• Energy Research

AbstractSince the 5th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (AR5) an extended concept of the energetic analysis of climate change including forcings, feedbacks and adjustment processes has become widely adopted. Adjustments are defined as processes that occur in response to the introduction of a climate forcing agent, but that are independent of global‐mean surface temperature changes. Most considered are the adjustments that impact the Earth energy budget and strengthen or weaken the instantaneous radiative forcing due to the forcing agent. Some adjustment mechanisms also impact other aspects of climate not related to the Earth radiation budget. Since AR5 and a following description by Sherwood et al. (2015, https://doi.org/10.1175/bams‐d‐13‐00167.1), much research on adjustments has been performed and is reviewed here. We classify the adjustment mechanisms into six main categories, and discuss methods of quantifying these adjustments in terms of their potentials, shortcomings and practicality. We furthermore describe aspects of adjustments that act beyond the energetic framework, and we propose new ideas to observe adjustments or to make use of observations to constrain their representation in models. Altogether, the problem of adjustments is now on a robust scientific footing, and better quantification and observational constraint is possible. This allows for improvements in understanding and quantifying climate change.

AbstractSince the 5th Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (AR5) an extended concept of the energetic analysis of climate change including forcings, feedbacks and adjustment processes has become widely adopted. Adjustments are defined as processes that occur in response to the introduction of a climate forcing agent, but that are independent of global‐mean surface temperature changes. Most considered are the adjustments that impact the Earth energy budget and strengthen or weaken the instantaneous radiative forcing due to the forcing agent. Some adjustment mechanisms also impact other aspects of climate not related to the Earth radiation budget. Since AR5 and a following description by Sherwood et al. (2015, https://doi.org/10.1175/bams‐d‐13‐00167.1), much research on adjustments has been performed and is reviewed here. We classify the adjustment mechanisms into six main categories, and discuss methods of quantifying these adjustments in terms of their potentials, shortcomings and practicality. We furthermore describe aspects of adjustments that act beyond the energetic framework, and we propose new ideas to observe adjustments or to make use of observations to constrain their representation in models. Altogether, the problem of adjustments is now on a robust scientific footing, and better quantification and observational constraint is possible. This allows for improvements in understanding and quantifying climate change.

AbstractBiomass burning (BB) is a major source of aerosols that remain the most uncertain components of the global radiative forcing. Current global models have great difficulty matching observed aerosol optical depth (AOD) over BB regions. A common solution to address modelled AOD biases is scaling BB emissions. Using the relationship from an ensemble of aerosol models and satellite observations, we show that the bias in aerosol modelling results primarily from incorrect lifetimes and underestimated mass extinction coefficients. In turn, these biases seem to be related to incorrect precipitation and underestimated particle sizes. We further show that boosting BB emissions to correct AOD biases over the source region causes an overestimation of AOD in the outflow from Africa by 48%, leading to a double warming effect compared with when biases are simultaneously addressed for both aforementioned factors. Such deviations are particularly concerning in a warming future with increasing emissions from fires.

AbstractBiomass burning (BB) is a major source of aerosols that remain the most uncertain components of the global radiative forcing. Current global models have great difficulty matching observed aerosol optical depth (AOD) over BB regions. A common solution to address modelled AOD biases is scaling BB emissions. Using the relationship from an ensemble of aerosol models and satellite observations, we show that the bias in aerosol modelling results primarily from incorrect lifetimes and underestimated mass extinction coefficients. In turn, these biases seem to be related to incorrect precipitation and underestimated particle sizes. We further show that boosting BB emissions to correct AOD biases over the source region causes an overestimation of AOD in the outflow from Africa by 48%, leading to a double warming effect compared with when biases are simultaneously addressed for both aforementioned factors. Such deviations are particularly concerning in a warming future with increasing emissions from fires.