Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Bony, S.

Publications and source records attributed to Bony, S..

5 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2017

CMIP5 Scientific Gaps and Recommendations for CMIP6

The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) is an ongoing coordinated international activity of numerical experimentation of unprecedented scope and impact on climate science. Its most recent phase, the fifth phase (CMIP5), has created nearly 2 PB of output from dozens of experiments performed by dozens of comprehensive climate models available to the climate science research community. In so doing, it has greatly advanced climate science. While CMIP5 has given answers to important science questions, with the help of a community survey we identify and motivate three broad topics here that guided the scientific framework of the next phase of CMIP, that is, CMIP6: (1) How does the Earth system respond to changes in forcing? (2) What are the origins and consequences of systematic model biases? (3) How can we assess future climate changes given internal climate variability, predictability, and uncertainties in scenarios? CMIP has demonstrated the power of idealized experiments to better understand how the climate system works. We expect that these idealized approaches will continue to contribute to CMIP6. The quantification of radiative forcings and responses was poor, and thus it requires new methods and experiments to address this gap. There are a number of systematic model biases that appear in all phases of CMIP that remain a major climate modeling challenge. In conclusion, these biases need increased attention to better understand their origins and consequences through targeted experiments. Improving understanding of the mechanisms’ underlying internal climate variability for more skillful decadal climate predictions and long-term projections remains another challenge for CMIP6.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2014

On the Correspondence between Mean Forecast Errors and Climate Errors in CMIP5 Models

The present study examines the correspondence between short- and long-term systematic errors in five atmospheric models by comparing the 16 five-day hindcast ensembles from the Transpose Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project II (Transpose-AMIP II) for July–August 2009 (short term) to the climate simulations from phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) and AMIP for the June–August mean conditions of the years of 1979–2008 (long term). Because the short-term hindcasts were conducted with identical climate models used in the CMIP5/AMIP simulations, one can diagnose over what time scale systematic errors in these climate simulations develop, thus yielding insights into their origin through a seamless modeling approach. The analysis suggests that most systematic errors of precipitation, clouds, and radiation processes in the long-term climate runs are present by day 5 in ensemble average hindcasts in all models. Errors typically saturate after few days of hindcasts with amplitudes comparable to the climate errors, and the impacts of initial conditions on the simulated ensemble mean errors are relatively small. This robust bias correspondence suggests that these systematic errors across different models likely are initiated by model parameterizations since the atmospheric large-scale states remain close to observations in the first 2–3 days. However, biases associated with model physics can have impacts on the large-scale states by day 5, such as zonal winds, 2-m temperature, and sea level pressure, and the analysis further indicates a good correspondence between short- and long-term biases for these large-scale states. Therefore, improving individual model parameterizations in the hindcast mode could lead to the improvement of most climate models in simulating their climate mean state and potentially their future projections.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2011

COSP: Satellite simulation software for model assessment

Errors in the simulation of clouds in general circulation models (GCMs) remain a long-standing issue in climate projections, as discussed in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report. This highlights the need for developing new analysis techniques to improve our knowledge of the physical processes at the root of these errors. The Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) pursues this objective, and under that framework the CFMIP Observation Simulator Package (COSP) has been developed. COSP is a flexible software tool that enables the simulation of several satellite-borne active and passive sensor observations from model variables. The flexibility of COSP and a common interface for all sensors facilitates its use in any type of numerical model, from high-resolution cloud-resolving models to the coarser-resolution GCMs assessed by the IPCC, and the scales in between used in weather forecast and regional models. The diversity of model parameterization techniques makes the comparison between model and observations difficult, as some parameterized variables (e.g., cloud fraction) do not have the same meaning in all models. The approach followed in COSP permits models to be evaluated against observations and compared against each other in a more consistent manner. This thus permits a more detailed diagnosis of the physical processes that govern the behavior of clouds and precipitation in numerical models. The World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) Working Group on Coupled Modelling has recommended the use of COSP in a subset of climate experiments that will be assessed by the next IPCC report. Here we describe COSP, present some results from its application to numerical models, and discuss future work that will expand its capabilities.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS1997

Comparison of the Seasonal Change in Cloud-Radiative Forcing from Atmospheric General Circulation Models and Satellite Observations

We compare seasonal changes in cloud-radiative forcing (CRF) at the top of the atmosphere from 18 atmospheric general circulation models, and observations from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE). To enhance the CRF signal and suppress interannual variability, we consider only zonal mean quantities for which the extreme months (January and July), as well as the northern and southern hemispheres, have been differenced. Since seasonal variations of the shortwave component of CRF are caused by seasonal changes in both cloudiness and solar irradiance, the latter was removed. In the ERBE data, seasonal changes in CRF are driven primarily by changes in cloud amount. The same conclusion applies to the models. The shortwave component of seasonal CRF is a measure of changes in cloud amount at all altitudes, while the longwave component is more a measure of upper level clouds. Thus important insights into seasonal cloud amount variations of the models have been obtained by comparing both components, as generated by the models, with the satellite data. For example, in 10 of the 18 models the seasonal oscillations of zonal cloud patterns extend too far poleward by one latitudinal grid.

Cess, R. D.↗