scholarly journals C4MIP – The Coupled Climate–Carbon Cycle Model Intercomparison Project: experimental protocol for CMIP6

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 2853-2880 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris D. Jones ◽  
Vivek Arora ◽  
Pierre Friedlingstein ◽  
Laurent Bopp ◽  
Victor Brovkin ◽  
...  

Abstract. Coordinated experimental design and implementation has become a cornerstone of global climate modelling. Model Intercomparison Projects (MIPs) enable systematic and robust analysis of results across many models, by reducing the influence of ad hoc differences in model set-up or experimental boundary conditions. As it enters its 6th phase, the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) has grown significantly in scope with the design and documentation of individual simulations delegated to individual climate science communities. The Coupled Climate–Carbon Cycle Model Intercomparison Project (C4MIP) takes responsibility for design, documentation, and analysis of carbon cycle feedbacks and interactions in climate simulations. These feedbacks are potentially large and play a leading-order contribution in determining the atmospheric composition in response to human emissions of CO2 and in the setting of emissions targets to stabilize climate or avoid dangerous climate change. For over a decade, C4MIP has coordinated coupled climate–carbon cycle simulations, and in this paper we describe the C4MIP simulations that will be formally part of CMIP6. While the climate–carbon cycle community has created this experimental design, the simulations also fit within the wider CMIP activity, conform to some common standards including documentation and diagnostic requests, and are designed to complement the CMIP core experiments known as the Diagnostic, Evaluation and Characterization of Klima (DECK). C4MIP has three key strands of scientific motivation and the requested simulations are designed to satisfy their needs: (1) pre-industrial and historical simulations (formally part of the common set of CMIP6 experiments) to enable model evaluation, (2) idealized coupled and partially coupled simulations with 1 % per year increases in CO2 to enable diagnosis of feedback strength and its components, (3) future scenario simulations to project how the Earth system will respond to anthropogenic activity over the 21st century and beyond. This paper documents in detail these simulations, explains their rationale and planned analysis, and describes how to set up and run the simulations. Particular attention is paid to boundary conditions, input data, and requested output diagnostics. It is important that modelling groups participating in C4MIP adhere as closely as possible to this experimental design.

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris D. Jones ◽  
Vivek Arora ◽  
Pierre Friedlingstein ◽  
Laurent Bopp ◽  
Victor Brovkin ◽  
...  

Abstract. Coordinated experimental design and implementation has become a cornerstone of global climate modelling. So-called Model Intercomparison Projects (MIPs) enable systematic and robust analysis of results across many models to identify common signals and understand model similarities and differences without being hindered by ad-hoc differences in model set-up or experimental boundary conditions. The activity known as the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) has thus grown significantly in scope and as it enters its 6th phase, CMIP6, the design and documentation of individual simulations has been devolved to individual climate science communities. The Coupled Climate-Carbon Cycle Model Intercomparison Project (C4MIP) takes responsibility for design, documentation and analysis of carbon cycle feedbacks and interactions in climate simulations. These feedbacks are potentially large and play a leading order contribution in determining the atmospheric composition in response to human emissions of CO2 and in the setting of emissions targets to stabilise climate or avoid dangerous climate change. For over a decade C4MIP has coordinated coupled climate-carbon cycle simulations and in this paper we describe the C4MIP simulations that will be formally part of CMIP6. While the climate-carbon cycle community has formed this experimental design the simulations also fit into the wider CMIP activity and conform to some common standards such as documentation and diagnostic requests and are designed to complement the CMIP core experiments known as the DECK. C4MIP has 3 key strands of scientific motivation and the requested simulations are designed to satisfy their needs: (1) pre-industrial and historical simulations (formally part of the common set of CMIP6 experiments) to enable model evaluation; (2) idealised coupled and partially-coupled simulations with 1 % per year increases in CO2 to enable diagnosis of feedback strength and its components; (3) future scenario simulations to project how the Earth System will respond over the 21st century and beyond to anthropogenic activity. This paper documents in detail these simulations, explains their rationale and planned analysis, and describes how to set-up and run the simulations. Particular attention is paid to boundary conditions and input data required, and also the output diagnostics requested. It is important that modelling groups participating in C4MIP adhere as closely as possible to this experimental design.


2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 571-577 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. M. Haywood ◽  
H. J. Dowsett ◽  
M. M. Robinson ◽  
D. K. Stoll ◽  
A. M. Dolan ◽  
...  

Abstract. The Palaeoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project has expanded to include a model intercomparison for the mid-Pliocene warm period (3.29 to 2.97 million yr ago). This project is referred to as PlioMIP (the Pliocene Model Intercomparison Project). Two experiments have been agreed upon and together compose the initial phase of PlioMIP. The first (Experiment 1) is being performed with atmosphere-only climate models. The second (Experiment 2) utilises fully coupled ocean-atmosphere climate models. Following on from the publication of the experimental design and boundary conditions for Experiment 1 in Geoscientific Model Development, this paper provides the necessary description of differences and/or additions to the experimental design for Experiment 2.


2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 597-611 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Hugh MacDougall

Abstract. Idealized climate change simulations are used as benchmark experiments to facilitate the comparison of ensembles of climate models. In the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5), the 1 % per yearly compounded change in atmospheric CO2 concentration experiment was used to compare Earth system models with full representations of the global carbon cycle in the Coupled Climate–Carbon Cycle Model Intercomparison Project (C4MIP). However, this “1 % experiment” was never intended for such a purpose and implies a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration at double the rate of the instrumental record. Here, we examine this choice by using an intermediate complexity climate model to compare the 1 % experiment to an idealized CO2 pathway derived from a logistic function. The comparison shows three key differences in model output when forcing the model with the logistic experiment. (1) The model forced with the logistic experiment exhibits a transition of the land biosphere from a carbon sink to a carbon source, a feature absent when forcing the model with the 1 % experiment. (2) The ocean uptake of carbon comes to dominate the carbon cycle as emissions decline, a feature that cannot be captured when forcing a model with the 1 % experiment, as emissions always increase in that experiment. (3) The permafrost carbon feedback to climate change under the 1 % experiment forcing is less than half the strength of the feedback seen under logistic experiment forcing. Using the logistic experiment also allows smooth transition to zero or negative emissions states, allowing these states to be examined without sharp discontinuities in CO2 emissions. The protocol for the CMIP6 iteration of C4MIP again sets the 1 % experiment as the benchmark experiment for model intercomparison; however, clever use of the Tier 2 experiments may alleviate some of the limitations outlined here. Given the limitations of the 1 % experiment as the benchmark experiment for carbon cycle intercomparisons, adding a logistic or similar idealized experiment to the protocol of the CMIP7 iteration of C4MIP is recommended.


2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 663-675 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan M. Haywood ◽  
Harry J. Dowsett ◽  
Aisling M. Dolan ◽  
David Rowley ◽  
Ayako Abe-Ouchi ◽  
...  

Abstract. The Pliocene Model Intercomparison Project (PlioMIP) is a co-ordinated international climate modelling initiative to study and understand climate and environments of the Late Pliocene, as well as their potential relevance in the context of future climate change. PlioMIP examines the consistency of model predictions in simulating Pliocene climate and their ability to reproduce climate signals preserved by geological climate archives. Here we provide a description of the aim and objectives of the next phase of the model intercomparison project (PlioMIP Phase 2), and we present the experimental design and boundary conditions that will be utilized for climate model experiments in Phase 2. Following on from PlioMIP Phase 1, Phase 2 will continue to be a mechanism for sampling structural uncertainty within climate models. However, Phase 1 demonstrated the requirement to better understand boundary condition uncertainties as well as uncertainty in the methodologies used for data–model comparison. Therefore, our strategy for Phase 2 is to utilize state-of-the-art boundary conditions that have emerged over the last 5 years. These include a new palaeogeographic reconstruction, detailing ocean bathymetry and land–ice surface topography. The ice surface topography is built upon the lessons learned from offline ice sheet modelling studies. Land surface cover has been enhanced by recent additions of Pliocene soils and lakes. Atmospheric reconstructions of palaeo-CO2 are emerging on orbital timescales, and these are also incorporated into PlioMIP Phase 2. New records of surface and sea surface temperature change are being produced that will be more temporally consistent with the boundary conditions and forcings used within models. Finally we have designed a suite of prioritized experiments that tackle issues surrounding the basic understanding of the Pliocene and its relevance in the context of future climate change in a discrete way.


2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 4003-4038 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. M. Haywood ◽  
H. J. Dowsett ◽  
A. M. Dolan ◽  
D. Rowley ◽  
A. Abe-Ouchi ◽  
...  

Abstract. The Pliocene Model Intercomparison Project (PlioMIP) is a co-ordinated international climate modelling initiative to study and understand climate and environments of the Late Pliocene, and their potential relevance in the context of future climate change. PlioMIP operates under the umbrella of the Palaeoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project (PMIP), which examines multiple intervals in Earth history, the consistency of model predictions in simulating these intervals and their ability to reproduce climate signals preserved in geological climate archives. This paper provides a thorough model intercomparison project description, and documents the experimental design in a detailed way. Specifically, this paper describes the experimental design and boundary conditions that will be utilised for the experiments in Phase 2 of PlioMIP.


2010 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 227-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. M. Haywood ◽  
H. J. Dowsett ◽  
B. Otto-Bliesner ◽  
M. A. Chandler ◽  
A. M. Dolan ◽  
...  

Abstract. In 2008 the temporal focus of the Palaeoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project was expanded to include a model intercomparison for the mid-Pliocene warm period (3.29–2.97 million years ago). This project is referred to as PlioMIP (Pliocene Model Intercomparison Project). Two experiments have been agreed upon and comprise phase 1 of PlioMIP. The first (Experiment 1) will be performed with atmosphere-only climate models. The second (Experiment 2) will utilise fully coupled ocean-atmosphere climate models. The aim of this paper is to provide a detailed model intercomparison project description which documents the experimental design in a more detailed way than has previously been done in the literature. Specifically, this paper describes the experimental design and boundary conditions that will be utilised for Experiment 1 of PlioMIP.


2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 445-456
Author(s):  
A. M. Haywood ◽  
H. J. Dowsett ◽  
M. M. Robinson ◽  
D. K. Stoll ◽  
A. M. Dolan ◽  
...  

Abstract. The Palaeoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project has expanded to include a model intercomparison for the mid-Pliocene warm period (~3.3 to 3.0 million yr ago). This project is referred to as PlioMIP (Pliocene Model Intercomparison Project). Two experiments have been agreed and together compose phase 1 of PlioMIP. The first (Experiment 1) is being performed with atmosphere-only climate models. The second (Experiment 2) is utilising fully coupled ocean-atmosphere climate models. Following on from the publication of the experimental design and boundary conditions for Experiment 1 in Geoscientific Model Development, this short paper provides the necessary description of differences and/or additions to the experimental design for Experiment 2.


2009 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 1215-1244 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. M. Haywood ◽  
H. J. Dowsett ◽  
B. Otto-Bliesner ◽  
M. A. Chandler ◽  
A. M. Dolan ◽  
...  

Abstract. In 2008 the temporal focus of the Palaeoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project was expanded to include a model intercomparison for the mid-Pliocene warm period (ca. 2.97 to 3.29 Ma BP). This project is referred to as PlioMIP (Pliocene Model Intercomparison Project). Two experiments have been agreed upon and comprise phase 1 of the PlioMIP. The first (Experiment 1) will be performed with atmosphere-only GCMs. The second (Experiment 2) will utilise fully coupled ocean-atmosphere GCMs. This paper describes the experimental design and boundary conditions that will be utilised for Experiment 1 of the PlioMIP project.


Tellus B ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 62 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor Brovkin ◽  
Stephan J. Lorenz ◽  
Johann Jungclaus ◽  
Thomas Raddatz ◽  
Claudia Timmreck ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document