arctic climate change – structure and mechanisms
DESCRIPTION
Arctic climate change – structure and mechanisms. Nils Gunnar Kvamstø, Input from: Øyvind Byrkjedal, Igor Ezau, Asgeir Sorteberg, Ivar Seierstad and David Stephenson. Arctic zonal temperature anomalies (within 60º-90ºN latitudinal zone). Winter, summer, and annual anomalies, 1881-2003 period - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Arctic climate change – structure and mechanisms
Nils Gunnar Kvamstø, Input from: Øyvind Byrkjedal, Igor Ezau, Asgeir Sorteberg, Ivar Seierstad and David Stephenson
2
Arctic zonal temperature anomalies (within 60º-90ºN latitudinal zone)
• Winter, summer, and annual anomalies, 1881-2003 period• All linear trends significant at the 0.01 level• (available from CDIAC, Lugina et al. 2003, updated).
Courtesy P.Groisman
3
Northern Hemisphere temperature anomalies
• Winter, summer, and annual anomalies, 1881-2003 period• All linear trends significant at the 0.01 level• (available from CDIAC, Lugina et al. 2003, updated).
Courtesy P.Groisman
4
Johannessen et al. 2003
Arctic vs. Global Change
DJF Zonal mean Ts anomalies
5
DJF MAM
JJA SON
∆Ts
Vertical structure
Hartman (1994)
Seasonal cycle of Arctic temperature profiles
Hartman (1994)
Inversion
8
DJF MAM
JJA SON
Vertical structure of recent Arctic warming
Graversen et al 2008, Nature
9
Cross-section cold air outbreak, arctic front, Shapiro & Fedor 1989
Sea Ice
Isentropesheight
10
Vertical structure
Hartmann and Wendler J. Clim (2003)
11
Change in mean winter temperature from 1957-58 to 2003-04 for decoupled (left) and coupled (right) PBL cases. After Hartmann and Wendler (2003).
SAT is heavily sensitive to the relative strengths of surface inversions
12
POLAR AMPLIFICATION
• GHG forcing considered to be quite uniform, why polar amplification?
• Ice-albedo feedback
• Cloud feedback
• ”Dynamic feedback”
13
Fixed albedo experiment –> Albedo feedback
Hall (2004)
14
Fixed cloud experiment -> Cloud feedback
Vavrus (2004)
15Alexeev, Langen, Bates (2005)
Ghost forcing -> Dynamical feedback
16
Ghost forcing -> Dynamical feedback
Alexeev, Langen, Bates (2005)
17
___ ENSEMBLE MEAN
ºC
0
2
4
6
8
10
1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080
SRES A1B (CO2 ENDS AT 700 ppm)
4-10ºC
2 Projected changes
CHANGES IN ARCTIC TEMPERATURES FROM 15 CLIMATE MODELS
Sorteberg and Kvamstø (2006)
18
Why is the spread so large?
• Insufficient formulation of processes in GCMs?
• Internal atmospheric variability?
• Differences in external forcing (GHG, aerosols)?
19
LARGE DIFFERENCES IN PROJECTED CLIMATE CHANGE EVEN WHEN SAME FORCING IS USED:
19 CMIP2 MODELS : ZONAL TRENDS IN T2mYEAR 31-60 (ºC/DECADE)
Sorteberg and Kvamstø (2006)
Is this spread entirely due to different models?
20
BCM SPREAD vs MULTIMODEL SPREAD
ANNUAL 5 MEMBER ENSEMBLE MEAN T2m CHANGE
YEAR 1-30 (C)
Sorteberg and Kvamstø (2006)
21
BCM ENSEMBLE SPREAD IN ANNUAL T2m ZONAL MEAN TEMPERATURE CHANGE RELATIVE TO MULTIMODEL SPREAD (%)
60%
40%
20%
YEAR 1-30
Sorteberg and Kvamstø (2006)
22
Role of internal variability w.r.t. multi model spread
Temperature Precipitation
Sorteberg and Kvamstø (2006)
23
Year 61-80
<∆T>
<∆P>
Ensemble mean change
Sorteberg and Kvamstø (2006)
24
Year 61-80
σ∆T
σ∆P
Ensemble spread
Sorteberg and Kvamstø (2006)
25
Year 61-80
S/N; T
S/N; P
Signal to noise ratio
Sorteberg and Kvamstø (2006)
26
Spreads dependence on ensemble size
95% confidence in annual means:
<ΔT>±0.2K <ΔP>±0.1mm/day
What contributes to the large Arctic T variability?
Sorteberg and Kvamstø (2006)
27
CHANGE IN ICELANDIC LOW AT 2CO2
DJF
DJF: ARCTIC TEMP CHANGE
28
THE ICELANDIC LOW: A MAJOR PLAYER ATMOSPHERIC HEAT TRANSPORT INTO THE ARCTIC
29
Surface air temperature change (AR4)
A2
B2 Kattsov, Walsh
DJF (1954 – 2003)
30
Can we trust projected changes? (even with large ensemble sizes)
• Generally too cold troposphere
• Too warm SAT
• Underestimation of precipitation
• Systematic biases in surface pressure distribution (Beaufort high)
• Model problems connected to poles (Randall et al. BAMS, 1999)
31
HIRLAM and ARPEGE comparison with Sodankylä Data http://netfam.fmi.fi/
• Models are missing cold events – model SAT is too warm• Climate variability, diurnal cycle and blocking events are underpredicted
T2m is a heavily used climate parameter.How is the ABL represented in GCMs?
32
Mixing profiles in NERSC LES (dashed) and ARPEGE – large discrepancy in shallow Arctic PBLs
33
A model resolution problem
An analysis of observations and LES data showsthat the standard closure type in todays GCMs e.g.
are not applicable on vertical resolutions > 10-50m
H: If implemented correctly it should work well
z
uk
zz
wu
34
90L:
• 90 vertical layers
• 70 layers increased resolution from 600hPa and below
•10m resolution in the lowest 60 m
31L:
• 31 vercikal layers (standard)
• lowest layer at ca 70m
hPaTest of H
Far too costly – Alt: use analytical functions
35
Simulated vertical temperature profile vs observed data (SHEBA)
90L
31L
Obs
36
Response in Surface Temperature by season (90L-31L)
djf
jja
mam
son
Moderate improvement.Local processes important, butlarge-scale dynamics is playinga significant role as well!
37
5
1 10)ln(
i
p
jjjii tyx
),(~ GammaY
Daily SLP anomalies in Bergen
Highpass filtered SLP variance (2-10d)
const
2
where
GLM:
Seasonality Local SLP + 9 leading PCs
Predictors:
Monthly storminess Y:
Data analysis
Seierstad et al (2007)
38
Can teleconnection patterns provide additional explanation for variations in storminess?
ΔY (%) due to 1σ change in predictors
Yes! But, restricted to local, mostly high latitude areas.
Seierstad et al (2007)
39
Given limited resources, modellershave to make priorities
40
Response Surface flux for DJF (90L-31L)
sensible latent
•Winds (days – weeks)
•Ocean Currents (years to decades)
•Rivers (years to decades)
•Terrestrial cryosphere (centuries and longer)
This is a highly non-linear coupled system
Macdonald et al., 2003
Complexity of the Arctic Climate System
42
Thank you for your attention!