Role of the Stratosphere in Climate Modelling: The Connection Between the Hadley and the Brewer-Dobson Circulation M. A. Giorgetta (1), E. Manzini (2),

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Decadal Variation of the Holton-Tan Effect Hua Lu, Thomas Bracegirdle, Tony Phillips, Andrew Bushell DynVar/SNAP Workshops, April, 2013, Reading,
Advertisements

Dynamical responses to volcanic forcings in climate model simulations DynVar workshop Matthew Toohey with Kirstin Krüger, Claudia Timmreck, Hauke.
Atmospheric response to North Pacific SST The role of model resolution and synoptic SST variability Guidi Zhou, Mojib Latif, Wonsun Park*, Richard Greatbatch.
The dynamical response to volcanic eruptions: sensitivity of model results to prescribed aerosol forcing Matthew Toohey 1 Kirstin Krüger 1,2, Claudia Timmreck.
Euro-Atlantic winter atmospheric response to the Tropical Atlantic Variability T. Losada (1), B. Rodríguez-Fonseca (1), J. García- Serrano (1) C.R. Mechoso.
Dynamical Time Scales in the Extratropical Lowermost Stratosphere T. Kunz (1), K. Fraedrich (1), R. J. Greatbatch (2) (1) Meteorological Institute, University.
Can the Stratosphere Control the Extratropical Circulation Response to Surface Forcing? Chris Fletcher and Paul Kushner Atmospheric Physics Group University.
Understanding climate model biases in Southern Hemisphere mid-latitude variability Isla Simpson 1 Ted Shepherd 2, Peter Hitchcock 3, John Scinocca 4 (1)
Scientific Advisory Committee Meeting, November 25-26, 2002 Modeling of the Middle and Upper Atmosphere M. A. Giorgetta E. Manzini 1, M. Charron 2, H.
Double ITCZ Phenomena in GCM’s Marcus D. Williams.
The Atmospheric Circulation Response to Climate Change-like Thermal Forcings in a Simple GCM Amy H. Butler 1, David W.J. Thompson 2, & Ross Heikes 2 1.
Modeling the quasi-biennial oscillations Modeling the quasi-biennial oscillations of the zonal wind in the equatorial stratosphere. Kulyamin D.V. MIPT,
Climate modeling Current state of climate knowledge – What does the historical data (temperature, CO 2, etc) tell us – What are trends in the current observational.
Response of the Atmosphere to Climate Variability in the Tropical Atlantic By Alfredo Ruiz–Barradas 1, James A. Carton, and Sumant Nigam University of.
AGU 2006 Highlights Le Kuai Dec. 19, 2006 Le Kuai Dec. 19, 2006.
The comparison of TransCom continuous experimental results at upper troposphere Takashi MAKI, Hidekazu MATSUEDA and TransCom Continuous modelers.
How to move the gravity-wave parameterization problem forward? Some thoughts Ted Shepherd Department of Physics University of Toronto NCAR TIIMES Gravity-Wave.
28 August 2006Steinhausen meeting Hamburg On the integration of weather and climate prediction Lennart Bengtsson.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Princeton, NJ Evolution of Stratospheric.
Solar Forcing on Climate Through Stratospheric Ozone Change Le Kuai.
Can we trust the simulated gravity-wave response to climate change? Ted Shepherd Department of Physics University of Toronto NCAR TIIMES Gravity-Wave Retreat,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory Princeton, NJ Evolution of Stratospheric.
Experiments with WACCM: A sensitivity study. OUTLINE Why is a parameterization of gravity waves important? Middle atmosphere (stratosphere + mesosphere)
© dhwpe. Tropospheric Circulation Changes in Response to a Stratospheric Zonal Ozone Anomaly - Model Results Dieter H.W. Peters, A. Schneidereit, Ch.
Dynamical control of ozone transport and chemistry from satellite observations and CCMs Mark Weber 1, Ingo Wohltmann 2, Veronika Eyring 3, Markus Rex 2,
Solar Variability and Climate: From Mechanisms to Models
Sensitivity of Methane Lifetime to Sulfate Geoengineering: Results from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) Giovanni Pitari V. Aquila,
*K. Ikeda (CCSR, Univ. of Tokyo) M. Yamamoto (RIAM, Kyushu Univ.)
© Crown copyright Met Office The Brewer-Dobson circulation in the CMIP5 simulations Steven Hardiman and Neal Butchart (Met Office Hadley Centre) Natalia.
Coupled Climate Models OCEAN-ATMOSPHEREINTERACTIONS.
Climate Modelling Perspectives Marco Giorgetta Max Planck Institute for Meteorology ESA CCI project integration meeting ECMWF, March 2011.
Interactions between volcanic eruptions and El Niño: Studies with a coupled atmosphere-ocean model C. Timmreck, M. Thomas, M. Giorgetta, M. Esch, H.-F.
Temperature trends in the upper troposphere/ lower stratosphere as revealed by CCMs and AOGCMs Eugene Cordero, Sium Tesfai Department of Meteorology San.
Dynamical Downscaling: Assessment of model system dependent retained and added variability for two different regional climate models Christopher L. Castro.
Climate change and stratosphere-troposphere coupling: Key questions Eugene Cordero, Nathan Gillett, Michael Sigmond, Shigeo Yoden.
기후모델 : 기후변화연구의 인프라 Climate Model: Infrastructure for Climate Change Research Wonsun Park Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences Kiel, Germany KOFST Ultra.
Influences of the 11-year solar cycle on the tropical atmosphere and oceans Stergios Misios and Hauke Schmidt Max Planck Institute for Meteorology TOSCA.
Extra-tropical climate and the modelling of the stratosphere in coupled atmosphere ocean models. E Manzini Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia.
Impact of global warming on tropical cyclone structure change with a 20-km-mesh high-resolution global model Hiroyuki Murakami (AESTO/MRI, Japan) Akio.
Past and Future Changes in Southern Hemisphere Tropospheric Circulation and the Impact of Stratospheric Chemistry-Climate Coupling Collaborators: Steven.
Sensitivity of Antarctic climate to the distribution of ozone depletion Nathan Gillett, University of East Anglia Sarah Keeley, University of East Anglia.
CLIMARES WP 110 Climate model scenarios for the Arctic region for the next decades Current state: Klaus Dethloff, AWI WP Leader: Erich Roeckner, MPI Planing.
IAC ETH, 26 October 2004 Sub-project: Effects of Solar irradiance variability on the atmosphere (steady-state sensitivity study) Progress report (final)
For more information about this poster please contact Gerard Devine, School of Earth and Environment, Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT.
The Effect of Removing a Well-Resolved Stratosphere on the Simulation of the Tropospheric Climate, and Climate Change Michael Sigmond (University of Victoria)
The role of Mediterranean mesoscale eddies on the climate of the Euro-Mediterranean region by A. Bellucci 1, S. Gualdi 1,2, E. Scoccimarro 2, A. Sanna.
Development of Climate Change Scenarios of Rainfall and Temperature over the Indian region Potential Impacts: Water Resources Water Resources Agriculture.
London 2 May 2008 Extreme (European) Windstorms and Expected Changes in a Warmer Climate Lennart Bengtsson Professor ESSC, University of Reading Max Planck.
Camp et al. (2003) illustrated that two leading modes of tropical total ozone variability exhibit structrures of the QBO and the solar cycle. Figure (1)
INGV-CMCC contribution to CLIMARES proposal Silvio Gualdi and Elisa Manzini CLIMARES meeting October 2009, Bergen.
Dynamical balances and tropical stratospheric upwelling Bill Randel and Rolando Garcia NCAR Thanks to: Qiang Fu, Andrew Gettelman, Rei Ueyama, Mike Wallace,
Dynamical Influence on Inter-annual and Decadal Ozone Change Sandip Dhomse, Mark Weber,
Contribution of MPI to CLIMARES Erich Roeckner, Dirk Notz Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg.
Climatic implications of changes in O 3 Loretta J. Mickley, Daniel J. Jacob Harvard University David Rind Goddard Institute for Space Studies How well.
Advances in Fundamental Climate Dynamics John M. Wallace et al.
Analysis of Typhoon Tropical Cyclogenesis in an Atmospheric General Circulation Model Suzana J. Camargo and Adam H. Sobel.
Arctic climate simulations by coupled models - an overview - Annette Rinke and Klaus Dethloff Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Research.
Dynamical control of ozone transport and chemistry from satellite observations and coupled chemistry climate models Mark Weber 1, Sandip Dhomse 1, Ingo.
WAVE DYNAMICS OF THE STRATOSPHERE AND MESOSPHERE Andrew Moss Centre for Space, Atmospheric and Oceanic Science, University of Bath.
Our water planet and our water hemisphere
CCSM Working Group Meeting, February 2008
Description of the climate system and of its components
AS REPRESENTED BY HIGH RESOLUTION CMCC CLIMATE MODELS
Edwin Gerber (New York University)
How ozone affects global precipitation
Alexey Karpechko & Elisa Manzini
Extratropical stratoshere-troposphere exchange in a 20-km-mesh AGCM
Winter climate change and stratosphere-troposphere interaction
Comparing the Greenhouse Sensitivities of CCM3 and ECHAM4.5
Climatic implications of changes in O3
Presentation transcript:

Role of the Stratosphere in Climate Modelling: The Connection Between the Hadley and the Brewer-Dobson Circulation M. A. Giorgetta (1), E. Manzini (2), M. Esch (1) and E. Roeckner (1) (1) Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany (2) Istituto di Geofisica e Vulcanologia and Centro Euro- Mediterraneo per i Cambiamenti Climatici, Bologna, Italy

Motivation The tropospheric mean circulation in a GCM depends on the representation of the stratosphere [Boville 1984] Tropospheric weather is sensitive to the state of the stratosphere [Baldwin et al. 2003] Are climate change projections sensitive to the stratospheric representation? (Most AOGCMs used for AR4 do not fully resolve the stratosphere)  Investigate and demonstrate effects of different models of the stratosphere on the tropospheric climate in GCM experiments  Contribute to SPARC DynVar “Top”

Aims of this work  Explore effects of “Low Top” vs. “High Top” GCMs  Low top atmosphere: troposphere + lower stratosphere lower stratosphere = upper boundary region of AGCM  High top atmosphere: trop. + strat. + lower mesosphere Use coupled atmosphere ocean GCM to explore effects of different stratospheric representations on the tropospheric climate Use atmospheric GCMs with prescribed lower boundary conditions

Experimental design MPI-M AGCMs and AOGCMs: ECHAM5 Low Top atmosphere, p top = 10 hPa (Roeckner et al. 2006) MAECHAM5High Top atmosphere, p top = 0.01 hPa (Manzini et al. 2006) ECHAM5/MPIOMLow top atmosphere / ocean (Jungclaus et al. 2006) MAECHAM5/MPIOMHigh top atmosphere / ocean AM-LOW ECHAM5(T63L31) AMIP2 SST+ice ( ) AM-HIGH MAECHAM5(T63L47) AMIP2 SST+ice ( ) CM-LOW ECHAM5(T63L31)/MPIOM(GR1.5L40) 100 years (CTRL exp. for IPCC AR4) CM-HIGH MAECHAM5(T63L47)/MPIOM(GR1.5L40) 100 years

Experimental design Common features of all 4 experiments Horizontal atmospheric resolution T63 / ~1.9°x1.9° Troposph. vertical grid: 26levels in [surface, 110hPa] Dynamics and processes in troposphere Ocean model: ~1.5° resolution, 40 levels Differences Vertical resolutions from ~110 hPa to 0 hPa Low top:31 levels, 5 levels in ]110,10] hPa High top:47 levels, 9 levels in ]110, 10] hPa +12 levels in ]10, 0.01] hPa

Experimental design Differences (cont.) Horizontal diffusion: dx/dt = -(-1) q ∙K x ∙ ∇ 2q x, 2q=8 Low top:  To avoid spurious wave reflection at the upper boundary, the order of hyper-diffusion is reduced in the stratosphere: 2q=(6,4,2,2,2) at (90, 70, 50, 30, 10 hPa)  Acts on waves, incl. large scale waves, and zonal mean High top:  Equal order of hyper-diffusion 2q=8 at all levels Gravity wave drag parameterization Low top:  Orographic GWD (Lott and Miller, 1999) High top:  Orographic GWD (Lott and Miller, 1999)  GWD from a spectrum of gravity wave with atmospheric sources. (Hines, 1997)

Coupled experiments Low top: CM31 is a ~500 year control experiment for CMIP3 High top: CM47 is started from an ocean state of the CM31 simulation, the atmosphere is initialized at the new vertical resolution Initial drift of CM47 over ~60 years Compare years 61 to 160 of CM47 with a 100 year period of CM31

Questions Is the tropospheric climate different between the Low Top and High Top CM simulations? What differences occur if the lower boundary conditions (SST+ice) are prescribed – and how much do these changes correspond to changes in the coupled system? Which mechanisms induce these changes?

Coupled model Annual mean temperature T (K)

Coupled model Annual mean U (m/s)

Coupled model Annual mean residual vertical velocity w* (mm/s)

Coupled model vs. uncoupled model Annual mean temperature T (K)

 Common in coupled and AMIP experiments  T is significantly changed in the stratosphere and upper tropical troposphere  Hadley circulation stronger in high top model  Brewer-Dobson circulation stronger in high top model  Differences  AMIP: dT in troposphere is ~0 below 300 hPa  Coupled: dT = ~0.5 K in troposphere below 200 hPa  Differences between coupled experiments must be explained by different stratospheric forcing terms and resolution effects

Dynamical forcing terms in the stratosphere dU/dt|dyn = dU/dt by Div. of EP-flux

Conclusions A low and high top AGCM has been used for uncoupled and coupled experiments to explore effects of different models of the stratosphere on the troposphere Using identical resolution in the troposphere and the same tropospheric parameterizations, the tropospheric climate changes under the influence of the stratospheric dynamics. The analysis of dynamical forcing terms shows: Horizontal diffusion acting on large scale waves becomes visible as a strong difference in EP flux divergence at 50 hPa Horizontal diffusion is also non-negligible in the zonal mean Between 50 hPa and 10 hPa, the change in Div.F drives the changes in the Brewer-Dobson circulation and thereafter the Hadley circulation changes  Stratospheric representation matters for tropospheric climate N.B.:Resolution effects would be much larger for better resolution. Use of MAECHAM5 with ~90 layers would generate QBO  Amplification of interannual variability See also poster of Shaw and Shepherd

END