Quantifying uncertainty from aerosol and atmospheric parameters and their impact on climate sensitivity

Abstract. Climate sensitivity in Earth system models (ESMs) is an emergent property that is affected by structural (missing or inaccurate model physics) and parametric (variations in model parameters) uncertainty. This work provides the first quantitative assessment of the role of compensation between uncertainties in aerosol forcing and atmospheric parameters, and their impact on the climate sensitivity of the Community Atmosphere Model, Version 4 (CAM4). Running the model with prescribed ocean and ice conditions, we perturb four parameters related to sulfate and black carbon aerosol radiative forcing and distribution, as well as five atmospheric parameters related to clouds, convection, and radiative flux. In this experimental setup where aerosols do not affect the properties of clouds, the atmospheric parameters explain the majority of variance in climate sensitivity, with two parameters being the most important: one controlling low cloud amount, and one controlling the timescale for deep convection. Although the aerosol parameters strongly affect aerosol optical depth, their impacts on climate sensitivity are substantially weaker than the impacts of the atmospheric parameters, but this result may depend on whether aerosol–cloud interactions are simulated. Based on comparisons to inter-model spread of other ESMs, we conclude that structural uncertainties in this configuration of CAM4 likely contribute 3 times more to uncertainty in climate sensitivity than parametric uncertainties. We provide several parameter sets that could provide plausible (measured by a skill score) configurations of CAM4, but with different sulfate aerosol radiative forcing, black carbon radiative forcing, and climate sensitivity.

[1]  Z. X. Li,et al.  Interpretation of Cloud-Climate Feedback as Produced by 14 Atmospheric General Circulation Models , 1989, Science.

[2]  K. Taylor,et al.  Interpretation of Snow-Climate Feedback as Produced by 17 General Circulation Models , 1991, Science.

[3]  Stefano Tarantola,et al.  A Quantitative Model-Independent Method for Global Sensitivity Analysis of Model Output , 1999, Technometrics.

[4]  Richard J. Beckman,et al.  A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output From a Computer Code , 2000, Technometrics.

[5]  Joyce E. Penner,et al.  Uncertainty analysis for estimates of the first indirect aerosol effect , 2005 .

[6]  W. Collins,et al.  The Community Climate System Model Version 3 (CCSM3) , 2006 .

[7]  W. Collins,et al.  The Formulation and Atmospheric Simulation of the Community Atmosphere Model Version 3 (CAM3) , 2006 .

[8]  Jeffrey T. Kiehl,et al.  Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity , 2007 .

[9]  Yoram J. Kaufman,et al.  An Emerging Global Aerosol Climatology from the MODIS Satellite Sensors , 2008 .

[10]  Reto Knutti,et al.  Constraints on Model Response to Greenhouse Gas Forcing and the Role of Subgrid-Scale Processes , 2008 .

[11]  B. Santer,et al.  Selecting global climate models for regional climate change studies , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[12]  H. Hasumi,et al.  Improved Climate Simulation by MIROC5: Mean States, Variability, and Climate Sensitivity , 2010, Journal of Climate.

[13]  David S. Lee,et al.  Historical (1850–2000) gridded anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions of reactive gases and aerosols: methodology and application , 2010 .

[14]  K. Caldeira,et al.  Dependence of climate forcing and response on the altitude of black carbon aerosols , 2012, Climate Dynamics.

[15]  G. Danabasoglu,et al.  The Community Climate System Model Version 4 , 2004 .

[16]  G. Mann,et al.  Emulation of a complex global aerosol model to quantify sensitivity to uncertain parameters , 2011 .

[17]  G. Danabasoglu,et al.  The Low-Resolution CCSM4 , 2012 .

[18]  Marie-Alice Foujols,et al.  Impact of the LMDZ atmospheric grid configuration on the climate and sensitivity of the IPSL-CM5A coupled model , 2013, Climate Dynamics.

[19]  Kenneth S. Carslaw,et al.  Mapping the uncertainty in global CCN using emulation , 2012 .

[20]  K. Taylor,et al.  Forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivity in CMIP5 coupled atmosphere‐ocean climate models , 2012 .

[21]  Yves Deville,et al.  DiceKriging, DiceOptim: Two R Packages for the Analysis of Computer Experiments by Kriging-Based Metamodeling and Optimization , 2012 .

[22]  D. Klocke,et al.  Tuning the climate of a global model , 2012 .

[23]  B. DeAngelo,et al.  Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific assessment , 2013 .

[24]  W. Collins,et al.  Evaluation of climate models , 2013 .

[25]  Jean-Christophe Golaz,et al.  Cloud tuning in a coupled climate model: Impact on 20th century warming , 2013 .

[26]  T. Andrews,et al.  Evaluating adjusted forcing and model spread for historical and future scenarios in the CMIP5 generation of climate models , 2013 .

[27]  C. Covey,et al.  Efficient screening of climate model sensitivity to a large number of perturbed input parameters , 2013 .

[28]  G. Mann,et al.  Large contribution of natural aerosols to uncertainty in indirect forcing , 2013, Nature.

[29]  S. Bony,et al.  Spread in model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective mixing , 2014, Nature.

[30]  S. Bony,et al.  Using aquaplanets to understand the robust responses of comprehensive climate models to forcing , 2015, Climate Dynamics.

[31]  B. Stevens.  Rethinking the Lower Bound on Aerosol Radiative Forcing , 2015 .

[32]  K.,et al.  The Community Earth System Model (CESM) large ensemble project: a community resource for studying climate change in the presence of internal climate variability , 2015 .

[33]  B. Samset,et al.  Climate response to externally mixed black carbon as a function of altitude , 2015 .

[34]  A. P. Siebesma,et al.  Clouds, circulation and climate sensitivity , 2015 .

[35]  Sarah M. Kang,et al.  Sensitivity of the Climate Response to the Altitude of Black Carbon in the Northern Subtropics in an Aquaplanet GCM , 2015 .

[36]  Peter Challenor,et al.  The impact of structural error on parameter constraint in a climate model , 2016 .

[37]  Huiping Yan,et al.  Sensitivity of Turbine-Height Wind Speeds to Parameters in Planetary Boundary-Layer and Surface-Layer Schemes in the Weather Research and Forecasting Model , 2016, Boundary-Layer Meteorology.

[38]  Andrew Gettelman,et al.  The Art and Science of Climate Model Tuning , 2017 .

[39]  C. Bretherton,et al.  Variability in modeled cloud feedback tied to differences in the climatological spatial pattern of clouds , 2018, Climate Dynamics.

[40]  J. R. Wilson,et al.  The GFDL Global Atmosphere and Land Model AM4.0/LM4.0: 2. Model Description, Sensitivity Studies, and Tuning Strategies , 2018 .

[41]  L. Lee,et al.  Aerosol and physical atmosphere model parameters are both important sources of uncertainty in aerosol ERF , 2018, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.