| 1. |
- Hartung, Kerstin, et al.
(författare)
-
Resolution, physics and atmosphere–ocean interaction – How do they influence climate model representation of Euro-Atlantic atmospheric blocking?
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Tellus. Series A, Dynamic meteorology and oceanography. - : Stockholm University Press. - 0280-6495 .- 1600-0870. ; 69:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Atmospheric blocking events are known to locally explain a large part of climate variability. However, despite their relevance, many current climate models still struggle to represent the observed blocking statistics. In this study, simulations of the global climate model EC-Earth are analysed with respect to atmospheric blocking. Seventeen simulations map the uncertainty space defined by the three-model characteristics: atmospheric resolution, physical parameterization and complexity of atmosphere–ocean interaction, namely an atmosphere coupled to an ocean model or forced by surface data. Representation of the real-world statistics is obtained from reanalyses ERA-20C, JRA-55 and ERA-Interim which agree on Northern Hemisphere blocking characteristics. Blocking events are detected on a central blocking latitude which is individually determined for each simulation. The frequency of blocking events tends to be underestimated relative to ERA-Interim over the Atlantic and western Eurasia in winter and overestimated during spring months. However, only few model setups show statistically significant differences compared to ERA-Interim which can be explained by the large inter-annual variability of blocking. Results indicate slightly larger biases relative to ERA-Interim in coupled than in atmosphere-only models but differences between the two are not statistically significant. Although some resolution dependence is present in spring, the signal is weak and only statistically significant if the physical parameterizations of the model are improved simultaneously. Winter blocking is relatively more sensitive to physical parameterizations, and this signal is robust in both atmosphere-only and coupled simulations, although stronger in the latter. Overall, the model can capture blocking frequency well despite biases in representing the mean state of geopotential height over this area. Blocking signatures of geopotential height are represented more similar to ERA-Interim and only weak sensitivities to model characteristics remain.
|
|
| 2. |
- Kjellström, Erik, et al.
(författare)
-
Simulated climate conditions in Europe during the Marine Isotope Stage 3 stadial
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Boreas. - : Wiley. - 0300-9483 .- 1502-3885. ; 39:2, s. 436-456
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- State-of-the-art climate models were used to simulate climate conditions in Europe during Greenland Stadial (GS) 12 at 44 ka BP. The models employed for these simulations were: (i) a fully coupled atmosphere-ocean global climate model (AOGCM), and (ii) a regional atmospheric climate model (RCM) to dynamically downscale results from the global model for a more detailed investigation of European climate conditions. The vegetation was simulated off-line by a dynamic vegetation model forced by the climate from the RCM. The resulting vegetation was then compared with the a priori vegetation used in the first simulation. In a subsequent step, the RCM was rerun to yield a new climate more consistent with the simulated vegetation. Forcing conditions included orbital forcing, land-sea distribution, ice-sheet configuration, and atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations representative for 44 ka BP. The results show a cold climate on the global scale, with global annual mean surface temperatures 5 degrees C colder than the modern climate. This is still significantly warmer than temperatures derived from the same model system for the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). Regional, northern European climate is much colder than today, but still significantly warmer than during the LGM. Comparisons between the simulated climate and proxy-based sea-surface temperature reconstructions show that the results are in broad agreement, albeit with a possible cold bias in parts of the North Atlantic in summer. Given a prescribed restricted Marine Isotope Stage 3 ice-sheet configuration, with large ice-free regions in Sweden and Finland, the AOGCM and RCM model simulations produce a cold and dry climate in line with the restricted ice-sheet configuration during GS 12. The simulated temperature climate, with prescribed ice-free conditions in south-central Fennoscandia, is favourable for the development of permafrost, but does not allow local ice-sheet formation as all snow melts during summer.
|
|
