets are the default satellite and reanalysis data sets identified by Flato et al. [2013]. TOA = top of atmosphere, SW = shortwave, LW = longwave. Credit: Erik Mason/"
&
And for information on HadGEM3-GC3.1 see:

Title: "HadGEM3-GC3.1: The physical coupled model core of UKESM1 now frozen"

http://www.jwcrp.org.uk/documents/ukesm-jan17hadgem3.pdf
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #174 on: December 15, 2017, 11:19:01 PM »
The linked AGU session entitled: "A32B: Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks: Advances and New Paradigms I", indicates that values of ECS are increasing with global warming, and that it is unclear just how high the effective ECS will be by 2100:

https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm17/meetingapp.cgi/Session/31025

See also the following associated article:

Title: "More about Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity"

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/12/14/more-about-equilibrium-climate-sensitivity/

Extract: "… Kate Marvel says in her summary it’s essentially that

You might think we could estimate this from observations: we’ve emitted carbon dioxide, and the temperature has risen. But the future may differ from the past, and there’s reason to think that the warming we’ve experienced so far is different from the warming to come."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #175 on: December 21, 2017, 04:42:16 PM »
The linked reference indicates that changing patterns of moisture transport for precipitation in the Arctic is more complex than most climate models currently indicate:

Gimeno-Sotelo, L., Nieto, R., Vázquez, M., and Gimeno, L.: The perfect pattern of moisture transport for precipitation for Arctic sea ice melting, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2017-122, in review, 2017.

https://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2017-122/
&
https://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2017-122/esd-2017-122.pdf

Abstract. We have identified the patterns of moisture transport for precipitation over the Arctic region, the Arctic Ocean, and its 13 main subdomains, which better fit with sea ice decline. For this purpose, we studied the different patterns of moisture transport for the case of high/low Arctic sea ice (ASI) extension linked to periods before/after the main change point (CP) in the extension of sea ice. The pattern consists of a general decrease in moisture transport in summer and enhanced moisture transport in autumn and early winter, with different contributions depending on the moisture source and ocean subregion. The pattern is not only statistically significant but also consistent with Eulerian fluxes diagnosis, changes in the frequency of circulation types, and known mechanisms of the effects of snowfall or rainfall on ice in the Arctic. The results of this paper also reveal that the assumed and partially documented enhanced poleward moisture transport from lower latitudes as a consequence of increased moisture from climate change seems to be less simple and constant than typically recognized in relation to enhanced Arctic precipitation throughout the year in the present climate.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #176 on: December 28, 2017, 05:35:05 PM »
The linked reference relates the emergent behavior of Arctic precipitation with Arctic Amplification, AA.  When AA increases sufficiently, I am concerned about the impact of future rainfall on numerous positive feedback mechanisms in the Arctic region:

Bruce T. Anderson et al. (27 December 2017), "Emergent behavior of Arctic precipitation in response to enhanced Arctic warming", Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, DOI: 10.1002/2017JD026799

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017JD026799/abstract?utm_content=bufferbe025&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Abstract: "Amplified warming of the high latitudes in response to human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases has already been observed in the historical record and is a robust feature evident across a hierarchy of model systems, including the models of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5). The main aims of this analysis are to quantify inter-model differences in the Arctic amplification (AA) of the global warming signal in CMIP5 RCP8.5 simulations and to diagnose these differences in the context of the energy and water cycles of the region. This diagnosis reveals an emergent behavior between the energetic and hydrometeorological responses of the Arctic to warming: in particular, enhanced AA and its associated reduction in dry static energy convergence is balanced to first order by latent heating via enhanced precipitation. This balance necessitates increasing Arctic precipitation with increasing AA while at the same time constraining the magnitude of that precipitation increase. The sensitivity of the increase, ~1.25 (W/m2)/K [~240 (km3/yr)/K], is evident across a broad range of historical and projected AA values. Accounting for the energetic constraint on Arctic precipitation, as a function of AA, in turn informs understanding of both the sign and magnitude of hydrologic cycle changes that the Arctic may experience."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #177 on: December 28, 2017, 06:11:18 PM »
The subject matter of the linked reference highlights the importance of correctly modeling the interplay between different ocean basins via the atmosphere:

Wei Zhang et al (27 December 2017), "Dominant Role of Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation in the Recent Decadal Changes in Western North Pacific Tropical Cyclone Activity", GRL, DOI: 10.1002/2017GL076397

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL076397/abstract?utm_content=bufferd676e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Abstract: "Over the 1997-2014 period, the mean frequency of western North Pacific (WNP) tropical cyclones (TCs) was markedly lower (~18%) than the period 1980-1996. Here we show that these changes were driven by an intensification of the vertical wind shear in the southeastern/eastern WNP tied to the changes in the Walker circulation, which arose primarily in response to the enhanced sea surface temperature (SST) warming in the North Atlantic, while the SST anomalies associated with the negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) in the tropical Pacific and the anthropogenic forcing play only secondary roles. These results are based on observations and experiments using the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) Forecast-oriented Low-ocean Resolution Coupled Climate Model (FLOR) coupled climate model. The present study suggests a crucial role of the North Atlantic SST in causing decadal changes to WNP TC frequency."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #178 on: January 08, 2018, 07:08:09 PM »
The linked reference provides information on land use scenarios for use with the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways, SSP, framework:

Stefan van der Esch, et al (2017), "Exploring future changes in land use and land condition and the impacts on food, water, climate change and biodiversity - Scenarios for the UNCCD Global Land Outlook"

PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
The Hague, 2017
PBL publication number: 2076


http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2017-exploring-future-changes-in-land-use-and-land-condition-2076.pdf
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #179 on: January 13, 2018, 07:12:08 PM »
Maybe climate models can be upgraded to better account for the impacts of human behavior/values on Earth Systems:

Gerten, D., Schönfeld, M., and Schauberger, B.: On deeper human dimensions in Earth system analysis and modelling, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2017-125, in review, 2018.

https://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2017-125/

Abstract. While humanity is altering planet Earth at unprecedented magnitude and speed, representation of the cultural driving factors and their dynamics in models of the Earth system is limited. In this review and perspectives paper, we argue that more or less distinct environmental value sets can be assigned to religion – a deeply embedded feature of human cultures, here defined as collectively shared belief in something sacred. This assertion renders religious theories, practices and actors suitable for studying cultural facets of anthropogenic Earth system change, especially regarding deeper, non-materialistic motivations that ask about humans' self-understanding in the Anthropocene epoch. We sketch a modelling landscape and outline some research primers, encompassing the following elements: (i) extensions of existing Earth system models by quantitative relationships between religious practices and biophysical processes, building on databases that allow for (mathematical) formalisation of such knowledge, (ii) design of new model types that specifically represent religious morals, actors and activities as part of coevolutionary human-environment dynamics, and (iii) identification of research questions of humanitarian relevance that are underrepresented in purely economic-technocratic modelling and scenario paradigms. While this analysis is by necessity heuristic and semi-cohesive, we hope that it will act as a stimulus for further, interdisciplinary and systematic research on the immaterial dimension of humanity's imprint on the Earth system, both qualitatively and quantitatively.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #180 on: January 16, 2018, 01:27:26 AM »
The linked article is '… the first article of a week-long series focused on climate modelling'.  It provides a very nice summary of the consensus science interpretation of climate models and their limitations.  Understanding such modeling fundamentals is essential before critiquing potential surprises (such as ice-climate feedback) that are not adequately addressed by consensus science:

Title: "Q&A: How do climate models work?"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-do-climate-models-work

Extract: "In the first article of a week-long series focused on climate modelling, Carbon Brief explains in detail how scientists use computers to understand our changing climate…"
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #181 on: January 16, 2018, 01:57:54 AM »
I think that the findings of the linked reference '… call for a deep reassessment of the way teleconnections are interpreted, and for a more rigorous way to evaluate causality and dependences between the different components of the climate system', because the current consensus science interpretation of these teleconnections is inadequate:

Vannitsem, S. and Ekelmans, P.: Causal dependences between the coupled ocean-atmosphere dynamics over the Tropical Pacific, the North Pacific and the North Atlantic, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2018-3, in review, 2018.

https://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2018-3/

Abstract. The causal dependences between the dynamics of three different coupled ocean-atmosphere basins, The North Atlantic, the North Pacific and the Tropical Pacific region, NINO3.4, have been explored using data from three reanalyses datasets, namely the ORA-20C, the ORAS4 and the ERA-20C. The approach is based on the Convergent Cross Mapping (CCM) developed by Sugihara et al. (2012) that allows for evaluating the dependences between observables beyond the classical teleconnection patterns based on correlations.

The use of CCM on these data mostly reveals that (i) the Tropical Pacific (NINO3.4 region) only influences the dynamics of the North Atlantic region through its annual climatological cycle; (ii) the atmosphere over the North Pacific is dynamically forcing the North Atlantic on a monthly basis; (iii) on longer time scales (interannual), the dynamics of the North Pacific and the North Atlantic are influencing each other through the ocean dynamics, suggesting a connection through the thermohaline circulation.

These findings shed a new light on the coupling between these three different important regions of the globe. In particular they call for a deep reassessment of the way teleconnections are interpreted, and for a more rigorous way to evaluate causality and dependences between the different components of the climate system.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2018, 08:57:03 PM by AbruptSLR »
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #182 on: January 16, 2018, 08:58:45 PM »
Here is a link to the second article in the series on climate modeling:

Title: "Timeline: The history of climate modeling"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/timeline-history-climate-modelling

Extract: "The climate models used by scientists today rely on some of the world’s most advanced supercomputers. It can take dozens of highly skilled people to build and then operate a modern-day climate model."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #183 on: January 16, 2018, 09:48:50 PM »
Here is a link to a report on an Earth modeling framework:

Donges, J. F., Heitzig, J., Barfuss, W., Kassel, J. A., Kittel, T., Kolb, J. J., Kolster, T., Müller-Hansen, F., Otto, I. M., Wiedermann, M., Zimmerer, K. B., and Lucht, W.: Earth system modelling with complex dynamic human societies: the copan:CORE World-Earth modeling framework, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2017-126, in review, 2018.

https://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2017-126/

Abstract. Possible future trajectories of the Earth system in the Anthropocene are determined by the increasing entanglement of processes operating in the physical, chemical and biological systems of the planet, as well as in human societies, their cultures and economies. Here, we introduce the copan:CORE open source software library that provides a framework for developing, composing and running World-Earth models, i.e., models of social-ecological co-evolution up to planetary scales. It is an object-oriented software package written in Python designed for different user roles. It allows model end users to run parallel simulations with already available and tested models. Furthermore, model composers are enabled to easily implement new models by plugging together a broad range of model components, such as opinion formation on social networks, generic carbon cycle dynamics, or simple vegetation growth. For the sake of a modular structure, each provided component specifies a meaningful yet minimal collection of closely related processes. These processes can be formulated in terms of various process types, such as ordinary differential equations, explicit or implicit functions, as well as steps or events of deterministic or stochastic fashion. In addition to the already included variety of different components in copan:CORE, model developers can extend the framework with additional components that are based on elementary entity types, i.e., grid cells, individuals and social systems, or the fundamental process taxa environment, social metabolism, and culture. To showcase possible usage we present an exemplary World-Earth model that combines a variety of model components and interactions thereof. As the framework allows a simple activation and deactivation of certain components and related processes, users can test for their specific effects on modeling results and evaluate model robustness in a controlled way. Hence, copan:CORE allows developing process-based models of global change and sustainable development in planetary social-ecological systems and thus fosters a better understanding of crucial mechanisms governing the co-evolutionary dynamics between societies and the natural environment. Due to its modular structure, the framework enhances the development and application of stylized models in Earth system science but also climatology, economics, ecology, or sociology, and allows combining them for interdisciplinary studies at the interface between different areas of expertise.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #184 on: January 17, 2018, 04:13:14 PM »
The linked article on how to improve climate models is worth reading, but one still needs to read between the lines in order to really appreciate how far current climate models are erring on the side of least drama:

Title: "In-depth: Scientists discuss how to improve climate models"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-scientists-discuss-how-to-improve-climate-models

Extract: "Prof Stefan Rahmstorf
Head of Earth systems analysis
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research

I think a key challenge is non-linear effects, or tipping points."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #185 on: January 18, 2018, 02:30:07 PM »
Here is the fourth article in the series of five article on climate models:

Title: "Guest post: Why clouds hold the key to better climate models"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-clouds-hold-key-better-climate-models

Extract: "And there are the things we could still do better:

•   Many of the ways cloud at low altitudes form, evolve and dissolve are not clearly understood and models do not appear to represent them very well.
•   The more detailed cloud resolving models need to be run over larger space and longer time domains to fully understand the benefits they bring
•   Ice clouds have been less well studied and considered so far
•   We need to maximise the information we can get from current and future satellite observations."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13796
    • View Profile
Re: Modelling the Anthropocene
« Reply #186 on: January 19, 2018, 11:56:54 AM »
Here is a link to the 5th article on climate models.  Without considering any ice-climate feedback the CMIP5 models project more rainfall at high latitudes; which should accelerate polar amplification:

Title: "Explainer: What climate models tell us about future rainfall"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-what-climate-models-tell-us-about-future-rainfall

Extract: "Changes in average precipitation is much more difficult for climate models to predict than temperature. There are many parts of the world where models disagree whether there will be more or less rain and snow in the future. However, there are some regions, particularly the Mediterranean and southern Africa, where nearly all models suggest rainfall will decrease. Similarly, increases in rainfall are expected in high latitude areas, as well as much of South Asia."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson