Skip to main content

Comparison of Effective Radiative Forcing Calculations Using Multiple Methods, Drivers, and Models

Publication ,  Journal Article
Tang, T; Shindell, D; Faluvegi, G; Myhre, G; Olivié, D; Voulgarakis, A; Kasoar, M; Andrews, T; Boucher, O; Forster, PM; Hodnebrog, ; Smith, C ...
Published in: Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
April 27, 2019

We compare six methods of estimating effective radiative forcing (ERF) using a set of atmosphere-ocean general circulation models. This is the first multiforcing agent, multimodel evaluation of ERF values calculated using different methods. We demonstrate that previously reported apparent consistency between the ERF values derived from fixed sea surface temperature simulations and linear regression holds for most climate forcings, excluding black carbon (BC). When land adjustment is accounted for, however, the fixed sea surface temperature ERF values are generally 10–30% larger than ERFs derived using linear regression across all forcing agents, with a much larger (~70–100%) discrepancy for BC. Except for BC, this difference can be largely reduced by either using radiative kernel techniques or by exponential regression. Responses of clouds and their effects on shortwave radiation show the strongest variability in all experiments, limiting the application of regression-based ERF in small forcing simulations.

Duke Scholars

Altmetric Attention Stats
Dimensions Citation Stats

Published In

Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

DOI

EISSN

2169-8996

ISSN

2169-897X

Publication Date

April 27, 2019

Volume

124

Issue

8

Start / End Page

4382 / 4394

Related Subject Headings

  • 3702 Climate change science
  • 3701 Atmospheric sciences
  • 0406 Physical Geography and Environmental Geoscience
  • 0401 Atmospheric Sciences
 

Citation

APA
Chicago
ICMJE
MLA
NLM
Tang, T., Shindell, D., Faluvegi, G., Myhre, G., Olivié, D., Voulgarakis, A., … Smith, C. (2019). Comparison of Effective Radiative Forcing Calculations Using Multiple Methods, Drivers, and Models. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 124(8), 4382–4394. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD030188
Tang, T., D. Shindell, G. Faluvegi, G. Myhre, D. Olivié, A. Voulgarakis, M. Kasoar, et al. “Comparison of Effective Radiative Forcing Calculations Using Multiple Methods, Drivers, and Models.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 124, no. 8 (April 27, 2019): 4382–94. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD030188.
Tang T, Shindell D, Faluvegi G, Myhre G, Olivié D, Voulgarakis A, et al. Comparison of Effective Radiative Forcing Calculations Using Multiple Methods, Drivers, and Models. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 2019 Apr 27;124(8):4382–94.
Tang, T., et al. “Comparison of Effective Radiative Forcing Calculations Using Multiple Methods, Drivers, and Models.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, vol. 124, no. 8, Apr. 2019, pp. 4382–94. Scopus, doi:10.1029/2018JD030188.
Tang T, Shindell D, Faluvegi G, Myhre G, Olivié D, Voulgarakis A, Kasoar M, Andrews T, Boucher O, Forster PM, Hodnebrog, Iversen T, Kirkevåg A, Lamarque JF, Richardson T, Samset BH, Stjern CW, Takemura T, Smith C. Comparison of Effective Radiative Forcing Calculations Using Multiple Methods, Drivers, and Models. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. 2019 Apr 27;124(8):4382–4394.

Published In

Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres

DOI

EISSN

2169-8996

ISSN

2169-897X

Publication Date

April 27, 2019

Volume

124

Issue

8

Start / End Page

4382 / 4394

Related Subject Headings

  • 3702 Climate change science
  • 3701 Atmospheric sciences
  • 0406 Physical Geography and Environmental Geoscience
  • 0401 Atmospheric Sciences