Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “CLIMATE MODELING”

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 109 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2016

Accelerated Climate Modeling for Energy (ACME) – Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility – Atmospheric System Research (ASR) Coordination Workshop, October 21–22, 2015

The Climate and Environmental Sciences Division (CESD) of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Biological and Environmental Research focuses on advancing a robust predictive understanding of Earth’s climate and environmental systems to inform the development of sustainable solutions to the Nation’s energy and environmental challenges. CESD climate activities related to atmospheric processes include: observations through the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility; atmospheric research and model parameterization development through the Atmospheric System Research (ASR) program; climate model development and climate research through the Accelerated Climate Modeling for Energy (ACME) project along with other computationally focused model-development activities within the CESD Earth System Modeling (ESM) program, and development of robust model analytical and testing frameworks at multiple scales through the Regional and Global Climate Modeling program. This workshop focused primarily on improving model treatment of atmospheric processes as a means to focus discussion and did not address research on terrestrial ecosystem and subsurface processes, which are also part of the CESD research portfolio.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
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↗
DOE OSTI2017

An aerosol activation metamodel of v1.2.0 of the pyrcel cloud parcel model: development and offline assessment for use in an aerosol–climate model

We describe an emulator of a detailed cloud parcel model which has been trained to assess droplet nucleation from a complex, multimodal aerosol size distribution simulated by a global aerosol–climate model. The emulator is constructed using a sensitivity analysis approach (polynomial chaos expansion) which reproduces the behavior of the targeted parcel model across the full range of aerosol properties and meteorology simulated by the parent climate model. An iterative technique using aerosol fields sampled from a global model is used to identify the critical aerosol size distribution parameters necessary for accurately predicting activation. Across the large parameter space used to train them, the emulators estimate cloud droplet number concentration (CDNC) with a mean relative error of 9.2% for aerosol populations without giant cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) and 6.9% when including them. Versus a parcel model driven by those same aerosol fields, the best-performing emulator has a mean relative error of 4.6%, which is comparable with two commonly used activation schemes also evaluated here (which have mean relative errors of 2.9 and 6.7%, respectively). We identify the potential for regional biases in modeled CDNC, particularly in oceanic regimes, where our best-performing emulator tends to overpredict by 7%, whereas the reference activation schemes range in mean relative error from -3 to 7%. The emulators which include the effects of giant CCN are more accurate in continental regimes (mean relative error of 0.3%) but strongly overestimate CDNC in oceanic regimes by up to 22%, particularly in the Southern Ocean. Finally, the biases in CDNC resulting from the subjective choice of activation scheme could potentially influence the magnitude of the indirect effect diagnosed from the model incorporating it.

54 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.↗
DOE OSTI2023

Nudging allows direct evaluation of coupled climate models with in situ observations: a case study from the MOSAiC expedition

Comparing the output of general circulation models to observations is essential for assessing and improving the quality of models. While numerical weather prediction models are routinely assessed against a large array of observations, comparing climate models and observations usually requires long time series to build robust statistics. Here, we show that by nudging the large-scale atmospheric circulation in coupled climate models, model output can be compared to local observations for individual days. We illustrate this for three climate models during a period in April 2020 when a warm air intrusion reached the MOSAiC (Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate) expedition in the central Arctic. Radiosondes, cloud remote sensing and surface flux observations from the MOSAiC expedition serve as reference observations. The climate models AWI-CM1/ECHAM and AWI-CM3/IFS miss the diurnal cycle of surface temperature in spring, likely because both models assume the snowpack on ice to have a uniform temperature. CAM6, a model that uses three layers to represent snow temperature, represents the diurnal cycle more realistically. During a cold and dry period with pervasive thin mixed-phase clouds, AWI-CM1/ECHAM only produces partial cloud cover and overestimates downwelling shortwave radiation at the surface. AWI-CM3/IFS produces a closed cloud cover but misses cloud liquid water. Our results show that nudging the large-scale circulation to the observed state allows a meaningful comparison of climate model output even to short-term observational campaigns. We suggest that nudging can simplify and accelerate the pathway from observations to climate model improvements and substantially extends the range of observations suitable for model evaluation.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
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.↗
DOE OSTI2021

Identifying the sources of uncertainty in climate model simulations of solar radiation modification with the G6sulfur and G6solar Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) simulations

We present here results from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) simulations for the experiments G6sulfur and G6solar for six Earth system models participating in the Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) Phase 6. The aim of the experiments is to reduce the warming that results from a high-tier emission scenario (Shared Socioeconomic Pathways SSP5-8.5) to that resulting from a medium-tier emission scenario (SSP2-4.5). These simulations aim to analyze the response of climate models to a reduction in incoming surface radiation as a means to reduce global surface temperatures, and they do so either by simulating a stratospheric sulfate aerosol layer or, in a more idealized way, through a uniform reduction in the solar constant in the model. We find that over the final two decades of this century there are considerable inter-model spreads in the needed injection amounts of sulfate (29 ± 9 Tg-SO 2 /yr between 2081 and 2100), in the latitudinal distribution of the aerosol cloud and in the stratospheric temperature changes resulting from the added aerosol layer. Even in the simpler G6solar experiment, there is a spread in the needed solar dimming to achieve the same global temperature target (1.91 ± 0.44 %). The analyzed models already show significant differences in the response to the increasing CO 2 concentrations for global mean temperatures and global mean precipitation (2.05 K ± 0.42 K and 2.28 ± 0.80 %, respectively, for SSP5-8.5 minus SSP2-4.5 averaged over 2081–2100). With aerosol injection, the differences in how the aerosols spread further change some of the underlying uncertainties, such as the global mean precipitation response (–3.79 ± 0.76 % for G6sulfur compared to –2.07 ± 0.40 % for G6solar against SSP2-4.5 between 2081 and 2100). These differences in the behavior of the aerosols also result in a larger uncertainty in the regional surface temperature response among models in the case of the G6sulfur simulations, suggesting the need to devise various, more specific experiments to single out and resolve particular sources of uncertainty. The spread in the modeled response suggests that a degree of caution is necessary when using these results for assessing specific impacts of geoengineering in various aspects of the Earth system. However, all models agree that compared to a scenario with unmitigated warming, stratospheric aerosol geoengineering has the potential to both globally and locally reduce the increase in surface temperatures.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2024

Evaluation of Global Climate Models for Use in Energy Analysis

The interplay between energy, climate, and weather is becoming more complex due to increasing contributions of renewable energy generation, energy storage, electrified end uses, and the increasing frequency of extreme weather events. Energy system analyses commonly rely on meteorological inputs to estimate renewable energy generation and energy demand; however, these inputs rarely represent the estimated impacts of future climate change. Climate models and publicly available climate change datasets can be used for this purpose, but the selection of inputs from the myriad of available models and datasets is a nuanced and subjective process. In this work, we assess datasets from various global climate models (GCMs) from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). We present evaluations of their skills with respect to the historical climate and comparisons of their future projections of climate change for two climate change scenarios. We present the results for different climatic and energy system regions and include interactive figures in the accompanying software repository. Previous work has presented similar GCM evaluations, but none have presented variables and metrics specifically intended for comprehensive energy systems analysis including impacts on energy demand, thermal cooling, hydropower, water availability, solar energy generation, and wind energy generation. We focus on GCM output meteorological variables that directly affect these energy system components including the representation of extreme values that can drive grid resilience events. The objective of this work is not to recommend the best climate model and dataset for a given analysis, but instead to provide a reference to facilitate the selection of climate models and scenarios in subsequent work.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Overcoming the disconnect between energy system and climate modeling

Energy system models underpin decisions by energy system planners and operators. Energy system modeling faces a transformation: accounting for changing meteorological conditions imposed by climate change. To enable that transformation, a community of practice in energy-climate modeling has started to form that aims to better integrate energy system models with weather and climate models. In this work, we evaluate the disconnects between the energy system and climate modeling communities, then lay out a research agenda to bridge those disconnects. In the near-term, we propose interdisciplinary activities for expediting uptake of future climate data in energy system modeling. In the long-term, we propose a transdisciplinary approach to enable development of (1) energy-system-tailored climate datasets for historical and future meteorological conditions and (2) energy system models that can effectively leverage those datasets. This agenda increases the odds of meeting ambitious climate mitigation goals by systematically capturing and mitigating climate risk in energy sector decision-making.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2017

pyhector: A Python interface for the simple climate model Hector

Here, pyhector is a Python interface for the simple climate model Hector (Hartin et al. 2015) developed in C++. Simple climate models like Hector can, for instance, be used in the analysis of scenarios within integrated assessment models like GCAM1, in the emulation of complex climate models, and in uncertainty analyses. Hector is an open-source, object oriented, simple global climate carbon cycle model. Its carbon cycle consists of a one pool atmosphere, three terrestrial pools which can be broken down into finer biomes or regions, and four carbon pools in the ocean component. The terrestrial carbon cycle includes primary production and respiration fluxes. The ocean carbon cycle circulates carbon via a simplified thermohaline circulation, calculating air-sea fluxes as well as the marine carbonate system. The model input is time series of greenhouse gas emissions; as example scenarios for these the Pyhector package contains the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs)2.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
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↗