Foreword: International Space Science Institute (ISSI) workshop on observing and predicting Earth’s energy flows

The Earth’s climate, as well as planetary climates in general, is broadly regulated by three fundamental parameters: the total solar irradiance, the planetary albedo and the planetary emissivity. Observations from series of different satellites during the last three decades indicate that these three quantities are generally very stable. The total solar irradiation of some 1,361 W/m2 at 1 A.U. varies within 1 W/m2 during the 11-year solar cycle (Fröhlich 2012). The albedo is close to 29 % with minute changes from year to year but with marked zonal differences (Stevens and Schwartz 2012). The only exception to the overall stability is a minor decrease in the planetary emissivity (the ratio between the radiation to space and the radiation from the surface of the Earth). This is a consequence of the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gas amounts making the atmosphere gradually more opaque to long-wave terrestrial radiation. As a consequence, radiation processes are slightly out of balance as less heat is leaving the Earth in the form of thermal radiation than the amount of heat from the incoming solar radiation. Present space-based systems cannot yet measure this imbalance, but the effect can be inferred from the increase in heat in the oceans where most of the heat accumulates. Minor amounts of heat are used to melt ice and to warm the atmosphere and the surface of the Earth.

Potential Predictability and AMIP Implications of Midlatitude Climate Variability in Two General Circulation Models

Ensembles of extended Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP) runs from the general circulation models of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (formerly the National Meteorological Center) and the Max-Planck Institute (Hamburg, Germany) are used to estimate the potential predictability (PP) of an index of the Pacific–North America (PNA) mode of climate change. The PP of this pattern in “perfect” prediction experiments is 20%–25% of the index’s variance. The models, particularly that from MPI, capture virtually all of this variance in their hindcasts of the winter PNA for the period 1970–93. The high levels of internally generated model noise in the PNA simulations reconfirm the need for an ensemble averaging approach to climate prediction. This means that the forecasts ought to be expressed in a probabilistic manner. It is shown that the models’ skills are higher by about 50% during strong SST events in the tropical Pacific, so the probabilistic forecasts need to be conditional on the tropical SST. Taken together with earlier studies, the present results suggest that the original set of AMIP integrations (single 10-yr runs) is not adequate to reliably test the participating models’ simulations of interannual climate variability in the midlatitudes.

Stratospheric climate and variability from a general circulation model and observations

The climate and natural variability of the large-scale stratospheric circulation simulated by a newly developed general circulation model are evaluated against available global observations. The simulation consisted of a 30-year annual cycle integration performed with a comprehensive model of the troposphere and stratosphere. The observations consisted of a 15-year dataset from global operational analyses of the troposphere and stratosphere. The model evaluation concentrates on the simulation of the evolution of the extratropical stratospheric circulation in both hemispheres. The December–February climatology of the observed zonal mean winter circulation is found to be reasonably well captured by the model, although in the Northern Hemisphere upper stratosphere the simulated westerly winds are systematically stronger and a cold bias is apparent in the polar stratosphere. This Northern Hemisphere stratospheric cold bias virtually disappears during spring (March–May), consistent with a realistic simulation of the spring weakening of the mean westerly winds in the model. A considerable amount of monthly interannual variability is also found in the simulation in the Northern Hemisphere in late winter and early spring. The simulated interannual variability is predominantly caused by polar warmings of the stratosphere, in agreement with observations. The breakdown of the Northern Hemisphere stratospheric polar vortex appears therefore to occur in a realistic way in the model. However, in early winter the model severely underestimates the interannual variability, especially in the upper troposphere. The Southern Hemisphere winter (June–August) zonal mean temperature is systematically colder in the model, and the simulated winds are somewhat too strong in the upper stratosphere. Contrary to the results for the Northern Hemisphere spring, this model cold bias worsens during the Southern Hemisphere spring (September–November). Significant discrepancies between the model results and the observations are therefore found during the breakdown of the Southern Hemisphere polar vortex. For instance, the simulated Southern Hemisphere stratosphere westerly jet continuously decreases in intensity more or less in situ from June to November, while the observed stratospheric jet moves downward and poleward.