General relationships between pressure, weight, and mass of a hydrostatic fluid

In curved geometries the hydrostatic pressure in a fluid does not equal the weight per unit area of the fluid above it. General weight–pressure and mass–pressure relationships for hydrostatic fluids in any geometry are derived. As an example of the mass–pressure relationship, we find a geometric reduction in surface pressure as large as 5 mbar on Earth and 39 mbar on Titan. We also present a thermodynamic interpretation of the geometric correction which, as a corollary, provides an independent proof of the hydrostatic relationship for general geometries.

Can the dynamical impact of the stratosphere on the troposphere be described by large-scale adjustment to the stratospheric PV distribution?

Recent numerical experiments have demonstrated that the state of the stratosphere has a dynamical impact on the state of the troposphere. To account for such an effect, a number of mechanisms have been proposed in the literature, all of which amount to a large-scale adjustment of the troposphere to potential vorticity (PV) anomalies in the stratosphere. This paper analyses whether a simple PV adjustment suffices to explain the actual dynamical response of the troposphere to the state of the stratosphere, the actual response being determined by ensembles of numerical experiments run with an atmospheric general-circulation model. For this purpose, a new PV inverter is developed. It is shown that the simple PV adjustment hypothesis is inadequate. PV anomalies in the stratosphere induce, by inversion, flow anomalies in the troposphere that do not coincide spatially with the tropospheric changes determined by the numerical experiments. Moreover, the tropospheric anomalies induced by PV inversion are on a larger scale than the changes found in the numerical experiments, which are linked to the Atlantic and Pacific storm-tracks. These findings imply that the impact of the stratospheric state on the troposphere is manifested through the impact on individual synoptic-scale systems and their self-organization in the storm-tracks. Changes in these weather systems in the troposphere are not merely synoptic-scale noise on a larger scale tropospheric response, but an integral part of the mechanism by which the state of the stratosphere impacts that of the troposphere.

Decadal Prediction. Can It Be Skillful?

A new field of study, “decadal prediction,” is emerging in climate science. Decadal prediction lies between seasonal/interannual forecasting and longer-term climate change projections, and focuses on time-evolving regional climate conditions over the next 10–30 yr. Numerous assessments of climate information user needs have identified this time scale as being important to infrastructure planners, water resource managers, and many others. It is central to the information portfolio required to adapt effectively to and through climatic changes. At least three factors influence time-evolving regional climate at the decadal time scale: 1) climate change commitment (further warming as the coupled climate system comes into adjustment with increases of greenhouse gases that have already occurred), 2) external forcing, particularly from future increases of greenhouse gases and recovery of the ozone hole, and 3) internally generated variability. Some decadal prediction skill has been demonstrated to arise from the first two of these factors, and there is evidence that initialized coupled climate models can capture mechanisms of internally generated decadal climate variations, thus increasing predictive skill globally and particularly regionally. Several methods have been proposed for initializing global coupled climate models for decadal predictions, all of which involve global time-evolving three-dimensional ocean data, including temperature and salinity. An experimental framework to address decadal predictability/prediction is described in this paper and has been incorporated into the coordinated Coupled Model Intercomparison Model, phase 5 (CMIP5) experiments, some of which will be assessed for the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). These experiments will likely guide work in this emerging field over the next 5 yr.

Understanding land-sea warming contrast in response to increasing greenhouse gases. Part I: Transient adjustment

Climate model simulations consistently show that surface temperature over land increases more rapidly than over sea in response to greenhouse gas forcing. The enhanced warming over land is not simply a transient effect caused by the land–sea contrast in heat capacities, since it is also present in equilibrium conditions. This paper elucidates the transient adjustment processes over time scales of days to weeks of the surface and tropospheric climate in response to a doubling of CO2 and to changes in sea surface temperature (SST), imposed separately and together, using ensembles of experiments with an atmospheric general circulation model. These adjustment processes can be grouped into three stages: immediate response of the troposphere and surface processes (day 1), fast adjustment of surface processes (days 2–5), and adjustment of the whole troposphere (days 6–20). Some land surface warming in response to doubled CO2 (with unchanged SSTs) occurs immediately because of increased downward longwave radiation. Increased CO2 also leads to reduced plant stomatal resistance and hence restricted evaporation, which increases land surface warming in the first day. Rapid reductions in cloud amount lead in the next few days to increased downward shortwave radiation and further warming, which spreads upward from the surface, and by day 5 the surface and tropospheric response is statistically consistent with the equilibrium value. Land surface warming in response to imposed SST change (with unchanged CO2) is slower. Tropospheric warming is advected inland from the sea, and over land it occurs at all levels together rather than spreading upward from the surface. The atmospheric response to prescribed SST change in about 20 days is statistically consistent with the equilibrium value, and the warming is largest in the upper troposphere over both land and sea. The land surface warming involves reduction of cloud cover and increased downward shortwave radiation, as in the experiment with CO2 change, but in this case it is due to the restriction of moisture supply to the land (indicated by reduced soil moisture), whereas in the CO2 forcing experiment it is due to restricted evaporation despite increased moisture supply (indicated by increased soil moisture). The warming over land in response to SST change is greater than over the sea and is the dominant contribution to the land–sea warming contrast under enhanced CO2 forcing.