Jonathan M. Gregory

Jonathan M. Gregory

Auto-generated profile, based on publicly available information

Jonathan M. Gregory

National Centre for Atmospheric Science University of Reading Reading UK

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

39Years (1988-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
4 February 2000 in Climate Dynamics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
CGC. Gordon
C. Gordon
CCC. Cooper
C. Cooper
CSC. A. Senior
C. A. Senior
HBH. Banks
H. Banks
JGJ. M. Gregory
J. M. Gregory
RWR. A. Wood
R. A. Wood

11 February 2004 in Geophysical Research Letters
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JGJ. M. Gregory
J. M. Gregory
WIW. J. Ingram
W. J. Ingram
MPM. A. Palmer
M. A. Palmer
GJG. S. Jones
G. S. Jones
PSP. A. Stott
P. A. Stott
KWK. D. Williams
K. D. Williams
We describe a new method for evaluating the radiative forcing, the climate feedback parameter (W m−2 K−1) and hence the effective climate sensitivity from any GCM experiment in which the climate is responding to a constant forcing. The method is simply to regress the top of atmosphere radiative flux against the global average surface air temperature change. This method does not require special integrations or off‐line estimates, such as for stratospheric adjustment, to obtain the forcing, and eliminates the need for double radiation calculations and tropopause radiative fluxes. We show that for CO2 and solar forcing in a slab model and an AOGCM the method gives results consistent with those obtained by conventional methods. For a single integration it is less precise but since it does not require a steady state to be reached its precision could be improved by running an ensemble of short integrations.

15 April 2006 in Journal of Climate
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
RSR. J. Stouffer
R. J. Stouffer
JYJ. Yin
J. Yin
JGJ. M. Gregory
J. M. Gregory
KDK. W. Dixon
K. W. Dixon
MSM. J. Spelman
M. J. Spelman
SWS. L. Weber
S. L. Weber
The Atlantic thermohaline circulation (THC) is an important part of the earth's climate system. Previous research has shown large uncertainties in simulating future changes in this critical system. The simulated THC response to idealized freshwater perturbations and the associated climate changes have been intercompared as an activity of World Climate Research Program (WCRP) Coupled Model Intercomparison Project/Paleo-Modeling Intercomparison Project (CMIP/PMIP) committees. This intercomparison among models ranging from the earth system models of intermediate complexity (EMICs) to the fully coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation models (AOGCMs) seeks to document and improve understanding of the causes of the wide variations in the modeled THC response. The robustness of particular simulation features has been evaluated across the model results. In response to 0.1-Sv (1 Sv ≡ 106 m3 s−1) freshwater input in the northern North Atlantic, the multimodel ensemble mean THC weakens by 30% after 100 yr. All models simulate some weakening of the THC, but no model simulates a complete shutdown of the THC. The multimodel ensemble indicates that the surface air temperature could present a complex anomaly pattern with cooling south of Greenland and warming over the Barents and Nordic Seas. The Atlantic ITCZ tends to shift southward. In response to 1.0-Sv freshwater input, the THC switches off rapidly in all model simulations. A large cooling occurs over the North Atlantic. The annual mean Atlantic ITCZ moves into the Southern Hemisphere. Models disagree in terms of the reversibility of the THC after its shutdown. In general, the EMICs and AOGCMs obtain similar THC responses and climate changes with more pronounced and sharper patterns in the AOGCMs.

17 September 2020 in The Cryosphere
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
HSHélène Seroussi
Hélène Seroussi
SNSophie Nowicki
Sophie Nowicki
APAntony J. Payne
Antony J. Payne
HGHeiko Goelzer
Heiko Goelzer
WLWilliam H. Lipscomb
William H. Lipscomb
TZThomas Zwinger
Thomas Zwinger
Ice flow models of the Antarctic ice sheet are commonly used to simulate its future evolution in response to different climate scenarios and assess the mass loss that would contribute to future sea level rise. However, there is currently no consensus on estimates of the future mass balance of the ice sheet, primarily because of differences in the representation of physical processes, forcings employed and initial states of ice sheet models. This study presents results from ice flow model simulations from 13 international groups focusing on the evolution of the Antarctic ice sheet during the period 2015–2100 as part of the Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison for CMIP6 (ISMIP6). They are forced with outputs from a subset of models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5), representative of the spread in climate model results. Simulations of the Antarctic ice sheet contribution to sea level rise in response to increased warming during this period varies between −7.8 and 30.0 cm of sea level equivalent (SLE) under Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 scenario forcing. These numbers are relative to a control experiment with constant climate conditions and should therefore be added to the mass loss contribution under climate conditions similar to present-day conditions over the same period. The simulated evolution of the West Antarctic ice sheet varies widely among models, with an overall mass loss, up to 18.0 cm SLE, in response to changes in oceanic conditions. East Antarctica mass change varies between −6.1 and 8.3 cm SLE in the simulations, with a significant increase in surface mass balance outweighing the increased ice discharge under most RCP 8.5 scenario forcings. The inclusion of ice shelf collapse, here assumed to be caused by large amounts of liquid water ponding at the surface of ice shelves, yields an additional simulated mass loss of 28 mm compared to simulations without ice shelf collapse. The largest sources of uncertainty come from the climate forcing, the ocean-induced melt rates, the calibration of these melt rates based on oceanic conditions taken outside of ice shelf cavities and the ice sheet dynamic response to these oceanic changes. Results under RCP 2.6 scenario based on two CMIP5 climate models show an additional mass loss of 0 and 3 cm of SLE on average compared to simulations done under present-day conditions for the two CMIP5 forcings used and display limited mass gain in East Antarctica.

17 September 2020 in The Cryosphere
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
HGHeiko Goelzer
Heiko Goelzer
SNSophie Nowicki
Sophie Nowicki
APAnthony Payne
Anthony Payne
ELEric Larour
Eric Larour
HSHelene Seroussi
Helene Seroussi
MBMichiel Van den Broeke
Michiel Van den Broeke
The Greenland ice sheet is one of the largest contributors to global mean sea-level rise today and is expected to continue to lose mass as the Arctic continues to warm. The two predominant mass loss mechanisms are increased surface meltwater run-off and mass loss associated with the retreat of marine-terminating outlet glaciers. In this paper we use a large ensemble of Greenland ice sheet models forced by output from a representative subset of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) global climate models to project ice sheet changes and sea-level rise contributions over the 21st century. The simulations are part of the Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison Project for CMIP6 (ISMIP6). We estimate the sea-level contribution together with uncertainties due to future climate forcing, ice sheet model formulations and ocean forcing for the two greenhouse gas concentration scenarios RCP8.5 and RCP2.6. The results indicate that the Greenland ice sheet will continue to lose mass in both scenarios until 2100, with contributions of 90±50 and 32±17 mm to sea-level rise for RCP8.5 and RCP2.6, respectively. The largest mass loss is expected from the south-west of Greenland, which is governed by surface mass balance changes, continuing what is already observed today. Because the contributions are calculated against an unforced control experiment, these numbers do not include any committed mass loss, i.e. mass loss that would occur over the coming century if the climate forcing remained constant. Under RCP8.5 forcing, ice sheet model uncertainty explains an ensemble spread of 40 mm, while climate model uncertainty and ocean forcing uncertainty account for a spread of 36 and 19 mm, respectively. Apart from those formally derived uncertainty ranges, the largest gap in our knowledge is about the physical understanding and implementation of the calving process, i.e. the interaction of the ice sheet with the ocean.

29 April 2019 in Surveys in Geophysics
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
JGJonathan M. Gregory
Jonathan M. Gregory
SGStephen M. Griffies
Stephen M. Griffies
CHChris W. Hughes
Chris W. Hughes
JLJason A. Lowe
Jason A. Lowe
JCJohn A. Church
John A. Church
RWRoderik S. W. van de Wal
Roderik S. W. van de Wal
Changes in sea level lead to some of the most severe impacts of anthropogenic climate change. Consequently, they are a subject of great interest in both scientific research and public policy. This paper defines concepts and terminology associated with sea level and sea-level changes in order to facilitate progress in sea-level science, in which communication is sometimes hindered by inconsistent and unclear language. We identify key terms and clarify their physical and mathematical meanings, make links between concepts and across disciplines, draw distinctions where there is ambiguity, and propose new terminology where it is lacking or where existing terminology is confusing. We include formulae and diagrams to support the definitions.