Systematic winter sea-surface temperature biases in the northern Arabian Sea in HiGEM and the CMIP3 models

Analysis of 20th century simulations of the High resolution Global Environment Model (HiGEM) and the Third Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3) models shows that most have a cold sea-surface temperature (SST) bias in the northern Arabian Sea during boreal winter. The association between Arabian Sea SST and the South Asian monsoon has been widely studied in observations and models, with winter cold biases known to be detrimental to rainfall simulation during the subsequent monsoon in coupled general circulation models (GCMs). However, the causes of these SST biases are not well understood. Indeed this is one of the first papers to address causes of the cold biases. The models show anomalously strong north-easterly winter monsoon winds and cold air temperatures in north-west India, Pakistan and beyond. This leads to the anomalous advection of cold, dry air over the Arabian Sea. The cold land region is also associated with an anomalously strong meridional surface temperature gradient during winter, contributing to the enhanced low-level convergence and excessive precipitation over the western equatorial Indian Ocean seen in many models.

The APE atlas

This Atlas presents statistical analyses of the simulations submitted to the Aqua-Planet Experiment (APE) data archive. The simulations are from global Atmospheric General Circulation Models (AGCM) applied to a water-covered earth. The AGCMs include ones actively used or being developed for numerical weather prediction or climate research. Some are mature, application models and others are more novel and thus less well tested in Earth-like applications. The experiment applies AGCMs with their complete parameterization package to an idealization of the planet Earth which has a greatly simplified lower boundary that consists of an ocean only. It has no land and its associated orography, and no sea ice. The ocean is represented by Sea Surface Temperatures (SST) which are specified everywhere with simple, idealized distributions. Thus in the hierarchy of tests available for AGCMs, APE falls between tests with simplified forcings such as those proposed by Held and Suarez (1994) and Boer and Denis (1997) and Earth-like simulations of the Atmospheric Modeling Intercomparison Project (AMIP, Gates et al., 1999). Blackburn and Hoskins (2013) summarize the APE and its aims. They discuss where the APE fits within a modeling hierarchy which has evolved to evaluate complete models and which provides a link between realistic simulation and conceptual models of atmospheric phenomena. The APE bridges a gap in the existing hierarchy. The goals of APE are to provide a benchmark of current model behaviors and to stimulate research to understand the cause of inter-model differences., APE is sponsored by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) joint Commission on Atmospheric Science (CAS), World Climate Research Program (WCRP) Working Group on Numerical Experimentation (WGNE). Chapter 2 of this Atlas provides an overview of the specification of the eight APE experiments and of the data collected. Chapter 3 lists the participating models and includes brief descriptions of each. Chapters 4 through 7 present a wide variety of statistics from the 14 participating models for the eight different experiments. Additional intercomparison figures created by Dr. Yukiko Yamada in AGU group are available at http://www.gfd-dennou.org/library/ape/comparison/. This Atlas is intended to present and compare the statistics of the APE simulations but does not contain a discussion of interpretive analyses. Such analyses are left for journal papers such as those included in the Special Issue of the Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan (2013, Vol. 91A) devoted to the APE. Two papers in that collection provide an overview of the simulations. One (Blackburn et al., 2013) concentrates on the CONTROL simulation and the other (Williamson et al., 2013) on the response to changes in the meridional SST profile. Additional papers provide more detailed analysis of the basic simulations, while others describe various sensitivities and applications. The APE experiment data base holds a wealth of data that is now publicly available from the APE web site: http://climate.ncas.ac.uk/ape/. We hope that this Atlas will stimulate future analyses and investigations to understand the large variation seen in the model behaviors.

Origin of regional climate differences: role of boundary conditions and model formulation in two GCMs

Model differences in projections of extratropical regional climate change due to increasing greenhouse gases are investigated using two atmospheric general circulation models (AGCMs): ECHAM4 (Max Planck Institute, version 4) and CCM3 (National Center for Atmospheric Research Community Climate Model version 3). Sea-surface temperature (SST) fields calculated from observations and coupled versions of the two models are used to force each AGCM in experiments based on time-slice methodology. Results from the forced AGCMs are then compared to coupled model results from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 2 (CMIP2) database. The time-slice methodology is verified by showing that the response of each model to doubled CO2 and SST forcing from the CMIP2 experiments is consistent with the results of the coupled GCMs. The differences in the responses of the models are attributed to (1) the different tropical SST warmings in the coupled simulations and (2) the different atmospheric model responses to the same tropical SST warmings. Both are found to have important contributions to differences in implied Northern Hemisphere (NH) winter extratropical regional 500 mb height and tropical precipitation climate changes. Forced teleconnection patterns from tropical SST differences are primarily responsible for sensitivity differences in the extratropical North Pacific, but have relatively little impact on the North Atlantic. There are also significant differences in the extratropical response of the models to the same tropical SST anomalies due to differences in numerical and physical parameterizations. Differences due to parameterizations dominate in the North Atlantic. Differences in the control climates of the two coupled models from the current climate, in particular for the coupled model containing CCM3, are also demonstrated to be important in leading to differences in extratropical regional sensitivity.

Potential Predictability and AMIP Implications of Midlatitude Climate Variability in Two General Circulation Models

Ensembles of extended Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP) runs from the general circulation models of the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (formerly the National Meteorological Center) and the Max-Planck Institute (Hamburg, Germany) are used to estimate the potential predictability (PP) of an index of the Pacific–North America (PNA) mode of climate change. The PP of this pattern in “perfect” prediction experiments is 20%–25% of the index’s variance. The models, particularly that from MPI, capture virtually all of this variance in their hindcasts of the winter PNA for the period 1970–93. The high levels of internally generated model noise in the PNA simulations reconfirm the need for an ensemble averaging approach to climate prediction. This means that the forecasts ought to be expressed in a probabilistic manner. It is shown that the models’ skills are higher by about 50% during strong SST events in the tropical Pacific, so the probabilistic forecasts need to be conditional on the tropical SST. Taken together with earlier studies, the present results suggest that the original set of AMIP integrations (single 10-yr runs) is not adequate to reliably test the participating models’ simulations of interannual climate variability in the midlatitudes.

Evaluation of climate models using palaeoclimatic data.

There is large uncertainty about the magnitude of warming and how rainfall patterns will change in response to any given scenario of future changes in atmospheric composition and land use. The models used for future climate projections were developed and calibrated using climate observations from the past 40 years. The geologic record of environmental responses to climate changes provides a unique opportunity to test model performance outside this limited climate range. Evaluation of model simulations against palaeodata shows that models reproduce the direction and large-scale patterns of past changes in climate, but tend to underestimate the magnitude of regional changes. As part of the effort to reduce model-related uncertainty and produce more reliable estimates of twenty-first century climate, the Palaeoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project is systematically applying palaeoevaluation techniques to simulations of the past run with the models used to make future projections. This evaluation will provide assessments of model performance, including whether a model is sufficiently sensitive to changes in atmospheric composition, as well as providing estimates of the strength of biosphere and other feedbacks that could amplify the model response to these changes and modify the characteristics of climate variability.

Using paleo-climate comparisons to constrain future projections in CMIP5

We present a description of the theoretical framework and "best practice" for using the paleo-climate model component of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (Phase 5) (CMIP5) to constrain future projections of climate using the same models. The constraints arise from measures of skill in hindcasting paleo-climate changes from the present over 3 periods: the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) (21 thousand years before present, ka), the mid-Holocene (MH) (6 ka) and the Last Millennium (LM) (850–1850 CE). The skill measures may be used to validate robust patterns of climate change across scenarios or to distinguish between models that have differing outcomes in future scenarios. We find that the multi-model ensemble of paleo-simulations is adequate for addressing at least some of these issues. For example, selected benchmarks for the LGM and MH are correlated to the rank of future projections of precipitation/temperature or sea ice extent to indicate that models that produce the best agreement with paleoclimate information give demonstrably different future results than the rest of the models. We also find that some comparisons, for instance associated with model variability, are strongly dependent on uncertain forcing timeseries, or show time dependent behaviour, making direct inferences for the future problematic. Overall, we demonstrate that there is a strong potential for the paleo-climate simulations to help inform the future projections and urge all the modeling groups to complete this subset of the CMIP5 runs.

The influence of anthropogenic aerosol on multi-decadal variations of historical global climate

Analysis of single forcing runs from CMIP5 (the fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project) simulations shows that the mid-twentieth century temperature hiatus, and the coincident decrease in precipitation, is likely to have been influenced strongly by anthropogenic aerosol forcing. Models that include a representation of the indirect effect of aerosol better reproduce inter-decadal variability in historical global-mean near-surface temperatures, particularly the cooling in the 1950s and 1960s, compared to models with representation of the aerosol direct effect only. Models with the indirect effect also show a more pronounced decrease in precipitation during this period, which is in better agreement with observations, and greater inter-decadal variability in the inter-hemispheric temperature difference. This study demonstrates the importance of representing aerosols, and their indirect effects, in general circulation models, and suggests that inter-model diversity in aerosol burden and representation of aerosol–cloud interaction can produce substantial variation in simulations of climate variability on multi decadal timescales.

How large are projected 21st century storm track changes?

Projected changes in the extra-tropical wintertime storm tracks are investigated using the multi-model ensembles from both the third and fifth phases of the World Climate Research Programme's Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3 and CMIP5). The aim is to characterize the magnitude of the storm track responses relative to their present-day year-to-year variability. For the experiments considered, the ‘middle-of-the-road’ scenarios in each CMIP, there are regions of the Northern Hemisphere where the responses of up to 40% of the models exceed half of the inter-annual variability, and for the Southern Hemisphere there are regions where up to 60% of the model responses exceed half of the inter-annual variability.

Future changes in atmospheric rivers and their implications for winter flooding in Britain

Within the warm conveyor belt of extra-tropical cyclones, atmospheric rivers (ARs) are the key synoptic features which deliver the majority of poleward water vapour transport, and are associated with episodes of heavy and prolonged rainfall. ARs are responsible for many of the largest winter floods in the mid-latitudes resulting in major socioeconomic losses; for example, the loss from United Kingdom (UK) flooding in summer/winter 2012 is estimated to be about $1.6 billion in damages. Given the well-established link between ARs and peak river flows for the present day, assessing how ARs could respond under future climate projections is of importance in gauging future impacts from flooding. We show that North Atlantic ARs are projected to become stronger and more numerous in the future scenarios of multiple simulations from five state-of-the-art global climate models (GCMs) in the fifth Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). The increased water vapour transport in projected ARs implies a greater risk of higher rainfall totals and therefore larger winter floods in Britain, with increased AR frequency leading to more flood episodes. In the high emissions scenario (RCP8.5) for 2074–2099 there is an approximate doubling of AR frequency in the five GCMs. Our results suggest that the projected change in ARs is predominantly a thermodynamic response to warming resulting from anthropogenic radiative forcing.

Global vegetation and terrestrial carbon cycle changes after the last ice age

•In current models, the ecophysiological effects of CO2 create both woody thickening and terrestrial carbon uptake, as observed now, and forest cover and terrestrial carbon storage increases that took place after the last glacial maximum (LGM). Here, we aimed to assess the realism of modelled vegetation and carbon storage changes between LGM and the pre-industrial Holocene (PIH). •We applied Land Processes and eXchanges (LPX), a dynamic global vegetation model (DGVM), with lowered CO2 and LGM climate anomalies from the Palaeoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project (PMIP II), and compared the model results with palaeodata. •Modelled global gross primary production was reduced by 27–36% and carbon storage by 550–694 Pg C compared with PIH. Comparable reductions have been estimated from stable isotopes. The modelled areal reduction of forests is broadly consistent with pollen records. Despite reduced productivity and biomass, tropical forests accounted for a greater proportion of modelled land carbon storage at LGM (28–32%) than at PIH (25%). •The agreement between palaeodata and model results for LGM is consistent with the hypothesis that the ecophysiological effects of CO2 influence tree–grass competition and vegetation productivity, and suggests that these effects are also at work today.

The role of horizontal resolution in simulating drivers of the global hydrological cycle

The role of atmospheric general circulation model (AGCM) horizontal resolution in representing the global energy budget and hydrological cycle is assessed, with the aim of improving the understanding of model uncertainties in simulating the hydrological cycle. We use two AGCMs from the UK Met Office Hadley Centre: HadGEM1-A at resolutions ranging from 270 to 60 km, and HadGEM3-A ranging from 135 to 25 km. The models exhibit a stable hydrological cycle, although too intense compared to reanalyses and observations. This over-intensity is explained by excess surface shortwave radiation, a common error in general circulation models (GCMs). This result is insensitive to resolution. However, as resolution is increased, precipitation decreases over the ocean and increases over the land. This is associated with an increase in atmospheric moisture transport from ocean to land, which changes the partitioning of moisture fluxes that contribute to precipitation over land from less local to more non-local moisture sources. The results start to converge at 60-km resolution, which underlines the excessive reliance of the mean hydrological cycle on physical parametrization (local unresolved processes) versus model dynamics (large-scale resolved processes) in coarser HadGEM1 and HadGEM3 GCMs. This finding may be valid for other GCMs, showing the necessity to analyze other chains of GCMs that may become available in the future with such a range of horizontal resolutions. Our finding supports the hypothesis that heterogeneity in model parametrization is one of the underlying causes of model disagreement in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) exercises.

Observational challenges in evaluating climate models

Activities like the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) have revolutionized climate modelling in terms of our ability to compare models and to process information about climate projections and their uncertainties. The evaluation of models against observations is now considered a key component of multi-model studies. While there are a number of outstanding scientific issues surrounding model evaluation, notably the open question of how to link model performance to future projections, here we highlight a specific but growing problem in model evaluation - that of uncertainties in the observational data that are used to evaluate the models. We highlight the problem using an example obtained from studies of the South Asian Monsoon but we believe the problem is a generic one which arises in many different areas of climate model evaluation and which requires some attention by the community.

The effect of windstress change on future sea level change in the Southern Ocean

AOGCMs of the two latest phases (CMIP3 and CMIP5) of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, like earlier AOGCMs, predict large regional variations in future sea level change. The model-mean pattern of change in CMIP3 and CMIP5 is very similar, and its most prominent feature is a zonal dipole in the Southern Ocean: sea level rise is larger than the global mean north of 50°S and smaller than the global mean south of 50°S in most models. The individual models show widely varying patterns, although the inter-model spread in local sea level change is smaller in CMIP5 than in CMIP3. Here we investigate whether changes in windstress can explain the different patterns of projected sea level change, especially the Southern Ocean feature, using two AOGCMs forced by the changes in windstress from the CMIP3 and CMIP5 AOGCMs. We show that the strengthening and poleward shift of westerly windstress accounts for the most of the large spread among models in magnitude of this feature. In the Indian, North Pacific and Arctic Oceans, the windstress change is influential, but does not completely account for the projected sea level change.

On the lack of stratospheric dynamical variability in low-top versions of the CMIP5 models

We describe the main differences in simulations of stratospheric climate and variability by models within the fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) that have a model top above the stratopause and relatively fine stratospheric vertical resolution (high-top), and those that have a model top below the stratopause (low-top). Although the simulation of mean stratospheric climate by the two model ensembles is similar, the low-top model ensemble has very weak stratospheric variability on daily and interannual time scales. The frequency of major sudden stratospheric warming events is strongly underestimated by the low-top models with less than half the frequency of events observed in the reanalysis data and high-top models. The lack of stratospheric variability in the low-top models affects their stratosphere-troposphere coupling, resulting in short-lived anomalies in the Northern Annular Mode, which do not produce long-lasting tropospheric impacts, as seen in observations. The lack of stratospheric variability, however, does not appear to have any impact on the ability of the low-top models to reproduce past stratospheric temperature trends. We find little improvement in the simulation of decadal variability for the high-top models compared to the low-top, which is likely related to the fact that neither ensemble produces a realistic dynamical response to volcanic eruptions.

The ability of CMIP5 models to simulate North Atlantic extratropical cyclones

The ability of the climate models participating in phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) to simulate North Atlantic extratropical cyclones in winter [December–February (DJF)] and summer [June–August (JJA)] is investigated in detail. Cyclones are identified as maxima in T42 vorticity at 850 hPa and their propagation is tracked using an objective feature-tracking algorithm. By comparing the historical CMIP5 simulations (1976–2005) and the ECMWF Interim Re-Analysis (ERA-Interim; 1979–2008), the authors find that systematic biases affect the number and intensity of North Atlantic cyclones in CMIP5 models. In DJF, the North Atlantic storm track tends to be either too zonal or displaced southward, thus leading to too few and weak cyclones over the Norwegian Sea and too many cyclones in central Europe. In JJA, the position of the North Atlantic storm track is generally well captured but some CMIP5 models underestimate the total number of cyclones. The dynamical intensity of cyclones, as measured by either T42 vorticity at 850 hPa or mean sea level pressure, is too weak in both DJF and JJA. The intensity bias has a hemispheric character, and it cannot be simply attributed to the representation of the North Atlantic large- scale atmospheric state. Despite these biases, the representation of Northern Hemisphere (NH) storm tracks has improved since CMIP3 and some CMIP5 models are able of representing well both the number and the intensity of North Atlantic cyclones. In particular, some of the higher-atmospheric-resolution models tend to have a better representation of the tilt of the North Atlantic storm track and of the intensity of cyclones in DJF.