scholarly journals The Dynamics and Variability Model Intercomparison Project (DynVarMIP) for CMIP6: assessing the stratosphere–troposphere system

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 3413-3425 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edwin P. Gerber ◽  
Elisa Manzini
Keyword(s):  
Climate Models ◽  
Energy Transport ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Model Intercomparison ◽  
Dynamical Processes ◽  
Surface Climate ◽  
Intercomparison Project ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Variability Model

Abstract. Diagnostics of atmospheric momentum and energy transport are needed to investigate the origin of circulation biases in climate models and to understand the atmospheric response to natural and anthropogenic forcing. Model biases in atmospheric dynamics are one of the factors that increase uncertainty in projections of regional climate, precipitation and extreme events. Here we define requirements for diagnosing the atmospheric circulation and variability across temporal scales and for evaluating the transport of mass, momentum and energy by dynamical processes in the context of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). These diagnostics target the assessments of both resolved and parameterized dynamical processes in climate models, a novelty for CMIP, and are particularly vital for assessing the impact of the stratosphere on surface climate change.

scholarly journals DynVarMIP: Assessing the Dynamics and Variability of the Stratosphere-Troposphere System

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edwin P. Gerber ◽  
Elisa Manzini
Keyword(s):  
Climate Models ◽  
Energy Transport ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Atmospheric Response ◽  
Model Intercomparison ◽  
Dynamical Processes ◽  
Surface Climate ◽  
Intercomparison Project ◽  
The Impact

Abstract. Diagnostics of atmospheric momentum and energy transport are needed to investigate the origin of circulation biases in climate models and to understand the atmospheric response to natural and anthropogenic forcing. Model biases in atmospheric dynamics are one of the factors that increase uncertainty in projections of regional climate, precipitation, and extreme events. Here we define requirements for diagnosing the atmospheric circulation and variability across temporal scales and for evaluating the transport of mass, momentum and energy by dynamical processes in the context of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). These diagnostics target the assessments of both resolved and parameterized dynamical processes in climate models, a novelty for CMIP, and are particularly vital for assessing the impact of the stratosphere on surface climate change.

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.

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.

scholarly journals Energy transport, polar amplification, and ITCZ shifts in the GeoMIP G1 ensemble

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 2287-2305 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rick D. Russotto ◽  
Thomas P. Ackerman
Keyword(s):  
Radiative Forcing ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Energy Transport ◽  
Global Climate Models ◽  
Balance Model ◽  
Polar Regions ◽  
Model Intercomparison ◽  
Polar Amplification ◽  
Solar Geoengineering ◽  
Intercomparison Project

Abstract. The polar amplification of warming and the ability of the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) to shift to the north or south are two very important problems in climate science. Examining these behaviors in global climate models (GCMs) running solar geoengineering experiments is helpful not only for predicting the effects of solar geoengineering but also for understanding how these processes work under increased carbon dioxide (CO2). Both polar amplification and ITCZ shifts are closely related to the meridional transport of moist static energy (MSE) by the atmosphere. This study examines changes in MSE transport in 10 fully coupled GCMs in experiment G1 of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP), in which the solar constant is reduced to compensate for the radiative forcing from abruptly quadrupled CO2 concentrations. In G1, poleward MSE transport decreases relative to preindustrial conditions in all models, in contrast to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) abrupt4xCO2 experiment, in which poleward MSE transport increases. We show that since poleward energy transport decreases rather than increases, and local feedbacks cannot change the sign of an initial temperature change, the residual polar amplification in the G1 experiment must be due to the net positive forcing in the polar regions and net negative forcing in the tropics, which arise from the different spatial patterns of the simultaneously imposed solar and CO2 forcings. However, the reduction in poleward energy transport likely plays a role in limiting the polar warming in G1. An attribution study with a moist energy balance model shows that cloud feedbacks are the largest source of uncertainty regarding changes in poleward energy transport in midlatitudes in G1, as well as for changes in cross-equatorial energy transport, which are anticorrelated with ITCZ shifts.

scholarly journals Reduced complexity model intercomparison project phase 1: Protocol, results and initial observations

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zebedee R. J. Nicholls ◽  
Malte Meinshausen ◽  
Jared Lewis ◽  
Robert Gieseke ◽  
Dietmar Dommenget ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiative Forcing ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Surface Air Temperature ◽  
Internal Variability ◽  
Second Phase ◽  
Model Intercomparison ◽  
Intercomparison Project ◽  
Reduced Complexity

Abstract. Here we present results from the first phase of the Reduced Complexity Model Intercomparison Project (RCMIP). RCMIP is a systematic examination of reduced complexity climate models (RCMs), which are used to complement and extend the insights from more complex Earth System Models (ESMs), in particular those participating in the Sixth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). In Phase 1 of RCMIP, with 14 participating models namely ACC2, AR5IR (2 and 3 box versions), CICERO-SCM, ESCIMO, FaIR, GIR, GREB, Hector, Held et al. two layer model, MAGICC, MCE, OSCAR and WASP, we highlight the structural differences across various RCMs and show that RCMs are capable of reproducing global-mean surface air temperature (GSAT) changes of ESMs and historical observations. We find that some RCMs are capable of emulating the GSAT response of CMIP6 models to within a root-mean square error of 0.2 °C (of the same order of magnitude as ESM internal variability) over a range of scenarios. Running the same model configurations for both RCP and SSP scenarios, we see that the SSPs exhibit higher effective radiative forcing throughout the second half of the 21st Century. Comparing our results to the difference between CMIP5 and CMIP6 output, we find that the change in scenario explains approximately 46 % of the increase in higher end projected warming between CMIP5 and CMIP6. This suggests that changes in ESMs from CMIP5 to CMIP6 explain the rest of the increase, hence the higher climate sensitivities of available CMIP6 models may not be having as large an impact on GSAT projections as first anticipated. A second phase of RCMIP will complement RCMIP Phase 1 by exploring probabilistic results and emulation in more depth to provide results available for the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report author teams.

scholarly journals Experimental protocol for sea level projections from ISMIP6 stand-alone ice sheet models

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (7) ◽  
pp. 2331-2368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Nowicki ◽  
Heiko Goelzer ◽  
Hélène Seroussi ◽  
Anthony J. Payne ◽  
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 stand-alone 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 stand-alone 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 stand-alone ice sheet simulations, document the experimental framework and implementation, and present an overview of the ISMIP6 forcing to be used by participating ice sheet modeling groups.

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 European daily precipitation according to EURO-CORDEX regional climate models (RCMs) and high-resolution global climate models (GCMs) from the High-Resolution Model Intercomparison Project (HighResMIP)

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (11) ◽  
pp. 5485-5506
Author(s):  
Marie-Estelle Demory ◽  
Ségolène Berthou ◽  
Jesús Fernández ◽  
Silje L. Sørland ◽  
Roman Brogli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Resolution ◽  
Climate Models ◽  
Daily Precipitation ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
Regional Climate ◽  
Global Climate Models ◽  
Model Intercomparison ◽  
Grid Spacing ◽  
Intercomparison Project ◽  
Horizontal Grid

Abstract. In this study, we evaluate a set of high-resolution (25–50 km horizontal grid spacing) global climate models (GCMs) from the High-Resolution Model Intercomparison Project (HighResMIP), developed as part of the EU-funded PRIMAVERA (Process-based climate simulation: Advances in high resolution modelling and European climate risk assessment) project, and from the EURO-CORDEX (Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling Experiment) regional climate models (RCMs) (12–50 km horizontal grid spacing) over a European domain. It is the first time that an assessment of regional climate information using ensembles of both GCMs and RCMs at similar horizontal resolutions has been possible. The focus of the evaluation is on the distribution of daily precipitation at a 50 km scale under current climate conditions. Both the GCM and RCM ensembles are evaluated against high-quality gridded observations in terms of spatial resolution and station density. We show that both ensembles outperform GCMs from the 5th Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5), which cannot capture the regional-scale precipitation distribution properly because of their coarse resolutions. PRIMAVERA GCMs generally simulate precipitation distributions within the range of EURO-CORDEX RCMs. Both ensembles perform better in summer and autumn in most European regions but tend to overestimate precipitation in winter and spring. PRIMAVERA shows improvements in the latter by reducing moderate-precipitation rate biases over central and western Europe. The spatial distribution of mean precipitation is also improved in PRIMAVERA. Finally, heavy precipitation simulated by PRIMAVERA agrees better with observations in most regions and seasons, while CORDEX overestimates precipitation extremes. However, uncertainty exists in the observations due to a potential undercatch error, especially during heavy-precipitation events. The analyses also confirm previous findings that, although the spatial representation of precipitation is improved, the effect of increasing resolution from 50 to 12 km horizontal grid spacing in EURO-CORDEX daily precipitation distributions is, in comparison, small in most regions and seasons outside mountainous regions and coastal regions. Our results show that both high-resolution GCMs and CORDEX RCMs provide adequate information to end users at a 50 km scale.

Simulation of wind damages associated with the PRIMAVERA European windstorm event set

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tristan Perotin
Keyword(s):  
Climate Models ◽  
Dynamical Downscaling ◽  
Insurance Industry ◽  
Coupled Model ◽  
Correction Method ◽  
Weather Data ◽  
Cmip5 Models ◽  
Model Intercomparison ◽  
Insurance Sector ◽  
Intercomparison Project

<p>Winter windstorms are one of the major natural hazards affecting Europe, potentially causing large damages. The study of windstorm risks is therefore particularly important for the insurance industry. Physical natural catastrophe models for the insurance industry appeared in the 1980s and enable a fine analysis of the risk by taking into account all of its components (hazard, vulnerability and exposure). One main aspect of this catastrophe modeling is the production and validation of extreme hazard scenarios. As observational weather data is very sparse before the 1980s, estimates of extreme windstorm risks are usually based on climate models, despite the limited resolution of these models. Even though this limitation can be partially corrected by statistical or dynamical downscaling and calibration techniques, new generations of climate models can bring new understanding of windstorm risks.</p><p>In that context, PRIMAVERA, a European Union Horizon2020 project, made available a windstorm event set based on 21 tier 1 (1950-2014) highresSST-present simulations of the High Resolution Model Intercomparison Project (HighResMIP) component of the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). The events were identified with a storm tracking algorithm, footprints were defined for each event as maximum gusts over a 72 hour period, and the footprints were re-gridded to the ERA5 grid and calibrated with a quantile mapping correction method. The native resolution of these simulations ranges from 150km (typical resolution of the CMIP5 models) to 25km.</p><p>We have studied the applicability of the PRIMAVERA European windstorm event set for the modeling of European windstorm risks for the insurance sector. Preliminary results show that losses simulated from the event set appear to be consistent with historical data for all of the included simulations. The event set enables a better representation of attritional events and storm clustering than other existing event sets. An alternative calibration technique for extreme gusts and potential future developments of the event set will be proposed.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document