Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Patrick C. Taylor

Publications and source records attributed to Patrick C. Taylor.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2023

CERESMIP: A Climate Modeling Protocol to Investigate Recent Trends in the Earth's Energy Imbalance

The Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) project has now produced over two decades of observed data on the Earth's Energy Imbalance (EEI) and has revealed substantive trends in both the reflected shortwave and outgoing longwave top-of-atmosphere radiation components. Available climate model simulations suggest that these trends are incompatible with purely internal variability, but that the full magnitude and breakdown of the trends are outside of the model ranges. Unfortunately, the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (Phase 6) (CMIP6) protocol only uses observed forcings to 2014 (and Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP) projections thereafter), and furthermore, many of the ‘observed' drivers have been updated substantially since the CMIP6 inputs were defined. Most notably, the sea surface temperature (SST) estimates have been revised and now show up to 50% greater trends since 1979, particularly in the southern hemisphere. Additionally, estimates of short-lived aerosol and gas-phase emissions have been substantially updated. These revisions will likely have material impacts on the model-simulated EEI. We therefore propose a new, relatively low-cost, model intercomparison, CERESMIP, that would target the CERES period (2000-present), with updated forcings to at least the end of 2021. The focus will be on atmosphere-only simulations, using updated SST, forcings and emissions from 1990 to 2021. The key metrics of interest will be the EEI and atmospheric feedbacks, and so the analysis will benefit from output from satellite cloud observation simulators. The Tier 1 request would consist only of an ensemble of AMIP-style simulations, while the Tier 2 request would encompass uncertainties in the applied forcing, atmospheric composition, single and all-but-one forcing responses. We present some preliminary results and invite participation from a wide group of models.

CMIP6↗
NASA NTRS2021

Arctic Cloud Response to a Perturbation in Sea Ice Concentration: The North Water Polynya

Surface and atmosphere energy exchanges play an important role in the Arctic climate system by influencing the lower atmospheric stability and humidity, sea ice melt and growth, and surface temperature. Sea ice significantly alters the character of these energy exchanges relative to ice-free ocean. The observed decline in Arctic sea ice since 1979 motivates questions related to the evolving role of surface-atmosphere coupling and potential feedbacks on the Arctic system. Due to the strong wintertime cloud warming effect, a critical question concerns the potential response of low clouds to Arctic sea ice decline. Previous approaches relied on interannual variability to investigate the cloud response to sea ice decline. However, the covariation between atmospheric conditions and sea ice makes it difficult to define an observational control when using interannual variability. To circumvent this difficulty, we exploit the recurring North Water polynya, an episodic opening in the northern Baffin Bay sea ice, as a natural laboratory to isolate the cloud response to a rapid, near-step perturbation in sea ice. Our results show that during the event, (a) low-cloud cover is 10%–33% larger over the polynya than nearby sea ice, (b) cloud liquid water content is up to 400% larger over the polynya than nearby sea ice, and (c) the surface cloud radiative effect is 18 W/sq. m larger over the polynya than nearby sea ice. Our results provide evidence that the low-cloud response during a polynya is a positive feedback lengthening the event.

Emily E. Monroe↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

TPSAS-NF1676L-31979-DND

The rapid, and in many cases, unprecedented changes in the Arctic climate system observed since 1979 are having devastating impacts on both natural and human systems. These changes are marked by warming Arctic temperatures, rapid declines in sea ice and snow cover, permafrost thaw, mountain glacier melt, and Greenland Ice Sheet mass loss. A common thread through each of these changes is the impact on the surface energy budget. However, our understanding of the controls on and variability of the Arctic surface energy budget is incomplete and this contributes to the significant biases in the climate models. To better understand the controls on the variability of the Arctic surface energy budget and CMIP5 model biases, we use an atmospheric regime-based perspective of the Arctic surface energy budget decomposing variability by atmospheric dynamic and thermodynamic properties.

Patrick C. Taylor↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

TPSAS-NF1676L-31980-DND

Background and Objective: The surface temperature of the Arctic is projected to warm more than any other region on Earth (i.e., Arctic Amplification). Even though the increase of solar absorption, due to the reduction of the surface albedo associated with the loss of sea ice, is strongest in summer, the warming is largest in late fall/early winter and smallest in summer. The most common theory put forward to explain the suppressed summer warming is that most of the additional solar energy goes into the melting of sea ice. The energy gain in summer, however, is thought to lead to the Arctic warming maximum in late fall/early winter by leading to enhanced heat release during this time period as a result of the enhanced surface latent and sensible heat fluxes into the atmosphere, also a consequence of the loss and thinning of sea-ice, warming the surface air temperature. While this commonly accepted theory makes clear the importance of sea-ice loss on Arctic warming, by focusing on surface skin temperature our study proposes a differing perspective on how sea-ice decline amplifies Arctic warming and establishes its seasonal pattern.

Sergio A. Sejas↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

TPSAS-NF1676L-27184-DND

This presentation discusses the interactions between clouds, sea ice, and lower tropospheric stability and the role of these interactions in influencing the surface energy budget in the Arctic.

Patrick C. Taylor↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Process drivers, inter-model spread, and a path forward: What do we know about Arctic Amplification?

Over the recent decades, rapid changes have been observed in the Arctic resulting from enhanced surface warming in the Arctic relative to the rest of the globe, a phenomenon called Arctic Amplification. While surface-based amplification of Arctic warming in response to increased CO2 has been established. The driving mechanisms, relevant processes, and the relative roles of local and remote mechanisms to Arctic Amplification remain unclear. Research over the last decade has made it clear that coupling between the atmosphere, sea ice, and ocean play a key role in Arctic Amplification. This presentation summarizes recent research on the fundamental role that atmosphere-sea ice-ocean interactions and energy exchanges play in driving Arctic Amplification, how these interactions manifest as radiative climate feedbacks, and how these processes influence the differences in the projected Arctic climate change across CMIP5 and 6. We hypothesize that models that simulate larger warming do so by generating a larger local atmospheric circulation response that more effectively redistributes energy drawn from the ocean in sea ice retreat regions Arctic-wide and contributing to a larger increase in downwelling long wave radiation. This process is also fundamentally tied to the Arctic lapse rate feedback.

Arctic amplification↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Process drivers, inter-model spread, and a path forward: What do we know about Arctic Amplification?

Over the recent decades, rapid changes have been observed in the Arctic resulting from enhanced surface warming in the Arctic relative to the rest of the globe, a phenomenon called Arctic Amplification. While surface-based amplification of Arctic warming in response to increased CO2 has been established. The driving mechanisms, relevant processes, and the relative roles of local and remote mechanisms to Arctic Amplification remain unclear. Research over the last decade has made it clear that coupling between the atmosphere, sea ice, and ocean play a key role in Arctic Amplification. This presentation summarizes recent research on the fundamental role that atmosphere-sea ice-ocean interactions and energy exchanges play in driving Arctic Amplification, how these interactions manifest as radiative climate feedbacks, and how these processes influence the differences in the projected Arctic climate change across CMIP5 and 6. We hypothesize that models that simulate larger warming do so by generating a larger local atmospheric circulation response that more effectively redistributes energy drawn from the ocean in sea ice retreat regions Arctic-wide and contributing to a larger increase in downwelling long wave radiation. This process is also fundamentally tied to the Arctic lapse rate feedback.

Patrick C. Taylor↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Evaluating CERES TOA Fluxes using ARISE aircraft observations

Uncertainty in observations of top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiation fluxes are larger in the Arctic than in other regions. The magnitude of these uncertainties limit our understanding of the Arctic surface energy budget and its variability. The significant uncertainties are due to the low sun angles and wide range of highly reflecting, anisotropic, and highly heterogeneous surface conditions. Therefore, quantifying, attributing, and reducing Arctic TOA radiative flux uncertainty enables a better understanding of the rapidly changing Arctic. To advance this goal, we compare the Cloud and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) TOA radiative fluxes with measurements from the Arctic Radiation-IceBridge Sea and Ice Experiment (ARISE) flow in September 2014. A key objective of ARISE was to evaluate and attribute uncertainty in CERES footprint and gridded TOA radiative fluxes. In this study, we first compare the CERES TOA flux with those obtained from the broadband radiometer measurements from the aircraft using instantaneously matched footprint with the flight track and as the hourly gridded fluxes. This comparison indicates an agreement within uncertainty in the longwave (2 Wm-2 ) for all five grid boxes and agreement in the shortwave (10 Wm-2) for four-out-of-five grid boxes. While not a statistically significant results given the small sample size, the hourly, gridded and the instantaneously matched footprint comparison suggest a -10 Wm-2 bias for CERES in the shortwave. To explore whether this is a robust feature or a statistical artifact, we quantify the individual sources of uncertainty in the differences (temporal and spatial sampling differences, scene evolution, accuracy, angular distribution models, and scene id) to see if any of these differences account for the shortwave bias.

CERES↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A comparison between CERES TOA Radiative Fluxes and Airborne Radiative Flux Measurements from ARISE

Uncertainty in top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiation fluxes observations are larger in the Arctic than in other regions. These uncertainties are due to the low sun angles and the highly reflective, anisotropic, and heterogeneous surface conditions. Quantifying, attributing, and reducing Arctic TOA radiative flux uncertainty enables a better understanding of the rapidly changing Arctic. To advance this goal, we compare the Cloud and Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) TOA radiative fluxes with Arctic Radiation-IceBridge Sea and Ice Experiment (ARISE) campaign measurements collected in September 2014. We compare CERES TOA and aircraft radiative flux measurements using two complementary approaches: grid box average fluxes and instantaneously matched footprints. The grid box mean flux comparison indicates an agreement between CERES and aircraft measurements within 2σ uncertainty (calibration and inversion) in the longwave for all five grid boxes and for four-of-five grid boxes in the shortwave; shortwave and longwave mean differences are -7.9 and +2.3 Wm 2, respectively. The comparison of 36 40 instantaneously matched footprints with aircraft measurements reveals mean differences of -120.25 and -1.00.4 Wm 2 in the shortwave and longwave, respectively. To further explore the persistent negative difference in the shortwave, Wwe further quantify the effects of temporal and spatial sampling differences, angular distribution models, and scene identification to CERES-aircraft differences. Our analysis indicates that sampling differences (including scene evolution) account for an additional 1.8 and 1.7% uncertainty in the shortwave and longwave, respectively and , but indicates no bias. After accounting for this sampling uncertainty, all CERES-aircraft grid box mean fluxes agree within 2σ uncertainty. Scene identification errors due to sea ice concentration data set differences exhibit no bias in the shortwave flux difference and indicate the possibility of substantial differences in the CERES fluxes in specific cases with large spatial heterogeneity. Considering the instantaneously matched footprints, we find that the angular distribution models account may account for up to 7.3 Wm-2 of the persistent CERES-aircraft shortwave flux difference due to systematic differences in the anisotropy for sea ice partly cloudy scenes. Additional analysis using a special programmable scan model with the CERES FM2 instrument suggests a significant view zenith angle dependence of the CERES fluxes for sea ice partly cloudy scenes where shortwave fluxes systematically decrease with increasing view zenith angle; no dependence is found for other scene types. We conclude that (1) spatial heterogeneity and scene temporal evolution substantially limit our ability to use aircraft measurements to place strong constraints on CERES TOA fluxes and (2) that the representation of anisotropy in sea ice partly cloudy scenes is likely a significant factor contributing to the persistent negative CERES-aircraft shortwave flux difference in this comparison and require additional data to analysis fully quantify the potential bias.

Patrick C. Taylor↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Cross-Scale and Cross-Interface Processes and Arctic Amplification

The Arctic is a dynamic region, demonstrated by its remarkable internal variability and rapid response to anthropogenic climate change over the last 40 years. Actionable predictions and projections hold significant value for managing both natural and human systems. The value of these model outputs only grows in a warmer, less icy Arctic. However, substantial gaps exist in our understanding of cross-scale and cross-interface (air-sea ice-ocean) interactions that limit our predictive capabilities. Studies dating back at least 40 years provide evidence that the evolution of the Arctic climate system is sensitive to these cross-scale and cross-interface interactions. This presentation summarizes our understanding of cross-scale and cross-interface interactions relevant to the Arctic’s response to anthropogenic climate change—Arctic Amplification. The presentation emphasizes the influence of surface-type dependent turbulent flux exchanges of heat and moisture, the rectification of episodic atmospheric heat transport events on time-averaged changes, local and remote feedback interactions, and cross-seasonal energy transfers. The presentation concludes with a summary of knowledge gaps and discusses potential pathways for accelerating our understanding of the Arctic climate system.

Patrick C. Taylor↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Towards a more realistic representation of NASA CERES-derived surface radiative fluxes during polar night: a comparison with the MOSAiC field campaign

The Arctic is one of the most sensitive regions of Earth to climate change, and yet remains one of the more difficult regions to both observe and simulate. The high latitude of the Arctic gives it some unusual features compared with much of Earth, such as large and variable sea ice cover, extensive mixed phase cloud cover, and the polar day/night cycle. These features significantly influence the radiative environment of the Arctic as well as the ability to observe it. The remoteness of the Arctic from most of civilization makes large volumes of in situ observations difficult to collect, and so satellite observations are a critical tool for observing the region, such as those from Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES). But validating the satellite radiative flux estimates is difficult because of the lack of in situ measurements. A useful remedy is utilizing measurements from field campaigns, such as the year-long Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) expedition during 2019-2020. The extensive high-quality surface radiative flux and meteorological measurements collected from MOSAiC provide a useful check on flux retrievals from CERES instruments. Previous work compared MOSAiC and CERES surface radiative fluxes during the 2020 melt season (April-September). Errors in CERES fluxes were related to errors in estimated atmospheric optical depth and surface albedo. We conduct a similar assessment of CERES surface flux retrievals using MOSAiC data, but for the months of October through March instead. As this time period is mostly during polar night and twilight, the focus of the study is on longwave surface fluxes. To better understand the reasons for errors in CERES fluxes, we use the large set of meteorological measurements also collected by MOSAiC, including surface temperature, thermodynamic vertical profiles, surface turbulent fluxes, and cloud properties. For example, one notable possible source of error in the CERES estimate of surface downwelling longwave flux is the estimate of cloud base height when compared with MOSAiC W-band radar measurements – an overestimate of cloud base height yields an underestimate of the downwelling flux on the order of tens of W m2.

J. Brant Dodson↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Estimating the Arctic Cloud-Sea Ice Feedback With Observations during the EOS Period

Arctic sea ice responds to and drives Arctic climate change. The interactions between Arctic sea ice and clouds represent a mechanism through which sea ice can drive climate change. We composite active remote sensing satellite cloud properties for ice-free, marginal ice zone (MIZ), and ice-covered surfaces during MIZ crossing events to investigate the influence of the transition from an ice-covered to an ice-free surface on low-level clouds. We demonstrate that the event-based methodology controls for large-scale meteorological factors and isolates the sea ice effect on clouds. We find larger cloud fraction and total water content below ~1.5 km over ice-free relative to ice-covered surfaces during non-summer months, indicating a low-level cloud sensitivity to Arctic sea ice decline. During summer, results show larger cloud fraction and water content over ice-free surfaces, however the differences are statistically indistinguishable. Evidence is provided that atmospheric thermodynamic profile differences cause the cloud property differences, namely that ice-free footprints are warmer, moister, have more positive surface turbulent fluxes and are less stable than their ice-covered counterparts. Ice-free and ice-covered surface cloud property differences scale with surface temperature differences such that cloud property differences are only found in the presence of a surface temperature difference. We conclude that surface temperature differences modulate the cloud response to sea ice loss through influences on surface turbulent fluxes and lower tropospheric stability. The results imply a positive non-summer sea ice-cloud feedback and that up to a 0.02 cloud fraction and 0.05 g m 3 total water content increase in fall are due to the observed sea ice decline.

Patrick C. Taylor↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Towards A More Realistic Representation of Nasa Ceres-Derived Surface Radiative Fluxes During Polar Night: A Comparison With the Mosaic Field Campaign

The Arctic remains one of the more difficult regions observe, and so satellite observations are a critical tool for observing the region, such as those from Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES). But validating the satellite surface radiative flux estimates is difficult because of the lack of in situ measurements. The extensive high-quality surface radiative flux and meteorological measurements collected from MOSAiC provide a useful check on flux retrievals from CERES instruments. We compare MOSAiC and CERES surface radiative fluxes during October through March of 2019-2020 using the large set of meteorological measurements also collected by MOSAiC, specifically cloud properties. Previous work identified a significant source of error in the CERES estimate of surface downwelling longwave flux as the estimate of low level cloud amount when compared with MOSAiC W-band radar measurements. Continuing this work, we examine the effects of errors in cloud water path on surface radiative fluxes. When using all cloud conditions, errors in cloud water are also significantly correlated with surface radiative flux errors, though the size off the effect is only about half that of cloud amount. But when considering low cloud conditions only, the effects of cloud water and cloud amount are comparable.

J. Brant Dodson↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Illuminating Albedo: Using MOSAiC Data to Assess the CERES Cloud Radiative Swath (CRS) Albedo Quantification Process

Increasing surface and lower tropospheric air temperatures as a result of rising greenhouse gases are expected to be most pronounced over the Arctic. Such rapid changes alter the surface climate of the region, and impacts can be observed atmospherically, oceanographically, and biogeophysically. Accurately quantifying the impact of decreasing surface albedo on the surface energy budget with satellite observations alone is complicated by a lack of shortwave radiation during winter and seasonal/spatial heterogeneity of surface type and associated spectral albedo. NASA’s Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) project features the Cloud Radiative Swath (CRS) product, which builds upon the Single Scanner Footprint (SSF) product by using the NASA Langley Fu-Liou radiative transfer model to calculate a robust and high-quality array of surface and atmospheric radiative fluxes on an instantaneous, footprint-level scale. This study aims to use MOSAiC and CRS data to illuminate potential uncertainties in the CERES albedo production process, with goals of determining 1) spectral albedo under clear sky conditions when stratified by ice concentration, 2) the uncertainty associated with CERES surface albedo “history maps” when compared against observations captured during MOSAiC, and 3) the magnitude of variation between meteorological inputs compared to those from MOSAiC.

Emily Monroe↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Cross-Scale and Cross-Interface Processes and Arctic Amplification

The Arctic is a dynamic region, demonstrated by its remarkable internal variability and rapid response to anthropogenic climate change over the last >40 years. Actionable predictions and projections hold significant value for managing both natural and human systems. The value of these model outputs only grows in a warmer, less icy Arctic. However, substantial gaps exist in our understanding of cross-scale and cross-interface (air-sea ice-ocean) interactions that limit our predictive capabilities. Studies dating back at least 40 years provide evidence that the evolution of the Arctic climate system is sensitive to these cross-scale and cross-interface interactions. This presentation summarizes our understanding of cross-scale and cross-interface interactions relevant to the Arctic’s response to anthropogenic climate change—Arctic Amplification. The presentation emphasizes the influence of surface-type dependent turbulent flux exchanges of heat and moisture, the rectification of episodic atmospheric heat transport events on time-averaged changes, local and remote feedback interactions, and cross-seasonal energy transfers. The presentation concludes with a summary of knowledge gaps and discusses potential pathways for accelerating our understanding of the Arctic climate system.

Patrick C. Taylor↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Role of Arctic Low Clouds in the Arctic Climate System: Isolating the Surface Type Influence on Arctic Low-Clouds

Interactions between sea ice and clouds represent a mechanism through which sea ice influences climate. Understanding the cloud response to the rapidly changing Arctic surface properties is necessary for improving climate simulations and projection of future change inside and outside the Arctic. Towards the goal of understanding the cloud response to sea ice, we composite cloud properties for ice-free, marginal ice zone (MIZ), and ice-covered surfaces during MIZ crossing events to analyze the cloud property differences between surface types. Restricting the analysis to MIZ crossing events enables the isolation of the sea ice effect on clouds from meteorological factors. We find larger cloud fraction and total water concentration below ~1.5 km over ice-free relative to ice-covered surfaces during non-summer months. During summer, the results suggest larger cloud fraction and total water concentration over ice-free surfaces, however differences do not exceed observational uncertainty. Cloud property differences are linked to atmospheric thermodynamic profile differences, namely ice-free surfaces are warmer, moister, less stable, and have more positive surface turbulent fluxes than ice-covered surfaces. Ice-free minus ice-covered cloud property differences scale with surface temperature differences and are only found in the presence of a surface temperature difference. Our results suggest a 0.02 cloud fraction and 0.005 g m 3 total water concentration increase (~5%) at the level of maximum cloud fraction between 2000-2021 due to the observed Arctic sea ice decline in fall, corresponding to ~2 Wm 2 increase in the net surface radiative flux supporting a positive sea ice-cloud radiative feedback in fall and winter and a negative sea ice-cloud radiative feedback in spring. We propose an updated conceptual model where the average surface type influence on cloud properties is mediated by surface temperature differences between ice-free and ice-covered surfaces.

Arctic climate↗