Earth and Environmental Sciences Area Logo Earth and Environmental Sciences Area Logo
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Logo
Menu
  • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Organizational Charts
    • Virtual Tours
    • EESA Strategic Vision
  • Our People
    • A-Z People
    • Alumni Network
    • Area Offices
    • Committees
    • Directors
    • IDEA Working Group
    • Paul A. Witherspoon
    • Postdocs & Early Careers
    • Search by Expertise
  • Careers & Opportunities
    • Careers
    • Intern Pilot w/CSUEB
    • Mentorship Program
    • Recognition & Funding Opps
    • EESA Mini Grants
    • S&E Metrics for Performance and Promotion
    • Student Opportunities
    • Supervisor EnRichment (SupER) Program
    • Promotion Metrics (Scientific)
  • Research
    • Area-Wide Program Domain
      • Earth AI & Data
    • Our Divisions
    • Climate & Ecosystem Sciences Division
      • Environmental & Biological Systems Science
        • Programs
        • Environmental Remediation & Water Resources
        • Ecosystems Biology Program
        • Bioenergy
      • Biosphere-Atmosphere Interactions
        • Programs
        • Climate Modeling
        • Atmospheric System Research
        • Terrestrial Ecosystem Science
      • Climate & Atmosphere Processes
        • Programs
        • Climate Modeling
        • Atmospheric System Research
      • Earth Systems & Society
        • Programs
        • Climate Modeling
    • Energy Geosciences Division
      • Discovery Geosciences
        • Programs
        • Basic Energy Sciences (BES) Geophysics
        • Basic Energy Sciences (BES) Geochemistry
        • Basic Energy Sciences (BES) Isotope
      • Energy Resources and Carbon Management
        • Programs
        • Carbon Removal & Mineralization Program
        • Carbon Storage Program
        • Geothermal Systems
        • Hydrocarbon Science
        • Nuclear Energy & Waste
      • Resilient Energy, Water & Infrastructure
        • Programs
        • Water-Energy
        • Critical Infrastructure
        • Environmental Resilience
        • Grid-Scale Subsurface Energy Storage
        • National Alliance for Water Innovation (NAWI)
    • Projects
    • Research at a Glance
    • Publication Lists
    • Centers and Resources
    • Technologies & National User Programs
  • Departments
    • Climate Sciences
    • Ecology
    • Geochemistry
    • Geophysics
    • Hydrogeology
    • Operations
  • News & Events
    • News
    • Events
    • Earth & Environment Newsletter
  • Intranet
  • Safety
    • EESA Safety
  • FoW
  • Search

  • all
  • people
  • events
  • posts
  • pages
  • projects
  • publications

Accurate Calculations of Radiative Forcing by Carbon Dioxide Can Improve Climate Projections5 min read

by Christina Procopiou on August 31, 2018

Climate and Atmosphere Processes Program Domain Climate and Ecosystem Sciences Division GC-Climate Carbon Sink

A snapshot from a model simulation of CO2 traveling through Earth’s atmosphere over the course of a year. IMAGE: NASA’S GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER

This spring, the DOE unveiled a new climate model designed to achieve a number of mission priorities for the agency by not only predicting how climate will change over time–but also determining how those changes might burden the nation’s energy infrastructure. Experts from Berkeley Lab’s Climate and Ecosystem Sciences Division co-led efforts to improve the land component of this new Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM), a product that was in the making for nearly four years by scientists across eight national labs. The collaborators tailor made E3SM to run on the world-leading supercomputers of today and tomorrow with a goal of substantially improving climate predictions by simulating factors that go in to the myriad impacts on climate changes in ultra-fine detail.

For that to happen, however, there needs to be a shift in a fundamental component not just of E3SM, but of each and every climate model that exists. Bill Collins, director of Berkeley Lab’s Climate and Ecosystem Sciences Division, and CESD research scientist Dan Feldman, said as much in an article they authored with Brian Soden of the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science at the University of Miami, Florida, for the July 27 issue of Science.  They argue that it’s time for climate models, which have been in use since the 1960s to adopt a consistent method for calculating radiative forcing by CO2.

Radiative forcing is a quantification of the extent to which human activities and natural events affect the flow of energy into and out of the Earth’s climate system. Global climate models are mathematical representations of this system, which based on the laws of physics represent fundamental physical processes in the atmosphere, ocean, land surface and cryosphere across different time and space scales, and they describe the Earth system response to the increased energy from rising CO2.

In order to calculate CO2 radiative forcing rigorously, a model would have to perform hundreds of calculations at each grid box for each model time-step, and this would inhibit the utility of these models to undertake diverse experiments to gain an understanding of the Earth’s response to rising CO2.  To avoid this problem, models use a parameterization of this radiative forcing, and only perform a few hundred calculations instead. For at least 25 years, the authors argue, there’s been a need for the climate model community to synchronize how they implement this parameterization

“There are about 30 different large climate models. Each one operates using its own parameterization of radiative forcing, which is essentially a look-up table that tells the model how to calculate CO2 radiative forcing for a given set of atmospheric conditions,” Feldman says. “Inconsistencies in these parameterizations create a lot of uncertainties in model projections of climate change.”

The gravity of the problem was brought to light initially 25 years ago when, in the first comprehensive assessment of the calculation of radiative forcing (Cess et al., 1993), the study found that when CO2 was doubled, there was a wide spread in radiative forcing among 15 different global climate models. In their paper for Science, Soden, Collins, and Feldman blame intermodel differences in the parameterization of infrared absorption by CO2 for the discrepancies. Thirteen years later, another more extensive inter-model comparison of radiative forcing using a newer generation of climate models arrived at a similar conclusion (Collins et al., 2006).

“There are about 30 different large climate models. Each one operates using its own parameterization of radiative forcing, which is essentially a look-up table that tells the model how to calculate CO2 radiative forcing for a given set of atmospheric conditions,” Feldman says. “Inconsistencies in these parameterizations create a lot of uncertainties in model projections of climate change.”

This has the potential to have grave effects, according to their Science article, wherein the authors write, “The contributions of erroneous CO2 forcing to the persistent spread in climate projects undermines the utility of these models to answer fundamental questions of central societal importance.”

They go on to advocate for the adoption of two immediate solutions. First, the authors insist that radiative forcing be routinely computed and reported for models that participate in Coupled Model Intercomparison Projects (CMIP), a series of coordinated experiments performed in support of the International Panel on Climate Change assessments. Second, they call for fewer parameterizations in global computer models across the board.

Feldman says that while he and his co-authors are not the first to advocate for similar types of action on this topic, they’re thrilled for the opportunity to make the case before the readers of Science.

“It’s not so often in science that it is clear what needs to be done, but this is one of those cases,” Feldman says. “To have truly reliable climate predictions, it’s critical that climate modelers all be working with roughly the same parameters.

“Once we do, we can move on to the larger issues climate scientists are hoping to resolve: like how clouds respond to climate change; how ecosystems are affected; or how these changes feed back on the Earth’s climate. Only when we reduce the uncertainties in climate models posed by disparate parameterization will we be able to take full advantage of the simulation capabilities of super-sophisticated climate models like E3SM.”

 

News & Events

Daniel Stolper Selected by DOE’s Early Career Research Program2 min read

June 22, 2022

Daniel Stolper is among five Berkeley Lab researchers to receive funding through the Department of Energy’s Early Career Research Program (ECRP), and is one of just 83 nationwide to be selected this year by the DOE for this prestigious award. Stolper is an EESA faculty scientist with a joint appointment at UC Berkeley, where he…

Wageningen Students Visit Ecology Department Team2 min read

On May 31, a delegation of students from Wageningen University & Research Center (WUR) Microbiology and Systems Biology Groups in the Netherlands came to visit EESA’s Ecology department. WUR is a highly esteemed world-class Dutch university that trains specialists in a variety of life sciences disciplines. WUR’s research and teaching activities range from sustainable agriculture…

Strengthening Wildland Fire Science and Scientific Collaboration through New Data Management Platform3 min read

June 13, 2022

  Wildfires are increasing in severity and frequency worldwide. A new report called Spreading like Wildfire: The Rising Threat of Extraordinary Landscape Fires indicates that wildfires are responsible for significant economic, environmental, and sociopolitical damage (UNEP, GRID-Arendal, 2021). They also contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions – thereby further fueling climate change.  Researchers need to…

Bhavna Arora Describes Agricultural Managed Aquifer Recharge5 min read

June 7, 2022

Managed Aquifer Recharge is a water management strategy used to store excess surface water underground and thereby replenish groundwater basins when and where possible. This strategy enables communities to use depleted groundwater basins as natural water storage to augment water supplies and prevent land subsidence. In coastal regions, MAR can be implemented to act as…

  • Our People
    • Area Offices
    • Committees
    • Directors
    • Organizational Charts
    • Postdocs
    • Staff Only
    • Search by Expertise
  • Departments
    • Climate Sciences
    • Ecology
    • Geochemistry
    • Geophysics
    • Hydrogeology
  • Research
    • Climate & Ecosystem Sciences Division
    • Energy Geosciences Division
    • Program Domains
      • Programs
    • Projects
  • Contact
    • 510 486 6455
    • eesawebmaster@lbl.gov
    • Our Identity

Earth and Environmental Sciences Area Logo DOE Earth and Environmental Sciences Area Logo UC

A U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory Managed by the University of California

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory · Earth and Environmental Sciences Area · Privacy & Security Notice