scholarly journals Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks of a New Coupled Model CAMS-CSM to Idealized CO2 Forcing: A Comparison with CMIP5 Models

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaolong Chen ◽  
Zhun Guo ◽  
Tianjun Zhou ◽  
Jian Li ◽  
Xinyao Rong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Sensitivity ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Cmip5 Models ◽  
Co2 Forcing

scholarly journals On the Climate Sensitivity and Historical Warming Evolution in Recent Coupled Model Ensembles

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clare Marie Flynn ◽  
Thorsten Mauritsen
Keyword(s):  
Climate Sensitivity ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Cmip5 Models ◽  
Antarctic Sea Ice ◽  
Intercomparison Project ◽  
Future Warming ◽  
Model Treatment ◽  
Systematic Shift ◽  
Model Ensembles

Abstract. The Earth's equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, along with the transient 35 climate response (TCR) and greenhouse gas emissions pathways, determines the amount of future warming. Coupled climate models have in the past been important tools to estimate and understand ECS. ECS estimated from Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) models lies between 2.0 and 4.7 K (mean of 3.2 K), whereas in the latest CMIP6 the spread has increased: 1.8–5.5 K (mean of 3.7 K), with 5 out of 25 models exceeding 5 K. It is thus pertinent to understand the causes underlying this shift. Here we compare the CMIP5 and CMIP6 model ensembles, and find a systematic shift between CMIP eras to be unexplained as a process of random sampling from modeled forcing and feedback distributions. Instead, shortwave feedbacks shift towards more positive values, in particular over the Southern Ocean, driving the shift towards larger ECS values in many of the models. These results suggest that changes in model treatment of mixed-phase cloud processes and changes to Antarctic sea ice representation are likely causes of the shift towards larger ECS. Somewhat surprisingly, CMIP6 models exhibit less historical warming than CMIP5 models; the evolution of the warming suggests, however, that several of the models apply too strong aerosol cooling resulting in too weak mid 20th Century warming compared to the instrumental record.

scholarly journals Effective radiative forcing and adjustments in CMIP6 models

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (16) ◽  
pp. 9591-9618 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher J. Smith ◽  
Ryan J. Kramer ◽  
Gunnar Myhre ◽  
Kari Alterskjær ◽  
William Collins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Sensitivity ◽  
Radiative Forcing ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Internal Variability ◽  
Cmip5 Models ◽  
Model Intercomparison ◽  
Aerosol Forcing ◽  
Intercomparison Project ◽  
Effective Radiative Forcing

Abstract. The effective radiative forcing, which includes the instantaneous forcing plus adjustments from the atmosphere and surface, has emerged as the key metric of evaluating human and natural influence on the climate. We evaluate effective radiative forcing and adjustments in 17 contemporary climate models that are participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) and have contributed to the Radiative Forcing Model Intercomparison Project (RFMIP). Present-day (2014) global-mean anthropogenic forcing relative to pre-industrial (1850) levels from climate models stands at 2.00 (±0.23) W m−2, comprised of 1.81 (±0.09) W m−2 from CO2, 1.08 (± 0.21) W m−2 from other well-mixed greenhouse gases, −1.01 (± 0.23) W m−2 from aerosols and −0.09 (±0.13) W m−2 from land use change. Quoted uncertainties are 1 standard deviation across model best estimates, and 90 % confidence in the reported forcings, due to internal variability, is typically within 0.1 W m−2. The majority of the remaining 0.21 W m−2 is likely to be from ozone. In most cases, the largest contributors to the spread in effective radiative forcing (ERF) is from the instantaneous radiative forcing (IRF) and from cloud responses, particularly aerosol–cloud interactions to aerosol forcing. As determined in previous studies, cancellation of tropospheric and surface adjustments means that the stratospherically adjusted radiative forcing is approximately equal to ERF for greenhouse gas forcing but not for aerosols, and consequentially, not for the anthropogenic total. The spread of aerosol forcing ranges from −0.63 to −1.37 W m−2, exhibiting a less negative mean and narrower range compared to 10 CMIP5 models. The spread in 4×CO2 forcing has also narrowed in CMIP6 compared to 13 CMIP5 models. Aerosol forcing is uncorrelated with climate sensitivity. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that the increasing spread in climate sensitivity in CMIP6 models, particularly related to high-sensitivity models, is a consequence of a stronger negative present-day aerosol forcing and little evidence that modelling groups are systematically tuning climate sensitivity or aerosol forcing to recreate observed historical warming.

scholarly journals On the climate sensitivity and historical warming evolution in recent coupled model ensembles

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (13) ◽  
pp. 7829-7842 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clare Marie Flynn ◽  
Thorsten Mauritsen
Keyword(s):  
Climate Sensitivity ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Cmip5 Models ◽  
Transient Climate Response ◽  
Antarctic Sea Ice ◽  
Intercomparison Project ◽  
Future Warming ◽  
Model Treatment ◽  
Model Ensembles

Abstract. The Earth's equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, along with the transient climate response (TCR) and greenhouse gas emissions pathways, determines the amount of future warming. Coupled climate models have in the past been important tools to estimate and understand ECS. ECS estimated from Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) models lies between 2.0 and 4.7 K (mean of 3.2 K), whereas in the latest CMIP6 the spread has increased to 1.8–5.5 K (mean of 3.7 K), with 5 out of 25 models exceeding 5 K. It is thus pertinent to understand the causes underlying this shift. Here we compare the CMIP5 and CMIP6 model ensembles and find a systematic shift between CMIP eras to be unexplained as a process of random sampling from modeled forcing and feedback distributions. Instead, shortwave feedbacks shift towards more positive values, in particular over the Southern Ocean, driving the shift towards larger ECS values in many of the models. These results suggest that changes in model treatment of mixed-phase cloud processes and changes to Antarctic sea ice representation are likely causes of the shift towards larger ECS. Somewhat surprisingly, CMIP6 models exhibit less historical warming than CMIP5 models, despite an increase in TCR between CMIP eras (mean TCR increased from 1.7 to 1.9 K). The evolution of the warming suggests, however, that several of the CMIP6 models apply too strong aerosol cooling, resulting in too weak mid-20th century warming compared to the instrumental record.

scholarly journals Context for interpreting equilibrium climate sensitivity and transient climate response from the CMIP6 Earth system models

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (26) ◽  
pp. eaba1981 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerald A. Meehl ◽  
Catherine A. Senior ◽  
Veronika Eyring ◽  
Gregory Flato ◽  
Jean-Francois Lamarque ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Sensitivity ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Cmip5 Models ◽  
Climate Response ◽  
Earth System ◽  
Transient Climate Response ◽  
Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity ◽  
System Models ◽  
Intercomparison Project ◽  
Earth System Models

For the current generation of earth system models participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6), the range of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS, a hypothetical value of global warming at equilibrium for a doubling of CO2) is 1.8°C to 5.6°C, the largest of any generation of models dating to the 1990s. Meanwhile, the range of transient climate response (TCR, the surface temperature warming around the time of CO2 doubling in a 1% per year CO2 increase simulation) for the CMIP6 models of 1.7°C (1.3°C to 3.0°C) is only slightly larger than for the CMIP3 and CMIP5 models. Here we review and synthesize the latest developments in ECS and TCR values in CMIP, compile possible reasons for the current values as supplied by the modeling groups, and highlight future directions. Cloud feedbacks and cloud-aerosol interactions are the most likely contributors to the high values and increased range of ECS in CMIP6.

Trend analysis and transient climate sensitivity revealed by CMIP6

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Menghan Yuan ◽  
Thomas Leirvik
Keyword(s):  
Climate Sensitivity ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Global Climate Models ◽  
Cmip5 Models ◽  
Published Data ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Climate Forcings ◽  
The Moment

<p>CMIP6 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Version 6) is currently publishing updates on simulations for Global Climate Models (GCMs). In this paper, we focus on analyzing surface temperature and downward solar radiation (SDSR), which are two essential variables in estimating the transient climate sensitivity (TCS). We carry out the analysis for five GCMs that have published data at the moment. More GCMs will be included in the analysis when data is available. The research period dates from 1960 to 2014, providing the latest available projection for climate forcings. Temperature projections accord reasonably well with observations. This is no surprise, as data for CMIP5 was also aligned with observations.  On the other hand, a striking improvement has been observed with respect to SDSR. According to Storelvmo et al. (2018), CMIP5 models showed no statistically significant trend over time and revealed egregious mismatch with observations, casting major concerns about their fidelity. The data from CMIP6 models, however, this mismatch between simulations and observations is substantially alleviated. Not only is a negative trend recorded, but the significant fall around the beginning of the 1990s, due to the Mount Pinatubo eruption, is also reproduced, though with a slightly smaller scale compared to the observations in that period.<br>Based on the econometric framework from Phillips et al. (2019), we estimate the TCS for five GCMs. We find that the TCS estimates range from 2.03K to 2.65K. Each reported TCS for the five GCM’s are within it’s corresponding 95% confidence interval for the estimated TCS. It is worth noticing that a 25-year rolling window estimation indicates that average TCS for the GCMs varies greatly along time, though it has a significant upward trend from the beginning of the 1990s until 2009, and flattens, or even decreases, afterward.<br>We also compute the sample average of the TCS estimates. We find that for the period 1964-2005, which is used in Phillips et al. (2019), the average TCS is 1.82 for the CMIP5 models, and 2.07 for CMIP6. The difference is not significant. For the 1964-2014 period, however, the average TCS estimate for CMIP6 is 2.38, which is significantly higher than the average CMIP5 estimates. Since we find that the CMIP6 simulations reproduce observed trends in RSDS much better than the CMIP5 simulations, when compared to observations, this indicates both that the econometric framework of Phillips et al.(2019) is working very well and captures key drivers of the climate, and that the true TCS is most likely closer to the estimated TCS for observations.</p>

scholarly journals Climate Sensitivity and Feedback of a New Coupled Model (K-ACE) to Idealized CO2 Forcing

Atmosphere ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 1218
Author(s):  
Min-Ah Sun ◽  
Hyun Min Sung ◽  
Jisun Kim ◽  
Kyung-On Boo ◽  
Yoon-Jin Lim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Sensitivity ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Cloud Feedback ◽  
Climate Simulation ◽  
Cmip5 Models ◽  
System Response ◽  
Coupled Models ◽  
Radiative Feedback ◽  
Clear Sky ◽  
Earth’S System

Climate sensitivity and feedback processes are important for understanding Earth’s system response to increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Many modelling groups that contribute to Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6) have reported a larger equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) with their models compared to CMIP5 models. This consistent result is also found in the Korea Meteorological Administration Advanced Community Earth System model (K-ACE). Idealized climate simulation is conducted as an entry card for CMIP6 to understand Earth’s system response in new coupled models and compared to CMIP5 models. The ECS in the K-ACE is 4.83 K, which is higher than the range (2.1–4.7 K) of CMIP5 models in sensitivity to CO2 change and higher bound (1.8–5.6 K) of CMIP6 models. The radiative feedback consists of clear-sky and cloud radiative feedback. Clear-sky feedback of K-ACE is similar to CMIP5 models whereas cloud feedback of K-ACE is more positive. The result is attributable for strong positive shortwave cloud radiative effect (CRE) feedback associated with reduced low-level cloud cover at mid latitude in both hemispheres. Despite the cancellations in strong negative long wave CRE feedback with the changes in high-level clouds in the tropics, shortwave CRE has a dominant effect in net CRE. Detailed understanding of cloud feedback and cloud properties needs further study.

scholarly journals Origins of Biases in CMIP5 Models Simulating Northwest Pacific Summertime Atmospheric Circulation Anomalies during the Decaying Phase of ENSO

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (14) ◽  
pp. 5707-5729 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weichen Tao ◽  
Gang Huang ◽  
Renguang Wu ◽  
Kaiming Hu ◽  
Pengfei Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atmospheric Circulation ◽  
Southern Oscillation ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Tropical Indian Ocean ◽  
Shortwave Radiation ◽  
Cmip5 Models ◽  
Northwest Pacific ◽  
Circulation Anomalies ◽  
Atmospheric Circulation Anomalies ◽  
Sst Anomalies

Abstract The present study documents the biases of summertime northwest Pacific (NWP) atmospheric circulation anomalies during the decaying phase of ENSO and investigates their plausible reasons in 32 models from phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. Based on an intermodel empirical orthogonal function (EOF) analysis of El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO)-related 850-hPa wind anomalies, the dominant modes of biases are extracted. The first EOF mode, explaining 21.3% of total intermodel variance, is characterized by a cyclone over the NWP, indicating a weaker NWP anticyclone. The cyclone appears to be a Rossby wave response to unrealistic equatorial western Pacific (WP) sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies related to excessive equatorial Pacific cold tongue in the models. On one hand, the cold SST biases increase the mean zonal SST gradient, which further intensifies warm zonal advection, favoring the development and persistence of equatorial WP SST anomalies. On the other hand, they reduce the anomalous convection caused by ENSO-related warming, and the resultant increase in downward shortwave radiation contributes to the SST anomalies there. The second EOF mode, explaining 18.6% of total intermodel variance, features an anticyclone over the NWP with location shifted northward. The related SST anomalies in the Indo-Pacific sector show a tripole structure, with warming in the tropical Indian Ocean and equatorial central and eastern Pacific and cooling in the NWP. The Indo-Pacific SST anomalies are highly controlled by ENSO amplitude, which is determined by the intensity of subtropical cells via the adjustment of meridional and vertical advection in the models.

scholarly journals Climate Drift in the CMIP5 Models*

2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (21) ◽  
pp. 8597-8615 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Sen Gupta ◽  
Nicolas C. Jourdain ◽  
Jaclyn N. Brown ◽  
Didier Monselesan
Keyword(s):  
Climate Models ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Deep Ocean ◽  
Internal Variability ◽  
Correction Method ◽  
Physical Models ◽  
Cmip5 Models ◽  
Steric Sea Level ◽  
Biogeochemical Models ◽  
The Difference

Abstract Climate models often exhibit spurious long-term changes independent of either internal variability or changes to external forcing. Such changes, referred to as model “drift,” may distort the estimate of forced change in transient climate simulations. The importance of drift is examined in comparison to historical trends over recent decades in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). Comparison based on a selection of metrics suggests a significant overall reduction in the magnitude of drift from phase 3 of CMIP (CMIP3) to phase 5 of CMIP (CMIP5). The direction of both ocean and atmospheric drift is systematically biased in some models introducing statistically significant drift in globally averaged metrics. Nevertheless, for most models globally averaged drift remains weak compared to the associated forced trends and is often smaller than the difference between trends derived from different ensemble members or the error introduced by the aliasing of natural variability. An exception to this is metrics that include the deep ocean (e.g., steric sea level) where drift can dominate in forced simulations. In such circumstances drift must be corrected for using information from concurrent control experiments. Many CMIP5 models now include ocean biogeochemistry. Like physical models, biogeochemical models generally undergo long spinup integrations to minimize drift. Nevertheless, based on a limited subset of models, it is found that drift is an important consideration and must be accounted for. For properties or regions where drift is important, the drift correction method must be carefully considered. The use of a drift estimate based on the full control time series is recommended to minimize the contamination of the drift estimate by internal variability.

scholarly journals Cloud albedo changes in response to anthropogenic sulfate and non-sulfate aerosol forcings in CMIP5 models

2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (14) ◽  
pp. 9145-9162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lena Frey ◽  
Frida A.-M. Bender ◽  
Gunilla Svensson
Keyword(s):  
Water Content ◽  
Liquid Water ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Cmip5 Models ◽  
Liquid Water Path ◽  
Anthropogenic Aerosols ◽  
Aerosol Composition ◽  
Cloud Albedo ◽  
Cloud Water Content ◽  
Absorbing Aerosols

Abstract. The effects of different aerosol types on cloud albedo are analysed using the linear relation between total albedo and cloud fraction found on a monthly mean scale in regions of subtropical marine stratocumulus clouds and the influence of simulated aerosol variations on this relation. Model experiments from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) are used to separately study the responses to increases in sulfate, non-sulfate and all anthropogenic aerosols. A cloud brightening on the month-to-month scale due to variability in the background aerosol is found to dominate even in the cases where anthropogenic aerosols are added. The aerosol composition is of importance for this cloud brightening, that is thereby region dependent. There is indication that absorbing aerosols to some extent counteract the cloud brightening but scene darkening with increasing aerosol burden is generally not supported, even in regions where absorbing aerosols dominate. Month-to-month cloud albedo variability also confirms the importance of liquid water content for cloud albedo. Regional, monthly mean cloud albedo is found to increase with the addition of anthropogenic aerosols and more so with sulfate than non-sulfate. Changes in cloud albedo between experiments are related to changes in cloud water content as well as droplet size distribution changes, so that models with large increases in liquid water path and/or cloud droplet number show large cloud albedo increases with increasing aerosol. However, no clear relation between model sensitivities to aerosol variations on the month-to-month scale and changes in cloud albedo due to changed aerosol burden is found.

scholarly journals CMIP5 Simulations of Low-Level Tropospheric Temperature and Moisture over the Tropical Americas

2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (17) ◽  
pp. 6257-6286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leila M. V. Carvalho ◽  
Charles Jones
Keyword(s):  
Daily Precipitation ◽  
Monsoon Season ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Specific Humidity ◽  
Cmip5 Models ◽  
North American Monsoon ◽  
Tropospheric Temperature ◽  
The North ◽  
Decadal Variations ◽  
Monsoon System

Abstract Global warming has been linked to systematic changes in North and South America's climates and may severely impact the North American monsoon system (NAMS) and South American monsoon system (SAMS). This study examines interannual-to-decadal variations and changes in the low-troposphere (850 hPa) temperature (T850) and specific humidity (Q850) and relationships with daily precipitation over the tropical Americas using the NCEP–NCAR reanalysis, the Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR), and phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) simulations for two scenarios: “historic” and high-emission representative concentration pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5). Trends in the magnitude and area of the 85th percentiles were distinctly examined over North America (NA) and South America (SA) during the peak of the respective monsoon season. The historic simulations (1951–2005) and the two reanalyses agree well and indicate that significant warming has occurred over tropical SA with a remarkable increase in the area and magnitude of the 85th percentile in the last decade (1996–2005). The RCP8.5 CMIP5 ensemble mean projects an increase in the T850 85th percentile of about 2.5°C (2.8°C) by 2050 and 4.8°C (5.5°C) over SA (NA) by 2095 relative to 1955. The area of SA (NA) with T850 ≥ the 85th percentile is projected to increase from ~10% (15%) in 1955 to ~58% (~33%) by 2050 and ~80% (~50%) by 2095. The respective increase in the 85th percentile of Q850 is about 3 g kg−1 over SAMS and NAMS by 2095. CMIP5 models project variable changes in daily precipitation over the tropical Americas. The most consistent is increased rainfall in the intertropical convergence zone in December–February (DJF) and June–August (JJA) and decreased precipitation over NAMS in JJA.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document