Editor Comments On ACP-2019-1169, 2nd Revision Of Kuilman .

3y ago
4.60 MB
44 Pages
Last View : 18d ago
Last Download : 6m ago
Upload by : Helen France

Editor comments on ACP-2019-1169, 2nd revision of Kuilman et al.The abstract and the manuscript reads now much better.We thank the editor for her positive feedback and for her further comments.On the abstract I have the following two comments (P1, L46):(1) Abbreviation SST has not been introduced.(2) Further, it has not been mentioned anywhere yet that changed SSTs have beenconsidered. Either you add a sentence here or you add that the SSTs have beenchanged as well in line 32 where you write what is done is this study.This has been implemented:”In this study, we investigate the response of the middle atmosphere to a doubling ofthe CO2-concentration and the associated changes in sea surface temperatures(SSTs) using the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model (WACCM).”On the main text I have the following comments:P5, L218: What do you mean with the latter is not considered in this study? Nochemistry is considered!? Please rephrase the sentence to be clearer.This sentence has been rephrased:“The SSTs might be slightly different when they would be generated using a modelthat also includes atmospheric chemistry, however, this aspect is not considered inthis study.”P5, L229-230: This sentence is also very weird. Why do they do not play a role inyour experiments? The question from the referee was quite simple and could havebeen answered with yes or no. Either CFCs are considered or not. Since you usepre-industrial conditions I would assume that these are either zero or low since to myknowledge anthropogenic production (and thus the increase) of CFCs started laterthan 1850. This is something which can easily be checked. So please check andrephrase the sentence accordingly.It has been checked the CFC are zero (there are some values 10-22 mol/mol, butmostly zeros), this also doesn’t change between the control run and the perturbationruns. So, the short answer to the reviewer’s question would be no, these are notconsidered.The text has now been rewritten:“The compset used in this experiment and all the following ones is still F 1850,which means that other radiatively and chemically active gases, such as ozone, willchange only because of the changes in the CO2-concentration, due to WACCM’sinteractive chemistry. This also means that the effects of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)are not considered in our experiments, as anthropogenic production of CFCs startedlater than 1850.”

P6, Table 1: The naming in the table is quite misleading and I needed a while tounderstand how your four experiments differentiate from each other. I would suggestto do the following change (and simplification) to the table to be clearer:Experiment CO2 SSTsC1 PI PIC2 double PIS1 PI double (or high)S2 double double (or high)The simplification has been implemented.Further, it would be more logical if the naming would be C1, S1, S2 and S3 since youhave one control run and three scenarios.This has been implemented.P7, L298-312: This text part is also quite difficult to read. I would suggest that yourepeat here the sentences from the appendix what R, S and the deltas are.This has been implemented.“In which 𝑅"⃗ represents the vertical profile of the net long-wave radiation emitted byeach layer in the atmosphere and by the surface. 𝑆⃗ is the vertical profile of the solar#⃗!"radiation absorbed by each layer. The matrix &!%#⃗ 'is the Planck feedback matrix, in which the vertical profiles of the changes inthe divergence of radiative energy fluxes due to a temperature change arerepresented. 𝑇 represents the temperature change.”Further, I would suggest to move the second paragraph to the appendix or to make alist with bullets for CO2, H2O, O3, cloud and Albedo where then is written what hasbeen done for each species or you just simplify the text. In general the differencebetween control and experiment is considered, so just mention then what is thedifference for the species. In your text especially the phrase “the other variables” isnot clear and rather confusing.The authors agree that the former formulation was confusing. The following hasbeen added to the appendix:The factors *𝑆⃗ 𝑅"⃗ ,&' , *𝑆⃗ 𝑅"⃗ ,' , *𝑆⃗ 𝑅"⃗ ,(!"!', *𝑆⃗ 𝑅"⃗ ,)* ,-. and *𝑆⃗ 𝑅"⃗,/*.0-in eqs (1-5) are calculated by inserting the output variables from WACCM in theradiation code of CFRAM. Here, one takes the output variables from the control run,apart from the variable that is related to the direct forcing or the feedback. The tablebelow shows which variables have been taken from the perturbation runs for eachfeedback.Direct forcing/feedbackCO2OzoneWater vapourAlbedoChanged variables in the radiation codeCO2O3Specific humiditySurface pressureSurface temperatureDew point temperatureDownwelling solar flux at surface

CloudNet solar flux at surfaceCloud fractionCloud iceCloud liquid amountTable A1: The variables from the perturbation runs inserted in the radiation code ofCFRAM to calculate the temperature change in response to the changes in CO2, O3,water vapour, cloud and albedo.The main text now refers to the appendix in the following way:Here, one takes the output variables from the control run, apart from the variable thatis related to the direct forcing or the feedback. Table A1 in the Appendix showswhich variables from the perturbation runs have been inserted in the radiation codeof CFRAM in order to calculate *𝑆⃗ 𝑅"⃗ ,&' , *𝑆⃗ 𝑅"⃗,' , *𝑆⃗ 𝑅"⃗,( ' ,!"! *𝑆⃗ 𝑅"⃗ ,)* ,-. and *𝑆⃗ 𝑅"⃗,/*.0- and eventually the associated temperaturechanges.P9, 392: add “(C1)” after control simulation.This has been added (also for the other simulations):“Figure 1: The total change in temperature in July (top) and January (bottom) for(a,d) the simulation with high CO2 and SSTs (S3), (b,e) the simulation with high CO2(S1), (c,f) the simulation with high SSTs (S2), all as compared to the pre-industrialcontrol simulation (C1). The dotted regions indicate the regions where the datareaches a confidence level of 95%. The black line indicates the tropopause height forthe experiments S3 (a,d), S1 (b,e) and S2 (c,f).”P14, Figure 5 caption: Shouldn’t it read “S1 - C1” and “C2 - C1”, respectively? Thesame holds for Fig7, Fig 9, Fig. 10, Fig 11 and Fig 13.Thanks for this comment, this was indeed incorrect. It has now been corrected.P18, L697: Be more precise than “higher up”. Above which level?This has been clarified:“Fig. 8 shows that above 1 hPa, there are also large percentage changes in watervapour. However, the absolute concentration of water vapour is small there, whichexplains why there is no temperature response to these changes.”P24, L870: Sentence not clear. Please rephrase. Which exact mechanism are youtalking about? What exactly is out of the scope of the paper? Do you mean toinvestigate the exact mechanism why the non-LTE effects are small is outside thescope of the paper?This has been rewritten:”We find that there are also some small temperature changes due to non-LTE effectabove 0.1 hPa. How the non-LTE effects exactly cause the small temperaturechanges in this region is outside the scope of this paper and needs furtherinvestigation.”

P26, L897: Which errors? Do you mean the bars in the bar chart of Figure 13?Yes, that is correct. I have made this clearer in the text.”As in Fig. 11, the ‘Error’-column in Fig. 13 shows the difference betweentemperature change in WACCM and the sum of the calculated temperatureresponses in CFRAM.”We have also clarified this bit in the description in Fig. 11:“This term shows the difference between temperature change in WACCM and thesum of the calculated temperature responses in CFRAM (see eq. 9 in section 2.3).”P30, L1122: What is the PRP method? Please add more details.This method and abbreviation had introduced in the introduction. Now more detailshave been given at this point in the paper as well:”This is also commonly done in the partial radiative perturbation (PRP) method, inwhich partial derivatives of the model top of the atmosphere radiation are evaluatedwith respect to changes in model parameters by diagnostic rerunning the model’sradiation code (Bony et al., 2006).”Other technical issues:P2, L64: the - thisThis has been corrected.P3, L122: these - “the” or “the respective”This has been corrected.P3, L126: use plural, thus “forcing and feedbacks”This has been corrected.P3, L143: such idealized - such “an” idealizedThis has been corrected.P6, L264: effect - affectThis has been corrected.P9, L391: add “to” before “the”This has been corrected.P10, L433: Past should be used here: “In this section, we have discussed .”It was meant to be in the current section (4), we will discuss. This has now beenchanged in the text to make it clearer:“In the following subsections 4.1-4.5, we will discuss the meridional-vertical profilesof the temperature responses to the direct forcing and the various feedbacks during

July and January. In section 5, we will discuss regional and global means of partialtemperature changes due to feedbacks.”P10, L444: add “is found” after CO2-concentration.This has been added.P11, L452: singular should be used here - runThis has been corrected.P13, L536: add “by” so that it reads “could be caused by an increase .”This has been corrected.P14, L545: add “the” so that it reads “ .due to the ”.This has been corrected.P15, L589: add “scale” so that it reads “ .synoptic scale waves”This has been added.P16, L645: add “concentration” after CO2.This has been added.P17, L652: add “to” before “the” so that it reads “ with respect to the .”This has been added.P18, L698: add “vapour” so that it reads “water vapour”.This has been added.P20, L759: stratosphere - stratosphericThis has been corrected.P20, L760: until - up toThis has been changed.P21, L771: add “average” so that it reads “by taking the average in this way”.This has been changed:”By calculating the average in this way, we can directly compare the vertical valuesin different regions of the atmosphere.”P22, L814: add “is” so that it reads “is a bit smaller”.This has been added.P22, L822-824: “before” appears in the sentence twice. I would suggest to delete thelatter one.The latter ‘before’ has been removed.P22, L832: move “mostly” before “contributes” so that it reads “which mostlycontributes ”.’Mostly’ has been moved.

P24, L874: “for due” is not correct, this “for” is obsolete here. Please remove.’For’ has been removed.P26, L890: add “the” so that it reads “shows the”’The’ has been added.P26, L931-932: “before” twice. One is therefore obsolete. I would suggest to removethe latter one.’Before’ has been removed.

0313233343536373839404142434445464748Using the climate feedback responsemethod to quantify climate feedbacksin the middle atmosphere in WACCMMaartje Sanne Kuilman1, Qiong Zhang2, Ming Cai3, Qin Wen1,41. Department of Meteorology and Bolin Centre for Climate Research,Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden2. Department of Physical Geography and Bolin Centre for ClimateResearch, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden3. Department of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Science, Florida StateUniversity, Tallahassee, Florida, USA4. Laboratory for Climate and Ocean-Atmosphere Studies (LaCOAS),Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, School of Physics,Peking University, Beijing, ChinaCorresponding author: Maartje Sanne Kuilman (maartje.kuilman@misu.su.se)AbstractOver recent decades it has become clear that the middle atmosphere has asignificant impact on surface and tropospheric climate. A better understandingof the middle atmosphere and how it reacts to the current increase of theconcentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) is therefore necessary. In this study, weinvestigate the response of the middle atmosphere to a doubling of the CO2- 49concentration and the associated changes in sea surface temperatures(SSTs) using the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model (WACCM).We use the climate feedback response analysis method (CFRAM) to calculatethe partial temperature changes due to an external forcing and climatefeedbacks in the atmosphere. As this method has the unique feature ofadditivity, these partial temperature changes are linearly addable. In thisstudy, we discuss the direct forcing of CO2 and the effects of the ozone, watervapour, cloud, albedo and dynamical feedbacks.As expected, our results show that the direct forcing of CO2 cools the middleatmosphere. This cooling becomes stronger with increasing height: thecooling in the upper stratosphere is about three times as strong as the coolingin the lower stratosphere. The ozone feedback yields a radiative feedback thatmitigates this cooling in most regions of the middle atmosphere. However, inthe tropical lower stratosphere and in some regions of the mesosphere, theozone feedback has a cooling effect. The increase in CO2-concentrationcauses the dynamics to change. The temperature response due to thisdynamical feedback is small in the global average, although there are largetemperature changes due to this feedback locally. The temperature change inthe lower stratosphere is influenced by the water vapour feedback and to alesser degree by the cloud and albedo feedback. These feedbacks play norole in the upper stratosphere and the mesosphere. We find that the effects ofthe changed SSTs on the middle atmosphere are relatively small ascompared to the effects of changing the CO2. However, the changes in SSTs1Deleted: to a doubling CO2 in

are responsible for dynamical feedbacks that cause large temperaturechanges. Moreover, the temperature response to the water vapour feedbackin the lower stratosphere is almost solely due to changes in the SSTs. AsCFRAM has not been applied to the middle atmosphere in this way before,this study also serves to investigate the applicability as well as the limitationsof this method. This work shows that CFRAM is a very powerful tool to studyclimate feedbacks in the middle atmosphere. However, it should be noted thatthere is a relatively large error term associated with the current method in themiddle atmosphere, which can be for a large part be explained by thelinearization in the method.1. IntroductionThe increase of concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere forms amajor perturbation to the climate system. It is commonly associated withlower-atmospheric warming. However, in the middle atmosphere, the increase100of CO2 leads to a cooling of this region instead. This cooling has been welldocumented and is found by both model studies and observations (e.g.Manabe and Wetherald, 1975; Ramaswamy et al., 2001; Beig et al., 2003).The middle atmosphere is not only affected by the increase in CO2concentration, but also by the decrease in ozone-concentration. The depletionof ozone (O3) also effects the temperature in the stratosphere and leads to acooling (Shine et al, 2003). A better understanding of the effect of theincreased CO2-concentration on the middle atmosphere, will help todistinguish the effects of the changes CO2- and O3-concentration.Another major motivation for this study is the emerging evidence that themiddle atmosphere has an important influence on surface and troposphericclimate (Shaw and Shepherd, 2008). It has, for example, been shown thatcold winters in Siberia are linked to changes in the stratospheric circulation(Zhang et al., 2018).Nowack et al. (2015) has found that there is an increase in global meansurface warming of about 1 C when the ozone is prescribed at pre-industriallevels, as compared with when it is evolving in response to an abrupt 4xCO2forcing. It should be noted that the exact importance of changes in ozoneseems to be dependent on both the model and the scenario (Nowack et al.,2015) and is not found by all studies (Marsh et al., 2016).As the effect is found to be rather large in some studies, and absent in other,there is a need for a better understanding of the behaviour of the middleatmosphere in response to changing CO2 conditions, as the ozoneconcentration is influenced by this. Ozone is an example of a climatefeedback, a process that changes in response to a change in CO2concentration and in turn dampens or amplifies the climate response to theCO2 perturbation.These climate feedbacks are a challenging subject of study, as observedclimate variations might not be in equilibrium, multiple processes are2Deleted: the

101102103104operating at the same time and moreover the geographical structures andtimescales of different forcings differ. However, feedbacks form a crucial partof understanding the response of the atmosphere to changes in the CO2concentration.105106107108109110111112Various methods have been developed to study these feedbacks, such as thepartial radiative perturbation (PRP) method, the online feedback suppressionapproach and the radiative kernel method (Bony et al., 2006 and thereferences therein). These methods study the origin of the global climatesensitivity (Soden and Held, 2006; Caldwell et al., 2016; Rieger et al., 2017).The focus of these methods is on changes in the global mean surfacetemperature, global mean surface heat and global mean sensible heat fluxes(Ramaswamy et al., 2019).113114115116117These methods are powerful for this purpose; however, they are not suitableto explain temperature changes on spatially limited domains. They neglectnon-radiative interactions between feedback processes and they only accountfor feedbacks that directly affect the radiation at the top of the 146147The climate feedback-response analysis method (CFRAM) is an alternativemethod which takes into account that the climate change is not onlydetermined by the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere, but is alsoinfluenced by the energy flow within the Earth’s system itself (Cai and Lu,2009, Lu and Cai, 2009). The method is based on the energy balance in anatmosphere-surface column. It solves the linearized infrared radiation transfermodel for the individual energy flux perturbations. This makes it possible tocalculate the partial temperature changes due to an external forcing and the 148internal feedbacks in the atmosphere. It has the unique feature of additivity,such that these partial temperature changes are linearly addable.149As a practical diagnostic tool to analyse the role of various forcings andfeedbacks, CFRAM has been used widely in climate change research on150studying surface climate change (Taylor et al., 2013; Song and Zhang, 2014;Hu et al., 2017; Zheng et al., 2019). CFRAM has been applied to study themiddle atmosphere climate sensitivity as well (Zhu et al., 2016). In their study,Zhu et al. (2016) have adapted CFRAM and applied it to both model output,as well as observations. The atmospheric responses during solar maximumand minimum were studied and it was found that the variation in solar fluxforms the largest radiative component of the middle atmosphere temperatureresponse.In the present work, we apply CFRAM to climate sensitivity experimentsperformed with the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model (WACCM),which is a high-top global climate system model, including the full middleatmosphere chemistry.We investigate the middle atmosphere response to CO2-doubling. Weacknowledge that such an idealized equilibrium simulation cannot reproducethe complexity of the atmosphere, in which the CO2-concentration is changing3Deleted: theseDeleted: forcingDeleted: feedback

7168169170171172173174175176177178gradually. However, simulating a double CO2-scenario still allows us toidentify robust feedback processes in the middle atmosphere.179180181182183Dynamical effects make important contributions to the middle-atmosphereenergy budget, both through eddy heat flux divergence and through adiabaticheating due to vertical motions. It is therefore important that we also considerchanges to the middle-atmosphere climate due to dynamics. We refer to thisas the ‘dynamical feedback’ (Zhu et al., 2016).184185186187188189The main goal of this paper is to calculate the contribution to the temperaturechange due to changes in carbon dioxide directly as well as due to changes inozone, water vapour, albedo, clouds and dynamics in the middle atmosphereunder a double CO2-scenario using CFRAM. Our intention is not to give acomplete account of the exact mechanisms behind the changes in ozone,water vapour, albedo, clouds and dynamics.1901911922. The model and methods193194195196The Whole Atmosphere Community Model (WACCM) is a chemistry-climatemodel, which spans the range of altitudes from the Earth’s surface to about140 km (Marsh et al., 2013). The model consists of 66 vertical levels withirregular vertical resolution, which ranges from 1.1 km in the troposphere,There are two aspects of the middle atmosphere response to CO2-doubling:there is the effect of the changes in CO2-concentration directly, as well as thechanges in sea surface temperature (SST) which are in itself caused by thechanges in CO2-concentration. It is useful to investigate these aspectsseparately, as former should be robust, while the effect of the changed SSTdepends on the changes in tropospheric climate, which can be expected todepend more on the model.In this study, we investigate the effects of doubling the CO2-concentration andthe accompanying sea surface temperature change on the temperature in themiddle atmosphere as compared to the pre-industrial state. We use CFRAMto calculate the radiative contribution to the temperature change due tochanges in carbon dioxide directly as well as due to changes in ozone, watervapour, albedo and clouds. We refer to the changes in ozone, water vapour, 197albedo and clouds in response to changes in the CO2-concentration as theozone, water vapour, albedo and cloud feedbacks.The circulation in the middle atmosphere is driven by waves. Wave forcingdrives the temperatures in the middle atmosphere far away from radiativeequilibrium. In the mesosphere, there is a zonal forcing, which yields asummer to winter transport. In the polar winter stratosphere, there is a strongforcing that consists of rising motion in the tropics, poleward flow in thestratosphere and sinking motion in the middle and high latitudes. Thiscirculation is referred to as the ‘Brewer-Dobson circulation’ (Brewer, 1949;Dobson, 1956).2.1 Model description4Deleted: ,

1981991.1–1.4 km in the lower stratosphere, 1.75 km at the stratosphere and 3.5 kmabove 65 km. The horizontal resolution is 1.9 latitude by 2.5 longitude.200201202203204205206207208WACCM is a superset of the Community Atmospheric Model version 4(CAM4) developed at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).Therefore, WACCM includes all the physical parameterizations of CAM4(Neale et al., 2013), and a well-resolved high-top middle atmosphere. Theorographic gravity wave (GW) parameterization is based on McFarlane(1987). WACCM also includes parameterized non-orographic GWs, which aregenerated by frontal systems and convection (Richter et al., 2010). Theparameterization of non-orographic GW propagation is based on theformulation by Lindzen (1981).209210211212213The chemistry in WACCM is based on version 3 of the Model for Ozone andRelated Chemical Tracers (MOZART3). This model represents chemical andphysical processes from the troposphere until the lower thermosphere.(Kinnison et al., 2007). In addition, WACCM simulates chemical heating,molecular diffusion and ionization and gravity wave drag.2142.2 Experimental set-up215216217218In this study, the F 1850 compset (component set) of the model is used, i.e.the model assumes pre-industrial (PI) conditions. This compset simulates anequilibrium state, which means that it runs a perpetual year 1850. Fourexperiments have been performed for this study (see Table 1).219220221222223224225226227Experiment C1 is the control run, with the pre-industrial CO2 concentration(280 ppm) and forced with pre-industrial ocean surface conditions such assea surface temperatures and sea ice. These SSTs are generated from the 240CMIP5 pre-industrial control simulation by the fully coupled Earth system241model CESM. The atmospheric component of CESM is the same as WACCM,but does not include stratospheric chemistry (Hurrell et al., 2013). The SSTs 242might be slightly different when they would be generated using a model thatalso includes atmospheric chemistry, however, this aspect is not consideredin this study.228229230231232233Experiment S1 represents the experiment with the CO2 concentration doubled 243as compared to the pre-industrial state (560 ppm) and forced with the samepre-industrial SSTs as in experiment C1. In WACCM, the CO2-concentrationdoes not double everywhere in the atmosphere. Only the surface level CO2mixing ratio is doubled, and elsewhere in the atmosphere is calculatedaccording to WACCM’s chemical model.234235236237238239The compset used in this experiment and all the following ones is still F 1850,which means that other radiatively and chemically active gases, such asozone, will change only because of the changes in the CO2-concentration,244due to WACCM’s interactive chemistry. This also means that the effects ofchlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are not considered in our experiments, as245246anthropogenic production of CFCs started later than 1850.5Deleted: temperatureDeleted: (referred to SSTs from now on).Deleted: This latterDeleted: C2Deleted: ChlorofluorocarbonsDeleted: ), which have a major impact on the ozoneconcentration in the real atmosphere, don’t play a role

247248249250251252253254255In experiment S2, we simulate the scenario, in which there is the SSTs forcing285from the coupled CESM for double CO2 condition. This means that the sea286surface temperatures are higher than in the PI run, and there is less sea ice.However, in this experiment the CO2-concentration is kept at the pre-industrialvalue of 280 ppm. S3 represents the experiment with the CO2-concentration 287in the atmosphere doubled to 560 ppm and the SSTs prescribed for the288double CO2-climate. Experiment C1, S1, S2 and S3 will be also referred to289hereafter by PI, the simulation with high CO2, the simulation with high SSTs 290and the simulation with high CO2 and SSTs, respectively.256257258259260261262263The experimental setup of this study is similar to the setup performed with theCanadian Middle Atmosphere Model (CMAM) by Fomichev et al. (2007) andwith the Hamburg Model of the Neutral and Ionized Atmosphere(HAMMONIA) by Schmidt et al. (2006). The HAMMONIA model is coupled tothe same chemical model as WACCM: MOZART3. The setup in their study issimilar, however, in their study, they double the CO2-concentration from 360ppm to 720 ppm, while in our study, we double from the pre-industrial level ofCO2 (280 ppm).264265266267268291Note that experiment S2 and S1 are not representing scenarios that couldhappen in the real atmosphere. These experiments have been used to study 292the effect of the SSTs separately. Experiment S3 doesn’t take into account293other (anthropogenic) changes in the atmosphere not caused by changes inthe CO2-concentration and the SSTs.269270271All the simulations are run for 50 years, of which the last 40 years are used foranalysis. In the all results shown, we have used the 40 year mean of ourmodel data.272Table 1. Set-up of the model 9280281282283284CO2PIDoublePIDoubleSSTs from CESM equilibrium runPIPIHighHighDeleted: S1Deleted: , butDeleted: CO2-concentrationDeleted: S2Deleted: C2,Deleted: S2Deleted: S1Deleted: C2Deleted: S2294295296Deleted: 280 ppm2972.3 Climate feedback-response analysis method (CFRAM)298In this study, we aim to quantify the different climate feedbacks that may play 299a role in the middle atmosphere in a double CO2-climate. For this purpose, we 300apply the climate feedback-response analysis method (CFRAM) (Lu and Cai, 3012009).302303As briefly discussed in the introduction, traditional methods to study climatefeedbacks are based on the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere304(TOA). This means that the only climate feedbacks that are taken intoconsideration are those that affect the radiative balance at the TOA. However, 305there are other thermodynamic and dynamical processes that do not directly 306affect the TOA energy balance, while they do yield a temperature response in 307Deleted: 560 ppmDeleted: controlDeleted: C2Moved (insertion) [1]6Deleted: controlDeleted: S1Deleted: 280 ppmMoved up [1]: DoubleDeleted: CO2 runDeleted: S2Moved (insertion) [2]Deleted: 560 ppmMoved up [2]: DoubleDeleted: CO2 runDeleted: effect

4325326327the atmosphere.328329 𝑇!"! 𝑇 &#⃗330331 𝑇"" 𝑇#⃗ &#⃗332333 𝑇%! " #⃗ & 𝑇#⃗334335 𝑇&'()* 336337338339 𝑇,' -* #⃗ & 𝑇#⃗340341342343344345profile of the solar radiation absorbed by each layer. The matrix .0#⃗ &#⃗is the Planck feedback matrix, in which the vertical profiles of the changes inthe divergence of radiative energy fluxes due to a temperature change arerepresented. 𝑇 represents the temperature change.346347348349350Contrary to TOA-based methods, CFRAM considers all the radiative and nonradiative feedbacks that result from the climate system due to response to anexternal forcing. This means that CFRAM starts from a slightly differentdefinition of a feedback process. Note also that as the changes in temperatureare calculated simultaneously, the vertical mean temperature or lapse ratefeedback per definition do not exist in CFRAM.Another advantage of CFRAM is that it allows for measuring the magnitude ofa certain feedback in units of temperature. We can actually calculate howmuch of the temperature change is due to which process. The ‘climateresponse’ in the name of this method refers to the changes in tempera

Editor comments on ACP-2019-1169, 2nd revision of Kuilman et al. The abstract and the manuscript reads now much better. We thank the editor for her positive feedback and for her further comments. On the abstract I have the following two comments

Related Documents:

Stealth Warthog NHX1045N .45 ACP 10 1 3" Alloy P12 45 PX1245SR .45 ACP 12* 1 3.5" Stainless S12 45 Limited SX1245SR .45 ACP 12* 1 3.5" Stainless Carry CWX645S .45 ACP 6 1 3" Stainless Stealth Carry CWX645B .45 ACP 6 1 3" Stainless CCO CWX745S .45 ACP 7 1 3.5" Stainless Black Watch Companion CX745S .45 ACP 7 1 3.5" Stainless

POlO .22 LR U.S.A. .22 LR, .380 ACP Bersa 383 .380 ACP BP9CC 9mm Firestorm .22 LR, .32 ACP, .380 ACP Mini Firestorm .45ACP, 9mm, .40 S&W Series 95 .380 ACP Thunder22 THUN22 .22 LR Thunder 380 .380ACP Thunder 380 Combat .380ACP Thunder 380 Matte Plus .380 ACP Thunder40 .4

1. ACP 117 CAN-US SUPP-1(O), ALLIED ROUTING INDICATOR BOOK, CANADA-UNITED STATES SUPPLEMENT No. 1 is an UNCLASSFIED Allied Communication Publication (ACP). 2. ACP 117 CAN-US SUPP-1(O) will be effective upon receipt for National or Allied use by the Implementing Agency. 3. When made effective, ACP 117 CAN-US SUPP-1(O) supersedes ACP 117 CAN-US

Multi- Touch Panel PC ACP - 1103 ACP-1103 10.1” WXGA Ultra Slim Fanless Multi-Touch Panel PC . Intel TMAtom N2600 Processor . RS-232, RS-232/422/485 . USB2.0, Mini HDMI ACP-1103 Manual 5th Ed . December 4, 2014

Key to success in PMI-ACP Exam on PMI Agile Certified Practitioner To achieve the professional designation of Agile Certified Practitioner from the PMI, candidates must clear the PMI-ACP Exam with the minimum cut-off score. For those who wish to pass the PMI-ACP certification exam with

How to apply to take IU courses through ACP Application Overview . IU Bloomington Application Deadline: September 12, 5 PM EDT . Taking an IU course through ACP at your school this fall involves four steps: Step 1: You – Complete the student application for acceptance to the ACP pro

Jul 22, 2021 · Kelly A. LaGrave, ACP, 2014-2016 Cassandra Oliver Divens, ACP, 2016-2018 Jill I. Francisco, ACP, 2018-2020 . 2021 ELECTION RESULTS. President Hamilton, ACP, announced the results of the 2021 elections: . St. Louis Paralegal Association -

Implication zootechnique du menthol cristallisé comme additif. alimentaire chez le poulet de chair. E. AZEROUAL. 1, M. OUKESSOU. 2, K. BOUZOUBAA. 2, A. MESFIOUI. 1, B. BENAZZOUZ & A. OUICHOU (Reçu le 15/04/2012; Accepté le 18/06/2012) Résumé. Le menthol est utilisé pour ses vertus aromatiques, culinaires, cosmétiques et médicinales. Chez l’homme, il est employé contre les . troubles .