ASL410

IPCC AR5, Parameter Sensitivity and Observational

Constraints
 Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs)

These are greenhouse gas concentration trajectories /

pathways adopted by the IPCC for the AR5
The CMIP5 model integrations are carried out using these
pathways of greenhouse gas concentrations
Greenhouse gas concentration pathways are not the same
as emission pathways
The pathways are designed taking into consideration the
combined effect of emissions and likely mitigation
strategies by the Governments
Each of these scenarios are considered as likely
Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs)

Atmospheric CO2-equivalent concentrations (ppmv) of all forcing agents

 Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs)

The four scenarios represent the radiative forcing values

in 2100 as compared to the PI
RCP2.6 assumes that the emissions peak around 2020,
with substantial decline after that
RCP4.5 peaks around 2040, then decline
RCP6.0 peaks around 2080, then decline
RCP8.5 emissions keep rising throughout the 21 st
century
Uncertainties of Global Warming Projections in Climate Models

Two approaches:
Multi-model ensemble -- collection of the outputs from
the worlds climate models
Perturbed-physics ensemble -- single model structure
perturbed with uncertain physical parameters
 Rainfall change under global warming
June-Aug., 2070-2099 avg minus 1961-90 avg.

CMIP5 Multi-model Ensemble Mean*

Analysis: J. Meyerson (mm/day)

Red line: climatological 4 mm/day contour *Early ensemble (14 model) CMIP5
 CMIP5 examples of individual model rainfall change
Rainfall change: June-Aug., 2070-2099 avg minus 1961-90 avg.

(mm/day)
Analysis: J. Meyerson
Red line: climatological 4 mm/day contour CMIP5
 CMIP5 examples of individual model precip change
Precipitation change: June-Aug., 2070-2099 avg minus 1961-90 avg.

(mm/day)
Red line: climatological 4 mm/day contour CMIP5
 CMIP5 examples of individual model precip change
Precipitation change: June-Aug., 2070-2099 avg minus 1961-90 avg.

(mm/day)
Red line: climatological 4 mm/day contour CMIP5
Parameter Perturbation in a Single Model to Examine
Hydrological Cycle Sensitivity
Experimental Setup:

Fully coupled Community Earth System Model (CESM) 1.0.5

with res. 1.90x2.50, Finite Volume
20-year runs for Historical and RCP8.5 periods
Parameters affecting moist processes perturbed through a
feasible range- range of values that cannot be excluded a
priori
Perturbed experimental run branch from standard parameter
simulation (1976-2071)
Precip change under global warming for control values
JJA Prec. Anom. 2071-2090 1976-1995

(mm/day)

Stippled for T-test at 5% level

 CESM1 param. sensitivity of RCP8.5 prec. change
JJA Prec. Anom. 2071-2090 1976-1995
downdraft fraction across case 0.75 minus case 0

(mm/day)

Stippled for T-test at 5% level Downdraft fraction

 CESM1 param. sensitivity of RCP8.5 prec. change
JJA Prec. Anom. 2071-2090 1976-1995
deep convective adjustment time across case 240 min minus case 30 min

(mm/day)

Stippled for T-test at 5% level Deep convection adjustment time

 CESM1 param. sensitivity of RCP8.5 prec. change
JJA Prec. Anom. 2071-2090 1976-1995
entrainment across case at 2km -1 minus case 0

Stippled for T-test at 5% level Entrainment parameter dmpdz

Can we narrow the parameter range from observations?

DJF JJA

JJA DJF
 Observational Constraints on Entrainment
Parameter Using Process-Oriented Diagnostics
 A simple way of quantifying convective onset:
Precipitation binned by column water vapor, w
Nauru ARM data: gauge &
radiosonde

CWV useful because lots of

microwave data available

Buoyancy & precipitation

pickup at high CWV

Entraining convective
available potential energy
(CAPE) can match onset---if
include enough turbulent Column water vapor, w (mm)
entrainment into convecting
parcel

Temperature dependence of the onset --->

Neelin, Peters, Lin, Holloway & Hales, 2008, Phil Trans. Roy. Soc. A
 CAPE
Convective Available Potential Energy (CAPE)

Traditional definition assumes an adiabatic ascent, but we

will be using an entraining plume
Radiosonde Launch Sites

NOAA Image
 A simple way of quantifying convective onset:
Precipitation binned by column water vapor, w
Nauru ARM data: gauge &
radiosonde

CWV useful because lots of

microwave data available

Buoyancy & precipitation

pickup at high CWV

Entraining convective
available potential energy
(CAPE) can match onset---if
include enough turbulent Column water vapor, w (mm)
entrainment into convecting
parcel

Temperature dependence of the onset --->

Neelin, Peters, Lin, Holloway & Hales, 2008, Phil Trans. Roy. Soc. A
Precip.* dependence on tropospheric temperature & column
water vapor, w
Averages
conditioned^on vert. E. Pacific
avg. temp. T, as well
as w (T 200-1000mb
from ERA40
reanalysis)

Power law fits above

critical to est. critical
wc of rapid pickup

Column water vapor

Neelin, Peters & Hales, 2009 JAS
*Hilburn & Wentz (2008) microwave retrievals; based on cloud water, focus on
pickup not curvature at high w; hard to validate at highest values
 Tropospheric temperature T (k) ^
T E. Pacific
Defines an empirical 269
thermodynamic surface for the 270 x
onset of strong convection to test 271
models 272
273
Not a constant fraction of 274
column saturation

Column water vapor

 Updraft Mass Flux

A standard continuity expression

for updraft mass flux

UMF
Entrainment
Detrainment
 Conserved Variables
Ice-liquid water Equivalent Potential Temperature ( e,il)
Total Moisture (qt)

The equivalent potential temperature is found by lowering an air parcel

to the 1000 mb level and releasing the latent heat in the parcel

r conserved variable
k pressure level
p pressure interval (5 hPa)
Mixing coefficient

For simplicity, assume there is precipitation production but no rainfall all the condensate is
retained by the parcel in the form of cloud water (below the freezing level) and cloud ice
(above)
 Entrainment Profiles
C1 C4
 Deep Convective Trigger

One of the frequently used triggers is the Convective

Available Potential Energy (CAPE)

Traditional definition assumes an adiabatic ascent, but we

will be using an entraining plume
 Numerical Experiment Design

Generate idealized profiles of temperature and humidity,

such that for each T profile there is a wide range of
humidity profiles (0.51 0.99 in the free troposphere,
with the same profile in the boundary layer and a
transition layer above, and fixed above 800 hPa)
Estimate entraining CAPE for each of these pseudo-
soundings for different entrainment assumptions
Results from One-Dimensional
Entraining Plume Model

Sahany et al. 2012, JAS

Obs. & model compared to simple convective plume instability
calculation with different entrainment assumptions

Entraining CAPE contours of 100 J/kg for the plume calculations

Column water vapor w (mm)

tr ong bo undary
r y s ent o nset
e
V ainm Plum
e
entr

CAM3.5
entrainment
Low
entrainment

Low values of entrainment are inconsistent with observed onset

Sahany et al. 2012, JAS
Precipitation pickup for a 25-year AMIP run with CAM4 at T31 High
Entrainment

Distinct onset of deep convection

30
 Precipitation pickup for a 25-year AMIP run with CAM4 at T31
No Entrainment

No distinct onset : deep convection gets decoupled from atmospheric humidity

31
Narrowed Parameter Range from Observations
 CESM1 param. sensitivity of RCP8.5 prec. change
JJA Prec. Anom. 2071-2090 1976-1995
entrainment across case at 2km -1 minus case 0

Stippled for T-test at 5% level Entrainment parameter dmpdz

 CESM1 param. sensitivity of RCP8.5 prec. change
JJA Prec. Anom. 2071-2090 1976-1995
entrainment for narrowed range across case at 1.5km -1 minus case 0.5

(mm/day)

Stippled for T-test at 5% level Entrainment parameter dmpdz

 AR5 Projected Change in Annual Mean Surface Temperature

Hatching indicates regions where the multi-model mean is small compared to natural
internal variability (i.e., less than one standard deviation of natural internal variability in 20-
year means)
Stippling indicates regions where the multi-model mean is large compared to natural internal
variability (i.e., greater than two standard deviations of natural internal variability in 20-year
means) and where at least 90% of models agree on the sign of change
 AR5 Projected Change in Average Annual Mean Rainfall

Hatching indicates regions where the multi-model mean is small compared to natural
internal variability (i.e., less than one standard deviation of natural internal variability in 20-
year means)
Stippling indicates regions where the multi-model mean is large compared to natural internal
variability (i.e., greater than two standard deviations of natural internal variability in 20-year
means) and where at least 90% of models agree on the sign of change