| 1. |
- Lindvall, Jenny, et al.
(författare)
-
Evaluation of near surface parameters in the two versions of the atmospheric model in cesm1 using flux station observations
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Journal of Climate. - 0894-8755 .- 1520-0442. ; 26:1, s. 26-44
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper describes the performance of the Community Atmosphere Model (CAM) versions 4 and 5 in simulating near-surface parameters. CAM is the atmospheric component of the Community Earth System Model (CESM). Most of the parameterizations in the two versions are substantially different, and that is also true for the boundary layer scheme: CAM4 employs a nonlocal K-profile scheme, whereas CAM5 uses a turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) scheme. The evaluation focuses on the diurnal cycle and global observational and reanalysis datasets are used together with multiyear observations from 35 flux tower sites, providing high-frequency measurements in a range of different climate zones. It is found that both model versions capture the timing of the diurnal cycle but considerably overestimate the diurnal amplitude of net radiation, temperature, wind, and turbulent heat fluxes. The seasonal temperature range at mid-and high latitudes is also overestimated with too warm summer temperatures and too cold winter temperatures. The diagnosed boundary layer is deeper in CAM5 over ocean in regions with low-level marine clouds as a result of the turbulence generated by cloud-top cooling. Elsewhere, the boundary layer is in general shallower in CAM5. The two model versions differ substantially in their representation of near-surface wind speeds over land. The low-level wind speed in CAM5 is about half as strong as in CAM4, and the difference is even larger in areas where the subgrid-scale terrain is significant. The reason is the turbulent mountain stress parameterization, only applied in CAM5, which acts to increase the surface stress and thereby reduce the wind speed.
|
|
| 2. |
- Smith, Christopher J., et al.
(författare)
-
Effective radiative forcing and adjustments in CMIP6 models
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Atmospheric Chemistry And Physics. - : Copernicus GmbH. - 1680-7316 .- 1680-7324. ; 20:16, s. 9591-9618
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)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) Wm(-2) from CO2, 1.08 (+/- 0.21) Wm(-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 x 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.
|
|
