Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

American Geophysical Union, Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 10(14), 2022

DOI: 10.1029/2022ms002991

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Apportionment of the Pre‐Industrial to Present‐Day Climate Forcing by Methane Using UKESM1: The Role of the Cloud Radiative Effect

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Published version: archiving restricted
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

AbstractThe Year 1850 to 2014 increase in methane from 808 to 1831 ppb leads to an effective radiative forcing (ERF) of 0.97 ± 0.04 W m−2 in the United Kingdom's Earth System Model, UKESM1. The direct methane contribution is 0.54 ± 0.04 W m−2. It is better represented in UKESM1 than in its predecessor model HadGEM2 due to shortwave and longwave absorption improvements and the absence of an anomalous dust response in the UKESM1 simulations. An indirect ozone ERF of 0.13–0.20 W m−2 is due to the tropospheric ozone increase outweighing that of the stratospheric decrease. The indirect water vapor ERF of 0.02–0.07 W m−2 is consistent with previous estimates. The methane increase also leads to a cloud radiative effect of 0.12 ± 0.02 W m−2 from thermodynamic adjustments and aerosol‐cloud interactions (aci). Shortwave and longwave contributions of 0.23 and −0.35 W m−2 to the cloud forcing arise from radiative heating and stabilization of the upper troposphere, reducing convection and global cloud cover. The aerosol‐mediated contribution (0.28–0.30 W m−2) is due to changes in oxidants reducing new particle formation (−8%), shifting the aerosol size distribution toward fewer but larger particles. Cloud droplet number concentration decreases and cloud droplet effective radius increases. This reduction in the Twomey effect switches the cloud forcing sign (−0.14 to 0.12 W m−2) and is due to chemistry‐aerosol‐cloud coupling in UKESM1. Despite uncertainties in rapid adjustments and process representation in models, these results highlight the potential importance of chemistry‐aerosol‐cloud interactions and dynamical adjustments in climate forcing.