Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Sergio Sejas

Publications and source records attributed to Sergio Sejas.

8 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2017

Inter-Model Warming Projection Spread: Inherited Traits from Control Climate Diversity

Since Chaney’s report, the range of global warming projections in response to a doubling of CO2—from 1.5 °C to 4.5 °C or greater—remains largely unscathed by the onslaught of new scientific insights. Conventional thinking regards inter-model differences in climate feedbacks as the sole cause of the warming projection spread (WPS). Our findings shed new light on this issue indicating that climate feedbacks inherit diversity from the model control climate, besides the models’ intrinsic climate feedback diversity that is independent of the control climate state. Regulated by the control climate ice coverage, models with greater (lesser) ice coverage generally possess a colder (warmer) and drier (moister) climate, exhibit a stronger (weaker) ice-albedo feedback, and experience greater (weaker) warming. The water vapor feedback also inherits diversity from the control climate but in an opposite way: a colder (warmer) climate generally possesses a weaker (stronger) water vapor feedback, yielding a weaker (stronger) warming. These inherited traits influence the warming response in opposing manners, resulting in a weaker correlation between the WPS and control climate diversity. Our study indicates that a better understanding of the diversity amongst climate model mean states may help to narrow down the range of global warming projections.

Climate feedbacks↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

On the Nature of the Arctic’s Positive Lapse-rate Feedback: Cause or Symptom of Arctic Amplification

Radiative energy fluxes exiting the atmosphere towards the surface and to space are sensitive to the vertical structure of temperature. Under anthropogenic forcing, this sensitivity gives rise to the lapse-rate feedback. Shown to be negative in the tropics and positive in the Arctic, studies argue that the lapse-rate feedback is the primary cause of Arctic Amplification. While mechanistically the negative tropical lapse-rate feedback is understood, the mechanics of the positive Arctic lapse-rate feedback are less clear. Previous arguments state that the Arctic’s stable stratification is the origin of its positive lapse-rate feedback. We present results using CMIP5 and CMIP6 model output that arguing that the magnitude, spatial variability, seasonality, and inter-model spread in the Arctic lapse-rate feedback is controlled by surface properties and atmosphere-ocean-sea ice energy exchanges, not the degree of stable stratification. We argue that the Arctic’s positive lapse-rate feedback is a seasonal and regional phenomenon that manifests from local surface characteristics and surface albedo, ice insulation, and thermal inertia feedbacks that cause surface warming to outpace atmospheric warming in sea ice-retreat regions. We view the Arctic’s positive lapse-rate feedback as a symptom rather than the primary cause of Arctic Amplification.

Patrick Charles Taylor↗
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

Radiative Flux Measurements from ARISE: A Comparison with CERES Top-of-Atmosphere Radiative Fluxes

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 2 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 instantaneously matched footprints with aircraft measurements reveals mean differences of -10.5 and 0.4 Wm‑2 in the shortwave and longwave, respectively. To further explore the persistent negative difference in the shortwave, we 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 indicates no bias. After accounting for this sampling uncertainty, all CERES-aircraft grid box mean fluxes agree within 2 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 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 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↗