SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Coupled Model Intercomparison Project”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

167 records · Page 10

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS1994

The scale and persistence of soil moisture anomalies as simulated in a global model

Short term variability of climate is intimately connected with soil moisture variability. Soil moisture provides the storage and subsequent return to the atmosphere, through evaporation and transpiration, of precipitation anomalies over land. Global Circulation Model (GCM) simulations enable consistent identification of correlations and dynamical connections between the hydrologic variables, many of which are incompletely observed. One way to facilitate understanding with these increasingly intricate models is to perform sensitivity studies in which a boundary condition or process is prescribed. In this study we will report on a sensitivity study in which a GCM with a sophisticated land surface representation is used to investigate soil moisture variability in the model climate. The simulations to be used in this study were made at R15 resolution (approximately 4.5 deg latitude x 7.5 deg longitude) with prescribed sea surface temperatures (SST) in the GENESIS model (Thompson and Pollard, 1994), which is coupled to a Land Surface Transfer model (LSX) at 2 deg x 2 deg resolution (Pollard and Thompson, 1994). All the results represented here were taken from the monthly averages of the model results. The LSX model accounts for the physical effects of vegetation with two layers specified at each grid point. Vegetation attributes such as leaf area indices, fractional cover, leaf albedos, etc., were taken from the global dataset in Dorman and Sellers (1989). A six-layer soil model extends from the surface to 4.25 m depth. SST's were prescribed in two ten year experiments using monthly SST values with the daily value being interpolated from the nearest two months. In the first experiment monthly climatological values were used, and in the second, the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP) observed SST's for the years 1979 through 1988 were used (Gates, 1992). Thus, the former experiment gives a measure of the intrinsic model variability, to be compared with that of the latter experiment, which includes month-to-month variability due to ocean forcing.

Fitzjarrald, D.↗

NASA NTRS2013

Simulations of the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period Using Two Versions of the NASA-GISS ModelE2-R Coupled Model

The mid-Pliocene Warm Period (mPWP) bears many similarities to aspects of future global warming as projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007). Both marine and terrestrial data point to high-latitude temperature amplification, including large decreases in sea ice and land ice, as well as expansion of warmer climate biomes into higher latitudes. Here we present our most recent simulations of the mid-Pliocene climate using the CMIP5 version of the NASAGISS Earth System Model (ModelE2-R). We describe the substantial impact associated with a recent correction made in the implementation of the Gent-McWilliams ocean mixing scheme (GM), which has a large effect on the simulation of ocean surface temperatures, particularly in the North Atlantic Ocean. The effect of this correction on the Pliocene climate results would not have been easily determined from examining its impact on the preindustrial runs alone, a useful demonstration of how the consequences of code improvements as seen in modern climate control runs do not necessarily portend the impacts in extreme climates.Both the GM-corrected and GM-uncorrected simulations were contributed to the Pliocene Model Intercomparison Project (PlioMIP) Experiment 2. Many findings presented here corroborate results from other PlioMIP multi-model ensemble papers, but we also emphasize features in the ModelE2-R simulations that are unlike the ensemble means. The corrected version yields results that more closely resemble the ocean core data as well as the PRISM3D reconstructions of the mid-Pliocene, especially the dramatic warming in the North Atlantic and Greenland-Iceland-Norwegian Sea, which in the new simulation appears to be far more realistic than previously found with older versions of the GISS model. Our belief is that continued development of key physical routines in the atmospheric model, along with higher resolution and recent corrections to mixing parameterisations in the ocean model, have led to an Earth System Model that will produce more accurate projections of future climate.

climate change↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A11I-2104 Evaluation of the NASA GEOS Chemistry-Climate Model Coupled Atmosphere-Ocean Configuration for its Suitability to Simulations of Atmospheric Composition in a Changing Climate

The NASA Goddard Earth Observing System Chemistry-Climate Model (GEOSCCM) is a full tropospheric-stratospheric chemistry enabled configuration of the NASA GEOS Earth system model. Among the objectives for research performed with GEOSCCM is to understand the impacts of climate change on recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer over the twenty-first century. Simulations performed in the past with GEOSCCM did not have an interactive ocean and were driven with projected sea surface temperature and sea ice boundary conditions provided by external models. This method limits the application of GEOSCCM for climate study because it doesn’t allow the feedback of composition changes to ocean. For a full representation of the chemistry-climate feedbacks in the Earth System, we have developed a configuration of GEOSCCM that makes use of the MOM5 ocean general circulation model coupled to the GEOS atmospheric general circulation model. This configuration leverages development of the GEOS Sub-seasonal-to-Seasonal (S2S) prediction system, and includes interactive, radiatively coupled aerosols and two-moment, aerosol-aware cloud microphysics. W e have assessed the baseline model climate sensitivity with an Monday, 11 December 2023 08:30 - 12:50 Poster Hall A-C - South (Exhibition Level, South, MC) experiment performed under pre-industrial (e.g., year 1850) greenhouse gas conditions and a second experiment under 4xCO2 conditions, similar to the typical CMIP protocol. The GEOS model is demonstrated to have a climate sensitivity of a 2.6 K increase in global mean surface temperature for an equivalent doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial conditions, in line with current CMIP models. This configuration of the GEOS model is suitable for application to multidecadal to century-long simulations of climate system response to changing greenhouse gas levels. We report here our evaluation of the climate diagnostics of this configuration and discuss future directions for work with this model configuration, including an ongoing twenty-first century projection experiment based on the Chemistry-Climate Model Intercomparison project protocol.

models↗

NASA NTRS2016

Connecting Paleo and Modern Oceanographic Data to Understand Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation Over Decades to Centuries

Modeling is an important tool for understanding AMOC on all timescales. Mechanistic studies of modern AMOC variability have been hampered by a lack of consistency between free-running models and the sensitivity of AMOC to resolution and parameterization. Recent work within the framework of the phase two Coordinated Ocean- Reference Experiments (CORE-II) addresses this issue head on, looking at model differences of AMOC mean state and interannual variability. One consistent feature across the models is that AMOC mean transport is related to mixed layer depths and Labrador Sea salt content, whereas interannual variability is primarily associated with Labrador Sea temperature anomalies. This is consistent with the hypothesized importance of salt balance for AMOC variability on geological timescales. The simulated relationships between AMOC and subsurface temperature anomalies in fully coupled climate models reveal subsurface AMOC fingerprints that could be used to reconstruct historical AMOC variations at low frequency.With the lack of long-term AMOC observations, models of ocean state that assimilate observational data have been explored as a way to reconstruct AMOC, but comparisons between models indicate they are quite variable in their AMOC representations. Karspeck et al. (2015) found that historical reconstructions of AMOC in such models are sensitive to the details of the data assimilation procedure. The ocean data assimilation community continues to address these issues through improved models and methods for estimating and representing error information.Two objectives of paleoclimate modeling are 1) to provide mechanistic information for interpretation of paleoclimate observations, and 2) to test the ability of predictive models to simulate Earth's climate under different background forcing states. In a good example of the first objective, Schmittner and Lund (2015) and Menviel et al. (2014) provided key information about the proxy signals expected under freshwater disturbance of AMOC, which were used to support the paleoclimate observations made by Henry et al. (2016). In an example of the second objective, Muglia and Schmittner (2015) analyzed Third Paleoclimate Modeling Intercomparison Project (PMIP3) models of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and found consistently more intense and deeper AMOC transports relative to preindustrial simulations, counter to the paleoclimate consensus of LGM conditions, indicating that some processes are not well represented in the PMIP3 models. One challenge is to find adequate paleo observations against which to test these models. PMIP is now in phase 4 (part of CMIP6), which includes experiments covering five periods in Earth's history: the last millennium, last glacial maximum, last interglacial, and the mid-Pliocene. Newly compiled paleoclimate datasets from the PAGES2k project, more transient simulations, and participation of isotope enabled models planned for CMIP6PMIP4 will enable richer paleo data-model comparisons in the near future.

Kilbourne, Hali↗

NASA NTRS2017

The Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) contribution to CMIP6.

The primary objective of CFMIP is to inform future assessments of cloud feedbacks through improved understanding of cloud-climate feedback mechanisms and better evaluation of cloud processes and cloud feedbacks in climate models. However, the CFMIP approach is also increasingly being used to understand other aspects of climate change, and so a second objective has now been introduced, to improve understanding of circulation, regional-scale precipitation, and non-linear changes. CFMIP is supporting ongoing model inter-comparison activities by coordinating a hierarchy of targeted experiments for CMIP6, along with a set of cloud-related output diagnostics. CFMIP contributes primarily to addressing the CMIP6 questions 'How does the Earth system respond to forcing?' and 'What are the origins and consequences of systematic model biases?' and supports the activities of the WCRP Grand Challenge on Clouds, Circulation and Climate Sensitivity. A compact set of Tier 1 experiments is proposed for CMIP6 to address this question: (1) what are the physical mechanisms underlying the range of cloud feedbacks and cloud adjustments predicted by climate models, and which models have the most credible cloud feedbacks? Additional Tier 2 experiments are proposed to address the following questions. (2) Are cloud feedbacks consistent for climate cooling and warming, and if not, why? (3) How do cloud-radiative effects impact the structure, the strength and the variability of the general atmospheric circulation in present and future climates? (4) How do responses in the climate system due to changes in solar forcing differ from changes due to CO2, and is the response sensitive to the sign of the forcing? (5) To what extent is regional climate change per CO2 doubling state-dependent (non-linear), and why? (6) Are climate feedbacks during the 20th century different to those acting on long-term climate change and climate sensitivity? (7) How do regional climate responses (e.g. in precipitation) and their uncertainties in coupled models arise from the combination of different aspects of CO2 forcing and sea surface warming? CFMIP also proposes a number of additional model outputs in the CMIP DECK, CMIP6 Historical and CMIP6 CFMIP experiments, including COSP simulator outputs and process diagnostics to address the following questions. 1. How well do clouds and other relevant variables simulated by models agree with observations? 2. What physical processes and mechanisms are important for a credible simulation of clouds, cloud feedbacks and cloud adjustments in climate models? 3. Which models have the most credible representations of processes relevant to the simulation of clouds? 4. How do clouds and their changes interact with other elements of the climate system?

carbon dioxide↗