Climate and carbon cycle changes from 1850 to 2100 in MPI-ESM simulations for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5

The new Max-Planck-Institute Earth System Model (MPI-ESM) is used in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) in a series of climate change experiments for either idealized CO2-only forcing or forcings based on observations and the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios. The paper gives an overview of the model configurations, experiments related forcings, and initialization procedures and presents results for the simulated changes in climate and carbon cycle. It is found that the climate feedback depends on the global warming and possibly the forcing history. The global warming from climatological 1850 conditions to 2080–2100 ranges from 1.5°C under the RCP2.6 scenario to 4.4°C under the RCP8.5 scenario. Over this range, the patterns of temperature and precipitation change are nearly independent of the global warming. The model shows a tendency to reduce the ocean heat uptake efficiency toward a warmer climate, and hence acceleration in warming in the later years. The precipitation sensitivity can be as high as 2.5% K−1 if the CO2 concentration is constant, or as small as 1.6% K−1, if the CO2 concentration is increasing. The oceanic uptake of anthropogenic carbon increases over time in all scenarios, being smallest in the experiment forced by RCP2.6 and largest in that for RCP8.5. The land also serves as a net carbon sink in all scenarios, predominantly in boreal regions. The strong tropical carbon sources found in the RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 experiments are almost absent in the RCP4.5 experiment, which can be explained by reforestation in the RCP4.5 scenario.

Aerosol forcing in the Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) simulations by HadGEM2-ES and the role of ammonium nitrate

The latest Hadley Centre climate model, HadGEM2-ES, includes Earth system components such as interactive chemistry and eight species of tropospheric aerosols. It has been run for the period 1860–2100 in support of the fifth phase of the Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). Anthropogenic aerosol emissions peak between 1980 and 2020, resulting in a present-day all-sky top of the atmosphere aerosol forcing of −1.6 and −1.4 W m−2 with and without ammonium nitrate aerosols, respectively, for the sum of direct and first indirect aerosol forcings. Aerosol forcing becomes significantly weaker in the 21st century, being weaker than −0.5 W m−2 in 2100 without nitrate. However, nitrate aerosols become the dominant species in Europe and Asia and decelerate the decrease in global mean aerosol forcing. Considering nitrate aerosols makes aerosol radiative forcing 2–4 times stronger by 2100 depending on the representative concentration pathway, although this impact is lessened when changes in the oxidation properties of the atmosphere are accounted for. Anthropogenic aerosol residence times increase in the future in spite of increased precipitation, as cloud cover and aerosol-cloud interactions decrease in tropical and midlatitude regions. Deposition of fossil fuel black carbon onto snow and ice surfaces peaks during the 20th century in the Arctic and Europe but keeps increasing in the Himalayas until the middle of the 21st century. Results presented here confirm the importance of aerosols in influencing the Earth's climate, albeit with a reduced impact in the future, and suggest that nitrate aerosols will partially replace sulphate aerosols to become an important anthropogenic species in the remainder of the 21st century.

The GCM–Reality Intercomparison Project for SPARC (GRIPS): scientific issues and initial results

To investigate the effects of the middle atmosphere on climate, the World Climate Research Programme is supporting the project "Stratospheric Processes and their Role in Climate" (SPARC). A central theme of SPARC, to examine model simulations of the coupled troposphere—middle atmosphere system, is being performed through the initiative called GRIPS (GCM—Reality Intercomparison Project for SPARC). In this paper, an overview of the objectives of GRIPS is given. Initial activities include an assessment of the performance of middle atmosphere climate models, and preliminary results from this evaluation are presented here. It is shown that although all 13 models evaluated represent most major features of the mean atmospheric state, there are deficiencies in the magnitude and location of the features, which cannot easily be traced to the formulation (resolution or the parameterizations included) of the models. Most models show a cold bias in all locations, apart from the tropical tropopause region where they can be either too warm or too cold. The strengths and locations of the major jets are often misrepresented in the models. Looking at three—dimensional fields reveals, for some models, more severe deficiencies in the magnitude and positioning of the dominant structures (such as the Aleutian high in the stratosphere), although undersampling might explain some of these differences from observations. All the models have shortcomings in their simulations of the present—day climate, which might limit the accuracy of predictions of the climate response to ozone change and other anomalous forcing.

Tropical palaeoclimates at the Last Glacial Maximum: comparison of Palaeoclimate Modeling Intercomparison Project (PMIP)simulations and paleodata.

Seventeen simulations of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) climate have been performed using atmospheric general circulation models (AGCM) in the framework of the Paleoclimate Modeling Intercomparison Project (PMIP). These simulations use the boundary conditions for CO2, insolation and ice-sheets; surface temperatures (SSTs) are either (a) prescribed using CLIMAP data set (eight models) or (b) computed by coupling the AGCM with a slab ocean (nine models). The present-day (PD) tropical climate is correctly depicted by all the models, except the coarser resolution models, and the simulated geographical distribution of annual mean temperature is in good agreement with climatology. Tropical cooling at the LGM is less than at middle and high latitudes, but greatly exceeds the PD temperature variability. The LGM simulations with prescribed SSTs underestimate the observed temperature changes except over equatorial Africa where the models produce a temperature decrease consistent with the data. Our results confirm previous analyses showing that CLIMAP (1981) SSTs only produce a weak terrestrial cooling. When SSTs are computed, the models depict a cooling over the Pacific and Indian oceans in contrast with CLIMAP and most models produce cooler temperatures over land. Moreover four of the nine simulations, produce a cooling in good agreement with terrestrial data. Two of these model results over ocean are consistent with new SST reconstructions whereas two models simulate a homogeneous cooling. Finally, the LGM aridity inferred for most of the tropics from the data, is globally reproduced by the models with a strong underestimation for models using computed SSTs.

Monsoon changes for 6000 years ago: results of 18 simulations from the Paleoclimate Modeling Intercomparison Project (PMIP).

Amplification of the northern hemisphere seasonal cycle of insolation during the mid-Holocene causes a northward shift of the main regions of monsoon precipitation over Africa and India in all 18 simulations conducted for the Paleoclimate Modeling Intercomparison Project (PMIP). Differences among simulations are related to differences in model formulation. Despite qualitative agreement with paleoecological estimates of biome shifts, the magnitude of the monsoon increases over northern Africa are underestimated by all the models.

First look at changes in flood hazard in the inter-sectoral impact model intercomparison project ensemble

Climate change due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions is expected to increase the frequency and intensity of precipitation events, which is likely to affect the probability of flooding into the future. In this paper we use river flow simulations from nine global hydrology and land surface models to explore uncertainties in the potential impacts of climate change on flood hazard at global scale. As an indicator of flood hazard we looked at changes in the 30-y return level of 5-d average peak flows under representative concentration pathway RCP8.5 at the end of this century. Not everywhere does climate change result in an increase in flood hazard: decreases in the magnitude and frequency of the 30-y return level of river flow occur at roughly one-third (20-45%) of the global land grid points, particularly in areas where the hydro-graph is dominated by the snowmelt flood peak in spring. In most model experiments, however, an increase in flooding frequency was found in more than half of the grid points. The current 30-y flood peak is projected to occur in more than 1 in 5 y across 5-30% of land grid points. The large-scale patterns of change are remarkably consistent among impact models and even the driving climate models, but at local scale and in individual river basins there can be disagreement even on the sign of change, indicating large modeling uncertainty which needs to be taken into account in local adaptation studies.

The Ocean Reanalysis Intercomparison project (ORA-IP)

Uncertainty in ocean analysis methods and deficiencies in the observing system are major obstacles for the reliable reconstruction of the past ocean climate. The variety of existing ocean reanalyses is exploited in a multi-reanalysis ensemble to improve the ocean state estimation and to gauge uncertainty levels. The ensemble-based analysis of signal-to-noise ratio allows the identification of ocean characteristics for which the estimation is robust (such as tropical mixed-layer-depth, upper ocean heat content), and where large uncertainty exists (deep ocean, Southern Ocean, sea ice thickness, salinity), providing guidance for future enhancement of the observing and data assimilation systems.

PMIP4-CMIP6: the contribution of the Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project to CMIP6

The goal of the Palaeoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project (PMIP) is to understand the response of the climate system to changes in different climate forcings and to feedbacks. Through comparison with observations of the environmental impacts of these climate changes, or with climate reconstructions based on physical, chemical or biological records, PMIP also addresses the issue of how well state-of-the-art models simulate climate changes. Palaeoclimate states are radically different from those of the recent past documented by the instrumental record and thus provide an out-of-sample test of the models used for future climate projections and a way to assess whether they have the correct sensitivity to forcings and feedbacks. Five distinctly different periods have been selected as focus for the core palaeoclimate experiments that are designed to contribute to the objectives of the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). This manuscript describes the motivation for the choice of these periods and the design of the numerical experiments, with a focus upon their novel features compared to the experiments performed in previous phases of PMIP and CMIP as well as the benefits of common analyses of the models across multiple climate states. It also describes the information needed to document each experiment and the model outputs required for analysis and benchmarking.

Intercomparison of the Arctic sea ice cover in global ocean–sea ice reanalyses from the ORA-IP project

Ocean–sea ice reanalyses are crucial for assessing the variability and recent trends in the Arctic sea ice cover. This is especially true for sea ice volume, as long-term and large scale sea ice thickness observations are inexistent. Results from the Ocean ReAnalyses Intercomparison Project (ORA-IP) are presented, with a focus on Arctic sea ice fields reconstructed by state-of-the-art global ocean reanalyses. Differences between the various reanalyses are explored in terms of the effects of data assimilation, model physics and atmospheric forcing on properties of the sea ice cover, including concentration, thickness, velocity and snow. Amongst the 14 reanalyses studied here, 9 assimilate sea ice concentration, and none assimilate sea ice thickness data. The comparison reveals an overall agreement in the reconstructed concentration fields, mainly because of the constraints in surface temperature imposed by direct assimilation of ocean observations, prescribed or assimilated atmospheric forcing and assimilation of sea ice concentration. However, some spread still exists amongst the reanalyses, due to a variety of factors. In particular, a large spread in sea ice thickness is found within the ensemble of reanalyses, partially caused by the biases inherited from their sea ice model components. Biases are also affected by the assimilation of sea ice concentration and the treatment of sea ice thickness in the data assimilation process. An important outcome of this study is that the spatial distribution of ice volume varies widely between products, with no reanalysis standing out as clearly superior as compared to altimetry estimates. The ice thickness from systems without assimilation of sea ice concentration is not worse than that from systems constrained with sea ice observations. An evaluation of the sea ice velocity fields reveals that ice drifts too fast in most systems. As an ensemble, the ORA-IP reanalyses capture trends in Arctic sea ice area and extent relatively well. However, the ensemble can not be used to get a robust estimate of recent trends in the Arctic sea ice volume. Biases in the reanalyses certainly impact the simulated air–sea fluxes in the polar regions, and questions the suitability of current sea ice reanalyses to initialize seasonal forecasts.

The METAFOR project: preserving data through metadata standards for climate models and simulations

Climate modeling is a complex process, requiring accurate and complete metadata in order to identify, assess and use climate data stored in digital repositories. The preservation of such data is increasingly important given the development of ever-increasingly complex models to predict the effects of global climate change. The EU METAFOR project has developed a Common Information Model (CIM) to describe climate data and the models and modelling environments that produce this data. There is a wide degree of variability between different climate models and modelling groups. To accommodate this, the CIM has been designed to be highly generic and flexible, with extensibility built in. METAFOR describes the climate modelling process simply as "an activity undertaken using software on computers to produce data." This process has been described as separate UML packages (and, ultimately, XML schemas). This fairly generic structure canbe paired with more specific "controlled vocabularies" in order to restrict the range of valid CIM instances. The CIM will aid digital preservation of climate models as it will provide an accepted standard structure for the model metadata. Tools to write and manage CIM instances, and to allow convenient and powerful searches of CIM databases,. Are also under development. Community buy-in of the CIM has been achieved through a continual process of consultation with the climate modelling community, and through the METAFOR team’s development of a questionnaire that will be used to collect the metadata for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) model runs.

Describing Earth system simulations with the Metafor CIM

The Metafor project has developed a common information model (CIM) using the ISO19100 series for- malism to describe numerical experiments carried out by the Earth system modelling community, the models they use, and the simulations that result. Here we describe the mechanism by which the CIM was developed, and its key properties. We introduce the conceptual and application ver- sions and the controlled vocabularies developed in the con- text of supporting the fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). We describe how the CIM has been used in experiments to describe model coupling properties and de- scribe the near term expected evolution of the CIM.

The Asian summer monsoon: an intercomparison of CMIP5 vs. CMIP3 simulations of the late 20th century

The boreal summer Asian monsoon has been evaluated in 25 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project-5 (CMIP5) and 22 CMIP3 GCM simulations of the late 20th Century. Diagnostics and skill metrics have been calculated to assess the time-mean, climatological annual cycle, interannual variability, and intraseasonal variability. Progress has been made in modeling these aspects of the monsoon, though there is no single model that best represents all of these aspects of the monsoon. The CMIP5 multi-model mean (MMM) is more skillful than the CMIP3 MMM for all diagnostics in terms of the skill of simulating pattern correlations with respect to observations. Additionally, for rainfall/convection the MMM outperforms the individual models for the time mean, the interannual variability of the East Asian monsoon, and intraseasonal variability. The pattern correlation of the time (pentad) of monsoon peak and withdrawal is better simulated than that of monsoon onset. The onset of the monsoon over India is typically too late in the models. The extension of the monsoon over eastern China, Korea, and Japan is underestimated, while it is overestimated over the subtropical western/central Pacific Ocean. The anti-correlation between anomalies of all-India rainfall and Niño-3.4 sea surface temperature is overly strong in CMIP3 and typically too weak in CMIP5. For both the ENSO-monsoon teleconnection and the East Asian zonal wind-rainfall teleconnection, the MMM interannual rainfall anomalies are weak compared to observations. Though simulation of intraseasonal variability remains problematic, several models show improved skill at representing the northward propagation of convection and the development of the tilted band of convection that extends from India to the equatorial west Pacific. The MMM also well represents the space-time evolution of intraseasonal outgoing longwave radiation anomalies. Caution is necessary when using GPCP and CMAP rainfall to validate (1) the time-mean rainfall, as there are systematic differences over ocean and land between these two data sets, and (2) the timing of monsoon withdrawal over India, where the smooth southward progression seen in India Meteorological Department data is better realized in CMAP data compared to GPCP data.

The impacts of climate change on river flow regimes at the global scale

This paper presents an assessment of the impacts of climate change on a series of indicators of hydrological regimes across the global domain, using a global hydrological model run with climate scenarios constructed using pattern-scaling from 21 CMIP3 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 3) climate models. Changes are compared with natural variability, with a significant change being defined as greater than the standard deviation of the hydrological indicator in the absence of climate change. Under an SRES (Special Report on Emissions Scenarios) A1b emissions scenario, substantial proportions of the land surface (excluding Greenland and Antarctica) would experience significant changes in hydrological behaviour by 2050; under one climate model scenario (Hadley Centre HadCM3), average annual runoff increases significantly over 47% of the land surface and decreases over 36%; only 17% therefore sees no significant change. There is considerable variability between regions, depending largely on projected changes in precipitation. Uncertainty in projected river flow regimes is dominated by variation in the spatial patterns of climate change between climate models (hydrological model uncertainty is not included). There is, however, a strong degree of consistency in the overall magnitude and direction of change. More than two-thirds of climate models project a significant increase in average annual runoff across almost a quarter of the land surface, and a significant decrease over 14%, with considerably higher degrees of consistency in some regions. Most climate models project increases in runoff in Canada and high-latitude eastern Europe and Siberia, and decreases in runoff in central Europe, around the Mediterranean, the Mashriq, central America and Brasil. There is some evidence that projecte change in runoff at the regional scale is not linear with change in global average temperature change. The effects of uncertainty in the rate of future emissions is relatively small