07/09/21

Climate Modelling

•  3rd year, SA Bachelor

Model Hierarchy and Simplified Climate Models

Textbook: Introduction to Climate Modelling (Thomas Stocker)

1

1 Hierarchy of Physical Climate Models

§  There is no best climate
model!
§  Different models have
different advantages

In the Table:
§  Only model types are listed
but each type may be
formulated in different ways
(e.g. resolutions, grid
structures, parameters &
parameterizations, etc.)

§  In order to tackle problems

across the board in climate
dynamics à a model
hierarchy is required

Table: (Incomplete) overview of

the hierarchy of models used for
climate simulations 2

1
 07/09/21

1 Hierarchy of Physical Climate Models

§  Energy balance models (EBMs) belong to the earliest simplified

climate model that were used for the quantitative assessment of
climate change.
§  Advection-diffusion models describe, e.g., the vertical mixing in the
ocean on a global scale in a summarized form
§  Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity (shaded in grey in
the Table of the previous slide) à long-term simulations, particularly
important for paleoclimate dynamics, are based on such models

§  Comprehensive climate models consist of a 3D formulation for the

atmosphere (AGCM, Atmospheric General Circulation Model) as well
as for the ocean (OGCM). The coupling of the two à AOGCM
•  AGCMs, OGCMs, & AOGCMs are classified in the highest levels of the model
hierarchy à extremely demanding with regard to their development,
maintenance, computer time & storage, and finally the analysis of results

0-D EBM

-  S: Solar constant, for the Earth, S=1370W/m2

-  α: planetary albedo (~0.3)
-  σ: Stefan-Boltzman constant (5.6696E-8 W/m2K4).
à Te=-18ºC

•  If in the atmosphere, there are GHGs à surface

temperature Ts >Te.
•  Ts =Te+ΔT or εσ Ts4 = σ Te4
ΔT: greenhouse increment
ε: planetary emissivity
4

2
 07/09/21

1D – EBM

Seller & Budyko (1969)

kt=3.81Wm-2°C -1
A=204.0Wm-2 ,B=2.17Wm-2°C -1

Atm with cloud

3
 07/09/21

Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity

https://wiki.iac.ethz.ch/Climphys/ProjectBern25D

Concept and geometry of the Bern2.5d model (category 1/2), one of the first ESM of
Intermediate Complexity. Ocean currents are averaged zonally and are simulated by
three basins, connected in the south. Thanks to the strongly simplified depiction of
the climate system, simulations spanning over 106 years are possible.

Schematic illustration of model grids in 3D AGCMs & OGCMs

4
 07/09/21

1 Hierarchy of Physical Climate Models

The agreement of the latest

climate models with OBS is
already respectable even for
complex quantities such as
water vapour

Above: MPI Hamburg model simulation of
Relative Humidity (RH,%) at 400 hPa (~7km)
on a day in May
Below: mean RH between 250 and 600 hPa,
based on SSM/T-2 satellite data 9

1 Hierarchy of Physical
Climate Models

§  Model inter-
comparisons: which
variable is more
difficult to simulate:
temperature or
precipitation?

Lehner al. (2020)

5
 07/09/21

1 Hierarchy of Physical Climate Models

§  Model inter-comparisons àlarge deviations among the models
•  Generally, heat, shows the smallest uncertainties and the different
models are more consistent
ü  model differences are largest in polar regions (why?) & temperature
difference of over 20°C occur between models
ü In the tropics, model differences are also increased (why?)
ü because cloud formation affects surface temperature.

Dec-Feb temperature, zonally

averaged for 15 global AOGCMs
(IPCC, 2001) and comparison
with OBS
11

1 Hierarchy of Physical Climate Models

§  Model inter-comparisons à large deviations among the models
•  Precipitation belongs to the most difficult components in climate
modelling
ü deviations were large in regions with high precipitation (tropics, mid-
latitudes)

ü  Systematics differences
to the observations
persist, e.g. in the
southern hemisphere
à Climate projections
regarding rain & associated
extreme events are still
uncertain

Annual-mean, zonally averaged

precipitation amount by 23
AOGCM in IPCC (2007) and
comparison with OBS
12

6
 07/09/21

Model development has

made significant progress in
the past decade
à simulated large-scale
precipitation patterns of
multi-model means now
compare quite well with OBS
(as the averaging process
smoothes out deviations of
individual models)

Annual-mean precipitation, (a) Observed and (b) simulated based on the

multi model mean for the period 1980-1999 (IPCC, 2007).
Grey regions in (a) indicate missing observations

1 Hierarchy of Physical Climate Models

§  Model inter-comparisons à large deviations among the models
•  Distribution of cloud cover
ü deviations between the models from 60° poleward, and in some cases
from the observations are considerable.
à Reveal the current limitations of climate models and point to the
necessary improvements (grid resolution, parameterizations, etc.)

DJF cloud cover in percent, zonally averaged for 10 AGCMs

(IPCC 2001) and comparison with OBS 14

7
 07/09/21

2 Point model of the Radiation Balance

§  EBM-0D (in B2 “Earth System” module)

What is the EBM-0D equation?

(1)

§  Contour lines of Surface Temperature as a function of

planetary albedo (α) and planetary emissivity (ε).
§  The global mean surface temperature derived from
measurements is equal to 14°C (bold line)
§  Tuning process; tunable parameters

§  Now, let’s formulate differently …
15

2 Point model of the Radiation Balance

Consider a slightly more complex EBM
§  Irradiance occurs at the Earth surface at T1, and from
a higher level at T2 (“cirrus clouds”, which are
supposed not to affect the short wave radiation and
hence the albedo). The high-altitude cloud cover
extends over a fraction c of the total area
§  Assume that the Earth’s surface is a “grey” body with
emissivity ε, the cloud cover is a black body.
Model with two radiating layers
à The stationary energy balance for both levels:

(2a)
(2b)

à
(3a)

(3b)

16

8
 07/09/21

2 Point model of the Radiation Balance

(4a)

(4b)

à A more detailed description of the “Earth’s

climate” with more parameters (α,ε,c)
Model with two radiating layers
à  Slide 14 à let c=0.6;
à  let ε≈0.886 à T1=14°C; T2=-38.8°C
(~temperature measured at 8.2 km)

à the atm. has to be regarded as a

continuum because radiative fluxes occur at
all level à radiative-convective models
(category 1/0), which are important
components of AGCMs

Contour lines of equilibrium

temperature (Eq.4a) 17

2 Point model of the Radiation Balance

§  Now, let’s formulate differently …

§  The conservation of the energy of a thin spherical air layer is:

(5)

§  Equation (5) is an ordinary, non-linear differential equation of 1st order for un unknown
time-dependent variable T(t)
§  The second term on the right-hand side à a parameterization of a complex process not
further described in this model à long-wave radiation can be quantified by the classical
grey body radiation with parameter ε (emissivity)
18

9
 07/09/21

2 Point model of the Radiation Balance

(5)

§  If the l.h.s =0 à?
ü equilibrium temperature à Eq. (1)
§  If the Earth is a perfect black body à ?
ü ε=1 à T ≅-18.3°C
§  With the natural greenhouse effect à ? greenhouse increment
ü ΔT ≅ 32.3°C
§  Remote sensing data à can be used to estimate α ( ≈0.3) and ε
(≈0.8 … 0.99 for natural surface areas)
§  For Eq.(1), to obtain a mean temperature of 14°C à ε=0.6206 à
this model parameter is unrealistic for an average Earth surface
§  How to obtain a realistic solution?
19

3 Numerical solution of an ordinary differential equation of 1st order

(5)

§  Let’s examine the time-dependence of Eq.(5)

§  As we look at the temporal behavior of the EBM near the equilibrium à

where is the constant equilibrium temperature in Eq.(1) and is a small time-

dependent temperature perturbation
à Eq.(5) can be written as:
(6)

à Can you estimate f such as:

Hint:

Taylor expansion for y(x)=(1+x)n

20

10
 07/09/21

3 Numerical solution of an ordinary differential equation of 1st order

(6)

(7)

à This is a linear, homogenous differential equation of 1st order for the

temperature perturbation, of which the solution is known

(8)

where a =

21

3 Numerical solution of an ordinary differential equation of 1st order

(7) (8)

§  Solution for Eq.(8) à temperature disturbance in the EBM approximately decays on a

characteristic timescale of τ≈35 days and the radiation equilibrium is attained at T(t)=
§  Temporal behavior is determined by the thermal properties of the atm.
§  is a stable state, because the perturbation approaches 0 for t -> ∞

Question: How to solve Eq.(7) numerically?

§  The problem can be discretized in time
(9)
§  The Euler forward scheme

à (10)

Question: is the numerical solution (3.10) consistent with the analytical solution for
Eq.(8)?
22

11
 07/09/21

3 Numerical solution of an ordinary differential equation of 1st order

(7)

(10)
§  From Eq.(10) à if Δt=1/A à Tn=0; if Δt=2/A à Tn =(-1)nT 0; both results do not
make sense

Numerical solutions of Eq.(7) with initial perturbation =300K computed with the
Euler scheme and time steps of 12, 24, 36, 50 days. The analytical solution is in red;
the results from the classical Runge-Kutta scheme (Δt=50 days) are labeled with
green circles.
23

3 Numerical solution of an ordinary differential equation of 1st order

§  The Euler scheme is the simplest, but also the most inaccurate one-step
scheme. Generally, it solves

(11)

with initial condition y(x0)=y0.

§  for Eq.(5), à y=T, x=t, f(x,y)=(1-α)S0/(4hρc)-εσy4/(hρc)
§  The Euler scheme evaluates derivatives only at the points x and x+Δx
§  The evaluation of f(x,y) et further locations in the interval [x,x+Δx] and by a
suitable linear combination, the error can be reduced from O(Δx) to O(Δxk) à
the scheme of the type Runge-Kutta of order k. For k=4 à the classical Runge-
Kutta scheme:

(12)

24

12
 07/09/21

Practice #4 with Python

(7)

§  Reproduce the following figure with Python

Numerical solutions of (7) with initial

perturbation =300K computed with the
Euler scheme and time steps of 12, 24, 36,
50 days. The analytical solution is in red;
the results from the classical Runge-Kutta
scheme (Δt=50 days) are labelled with
green circles.

Steps to be done:
Initial perturbation 300K, tau=35 days
1)  Plot the analytical red curve
2)  Overlay the numerical solutions using the Euler scheme with different time
steps of 12, 24, 36, 50 days
3)  Overlay the results from the Runge-Kutta scheme with Δt= 50 days 25

13