A review of forecast error covariance statistics in atmospheric variational data assimilation. I: Characteristics and measurements of forecast error covariances

How well do we understand and evaluate climate change feedback processes?

Processes in the climate system that can either amplify or dampen the climate response to an external perturbation are referred to as climate feedbacks. Climate sensitivity estimates depend critically on radiative feedbacks associated with water vapor, lapse rate, clouds, snow, and sea ice, and global estimates of these feedbacks differ among general circulation models. By reviewing recent observational, numerical, and theoretical studies, this paper shows that there has been progress since the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in (i) the understanding of the physical mechanisms involved in these feedbacks, (ii) the interpretation of intermodel differences in global estimates of these feedbacks, and (iii) the development of methodologies of evaluation of these feedbacks (or of some components) using observations. This suggests that continuing developments in climate feedback research will progressively help make it possible to constrain the GCMs’ range of climate feedbacks and climate sensitivity through an ensemble of diagnostics based on physical understanding and observations.

Diagnostic analysis of atmospheric moisture and clear-sky radiative feedback in the Hadley Centre and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) climate models

The interannual variability of the hydrological cycle is diagnosed from the Hadley Centre and Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) climate models, both of which are forced by observed sea surface temperatures. The models produce a similar sensitivity of clear-sky outgoing longwave radiation to surface temperature of ∼2 W m−2 K−1, indicating a consistent and positive clear-sky radiative feedback. However, differences between changes in the temperature lapse-rate and the height dependence of moisture fluctuations suggest that contrasting mechanisms bring about this result. The GFDL model appears to give a weaker water vapor feedback (i.e., changes in specific humidity). This is counteracted by a smaller upper tropospheric temperature response to surface warming, which implies a compensating positive lapse-rate feedback.

Spatial analysis of the error in a model of soil nitrogen

Models of the dynamics of nitrogen in soil (soil-N) can be used to aid the fertilizer management of a crop. The predictions of soil-N models can be validated by comparison with observed data. Validation generally involves calculating non-spatial statistics of the observations and predictions, such as their means, their mean squared-difference, and their correlation. However, when the model predictions are spatially distributed across a landscape the model requires validation with spatial statistics. There are three reasons for this: (i) the model may be more or less successful at reproducing the variance of the observations at different spatial scales; (ii) the correlation of the predictions with the observations may be different at different spatial scales; (iii) the spatial pattern of model error may be informative. In this study we used a model, parameterized with spatially variable input information about the soil, to predict the mineral-N content of soil in an arable field, and compared the results with observed data. We validated the performance of the N model spatially with a linear mixed model of the observations and model predictions, estimated by residual maximum likelihood. This novel approach allowed us to describe the joint variation of the observations and predictions as: (i) independent random variation that occurred at a fine spatial scale; (ii) correlated random variation that occurred at a coarse spatial scale; (iii) systematic variation associated with a spatial trend. The linear mixed model revealed that, in general, the performance of the N model changed depending on the spatial scale of interest. At the scales associated with random variation, the N model underestimated the variance of the observations, and the predictions were correlated poorly with the observations. At the scale of the trend, the predictions and observations shared a common surface. The spatial pattern of the error of the N model suggested that the observations were affected by the local soil condition, but this was not accounted for by the N model. In summary, the N model would be well-suited to field-scale management of soil nitrogen, but suited poorly to management at finer spatial scales. This information was not apparent with a non-spatial validation. (c),2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Atmosphere feedbacks during ENSO in a coupled GCM with a modified atmospheric convection scheme

The too diverse representation of ENSO in a coupled GCM limits one’s ability to describe future change of its properties. Several studies pointed to the key role of atmosphere feedbacks in contributing to this diversity. These feedbacks are analyzed here in two simulations of a coupled GCM that differ only by the parameterization of deep atmospheric convection and the associated clouds. Using the Kerry–Emanuel (KE) scheme in the L’Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace Coupled Model, version 4 (IPSL CM4; KE simulation), ENSO has about the right amplitude, whereas it is almost suppressed when using the Tiedke (TI) scheme. Quantifying both the dynamical Bjerknes feedback and the heat flux feedback in KE, TI, and the corresponding Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP) atmosphere-only simulations, it is shown that the suppression of ENSO in TI is due to a doubling of the damping via heat flux feedback. Because the Bjerknes positive feedback is weak in both simulations, the KE simulation exhibits the right ENSO amplitude owing to an error compensation between a too weak heat flux feedback and a too weak Bjerknes feedback. In TI, the heat flux feedback strength is closer to estimates from observations and reanalysis, leading to ENSO suppression. The shortwave heat flux and, to a lesser extent, the latent heat flux feedbacks are the dominant contributors to the change between TI and KE. The shortwave heat flux feedback differences are traced back to a modified distribution of the large-scale regimes of deep convection (negative feedback) and subsidence (positive feedback) in the east Pacific. These are further associated with the model systematic errors. It is argued that a systematic and detailed evaluation of atmosphere feedbacks during ENSO is a necessary step to fully understand its simulation in coupled GCMs.

The role of atmosphere feedbacks during ENSO in the CMIP3 models

Several studies using ocean-atmosphere GCMs suggest that the atmospheric component plays a dominant role in the modelled ENSO. To help elucidate these findings, the two main atmosphere feedbacks relevant to ENSO, the Bjerknes positive feedback (µ) and the heat flux negative feedback (), are analysed here in 12 coupled GCMs. We find that the models generally underestimate both feedbacks, leading to an error compensation. The strength of is inversely related to the ENSO amplitude in the models and the latent heat and shortwave flux components of this feedback dominate. Furthermore, the shortwave component could help explain the model diversity in both overall and ENSO amplitude.

Errors associated with the preparation of aseptic products in UK hospital pharmacies: lessons from the national aseptic error reporting scheme

Background Pharmacy aseptic units prepare and supply injectables to minimise risks. The UK National Aseptic Error Reporting Scheme has been collecting data on pharmacy compounding errors, including near-misses, since 2003. Objectives The cumulative reports from January 2004 to December 2007, inclusive, were analysed. Methods The different variables of product types, error types, staff making and detecting errors, stage errors detected, perceived contributory factors, and potential or actual outcomes were presented by cross-tabulation of data. Results A total of 4691 reports were submitted against an estimated 958 532 items made, returning 0.49% as the overall error rate. Most of the errors were detected before reaching patients, with only 24 detected during or after administration. The highest number of reports related to adult cytotoxic preparations (40%) and the most frequently recorded error was a labelling error (34.2%). Errors were mostly detected at first check in assembly area (46.6%). Individual staff error contributed most (78.1%) to overall errors, while errors with paediatric parenteral nutrition appeared to be blamed on low staff levels more than other products were. The majority of errors (68.6%) had no potential patient outcomes attached, while it appeared that paediatric cytotoxic products and paediatric parenteral nutrition were associated with greater levels of perceived patient harm. Conclusions The majority of reports were related to near-misses, and this study highlights scope for examining current arrangements for checking and releasing products, certainly for paediatric cytotoxic and paediatric parenteral nutrition preparations within aseptic units, but in the context of resource and capacity constraints.