• No results found

averages over the last 50 years of the 100 year perturbed and baseline experiments.

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "averages over the last 50 years of the 100 year perturbed and baseline experiments."

Copied!
6
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Figure S1: The decomposition of the regional effective temperature response (local temperature response terms normalized by global effective radiative forcing) for concentration -driven (conc) models (NCAR-CESM1-CAM4, GISS-E2-R, NorESM1) and for emission -driven (emi) models (CanESM2, HadGEM2, MIROC-SPRINTARS) and in sulx5 (columns 1-2) and bcx10 (columns 3-4) experiments. First row shows the model mean total effective temperature response, and rows 2-7 show the contributions of different energy balance terms to the total response. The responses are calculated as averages over the last 50 years of the 100 year perturbed and baseline experiments.

(2)

Figure S3: Same as S2 but for the relative humidity change.

Figure S4: Same as S2 but for the cloud fraction change.

(3)
(4)

∆T ∆LWclr ∆SWclr ∆LWcld, ∆SWcld ∆SWAlbedo ∆SU RF ∆CON V CanESM2 2.700.18 2.290.08 0.330.02 0.090.04 -0.030.11 0.300.04 -0.250.12 -0.020.04 HadGEM2-ES 2.730.14 2.310.10 0.320.06 0.040.06 0.050.13 0.310.03 -0.300.11 -0.010.04 NCAR- CESM1-CAM4 3.180.11 2.750.08 0.300.01 -0.390.04 0.200.11 0.290.02 0.070.10 -0.060.05 NorESM1 2.060.14 2.050.08 0.190.01 -0.180.05 0.020.10 0.280.03 -0.300.11 -0.000.06 MIROC-SPRINTARS 1.46 0.14 1.790.06 0.140.03 -0.270.04 0.020.07 0.150.02 -0.370.09 0.010.05 GISS-E2-R 1.490.08 1.860.05 0.070.01 0.070.03 -0.270.10 0.080.02 -0.330.08 0.010.04 mean 2.27 2.17 0.22 -0.11 -0.00 0.24 -0.24 -0.01 std 0.65 0.32 0.10 0.19 0.14 0.09 0.15 0.02 correlation 1.00 0.97 0.92 -0.12 0.70 0.86 0.77 -0.91 CSD 0.65 0.31 0.09 -0.02 0.10 0.08 0.11 -0.02 Effective response CanESM2 0.760.05 0.640.02 0.090.01 0.030.01 -0.010.03 0.080.01 -0.070.03 -0.010.01 HadGEM2-ES 0.750.04 0.630.03 0.090.02 0.010.02 0.010.04 0.090.01 -0.080.03 -0.000.01 NCAR- CESM1-CAM4 0.890.03 0.770.02 0.080.00 -0.110.01 0.060.03 0.080.01 0.020.03 -0.020.01 NorESM1 0.590.04 0.590.02 0.060.00 -0.050.01 0.010.03 0.080.01 -0.080.03 -0.000.02 MIROC-SPRINTARS 0.40 0.04 0.490.02 0.040.01 -0.080.01 0.010.02 0.040.01 -0.100.03 0.000.01 GISS-E2-R 0.370.02 0.460.01 0.020.00 0.020.01 -0.070.02 0.020.00 -0.080.02 0.000.01 mean 0.63 0.60 0.06 -0.03 0.00 0.07 -0.07 -0.00 std 0.19 0.10 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.01 correlation 1.00 0.98 0.93 -0.16 0.75 0.89 0.72 -0.89 CSD 0.19 0.10 0.03 -0.01 0.03 0.02 0.03 -0.01

Table S1: Decomposition of the global absolute and effective temperature response (absolute response divided by the ERF) into different energy balance terms for co2x2 experiments (Long- and shortwave clear-sky terms (∆LWclr, ∆SWclr), cloud terms (∆LWcld,∆SWcld), surface energy exchange (∆SU RF ) and horizontal energy

(5)

∆T ∆LWclr ∆SWclr ∆LWcld, ∆SWcld ∆SWAlbedo ∆SU RF ∆CON V CanESM2 0.600.19 0.470.08 0.130.02 -0.010.04 -0.010.13 0.080.04 -0.040.12 -0.000.04 HadGEM2-ES 0.800.17 0.640.09 0.060.08 0.020.07 0.040.12 0.090.03 -0.060.12 -0.000.04 NCAR- CESM1-CAM4 1.070.09 0.950.07 0.100.01 -0.150.05 0.060.10 0.100.03 0.030.09 -0.020.06 NorESM1 0.670.12 0.700.06 0.060.01 -0.110.04 0.010.12 0.090.03 -0.090.10 0.000.07 MIROC-SPRINTARS 0.30 0.11 0.440.05 0.100.03 -0.180.04 -0.020.07 0.030.03 -0.070.08 0.010.04 GISS-E2-R 0.420.07 0.490.05 0.010.01 0.060.03 -0.020.10 0.020.02 -0.150.07 0.010.04 mean 0.64 0.62 0.08 -0.06 0.01 0.07 -0.07 -0.00 std 0.25 0.18 0.04 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.01 correlation 1.00 0.91 0.22 -0.11 0.94 0.89 0.74 -0.92 CSD 0.25 0.16 0.01 -0.01 0.03 0.03 0.04 -0.01 Effective response CanESM2 0.440.14 0.340.06 0.090.02 -0.010.03 -0.010.09 0.060.03 -0.030.09 -0.000.03 HadGEM2-ES 0.640.13 0.510.07 0.050.06 0.020.05 0.030.10 0.070.03 -0.050.09 -0.000.03 NCAR- CESM1-CAM4 0.870.07 0.770.05 0.080.01 -0.130.04 0.050.08 0.080.02 0.020.07 -0.010.05 NorESM1 0.580.10 0.610.05 0.050.01 -0.090.04 0.010.10 0.080.03 -0.080.09 0.000.06 MIROC-SPRINTARS 0.38 0.14 0.560.06 0.120.04 -0.230.04 -0.030.08 0.030.04 -0.090.10 0.010.06 GISS-E2-R 0.310.05 0.370.04 0.010.01 0.040.02 -0.020.07 0.020.01 -0.110.05 0.010.03 mean 0.54 0.53 0.07 -0.07 0.01 0.06 -0.06 0.00 std 0.18 0.14 0.04 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.01 correlation 1.00 0.81 0.09 -0.15 0.96 0.88 0.85 -0.85 CSD 0.18 0.12 0.00 -0.01 0.03 0.02 0.04 -0.01

Table S2: Same as S1 but for ch4x3 experiments.

∆T ∆LWclr ∆SWclr ∆LWcld, ∆SWcld ∆SWAlbedo ∆SU RF ∆CON V

(6)

∆T ∆LWclr ∆SWclr ∆LWcld, ∆SWcld ∆SWAlbedo ∆SU RF ∆CON V CanESM2 1.310.20 0.160.09 1.300.02 -0.010.04 -0.190.10 0.140.04 -0.060.13 -0.030.05 HadGEM2-ES 1.660.14 0.660.09 1.070.06 -0.080.06 -0.050.12 0.170.04 -0.090.10 -0.010.03 NCAR- CESM1-CAM4 0.420.08 0.060.06 0.700.01 -0.170.04 -0.180.09 0.020.02 0.000.07 -0.010.05 NorESM1 0.670.10 0.130.06 0.850.01 -0.140.04 -0.170.10 0.080.03 -0.070.11 -0.000.06 MIROC-SPRINTARS 0.16 0.12 -0.020.05 0.410.03 -0.100.03 -0.140.06 0.030.03 -0.020.09 0.000.05 GISS-E2-R 0.400.08 -0.030.06 0.630.01 -0.010.03 -0.140.09 0.010.03 -0.070.07 0.010.04 mean 0.77 0.16 0.83 -0.08 -0.15 0.07 -0.05 -0.01 std 0.54 0.23 0.29 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.01 correlation 1.00 0.88 0.90 0.26 0.50 0.96 -0.60 -0.65 CSD 0.54 0.21 0.26 0.02 0.02 0.06 -0.02 -0.01 Effective response CanESM2 0.840.13 0.100.06 0.840.01 -0.010.03 -0.120.07 0.090.03 -0.040.08 -0.020.03 HadGEM2-ES 1.180.10 0.470.06 0.760.04 -0.060.04 -0.030.08 0.120.03 -0.060.07 -0.010.02 NCAR- CESM1-CAM4 0.550.11 0.070.07 0.910.01 -0.220.06 -0.230.12 0.020.03 0.010.09 -0.020.07 NorESM1 0.490.07 0.090.04 0.620.01 -0.100.03 -0.130.07 0.060.02 -0.050.08 -0.000.05 MIROC-SPRINTARS 0.25 0.18 -0.030.07 0.650.04 -0.150.05 -0.230.10 0.040.04 -0.040.14 0.010.07 GISS-E2-R 0.320.06 -0.020.05 0.510.01 -0.000.02 -0.120.08 0.010.02 -0.060.06 0.010.03 mean 0.61 0.11 0.71 -0.09 -0.14 0.06 -0.04 -0.01 std 0.32 0.17 0.14 0.08 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.01 correlation 1.00 0.93 0.53 0.30 0.71 0.88 -0.21 -0.62 CSD 0.32 0.15 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.03 -0.00 -0.01

Table S4: Same as S1 but for bcx10 experiments.

co2x2 ch4x3 sulx5 bcx10 CanESM2 3.45 0.75 -3.68 1.56 HadGEM2 4.06 1.40 -4.25 2.41 NCAR-CESM1-CAM4 3.14 1.09 -1.50 0.41 NorESM1 2.95 0.92 -2.32 1.01 MIROC-SPRINTARS 2.23 0.47 -1.64 0.24 GISS-E2-R 2.06 1.07 -1.34 0.59 mean 2.98 0.95 -2.46 1.04 std 0.69 0.29 1.12 0.75

References

Related documents

It can be concluded that the presented robot has the design criteria such as suitable degrees of freedom, low inertia and high safety and so is suitable for gait

•   e2e Operations Management  SON security dashboard shows real-time state of the corporate infrastructure including the B2B integration points. •   Distributed

 Some states may impose tax on lease payments based on where the lease was executed , rather than where the leased property is used.. Complex

The Nominating Committee suggests for Chairman of District IV, the name of

On one side, adopting a perlocutionary approach to hate speech, together with a distinction between speech and action and a liberal model of freedom, human rights and harm,

In accordance with our requirements as highlighted by the Civil Contingencies Act (2004) and the Operating Framework for 2010/2011, this is to give the Board an update on the

563-573. Cole, Uncertainty analysis in boiling nucleation, in: AIChE symposium series, Vol. 1 Schematic diagram of experimental facilities.. 2 Helically dimpled tube illustration

Vasopressin vs Noradrenaline as Initial therapy in Septic Shock (VANISH): a randomised controlled trial. A double-blind parallel group factorial (2x2) randomised controlled trial