scholarly journals The CMIP6 Data Request (version 01.00.31)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Juckes ◽  
Karl E. Taylor ◽  
Paul Durack ◽  
Bryan Lawrence ◽  
Matthew Mizielinski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Coupled Model ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
General Interest ◽  
Model Intercomparison ◽  
Information Base ◽  
Data Volume ◽  
Intercomparison Project ◽  
Technical Specifications ◽  
Data Request

Abstract. The data request of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) defines all the quantities from CMIP6 simulations that should be archived. This includes both quantities of general interest needed from most of the CMIP6-endorsed Model Intercomparison Projects (MIPs) and quantities that are more specialised and only of interest to a single endorsed MIP. The complexity of the data request has increased from the early days of model intercomparisons, as has the data volume. In contrast with CMIP5, CMIP6 requires distinct sets of highly tailored variables to be saved from each of the more than 200 experiments. This places new demands on the data request information base and results in a new requirement for development of software that facilitates automated interrogation of the request and retrieval of its technical specifications. The building blocks and structure of the CMIP6 Data Request (DREQ) which has been constructed to meet these challenges is described in this paper.

scholarly journals The CMIP6 Data Request (DREQ, version 01.00.31)

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 201-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Juckes ◽  
Karl E. Taylor ◽  
Paul J. Durack ◽  
Bryan Lawrence ◽  
Matthew S. Mizielinski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Coupled Model ◽  
Building Blocks ◽  
General Interest ◽  
Model Intercomparison ◽  
Information Base ◽  
Data Volume ◽  
Intercomparison Project ◽  
Technical Specifications ◽  
Data Request

Abstract. The data request of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) defines all the quantities from CMIP6 simulations that should be archived. This includes both quantities of general interest needed from most of the CMIP6-endorsed model intercomparison projects (MIPs) and quantities that are more specialized and only of interest to a single endorsed MIP. The complexity of the data request has increased from the early days of model intercomparisons, as has the data volume. In contrast with CMIP5, CMIP6 requires distinct sets of highly tailored variables to be saved from each of the more than 200 experiments. This places new demands on the data request information base and leads to a new requirement for development of software that facilitates automated interrogation of the request and retrieval of its technical specifications. The building blocks and structure of the CMIP6 Data Request (DREQ), which have been constructed to meet these challenges, are described in this paper.

scholarly journals A new end-to-end workflow for the Community Earth System Model (version 2.0) for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6)

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 5567-5581
Author(s):  
Sheri Mickelson ◽  
Alice Bertini ◽  
Gary Strand ◽  
Kevin Paul ◽  
Eric Nienhouse ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Coupled Model ◽  
Model Intercomparison ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Previous Generation ◽  
Data Volume ◽  
Community Earth System Model ◽  
Intercomparison Project ◽  
Version 2.0 ◽  
New Generation ◽  
Compressed Data

Abstract. The complexity of each Coupled Model Intercomparison Project grows with every new generation. The Phase 5 effort saw a dramatic increase in the number of experiments that were performed and the number of variables that were requested compared to its previous generation, Phase 3. The large increase in data volume stressed the resources of several centers including at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. During Phase 5, we missed several deadlines and we struggled to get the data out to the community for analysis. In preparation for the current generation, Phase 6, we examined the weaknesses in our workflow and addressed the performance issues with new software tools. Through this investment, we were able to publish approximately 565 TB of compressed data to the community, with another 30 TB yet to be published. When compared to the volumes we produced in the previous generation, 165 TB of uncompressed data, we were able to provide 6 times the amount of data and we accomplish this within one-third of the time. This provided us with an approximate 18 times faster speedup. While this paper discusses the improvements we have made to our own workflow for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6), we hope to encourage other centers to evaluate and invest in their own workflows in order to be successful in these types of modeling campaigns.

scholarly journals Future Changes in Simulated Evapotranspiration across Continental Africa Based on CMIP6 CNRM-CM6

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (13) ◽  
pp. 6760
Author(s):  
Isaac Kwesi Nooni ◽  
Daniel Fiifi T. Hagan ◽  
Guojie Wang ◽  
Waheed Ullah ◽  
Jiao Lu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Extreme Events ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Baseline Period ◽  
Model Intercomparison ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
Intercomparison Project ◽  
Key Drivers ◽  
Model Ensembles ◽  
Projected Changes ◽  
Near Future

The main goal of this study was to assess the interannual variations and spatial patterns of projected changes in simulated evapotranspiration (ET) in the 21st century over continental Africa based on the latest Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and the Representative Concentration Pathways (SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0, and SSP5-8.5) provided by the France Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques (CNRM-CM) model in the Sixth Phase of Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) framework. The projected spatial and temporal changes were computed for three time slices: 2020–2039 (near future), 2040–2069 (mid-century), and 2080–2099 (end-of-the-century), relative to the baseline period (1995–2014). The results show that the spatial pattern of the projected ET was not uniform and varied across the climate region and under the SSP-RCPs scenarios. Although the trends varied, they were statistically significant for all SSP-RCPs. The SSP5-8.5 and SSP3-7.0 projected higher ET seasonality than SSP1-2.6 and SSP2-4.5. In general, we suggest the need for modelers and forecasters to pay more attention to changes in the simulated ET and their impact on extreme events. The findings provide useful information for water resources managers to develop specific measures to mitigate extreme events in the regions most affected by possible changes in the region’s climate. However, readers are advised to treat the results with caution as they are based on a single GCM model. Further research on multi-model ensembles (as more models’ outputs become available) and possible key drivers may provide additional information on CMIP6 ET projections in the region.

scholarly journals Atmospheric and Surface Contributions to Planetary Albedo

2011 ◽  
Vol 24 (16) ◽  
pp. 4402-4418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron Donohoe ◽  
David S. Battisti
Keyword(s):  
Surface Albedo ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Small Contribution ◽  
Model Intercomparison ◽  
Radiation Model ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Surface Reflection ◽  
Global Average ◽  
Intercomparison Project ◽  
Planetary Albedo

Abstract The planetary albedo is partitioned into a component due to atmospheric reflection and a component due to surface reflection by using shortwave fluxes at the surface and top of the atmosphere in conjunction with a simple radiation model. The vast majority of the observed global average planetary albedo (88%) is due to atmospheric reflection. Surface reflection makes a relatively small contribution to planetary albedo because the atmosphere attenuates the surface contribution to planetary albedo by a factor of approximately 3. The global average planetary albedo in the ensemble average of phase 3 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3) preindustrial simulations is also primarily (87%) due to atmospheric albedo. The intermodel spread in planetary albedo is relatively large and is found to be predominantly a consequence of intermodel differences in atmospheric albedo, with surface processes playing a much smaller role despite significant intermodel differences in surface albedo. The CMIP3 models show a decrease in planetary albedo under a doubling of carbon dioxide—also primarily due to changes in atmospheric reflection (which explains more than 90% of the intermodel spread). All models show a decrease in planetary albedo due to the lowered surface albedo associated with a contraction of the cryosphere in a warmer world, but this effect is small compared to the spread in planetary albedo due to model differences in the change in clouds.

scholarly journals Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) in CMIP5 Models: RCP and Historical Simulations

2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (18) ◽  
pp. 7187-7197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wei Cheng ◽  
John C. H. Chiang ◽  
Dongxiao Zhang
Keyword(s):  
North Atlantic ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Meridional Overturning Circulation ◽  
First Century ◽  
Model Intercomparison ◽  
The North ◽  
Intercomparison Project ◽  
Meridional Overturning ◽  
The North Atlantic ◽  
Twenty First Century

Abstract The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) simulated by 10 models from phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) for the historical (1850–2005) and future climate is examined. The historical simulations of the AMOC mean state are more closely matched to observations than those of phase 3 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3). Similarly to CMIP3, all models predict a weakening of the AMOC in the twenty-first century, though the degree of weakening varies considerably among the models. Under the representative concentration pathway 4.5 (RCP4.5) scenario, the weakening by year 2100 is 5%–40% of the individual model's historical mean state; under RCP8.5, the weakening increases to 15%–60% over the same period. RCP4.5 leads to the stabilization of the AMOC in the second half of the twenty-first century and a slower (then weakening rate) but steady recovery thereafter, while RCP8.5 gives rise to a continuous weakening of the AMOC throughout the twenty-first century. In the CMIP5 historical simulations, all but one model exhibit a weak downward trend [ranging from −0.1 to −1.8 Sverdrup (Sv) century−1; 1 Sv ≡ 106 m3 s−1] over the twentieth century. Additionally, the multimodel ensemble–mean AMOC exhibits multidecadal variability with a ~60-yr periodicity and a peak-to-peak amplitude of ~1 Sv; all individual models project consistently onto this multidecadal mode. This multidecadal variability is significantly correlated with similar variations in the net surface shortwave radiative flux in the North Atlantic and with surface freshwater flux variations in the subpolar latitudes. Potential drivers for the twentieth-century multimodel AMOC variability, including external climate forcing and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), and the implication of these results on the North Atlantic SST variability are discussed.

scholarly journals Experimental and diagnostic protocol for the physical component of the CMIP6 Ocean Model Intercomparison Project (OMIP)

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen M. Griffies ◽  
Gokhan Danabasoglu ◽  
Paul J. Durack ◽  
Alistair J. Adcroft ◽  
V. Balaji ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sea Ice ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Companion Paper ◽  
Ocean Model ◽  
Global Ocean ◽  
Model Intercomparison ◽  
Experimental Protocol ◽  
Diagnostic Protocol ◽  
Intercomparison Project

Abstract. The Ocean Model Intercomparison Project (OMIP) aims to provide a framework for evaluating, understanding, and improving the ocean and sea-ice components of global climate and earth system models contributing to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). OMIP addresses these aims in two complementary manners: (A) by providing an experimental protocol for global ocean/sea-ice models run with a prescribed atmospheric forcing, (B) by providing a protocol for ocean diagnostics to be saved as part of CMIP6. We focus here on the physical component of OMIP, with a companion paper (Orr et al., 2016) offering details for the inert chemistry and interactive biogeochemistry. The physical portion of the OMIP experimental protocol follows that of the interannual Coordinated Ocean-ice Reference Experiments (CORE-II). Since 2009, CORE-I (Normal Year Forcing) and CORE-II have become the standard method to evaluate global ocean/sea-ice simulations and to examine mechanisms for forced ocean climate variability. The OMIP diagnostic protocol is relevant for any ocean model component of CMIP6, including the DECK (Diagnostic, Evaluation and Characterization of Klima experiments), historical simulations, FAFMIP (Flux Anomaly Forced MIP), C4MIP (Coupled Carbon Cycle Climate MIP), DAMIP (Detection and Attribution MIP), DCPP (Decadal Climate Prediction Project), ScenarioMIP (Scenario MIP), as well as the ocean-sea ice OMIP simulations. The bulk of this paper offers scientific rationale for saving these diagnostics.

scholarly journals Experimental protocol for sealevel projections from ISMIP6 standalone ice sheet models

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Nowicki ◽  
Antony J. Payne ◽  
Heiko Goelzer ◽  
Helene Seroussi ◽  
William H. Lipscomb ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sea Level ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Ice Sheet ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Sea Level Change ◽  
Model Intercomparison ◽  
Level Change ◽  
Ice Sheet Modeling ◽  
Emissions Scenarios ◽  
Intercomparison Project

Abstract. Projection of the contribution of ice sheets to sea-level change as part of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project – phase 6 (CMIP6) takes the form of simulations from coupled ice-sheet-climate models and standalone ice sheet models, overseen by the Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison Project for CMIP6 (ISMIP6). This paper describes the experimental setup for process-based sea-level change projections to be performed with standalone Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet models in the context of ISMIP6. The ISMIP6 protocol relies on a suite of polar atmospheric and oceanic CMIP-based forcing for ice sheet models, in order to explore the uncertainty in projected sea-level change due to future emissions scenarios, CMIP models, ice sheet models, and parameterizations for ice-ocean interactions. We describe here the approach taken for defining the suite of ISMIP6 standalone ice sheet simulations, document the experimental framework and implementation, as well as present an overview of the ISMIP6 forcing to be used by participating ice sheet modeling groups.

Workflow and tools to analyse the PMIP4-CMIP6 ensemble

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anni Zhao ◽  
Chris Brierley
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Important Case ◽  
Earth System ◽  
Model Intercomparison ◽  
Past Climate ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Earth ◽  
Intercomparison Project

<p>Experiment outputs are now available from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project’s 6<sup>th</sup> phase (CMIP6) and the past climate experiments defined in the Model Intercomparison Project’s 4<sup>th</sup> phase (PMIP4). All of this output is freely available from the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF). Yet there are overheads in analysing this resource that may prove complicated or prohibitive. Here we document the steps taken by ourselves to produce ensemble analyses covering past and future simulations. We outline the strategy used to curate, adjust the monthly calendar aggregation and process the information downloaded from the ESGF. The results of these steps were used to perform analysis for several of the initial publications arising from PMIP4. We provide post-processed fields for each simulation, such as climatologies and common measures of variability. Example scripts used to visualise and analyse these fields is provided for several important case studies.</p>

scholarly journals AerChemMIP: quantifying the effects of chemistry and aerosols in CMIP6

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 585-607 ◽  
Author(s):  
William J. Collins ◽  
Jean-François Lamarque ◽  
Michael Schulz ◽  
Olivier Boucher ◽  
Veronika Eyring ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Air Quality ◽  
Atmospheric Chemistry ◽  
Radiative Forcing ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Climate Impacts ◽  
Atmospheric Composition ◽  
Historical Period ◽  
Model Intercomparison ◽  
Intercomparison Project

Abstract. The Aerosol Chemistry Model Intercomparison Project (AerChemMIP) is endorsed by the Coupled-Model Intercomparison Project 6 (CMIP6) and is designed to quantify the climate and air quality impacts of aerosols and chemically reactive gases. These are specifically near-term climate forcers (NTCFs: methane, tropospheric ozone and aerosols, and their precursors), nitrous oxide and ozone-depleting halocarbons. The aim of AerChemMIP is to answer four scientific questions. 1. How have anthropogenic emissions contributed to global radiative forcing and affected regional climate over the historical period? 2. How might future policies (on climate, air quality and land use) affect the abundances of NTCFs and their climate impacts? 3.How do uncertainties in historical NTCF emissions affect radiative forcing estimates? 4. How important are climate feedbacks to natural NTCF emissions, atmospheric composition, and radiative effects? These questions will be addressed through targeted simulations with CMIP6 climate models that include an interactive representation of tropospheric aerosols and atmospheric chemistry. These simulations build on the CMIP6 Diagnostic, Evaluation and Characterization of Klima (DECK) experiments, the CMIP6 historical simulations, and future projections performed elsewhere in CMIP6, allowing the contributions from aerosols and/or chemistry to be quantified. Specific diagnostics are requested as part of the CMIP6 data request to highlight the chemical composition of the atmosphere, to evaluate the performance of the models, and to understand differences in behaviour between them.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document