SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “CMIP6”

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.

At least 37 records · Page 2

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2021

Contributions to Polar Amplification in CMIP5 and CMIP6 Models

As a step towards understanding the fundamental drivers of polar climate change, we evaluate contributions to polar warming and its seasonal and hemispheric asymmetries in Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6) as compared with CMIP5. CMIP6 models broadly capture the observed pattern of surface- and winter-dominated Arctic warming that has outpaced both tropical and Antarctic warming in recent decades. For both CMIP5 and CMIP6, CO 2 quadrupling experiments reveal that the lapse-rate and surface albedo feedbacks contribute most to stronger warming in the Arctic than the tropics or Antarctic. The relative strength of the polar surface albedo feedback in comparison to the lapse-rate feedback is sensitive to the choice of radiative kernel, and the albedo feedback contributes most to intermodel spread in polar warming at both poles. By separately calculating moist and dry atmospheric heat transport, we show that increased poleward moisture transport is another important driver of Arctic amplification and the largest contributor to projected Antarctic warming. Seasonal ocean heat storage and winter-amplified temperature feedbacks contribute most to the winter peak in warming in the Arctic and a weaker winter peak in the Antarctic. In comparison with CMIP5, stronger polar warming in CMIP6 results from a larger surface albedo feedback at both poles, combined with less-negative cloud feedbacks in the Arctic and increased poleward moisture transport in the Antarctic. However, normalizing by the global-mean surface warming yields a similar degree of Arctic amplification and only slightly increased Antarctic amplification in CMIP6 compared to CMIP5.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

NASA NTRS2021

Large-scale features of Last Interglacial climate: results from evaluating the lig127k simulations for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6)–Paleoclimate Modeling Intercomparison Project (PMIP4)

The modeling of paleoclimate, using physically based tools, is increasingly seen as a strong out-of-sample test of the models that are used for the projection of future climate changes. New to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) is the Tier 1 Last Interglacial experiment for 127 000 years ago (lig127k), designed to address the climate responses to stronger orbital forcing than the midHolocene experiment, using the same state-of-the-art models as for the future and following a common experimental protocol. Here we present a first analysis of a multi-model ensemble of 17 climate models, all of which have completed the CMIP6 DECK (Diagnostic, Evaluation and Characterization of Klima) experiments. The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of these models varies from 1.8 to 5.6°C. The seasonal character of the insolation anomalies results in strong summer warming over the Northern Hemisphere continents in the lig127k ensemble as compared to the CMIP6 piControl and much-reduced minimum sea ice in the Arctic. The multi-model results indicate enhanced summer monsoonal precipitation in the Northern Hemisphere and reductions in the Southern Hemisphere. These responses are greater in the lig127k than the CMIP6 midHolocene simulations as expected from the larger insolation anomalies at 127 than 6 ka. New synthesis for surface temperature and precipitation, targeted for 127 ka, have been developed for comparison to the multi-model ensemble. The lig127k model ensemble and data reconstructions are in good agreement for summer temperature anomalies over Canada, Scandinavia, and the North Atlantic and for precipitation over the Northern Hemisphere continents. The model–data comparisons and mismatches point to further study of the sensitivity of the simulations to uncertainties in the boundary conditions and of the uncertainties and sparse coverage in current proxy reconstructions. The CMIP6–Paleoclimate Modeling Intercomparison Project (PMIP4) lig127k simulations, in combination with the proxy record, improve our confidence in future projections of monsoons, surface temperature, and Arctic sea ice, thus providing a key target for model evaluation and optimization.

Last Interglacial climate↗

DOE OSTI2020

Arctic Sea Ice in CMIP6

Abstract We examine CMIP6 simulations of Arctic sea‐ice area and volume. We find that CMIP6 models produce a wide spread of mean Arctic sea‐ice area, capturing the observational estimate within the multimodel ensemble spread. The CMIP6 multimodel ensemble mean provides a more realistic estimate of the sensitivity of September Arctic sea‐ice area to a given amount of anthropogenic CO 2 emissions and to a given amount of global warming, compared with earlier CMIP experiments. Still, most CMIP6 models fail to simulate at the same time a plausible evolution of sea‐ice area and of global mean surface temperature. In the vast majority of the available CMIP6 simulations, the Arctic Ocean becomes practically sea‐ice free (sea‐ice area <1 × 10 6 km 2 ) in September for the first time before the Year 2050 in each of the four emission scenarios SSP1‐1.9, SSP1‐2.6, SSP2‐4.5, and SSP5‐8.5 examined here.

Notz, Dirk↗

DOE OSTI2020

Seasonal representation of extreme precipitation indices over the United States in CMIP6 present-day simulations

Realistically representing the present-day characteristics of extreme precipitation has been a challenge for global climate models, which is due in part to deficiencies in model resolution and physics, but is also due to a lack of consistency in gridded observations. In this study, we use three observation datasets, including gridded rain gauge and satellite data, to assess historical simulations from sixteen Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) models. We separately evaluate summer and winter precipitation over the United States (US) with a comprehensive set of extreme precipitation indices, including an assessment of precipitation frequency, intensity and spatial structure. The observations exhibit significant differences in their estimates of area-average intensity distributions and spatial patterns of the mean and extremes of precipitation over the US. In general, the CMIP6 multi-model mean performs better than most individual models at capturing daily precipitation distributions and extreme precipitation indices, particularly in comparison to gauge-based data. Also, the representation of the extreme precipitation indices by the CMIP6 models is better in the summer than winter. Although the ‘standard’ horizontal-resolution can vary significantly across CMIP6 models, from ~0.7° to ~2.8°, we find that resolution is not a good indicator of model performance. Overall, our results highlight common biases in CMIP6 models and demonstrate that no single model is consistently the most reliable across all indices.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2021

Assessing Prior Emergent Constraints on Surface Albedo Feedback in CMIP6

An emergent constraint (EC) is a popular model evaluation technique, which offers the potential to reduce intermodel variability in projections of climate change. Two examples have previously been laid out for future surface albedo feedbacks (SAF) stemming from loss of Northern Hemisphere (NH) snow cover (SAF snow ) and sea ice (SAF ice ). These processes also have a modern-day analog that occurs each year as snow and sea ice retreat from their seasonal maxima, which is strongly correlated with future SAF across an ensemble of climate models. The newly released CMIP6 ensemble offers the chance to test prior constraints through out-of-sample verification, an important examination of EC robustness. Here, we show that the SAF snow EC is equally strong in CMIP6 as it was in past generations, while the SAF ice EC is also shown to exist in CMIP6, but with different, slightly weaker characteristics. We find that the CMIP6 mean NH SAF exhibits a global feedback of 0.25 ± 0.05 W m -2 K -1 , or ~61% of the total global albedo feedback, largely in line with prior generations despite its increased climate sensitivity. Additionally, the NH SAF can be broken down into similar contributions from snow and sea ice over the twenty-first century in CMIP6. Crucially, intermodel variability in seasonal SAF snow and SAF ice is largely unchanged from CMIP5 because of poor outlier simulations of snow cover, surface albedo, and sea ice thickness. These outliers act to mask the noted improvement from many models when it comes to SAF ice , and to a lesser extent SAF snow .

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

Assessment of the Pan-Arctic Accelerated Rate of Sea Ice Decline in CMIP6 Historical Simulations

Abstract Arctic sea ice loss in response to a warming climate is assessed in 42 models participating in phase 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). Sea ice observations show a significant acceleration in the rate of decline commencing near the turn of the twenty-first century. It is our assertion that state-of-the-art climate models should qualitatively reflect this accelerated trend within the limitations of internal variability and observational uncertainty. Our analysis shows that individual CMIP6 simulations of sea ice depict a wide range of model spread on biases and anomaly trends both across models and among their ensemble members. While the CMIP6 multimodel mean captures the observed sea ice area (SIA) decline relatively well, an individual model’s ability to represent the acceleration in sea ice decline remains a challenge. Seventeen (40%) out of 42 CMIP6 models and 37 (13%) out of the total 286 ensemble members reasonably capture the observed trends and acceleration in SIA decline. In addition, a larger ensemble size appears to increase the odds for a model to include at least one ensemble member skillfully representing the accelerated SIA trends. Simulations of sea ice volume (SIV) show much larger spread and uncertainty than SIA; however, due to limited availability of sea ice thickness data, these are not as well constrained by observations. Finally, we find that models with more ocean heat transport simulate larger sea ice declines, which suggests an emergent constraint in CMIP6 ensembles. This relationship points to the need for better understanding and modeling of ice–ocean interactions, especially with respect to frazil ice growth.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2026

How Well Can CMIP6 Models Represent the Observed Influence of the Pacific and Indian Oceans on the Indian Summer Monsoon Rainfall?

This study evaluates the ability of CMIP6 climate models to simulate the observed effects of tropical Pacific and Indian Ocean sea surface temperature anomalies (SSTAs) on Indian summer monsoon rainfall (ISMR) variability. Using observational data and the large ensemble historical simulations of seven CMIP6 models from 1950 to 2014, we applied a cyclostationary linear inverse model (CS-LIM) to isolate the impacts of tropical Pacific SSTAs, Indian Ocean SSTAs and their interaction on the interannual variability of ISMR. Overall, CMIP6 models well reproduced the observed enhanced (reduced) ISMR variability from Pacific SSTAs (Indian Ocean SSTAs and the Indo-Pacific interaction), but with varying spatial patterns and magnitudes. While CESM2 and E3SM-2-0 showed the best agreement with observations for the effects of Pacific SSTAs and the Indo-Pacific interaction, respectively, CMIP6 models showed mixed results for the impacts from Indian Ocean SSTAs. Composite analysis of ISMR anomalies during the developing phases of pure and co-occurring El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and Indian Ocean dipole (IOD) events revealed that the impacts from Pacific SSTAs were captured reasonably well by E3SM-2-0, CESM2, MIROC6, and MPI-ESM1-2-LR, while E3SM-2-0 also showed the best agreement with observations for the effects from the Indo-Pacific interaction. However, all models showed substantial biases in simulating the Indian Ocean SSTA impacts on ISMR, especially for pure El Niño events. Overall, this study provides new insights into how individual CMIP6 models simulate the isolated impacts from the tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans, which has important applications for improving ISMR predictions and interpreting ISMR future projections.

monsoon↗

DOE OSTI2020

The CMIP6 Data Request (DREQ, version 01.00.31)

The data request of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) defines all the quantities from CMIP6 simulations that should be archived. This includes both quantities of general interest needed from most of the CMIP6-endorsed model intercomparison projects (MIPs) and quantities that are more specialized and only of interest to a single endorsed MIP.The complexity of the data request has increased from the early days of model intercomparisons, as has the data volume.In contrast with CMIP5, CMIP6 requires distinct sets of highly tailored variables to be saved from each of the more than 200 experiments.This places new demands on the data request information base and leads to a new requirement for development of software that facilitates automated interrogation of the request and retrieval of its technical specifications.The building blocks and structure of the CMIP6 Data Request (DREQ), which have been constructed to meet these challenges, are described in this paper.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2020

Quantifying CanESM5 and EAMv1 sensitivities to Mt. Pinatubo volcanic forcing for the CMIP6 historical experiment

Large volcanic eruptions reaching the stratosphere have caused marked perturbations to the global climate including cooling at the Earth's surface, changes in large-scale circulation and precipitation patterns and marked temporary reductions in global ocean heat content. Many studies have investigated these effects using climate models; however, uncertainties remain in the modelled response to these eruptions. This is due in part to the diversity of forcing datasets that are used to prescribe the distribution of stratospheric aerosols resulting from these volcanic eruptions, as well as uncertainties in optical property derivations from these datasets. To improve this situation for the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6), a two-step process was undertaken. First, a combined stratospheric aerosol dataset, the Global Space-based Stratospheric Aerosol Climatology (GloSSAC; 1979–2016), was constructed. Next, GloSSAC, along with information from ice cores and Sun photometers, was used to generate aerosol distributions, characteristics and optical properties to construct a more consistent stratospheric aerosol forcing dataset for models participating in CMIP6. This “version 3” of the stratospheric aerosol forcing has been endorsed for use in all contributing CMIP6 simulations. Recent updates to the underlying GloSSAC from version 1 to version 1.1 affected the 1991–1994 period and necessitated an update to the stratospheric aerosol forcing from version 3 to version 4. As version 3 remains the official CMIP6 input, quantification of the impact on radiative forcing and climate is both relevant and timely for interpreting results from experiments such as the CMIP6 historical simulations. This study uses two models, the Canadian Earth System Model version 5 (CanESM5) and the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) Atmosphere Model version 1 (EAMv1), to estimate the difference in instantaneous radiative forcing in simulated post-Pinatubo climate response when using version 4 instead of version 3. Differences in temperature, precipitation and radiative forcings are generally found to be small compared to internal variability. An exception to this is differences in monthly temperature anomalies near 24 km altitude in the tropics, which can be as large as 3 °C following the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

NASA NTRS2016

The Vulnerability, Impacts, Adaptation and Climate Services Advisory Board (VIACS AB V1.0) Contribution to CMIP6

This paper describes the motivation for the creation of the Vulnerability, Impacts, Adaptation and Climate Services (VIACS) Advisory Board for the Sixth Phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6), its initial activities, and its plans to serve as a bridge between climate change applications experts and climate modelers. The climate change application community comprises researchers and other specialists who use climate information (alongside socioeconomic and other environmental information) to analyze vulnerability, impacts, and adaptation of natural systems and society in relation to past, ongoing, and projected future climate change. Much of this activity is directed toward the co-development of information needed by decisionmakers for managing projected risks. CMIP6 provides a unique opportunity to facilitate a two-way dialog between climate modelers and VIACS experts who are looking to apply CMIP6 results for a wide array of research and climate services objectives. The VIACS Advisory Board convenes leaders of major impact sectors, international programs, and climate services to solicit community feedback that increases the applications relevance of the CMIP6-Endorsed Model Intercomparison Projects (MIPs). As an illustration of its potential, the VIACS community provided CMIP6 leadership with a list of prioritized climate model variables and MIP experiments of the greatest interest to the climate model applications community, indicating the applicability and societal relevance of climate model simulation outputs. The VIACS Advisory Board also recommended an impacts version of Obs4MIPs (observational datasets) and indicated user needs for the gridding and processing of model output.

Vulnerability↗

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↗

NASA NTRS2018

The PMIP4 Contribution to CMIP6 - Part 1: Overview and Over-Arching Analysis Plan

This paper is the first of a series of four GMD (Geoscientific Model Development) papers on the PMIP4-CMIP6 (Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project - Phase 4 -- Coupled Model Intercomparison Project - Phase 6) experiments. Part 2 (Otto-Bliesner et al., 2017) gives details about the two PMIP4-CMIP6 interglacial experiments, Part 3 (Jungclaus et al., 2017) about the last millennium experiment, and Part 4 (Kageyama et al., 2017) about the Last Glacial Maximum experiment. The mid-Pliocene Warm Period experiment is part of the Pliocene Model Intercomparison Project (PlioMIP) - Phase 2, detailed in Haywood et al. (2016). The goal of the Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project (PMIP) is to understand the response of the climate system to different climate forcings for documented climatic states very different from the present and historical climates. Through comparison with observations of the environmental impact 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 numerical models simulate climate change. Climate models are usually developed using the present and historical climates as references, but climate projections show that future climates will lie well outside these conditions. Palaeoclimates very different from these reference states therefore provide stringent tests for state-of-the-art models and a way to assess whether their sensitivity to forcings is compatible with palaeoclimatic evidence. Simulations of five different periods have been designed to address the objectives of the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6): the millennium prior to the industrial epoch (CMIP6 name: past1000); the mid-Holocene, 6000 years ago (midHolocene); the Last Glacial Maximum, 21,000 years ago (lgm); the Last Interglacial, 127,000 years ago (lig127k); and the mid-Pliocene Warm Period, 3.2 million years ago (midPliocene-eoi400). These climatic periods are well documented by palaeoclimatic and palaeoenvironmental records, with climate and environmental changes relevant for the study and projection of future climate changes. This paper describes the motivation for the choice of these periods and the design of the numerical experiments and database requests, with a focus on their novel features compared to the experiments performed in previous phases of PMIP and CMIP. It also outlines the analysis plan that takes advantage of the comparisons of the results across periods and across CMIP6 in collaboration with other MIPs.

climate↗

DOE OSTI2022

Quantitative evaluations of subtropical westerly jet simulations over East Asia based on multiple CMIP5 and CMIP6 GCMs

As a salient feature of the Asian monsoon system, the East Asian subtropical westerly jet (EASWJ) exerts significant impacts on weather and climate changes in China and even throughout East Asia. In this paper, we applied a new self-adaptive algorithm to detect the EASWJ, identify its boundaries, and then represent its characteristics by defining three indices: the intensity index, meridional displacement index, and width index. Compared to the reanalysis data, we carried out a comprehensive, objective, and quantitative EASWJ evaluation using historical experiments from multiple global climate models (GCMs) in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phases 5 and 6 (CMIP5 and CMIP6). The results show that the multimodel ensemble mean (MME) of both CMIP5 and CMIP6 can simulate the characteristics of winter EASWJ well. While for the other three seasons, the MME of both phase models underestimate the 200-hPa zonal wind (U200) strength in the jet coverage area and overestimate the U200 outside the jet area, such simulation results weaken the meridional shear of the wind field. The EASWJ simulations from the CMIP5 GCMs had no consistent intensity or location characteristic tendencies, and most CMIP5 GCMs tended to simulate relatively wide-coverage jets. In contrast, most CMIP6 GCMs are inclined to simulate significantly weaker, wider, and more-northward jets. Compared to the predecessors in CMIP5, about half of CMIP6 GCMs significantly minimized the jet intensity bias, but remarkable errors were still observed in their jet location and coverage representations. Furthermore, the comparative analysis performed by classifying models based on their evaluated simulation results suggested that the simulated performance of the meridional temperature gradient was important for capturing the EASWJ characteristics. Further in-depth study of the causes of model differences is warranted to improve simulation results.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

Xanthos Output Dataset Under ISIMIP3b Selected CMIP6 Scenarios: 1850 - 2100

Overview Xanthos is an open-source hydrologic model, written in Python, designed to quantify and analyze global water availability. Xanthos simulates historical and future global water availability on a monthly time step at a spatial resolution of 0.5 geographic degrees. Xanthos was designed to be extensible and used by scientists that study global water supply and work with the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM). Details This dataset includes Xanthos outputs forced by the ISIMIP3b bias-adjusted CMIP6 climate forcing (1850 - 2100). There are 30 scenarios consists of 10 Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6) General Circulation Models (GCM) and 3 Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP). Each folder is named as cmip6_{gcm}_{ensemble-member}_{ssp}. 10 CMIP6 GCMs: GFDL-ESM4, IPSL-CM6A-LR, MPI-ESM1-2-HR, MRI-ESM2-0, UKESM1-0-LL, CanESM5, CNRM-CM6-1, CNRM-ESM2-1, EC-Earth3, and MIROC6 3 SSP-RCP Scenarios: SSP1-2.6, SSP3-7.0, and SSP5-8.5 The table below summarizes the details of output variables within each scenario folder. | Output Variable | File Short Name | Spatial Resolution | Unit | | ----------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------- | -------------------------------- | --------------------- | | Runoff | q | 0.5x0.5 degree | km3/month | | Runoff | Basin_runoff | GCAM basin | km3/month | | Runoff | Country_runoff | Country | km3/month | | Runoff | GCAMRegion_runoff | GCAM region | km3/month | | Streamflow | avgchflow | 0.5x0.5 degree | m3/second | | Potential Evapotranspiration | pet | 0.5x0.5 degree | km3/month | | Actual Evapotranspiration | aet | 0.5x0.5 degree | km3/month | | Accessible Water | accessible_water | GCAM basin | km3/year | | Hydropower Generation | actual_hydro | GCAM region | EJ/year |

Climate Change↗

DOE OSTI2023

Xanthos Output Dataset Under ISIMIP3b Selected CMIP6 Scenarios: 1850 - 2100

Climate Change↗

DOE OSTI2024

Global Corn Heat Stress: Mean and SD of Degree Days Above 29°C based on NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 Climate Projections

Description This global dataset provides the estimated mean and standard deviation (SD) of corn heat stress (degree days above 29°C) for a set of climate models in NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 at 0.25-degree resolution. The NEX-GDDP-CMIP6 dataset is comprised of global downscaled climate scenarios derived from the General Circulation Model (GCM) runs conducted under the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). The current dataset includes: Long-Term Average Degree Days Above 29°C- Historical Long-Term Average Degree Days Above 29°C- SSP245 Long-Term Standard Deviation of Degree Days Above 29°C- Historical Long-Term Standard Deviation of Degree Days Above 29°C- SSP245 The mean and SD are calculated over 1985-2014 for the historical period and over 2035-2064 for future projections. A full description of methods, including growing season, daily temperature distribution, and statistical coefficients, can be found in Haqiqi (2024). The source climate data are obtained from https://ds.nccs.nasa.gov/thredds2/catalog/catalog.html and are described in Thrasher et al (2022). The codes used to create this dataset are available at https://github.com/ihaqiqi/dd29c_nex_cmip6. Acknowledgments This work was supported by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research Program, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling, MultiSector Dynamics under Cooperative Agreement DE-SC0022141. The data processing, computation, and storage were completed on Purdue Anvil supercomputer and cyberinfrastructure supported by the National Science Foundation HDR award # 2118329: "NSF Institute for Geospatial Understanding through an Integrative Discovery Environment (I-GUIDE)". References Haqiqi. I. (2024). Trade can buffer climate-induced risks and volatilities in crop supply. Environmental Research: Food Systems. https://doi.org/10.1088/2976-601X/ad7d12 Thrasher, B., Wang, W., Michaelis, A., Melton, F., Lee, T., & Nemani, R. (2022). NASA global daily downscaled projections, CMIP6. Scientific Data, 9(1), 262. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01393-4

Climate Change↗

NASA NTRS2020

Twenty‐First Century Drought Projections in the CMIP6 Forcing Scenarios

There is strong evidence climate change will increase drought risk and severity, but these conclusions depend on the regions, seasons, and drought metrics being considered. We analyze changes in drought across the hydrologic cycle (precipitation, soil moisture, and runoff) in projections from Phase Six of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). The multi‐model ensemble shows robust drying in the mean state across many regions and metrics by the end of the 21st century, even following the more aggressive mitigation pathways (SSP1‐2.6 and SSP2‐4.5). Regional hotspots with strong drying include western North America, Central America, Europe and the Mediterranean, the Amazon, southern Africa, China, Southeast Asia, and Australia. Compared to SSP3‐7.0 and SSP5‐8.5, however, the severity of drying in the lower warming scenarios is substantially reduced and further precipitation declines in many regions are avoided. Along with drying in the mean state, the risk of the historically most extreme drought events also increases with warming, by 200–300% in some regions. Soil moisture and runoff drying in CMIP6 is more robust, spatially extensive, and severe than precipitation, indicating an important role for other temperature‐sensitive drought processes, including evapotranspiration and snow. Given the similarity in drought responses between CMIP5 and CMIP6, we speculate both generations of models are subject to similar uncertainties, including vegetation processes, model representations of precipitation, and the degree to which model responses to warming are consistent with observations. These topics should be further explored to evaluate whether CMIP6 models offer reasons to have increased confidence in drought projections.

drought↗

NASA NTRS2021

Improved Representation of Atmospheric Dynamics in CMIP6 Models Removes Climate Sensitivity Dependence on Hadley Cell Climatological Extent

The persistent inter-model spread in the response of global mean surface temperature to increased CO. (known as the “Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity”, or “ECS”) is a crucial problem across model generations. This work examines the influence of the models’ present-day atmospheric circulation climatologies, and the accompanying climatological cloud radiative effects, in explaining that spread. We analyze the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) models and _nd that they simulate a more poleward, and thus more realistic, edge of the Hadley Circulation (HC) in the SouthernHemisphere than the CMIP5 models, although the climatological shortwave cloud radiative effects are similar in the two generations of models. A few CMIP5 models with extreme equatorward biases in the HC edge exhibited high ECS due to strong Southern midlatitude shortwave cloud radiative warming in response to climate change, suggesting an ECS dependence on HC position. We find that such constraint no longer holds for the CMIP6 models, due to absence of models with extreme HC climatologies. In spite of this, however, the CMIP6 models show an increased spread in ECS, with more models in the high ECS range. Additionally, an improved representation of the climatological jet dynamics does not lead to a new emergent constraint in the CMIP6 models either.

Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity↗