Identifying climate model structural inconsistencies allows for tight constraint of aerosol radiative forcing

Aerosol radiative forcing uncertainty affects estimates of climate sensitivity and limits model skill in terms of making climate projections. Efforts to improve the representations of physical processes in climate models, including extensive comparisons with observations, have not significantly cons...

Ful tanımlama

Detaylı Bibliyografya
Asıl Yazarlar: Regayre, LA, Deaconu, L, Grosvenor, DP, Sexton, DMH, Symonds, C, Langton, T, Watson-Paris, D, Mulcahy, JP, Pringle, KJ, Richardson, M, Johnson, JS, Rostron, JW, Gordon, H, Lister, G, Stier, P, Carslaw, KS
Materyal Türü: Journal article
Dil:English
Baskı/Yayın Bilgisi: Copernicus Publications 2023
_version_ 1826311223375822848
author Regayre, LA
Deaconu, L
Grosvenor, DP
Sexton, DMH
Symonds, C
Langton, T
Watson-Paris, D
Mulcahy, JP
Pringle, KJ
Richardson, M
Johnson, JS
Rostron, JW
Gordon, H
Lister, G
Stier, P
Carslaw, KS
author_facet Regayre, LA
Deaconu, L
Grosvenor, DP
Sexton, DMH
Symonds, C
Langton, T
Watson-Paris, D
Mulcahy, JP
Pringle, KJ
Richardson, M
Johnson, JS
Rostron, JW
Gordon, H
Lister, G
Stier, P
Carslaw, KS
author_sort Regayre, LA
collection OXFORD
description Aerosol radiative forcing uncertainty affects estimates of climate sensitivity and limits model skill in terms of making climate projections. Efforts to improve the representations of physical processes in climate models, including extensive comparisons with observations, have not significantly constrained the range of possible aerosol forcing values. A far stronger constraint, in particular for the lower (most-negative) bound, can be achieved using global mean energy balance arguments based on observed changes in historical temperature. Here, we show that structural deficiencies in a climate model, revealed as inconsistencies among observationally constrained cloud properties in the model, limit the effectiveness of observational constraint of the uncertain physical processes. We sample the uncertainty in 37 model parameters related to aerosols, clouds, and radiation in a perturbed parameter ensemble of the UK Earth System Model and evaluate 1 million model variants (different parameter settings from Gaussian process emulators) against satellite-derived observations over several cloudy regions. Our analysis of a very large set of model variants exposes model internal inconsistencies that would not be apparent in a small set of model simulations, of an order that may be evaluated during model-tuning efforts. Incorporating observations associated with these inconsistencies weakens any forcing constraint because they require a wider range of parameter values to accommodate conflicting information. We show that, by neglecting variables associated with these inconsistencies, it is possible to reduce the parametric uncertainty in global mean aerosol forcing by more than 50 %, constraining it to a range (around −1.3 to −0.1 W m−2) in close agreement with energy balance constraints. Our estimated aerosol forcing range is the maximum feasible constraint using our structurally imperfect model and the chosen observations. Structural model developments targeted at the identified inconsistencies would enable a larger set of observations to be used for constraint, which would then very likely narrow the uncertainty further and possibly alter the central estimate. Such an approach provides a rigorous pathway to improved model realism and reduced uncertainty that has so far not been achieved through the normal model development approach.
first_indexed 2024-03-07T08:06:37Z
format Journal article
id oxford-uuid:74ede079-5d08-4a5b-a19c-a75b0f7b5d35
institution University of Oxford
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-07T08:06:37Z
publishDate 2023
publisher Copernicus Publications
record_format dspace
spelling oxford-uuid:74ede079-5d08-4a5b-a19c-a75b0f7b5d352023-11-02T09:19:40ZIdentifying climate model structural inconsistencies allows for tight constraint of aerosol radiative forcingJournal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:74ede079-5d08-4a5b-a19c-a75b0f7b5d35EnglishSymplectic ElementsCopernicus Publications2023Regayre, LADeaconu, LGrosvenor, DPSexton, DMHSymonds, CLangton, TWatson-Paris, DMulcahy, JPPringle, KJRichardson, MJohnson, JSRostron, JWGordon, HLister, GStier, PCarslaw, KSAerosol radiative forcing uncertainty affects estimates of climate sensitivity and limits model skill in terms of making climate projections. Efforts to improve the representations of physical processes in climate models, including extensive comparisons with observations, have not significantly constrained the range of possible aerosol forcing values. A far stronger constraint, in particular for the lower (most-negative) bound, can be achieved using global mean energy balance arguments based on observed changes in historical temperature. Here, we show that structural deficiencies in a climate model, revealed as inconsistencies among observationally constrained cloud properties in the model, limit the effectiveness of observational constraint of the uncertain physical processes. We sample the uncertainty in 37 model parameters related to aerosols, clouds, and radiation in a perturbed parameter ensemble of the UK Earth System Model and evaluate 1 million model variants (different parameter settings from Gaussian process emulators) against satellite-derived observations over several cloudy regions. Our analysis of a very large set of model variants exposes model internal inconsistencies that would not be apparent in a small set of model simulations, of an order that may be evaluated during model-tuning efforts. Incorporating observations associated with these inconsistencies weakens any forcing constraint because they require a wider range of parameter values to accommodate conflicting information. We show that, by neglecting variables associated with these inconsistencies, it is possible to reduce the parametric uncertainty in global mean aerosol forcing by more than 50 %, constraining it to a range (around −1.3 to −0.1 W m−2) in close agreement with energy balance constraints. Our estimated aerosol forcing range is the maximum feasible constraint using our structurally imperfect model and the chosen observations. Structural model developments targeted at the identified inconsistencies would enable a larger set of observations to be used for constraint, which would then very likely narrow the uncertainty further and possibly alter the central estimate. Such an approach provides a rigorous pathway to improved model realism and reduced uncertainty that has so far not been achieved through the normal model development approach.
spellingShingle Regayre, LA
Deaconu, L
Grosvenor, DP
Sexton, DMH
Symonds, C
Langton, T
Watson-Paris, D
Mulcahy, JP
Pringle, KJ
Richardson, M
Johnson, JS
Rostron, JW
Gordon, H
Lister, G
Stier, P
Carslaw, KS
Identifying climate model structural inconsistencies allows for tight constraint of aerosol radiative forcing
title Identifying climate model structural inconsistencies allows for tight constraint of aerosol radiative forcing
title_full Identifying climate model structural inconsistencies allows for tight constraint of aerosol radiative forcing
title_fullStr Identifying climate model structural inconsistencies allows for tight constraint of aerosol radiative forcing
title_full_unstemmed Identifying climate model structural inconsistencies allows for tight constraint of aerosol radiative forcing
title_short Identifying climate model structural inconsistencies allows for tight constraint of aerosol radiative forcing
title_sort identifying climate model structural inconsistencies allows for tight constraint of aerosol radiative forcing
work_keys_str_mv AT regayrela identifyingclimatemodelstructuralinconsistenciesallowsfortightconstraintofaerosolradiativeforcing
AT deaconul identifyingclimatemodelstructuralinconsistenciesallowsfortightconstraintofaerosolradiativeforcing
AT grosvenordp identifyingclimatemodelstructuralinconsistenciesallowsfortightconstraintofaerosolradiativeforcing
AT sextondmh identifyingclimatemodelstructuralinconsistenciesallowsfortightconstraintofaerosolradiativeforcing
AT symondsc identifyingclimatemodelstructuralinconsistenciesallowsfortightconstraintofaerosolradiativeforcing
AT langtont identifyingclimatemodelstructuralinconsistenciesallowsfortightconstraintofaerosolradiativeforcing
AT watsonparisd identifyingclimatemodelstructuralinconsistenciesallowsfortightconstraintofaerosolradiativeforcing
AT mulcahyjp identifyingclimatemodelstructuralinconsistenciesallowsfortightconstraintofaerosolradiativeforcing
AT pringlekj identifyingclimatemodelstructuralinconsistenciesallowsfortightconstraintofaerosolradiativeforcing
AT richardsonm identifyingclimatemodelstructuralinconsistenciesallowsfortightconstraintofaerosolradiativeforcing
AT johnsonjs identifyingclimatemodelstructuralinconsistenciesallowsfortightconstraintofaerosolradiativeforcing
AT rostronjw identifyingclimatemodelstructuralinconsistenciesallowsfortightconstraintofaerosolradiativeforcing
AT gordonh identifyingclimatemodelstructuralinconsistenciesallowsfortightconstraintofaerosolradiativeforcing
AT listerg identifyingclimatemodelstructuralinconsistenciesallowsfortightconstraintofaerosolradiativeforcing
AT stierp identifyingclimatemodelstructuralinconsistenciesallowsfortightconstraintofaerosolradiativeforcing
AT carslawks identifyingclimatemodelstructuralinconsistenciesallowsfortightconstraintofaerosolradiativeforcing