Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Climate models”

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.

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

At least 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2015

Climate Model Diagnostic Analyzer

The comprehensive and innovative evaluation of climate models with newly available global observations is critically needed for the improvement of climate model current-state representation and future-state predictability. A climate model diagnostic evaluation process requires physics-based multi-variable analyses that typically involve large-volume and heterogeneous datasets, making them both computation- and data-intensive. With an exploratory nature of climate data analyses and an explosive growth of datasets and service tools, scientists are struggling to keep track of their datasets, tools, and execution/study history, let alone sharing them with others. In response, we have developed a cloud-enabled, provenance-supported, web-service system called Climate Model Diagnostic Analyzer (CMDA). CMDA enables the physics-based, multivariable model performance evaluations and diagnoses through the comprehensive and synergistic use of multiple observational data, reanalysis data, and model outputs. At the same time, CMDA provides a crowd-sourcing space where scientists can organize their work efficiently and share their work with others. CMDA is empowered by many current state-of-the-art software packages in web service, provenance, and semantic search.

cloud computing↗
DOE OSTI2024

Climate Model Output Rewriter

The Climate Model Output Rewriter (CMOR) software was first developed by LLNL’s PCMDI program in early 2000s and was formally released with v1.0 (July 2006), v2.0 (January 2011), and v3.1(June 2016). CMOR is used to produce Climate and Forecast Convention (http://cfconventions.org/) CF-compliant netCDF files, in the standard format required to satisfy the World Climate Research Program (WCRP) Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). The software has been used across multiple phases of the Earth System Modeling (ESM) project CMIP (CMIP3, CMIP5, CMIP6, and planned use in CMIP7) along with numerous parallel projects focused on preparation observations for use in model evaluation (obs4MIPs) and forcing datasets (input4MIPs) to guide ESM simulations to meet strict experimental protocols. More information can be obtained from the CMOR website and code repositories: https://cmor.llnl.gov/; https://github.com/pcmdi/cmor; https://github.com/PCMDI/cmor3_documentation The ESM variable definitions used as input for CMOR can also be viewed in code repositories: https://github.com/PCMDI/cmip3-cmor-tables/; https://github.com/PCMDI/cmip5-cmor-tables/; https://github.com/PCMDI/cmip6-cmor-tables/

Mauzey, ChristopherF↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Mars Global Climate Modeling.

Scientists use Global Climate Models (GCMs) to better under the current and past climate states of terrestrial (solid surface) bodies in our solar system and beyond, and the physical processes that control them. GCMs are complex, multi-dimensional computer codes that can generally be divided into two parts: the geophysical fluid dynamics (GFD) framework, which represents accelerations and spatially resolved processes, and the physics routines, which provide the forcing functions for the circulation. Producing a GCM that is appropriate for a particular body—Mars, for example—requires implementing the appropriate physics routines (e.g., radiative transfer, planetary boundary layer physics, dust lifting physics to generate dust storms, etc.) for that body. In this talk, I will give an overview of the components of the NASA Ames Mars GCM and discuss some of the scientific questions we address with this state-of-the-art numerical model.

Melinda A. Kahre↗
DOE OSTI2026

Systematic Benchmarking of Climate Models: Methodologies, Applications, and New Directions

As climate models become increasingly complex, there is a growing need to comprehensively and systematically assess model performance with respect to observations. Given the increasing number and diversity of climate model simulations in use, the community has moved beyond simple model intercomparison and toward developing methods capable of benchmarking a large number of simulations against a suite of climate metrics. Here, we present a detailed review of evaluation and benchmarking methods and approaches developed in the last decade, focusing primarily on scientific implications for Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) simulations and CMIP6 results that contributed to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). Based on this review, we explain the resulting contemporary philosophy of model benchmarking, and provide clear distinctions and definitions of the terms model verification, process validation, evaluation, and benchmarking. While significant progress has been made in model development based on systematic evaluation and benchmarking efforts, some climate system biases still remain. The development of open‐source community software packages has played a fundamental role in identifying areas of significant model improvement and bias reduction. We review the key features of several software packages that have been commonly used over the past decade to evaluate and benchmark global and regional climate models. Additionally, we discuss best practices for the selection of evaluation and benchmarking metrics and for interpreting the obtained results, the importance of selecting suitable sources of reference data and accurate uncertainty quantification.

Environmental sciences↗
NASA NTRS1981

Liquid water on Mars - An energy balance climate model for CO2/H2O atmospheres

A simple climatic model is developed for a Mars atmosphere containing CO2 and sufficient liquid water to account for the observed hydrologic surface features by the existence of a CO2/H2O greenhouse effect. A latitude-resolved climate model originally devised for terrestrial climate studies is applied to Martian conditions, with the difference between absorbed solar flux and emitted long-wave flux to space per unit area attributed to the divergence of the meridional heat flux and the poleward heat flux assumed to equal the atmospheric eddy heat flux. The global mean energy balance is calculated as a function of atmospheric pressure to assess the CO2/H2O greenhouse liquid water hypothesis, and some latitude-resolved cases are examined in detail in order to clarify the role of atmospheric transport and temperature-albedo feedback. It is shown that the combined CO2/H2O greenhouse at plausible early surface pressures may account for climates hot enough to support a hydrological cycle and running water at present-day insolation and visible albedo levels.

Hoffert, M. I.↗
NASA NTRS1996

3ARM: A Fast, Accurate Radiative Transfer Model for use in Climate Models

A new radiative transfer model combining the efforts of three groups of researchers is discussed. The model accurately computes radiative transfer in a inhomogeneous absorbing, scattering and emitting atmospheres. As an illustration of the model, results are shown for the effects of dust on the thermal radiation.

Bergstrom, R. W.↗
NASA NTRS1996

3ARM: A Fast, Accurate Radiative Transfer Model for Use in Climate Models

A new radiative transfer model combining the efforts of three groups of researchers is discussed. The model accurately computes radiative transfer in a inhomogeneous absorbing, scattering and emitting atmospheres. As an illustration of the model, results are shown for the effects of dust on the thermal radiation.

Bergstrom, R. W.↗
NASA NTRS1996

3ARM: A Fast, Accurate Radiative Transfer Model For Use in Climate Models

A new radiative transfer model combining the efforts of three groups of researchers is discussed. The model accurately computes radiative transfer in a inhomogeneous absorbing, scattering and emitting atmospheres. As an illustration of the model, results are shown for the effects of dust on the thermal radiation.

Bergstrom, R. W.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity Estimated by Equilibrating Climate Models

The methods to quantify equilibrium climate sensitivity are still debated. We collect millennial length simulations of coupled climate models and show that the global mean equilibrium warming is higher than those obtained using extrapolation methods from shorter simulations. Specifically, 27 simulations with 15 climate models forced with a range of CO2 concentrations show a median 17% larger equilibrium warming than estimated from the first 150 years of the simulations. The spatial patterns of radiative feedbacks change continuously, in most regions reducing their tendency to stabilizing the climate. In the equatorial Pacific, however, feedbacks become more stabilizing with time. The global feedback evolution is initially dominated by the tropics, with eventual substantial contributions from the midlatitudes. Time dependent feedbacks underscore the need of a measure of climate sensitivity that accounts for the degree of equilibration, so that models, observations, and paleo proxies can be adequately compared and aggregated to estimate future warming.

Maria Rugenstein↗
NASA NTRS1988

The Milankovitch theory and climate sensitivity. I - Equilibrium climate model solutions for the present surface conditions. II - Interaction between the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets and the climate system

A seasonal climate model was developed to test the climate sensitivity and, in particular, the Milankovitch (1941) theory. Four climate model versions were implemented to investigate the range of uncertainty in the parameterizations of three basic feedback mechanisms: the ice albedo-temperature, the outgoing long-wave radiation-temperature, and the eddy transport-meridional temperature gradient. It was found that the differences between the simulation of the present climate by the four versions were generally small, especially for annually averaged results. The climate model was also used to study the effect of growing/shrinking of a continental ice sheet, bedrock sinking/uplifting, and sea level changes on the climate system, taking also into account the feedback effects on the climate of the building of the ice caps.

Neeman, Binyamin U.↗
NASA NTRS2013

A Comparison Between Gravity Wave Momentum Fluxes in Observations and Climate Models

For the first time, a formal comparison is made between gravity wave momentum fluxes in models and those derived from observations. Although gravity waves occur over a wide range of spatial and temporal scales, the focus of this paper is on scales that are being parameterized in present climate models, sub-1000-km scales. Only observational methods that permit derivation of gravity wave momentum fluxes over large geographical areas are discussed, and these are from satellite temperature measurements, constant-density long-duration balloons, and high-vertical-resolution radiosonde data. The models discussed include two high-resolution models in which gravity waves are explicitly modeled, Kanto and the Community Atmosphere Model, version 5 (CAM5), and three climate models containing gravity wave parameterizations,MAECHAM5, Hadley Centre Global Environmental Model 3 (HadGEM3), and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) model. Measurements generally show similar flux magnitudes as in models, except that the fluxes derived from satellite measurements fall off more rapidly with height. This is likely due to limitations on the observable range of wavelengths, although other factors may contribute. When one accounts for this more rapid fall off, the geographical distribution of the fluxes from observations and models compare reasonably well, except for certain features that depend on the specification of the nonorographic gravity wave source functions in the climate models. For instance, both the observed fluxes and those in the high-resolution models are very small at summer high latitudes, but this is not the case for some of the climate models. This comparison between gravity wave fluxes from climate models, high-resolution models, and fluxes derived from observations indicates that such efforts offer a promising path toward improving specifications of gravity wave sources in climate models.

mathematical models↗
NASA NTRS2018

Explicit Cloud Representation in the Atmos 1D Climate Model for Earth and Rocky Planet Applications

1D climate models are less sophisticated than 3D global circulation models (GCMs), however their computational time is much less expensive, allowing a large number of runs in a short period of time to explore a wide parameter space. Exploring parameter space is particularly important for predicting the observable properties of exoplanets, for which few parameters are known with certainty. Therefore, 1D climate models are still very useful tools for planetary studies. In most of these 1D models, clouds are not physically represented in the atmosphere, despite having a well-known, significant impact on a planetary radiative budget. This impact is simulated by artificially raising surface albedo, in order to reproduce the observed-averaged surface temperature (i.e. 288 K for modern Earth) and a radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere. This non-physical representation of clouds, causes atmospheric long wave and shortwaves fluxes to not match observational data. Additionally, this technique represents a parameter that is highly-tuned to modern Earth’s climate, and may not be appropriate for planets that deviate from modern Earth’s climate conditions. In this paper, we present an update to the climate model within the Atmos 1­D atmospheric modeling package with a physical representation of clouds. We show that this physical representation of clouds in the atmosphere allows both long wave and shortwave fluxes to match observational data. This improvement will allow us to study the energy fluxes for a variety of cloudy rocky planets, and increase our confidence in future simulations of temperature profile and net energy balance.

Thomas Fauchez↗
NASA NTRS2014

A Practical Philosophy of Complex Climate Modelling

We give an overview of the practice of developing and using complex climate models, as seen from experiences in a major climate modelling center and through participation in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP).We discuss the construction and calibration of models; their evaluation, especially through use of out-of-sample tests; and their exploitation in multi-model ensembles to identify biases and make predictions. We stress that adequacy or utility of climate models is best assessed via their skill against more naive predictions. The framework we use for making inferences about reality using simulations is naturally Bayesian (in an informal sense), and has many points of contact with more familiar examples of scientific epistemology. While the use of complex simulations in science is a development that changes much in how science is done in practice, we argue that the concepts being applied fit very much into traditional practices of the scientific method, albeit those more often associated with laboratory work.

complex simulation↗
NASA NTRS1979

The performance of a seasonal global climatic model

A seasonal global climatic model developed by Sellers is studied. Several changes are made to correct errors in the original model and to allow its use in a time dependent simulation mode. The major changes are in the infrared radiation formulation and in the size of the time steps. The seasonal cycles of surface temperature, wind, ice, snow, albedo, horizontal heat transport, and vertical flux of solar and infrared radiation are compared to recent observations. The seasonal cycle of temperature is fairly well reproduced, but has too small an amplitude in the Northern Hemisphere high latitudes. An overestimate of albedo at the poles is found, which is related to errors in some of the other variables. The sensitivity of the model to CO2 and solar constant (O) changes is summarized. Doubling the CO2 amount causes a 2.45 K increase in global average surface temperature (T). Increasing Q by 1% increases T by 3.14K. Decreasing 0 by 1% decreases T by 4.65K. An annual average version of the model is more sensitive to changes in Q than the model with the seasonal cycle.

Robock, A.↗
DOE OSTI2024

Pushing the frontiers in climate modelling and analysis with machine learning

Climate modelling and analysis are facing new demands to enhance projections and climate information. Here, in this study, we argue that now is the time to push the frontiers of machine learning beyond state-of-the-art approaches, not only by developing machine-learning-based Earth system models with greater fidelity, but also by providing new capabilities through emulators for extreme event projections with large ensembles, enhanced detection and attribution methods for extreme events, and advanced climate model analysis and benchmarking. Utilizing this potential requires key machine learning challenges to be addressed, in particular generalization, uncertainty quantification, explainable artificial intelligence and causality. This interdisciplinary effort requires bringing together machine learning and climate scientists, while also leveraging the private sector, to accelerate progress towards actionable climate science.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2000

The Finer Details: Climate Modeling

If you want to know whether you will need sunscreen or an umbrella for tomorrow's picnic, you can simply read the local weather report. However, if you are calculating the impact of gas combustion on global temperatures, or anticipating next year's rainfall levels to set water conservation policy, you must conduct a more comprehensive investigation. Such complex matters require long-range modeling techniques that predict broad trends in climate development rather than day-to-day details. Climate models are built from equations that calculate the progression of weather-related conditions over time. Based on the laws of physics, climate model equations have been developed to predict a number of environmental factors, for example: 1. Amount of solar radiation that hits the Earth. 2. Varying proportions of gases that make up the air. 3. Temperature at the Earth's surface. 4. Circulation of ocean and wind currents. 5. Development of cloud cover. Numerical modeling of the climate can improve our understanding of both the past and, the future. A model can confirm the accuracy of environmental measurements taken. in, the past and can even fill in gaps in those records. In addition, by quantifying the relationship between different aspects of climate, scientists can estimate how a future change in one aspect may alter the rest of the world. For example, could an increase in the temperature of the Pacific Ocean somehow set off a drought on the other side of the world? A computer simulation could lead to an answer for this and other questions. Quantifying the chaotic, nonlinear activities that shape our climate is no easy matter. You cannot run these simulations on your desktop computer and expect results by the time you have finished checking your morning e-mail. Efficient and accurate climate modeling requires powerful computers that can process billions of mathematical calculations in a single second. The NCCS exists to provide this degree of vast computing capability.

Source record↗
DOE OSTI2025

“Which Projections Do I Use?” Strategies for Climate Model Ensemble Subset Selection Based on Regional Stakeholder Needs

Climate model (or earth system model) projections are increasingly used for climate adaptation planning and impact assessments. As part of this process, many end‐users evaluate a subset of downscaled climate projections without being aware of the implications of downscaling methodology for statistics or event outcomes. Approaches for determining a subset of global climate models to use often focus on values from the raw models, rather than from their downscaled counterparts, in other words assuming that the statistical distribution of the multi‐model ensemble does not change post downscaling. This study demonstrates that a downscaled ensemble will typically retain the change distribution as a raw ensemble, but individual models can differ dramatically post‐downscaling. We recommend that subset‐selection methods account for this possibility and that decision‐relevant downscaled climate projections provide proper descriptions of fitness‐for‐purpose and essential caveats, so that non‐specialists can interpret the results with an appropriate level of confidence.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗