Contributions of anthropogenic and natural forcing to recent tropopause height changes

Science

Volumn 301, Issue 5632, 2003, Pages 479-483

  Santer, B D ^a   Wehner, M F ^b   Wigley, T M L ^c   Sausen, R ^d   Meehl, G A ^c   Taylor, K E ^a   Ammann, C ^c   Arblaster, J ^c   Washington, W M ^c   Boyle, J S ^a   Bruggemann W ^e  

^a LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

^b LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

^c NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH   (United States)

^d GERMAN AEROSPACE CENTER DLR   (Germany)

^e UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE CHANGE; DATA REDUCTION; GREENHOUSE EFFECT; OZONE; STATISTICS; UPPER ATMOSPHERE;

TROPOPAUSE;

TROPOSPHERE;

OZONE;

ANTHROPOGENIC EFFECT; CLIMATE CHANGE; CLIMATE FORCING; OZONE; STRATOSPHERE; TROPOPAUSE;

ARTICLE; ATMOSPHERE; CLIMATE; GLOBAL CHANGE; GREENHOUSE GAS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; STRATOSPHERE; TROPOSPHERE;

EID: 0042867240     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1084123     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. K. P. Hoinka, Mon. Weath. Rev. 126, 3303 (1998).
2. D. J. Seidel, R. J. Ross, J. K. Angell, G. C. Reid, J. Geophys. Res. 106, 7857 (2001).
3. E. J. Highwood, B. J. Hoskins, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 124, 1579 (1998).
4. E. J. Highwood, B. J. Hoskins, P. Berrisford, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 126, 1515 (2000).
5. W. J. Randel, F. Wu, D. J. Gaffen, J. Geophys. Res. 105, 15509 (2000).
6. B. D. Santer et al., J. Geophys. Res. 108, 4002 (2003) (DOI 10.1029/2002JD002258).
7. R. Sausen, B. D. Santer, Meteorol. Zeit. 12, 131 (2003).
8. B. D. Santer et al., Nature 382, 39 (1996).
9. S. F. B. Tett, J. F. B. Mitchell, D. E. Parker, M. R. Allen, Science 274, 1170 (1996).
10. V. Ramaswamy et al., Rev. Geophys. 39, 71 (2001).
11. J. E. Hansen et al., J. Geophys. Res. 107, 4347 (2002) (DOI 10.1029/2001JD001143).
12. W. M. Washington et al., Clim. Dyn. 16, 755 (2000).
13. J. T. Kiehl, T. L. Schneider, R. W. Portmann, S. Solomon, J. Geophys. Res. 104, 31239 (1999).
14. A. Dai, T. M. L. Wigley, B. A. Boville, J. T. Kiehl, L. E. Buja, J. Clim. 14, 485 (2001).
15. D. V. Hoyt, K. H. Schatten, J. Geophys. Res. 98, 18895 (1993).
16. G. A. Meehl, W. M. Washington, T. M. L. Wigley, J. M. Arblaster, A. Dai, J. Clim. 16, 426 (2003).
17. C. Ammann, G. A. Meehl, W. H. Washington, C. S. Zender, Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 1657 (2003) (DOI 10.1029/2003GL016875).
18. The G, A, and O forcings in the PCM experiments are identical to those used in integrations performed with the NCAR Climate System Model (13, 14). Total solar irradiance changes were prescribed according to Hoyt and Schatten (15) and updated as in (16), with no wavelength dependence of the forcing. Volcanic forcing was based on estimates of total sulfate loading and a simplified model of aerosol distribution and decay (17).
19. E. Kalnay et al., Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 77, 437 (1996).
20. J. K. Gibson et al., ECMWF Re-Analysis Project Reports Series 1 (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, UK, 1997), 66 pp.
21. S. Pawson, M. Fiorino, Clim. Dyn. 15, 241 (1999).
22. B. D. Santer et al., J. Geophys. Res. 104, 6305 (1999).
23. World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Meteorology - A Three-Dimensional Science: Second Session of the Commission for Aerology [WMO Bulletin IV(4), WMO, Geneva, 1957], pp. 134-138.
24. T. Reichier, M. Dameris, R. Sausen, D. Nodorp, A Global Climatology of the Tropopause Height Based on ECMWF Analyses (Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Report 57, Deutsche Forschungsanstalt für Luft und Raumfahrt, Wessling, Germany, 1996).
25. LRT are relatively insensitive to the temporal resolution of the input temperature data (3, 6).
26. LRT calculation performed here used monthly mean temperature data at 17 model pressure levels. A similar calculation used the 6-hourly temperature data available at 28 model sigma levels, with higher resolution in the vicinity of the tropical tropopause (6).
27. C. A. Mears, M. C. Schabel, F. W. Wentz, J. Clim., in press.
28. J. R. Christy, R. W. Spencer, W. D. Braswell, J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech. 17, 1153 (2000).
29. The radiative emissions contributing to the T4 and T2 measurements peak at roughly 74 and 595 hPa, respectively. In the tropics, emissions from the troposphere make a substantial contribution to estimated T4 temperatures.
30. B. D. Santer et al., Science 300, 1280 (2003).
31. The total linear change in T4 in NCEP is - 1.65°C over 1979-1999 (32). This is considerably larger than the simulated T4 change of -0.73°C in ALL or the estimated observed MSU T4 changes of -O.93°C (27) and -1.07°C (28). NCEP's excessive stratospheric cooling is due to biases in both the satellite-derived temperature retrievals and the assimilated radiosonde data (6, 21). Because T2 receives a small (roughly 10% globally) contribution from the stratosphere, any error in NCEP's T4 trends will propagate into ΔT2. This partly explains why NCEP's troposphere cools markedly over 1979-1999, with a total linear change in T2 of -0.22°C.
32. The total linear change is defined as b X n, where b is the slope parameter of the linear trend (in hPa per month or °C per month) fitted by the standard least-squares method over a specified period of n months.
33. LRT (over the same interval) due to ALL. This definition is not applicable if the linear change in ALL is close to zero, a situation that never arises here.
34. V. Ramaswamy, M. D. Schwarzkopf, W. Randel, Nature 382, 616 (1996).
35. LRT. Historical increases in tropospheric ozone are expected to warm T2, thereby increasing tropopause height. Such warming is not evident in the O integration (Fig. 2C) because of the cooling effect of stratospheric ozone depletion on the upper troposphere. Figure 2 indicates that in PCM, ozone-induced increases in tropopause height arise primarily through stratospheric ozone depletion and the resultant cooling of T4, not through tropospheric ozone changes.
36. P. A. Stott et al., Science 290, 2133 (2000).
37. Linear changes in tropopause height over 1979-1999 are the sole exception: SUM results are 19% smaller than in ALL. This difference is largely attributable to noise differences. SUM is a linear combination of five climate responses plus five different (ensemble-averaged) noise estimates, and must therefore be noisier than ALL. ALL versus SUM noise differences are likely to have the greatest impact on trends calculated over relatively short periods.
38. K. Hasselmann, in Meteorology of Tropical Oceans, D. B. Shaw, Ed. (Royal Meteorological Society of London, London, UK, 1979), pp. 251-259.
39. B. D. Santer et al., J. Geophys. Res. 100, 10693 (1995).
40. E. Roeckner, L. Bengtsson, J. Feichter, J. Lelieveld, H. Rodhe, J. Clim. 12, 3004 (1999).
41. Two reanalyses (NCEP and ERA) combined with two noise data sets for calculation of natural variability statistics (PCM and ECHAM) yields four nonoptimized detection time estimates.
42. W. J. Randel, F. Wu, W. R. Rios, J. Geophys. Res. 108, 4024 (2003) (DOI 10.1029/2002JD002595).
43. Work at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Sciences Division, contract W-7405-ENG-48. T.M.L.W. was supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Global Programs (Climate Change Data and Detection) grant no. NA87GP0105 and by DOE grant no. DE-FG02-98ER62601. A portion of this study was supported by the DOE Office of Biological and Environmental Research, as part of its Climate Change Prediction Program. The MSU weighting functions were provided by J. Christy (Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville). E. Roeckner (Max-Planck Institut für Meteorologie, Hamburg, Germany) supplied ECHAM control run data. Review comments from B. Hoskins and S. Pawson substantially improved the manuscript. We also thank R. Anthes, W. Randel, and J. Bates for bringing GPS-based monitoring of tropopause height to our attention.