SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “CMIP”

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 145 records · Page 8

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

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↗

NASA NTRS2019

ESD Reviews: Model Dependence in Multi-Model Climate Ensembles: Weighting, Sub-Selection and Out-Of-Sample Testing

The rationale for using multi-model ensembles in climate change projections and impacts research is often based on the expectation that different models constitute independent estimates; therefore, a range of models allows a better characterisation of the uncertainties in the representation of the climate system than a single model. However, it is known that research groups share literature, ideas for representations of processes, parameterisations, evaluation data sets and even sections of model code. Thus, nominally different models might have similar biases because of similarities in the way they represent a subset of processes, or even be near-duplicates of others, weakening the assumption that they constitute independent estimates. If there are near-replicates of some models, then treating all models equally is likely to bias the inferences made using these ensembles. The challenge is to establish the degree to which this might be true for any given application. While this issue is recognised by many in the community, quantifying and accounting for model dependence in anything other than an ad-hoc way is challenging. Here we present a synthesis of the range of disparate attempts to define, quantify and address model dependence in multi-model climate ensembles in a common conceptual framework, and provide guidance on how users can test the efficacy of approaches that move beyond the equally weighted ensemble. In the upcoming Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6), several new models that are closely related to existing models are anticipated, as well as large ensembles from some models. We argue that quantitatively accounting for dependence in addition to model performance, and thoroughly testing the effectiveness of the approach used will be key to a sound interpretation of the CMIP ensembles in future scientific studies.

Abramowitz, Gab↗

NASA NTRS2018

Enabling Reanalysis Research Using the Collaborative Reanalysis Technical Environment (CREATE)

Modern atmospheric and oceanic reanalysis are valuable assets for atmospheric research and climate monitoring (Kalnay et al. 1996). Now that most reanalysis records are more than 36 years long, the data have become more useful for climate modeling research (Dole et al. 2008). For investigators who need to use multiple reanalysis, a common challenge is that the data are distributed at various sites and often in different formats. The NASA CREATE system provides access to the data in one location in a standard format (one variable per file and standardized metadata in the CMIP5 style; see Table 1 for a list of the key acronyms used in this paper). The collection includes monthly and 6-hourly data from the seven major atmospheric reanalysis: CFSR (Saha et al. 2010), ERA-Interim (Dee et al. 2011), MERRA (Rienecker et al. 2011), MERRA-2 (Gelaro et al. 2017), JRA-25 (Onogi et al. 2007), JRA-55 (Kobayashi et al. 2014), and 20CRv2c (Compo et al. 2011). An ancillary portion of CREATE includes eight ocean reanalysis: NCEP CFSR, CMCC C-GLORSv5 (Storto et al. 2016), ECMWF ORAS4 (Balmaseda et al.2013), ECMWF ORAP5.0 (Zuo et al. 2015), University of Hamburg GECCO2 (Köhl 2015), GFDL ECDA (Zhang et al. 2007), NOAA GODAS (Saha et al. 2010), and MOVE/MRI.COM-G2i (Toyoda et al. 2016). The ocean state variables were similarly reformatted but were then also regridded onto a common horizontal and vertical grid. This approach facilitated the calculation of an ensemble average and spread that is also published alongside the native gridded data. A third reanalysis product is a global hourly 0.5° land surface air temperature dataset constructed by Wang and Zeng (2013). All three datasets are distributed through the ESGF in a format consistent with the CMIP style described by Cinquini et al. (2014).

Potter, Gerald L.↗

NASA NTRS2020

Representation of Modes of Variability in 6 U.S. Climate Models

We compare the performance of several modes of variability across six US climate modeling groups, with a focus on identifying robust improvements in recent models (including those participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) Phase 6) compared to previous versions. In particular, we examine the representation of the Madden-Julian Oscillation (MJO), the El Ni˜no/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO) in the tropical stratosphere and the dominant modes of extra-tropical variability, including the Southern Annular Mode (SAM), the Northern Annular Mode (NAM) (and the closely related North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO)), and the Pacific-North American Pattern (PNA). Where feasible, we explore the processes driving these improvements through the use of “intermediary” experiments that utilize model versions between CMIP3/5 and CMIP6 as well as targeted sensitivity experiments in which individual modeling parameters are altered. We find clear and systematic improvements in the MJO and QBO and in the teleconnection patterns associated with the PDO and ENSO. Some gains arise from better process representation, while others (e.g. the QBO) from higher resolution that allows for a greater range of interactions. Our results demonstrate that the incremental development processes in multiple climate model groups lead to more realistic simulations over time.

Modes of variability↗

NASA NTRS2020

Tracking Improvement in Simulated Marine Biogeochemistry Between CMIP5 and CMIP6

Purpose of Review The changes or updates in ocean biogeochemistry component have been mapped between CMIP5 and CMIP6 model versions, and an assessment made of how far these have led to improvements in the simulated mean state of marine biogeochemical models within the current generation of Earth system models (ESMs). Recent Findings The representation of marine biogeochemistry has progressed within the current generation of Earth system models. However, it remains difficult to identify which model updates are responsible for a given improvement. In addition, the full potential of marine biogeochemistry in terms of Earth system interactions and climate feedback remains poorly examined in the current generation of Earth system models. Summary Increasing availability of ocean biogeochemical data, as well as an improved understanding of the underlying processes, allows advances in the marine biogeochemical components of the current generation of ESMs. The present study scrutinizes the extent to which marine biogeochemistry components of ESMs have progressed between the 5th and the 6th phases of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP).

Marine Biogeochemistry↗

NASA NTRS2021

Climate model projections from the Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) of CMIP6

The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) defines and coordinates the main set of future climate projections, based on concentration-driven simulations, within the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6). This paper presents a range of its outcomes by synthesizing results from the participating global coupled Earth system models. We limit our scope to the analysis of strictly geophysical outcomes: mainly global averages and spatial patterns of change for surface air temperature and precipitation. We also compare CMIP6 projections to CMIP5 results, especially for those scenarios that were designed to provide continuity across the CMIP phases, at the same time highlighting important differences in forcing composition, as well as in results. The range of future temperature and precipitation changes by the end of the century (2081–2100) encompassing the Tier 1 experiments based on the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) scenarios (SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5) and SSP1-1.9 spans a larger range of outcomes compared to CMIP5, due to higher warming (by close to 1.5 °C) reached at the upper end of the 5 %–95 % envelope of the highest scenario (SSP5-8.5). This is due to both the wider range of radiative forcing that the new scenarios cover and the higher climate sensitivities in some of the new models compared to their CMIP5 predecessors. Spatial patterns of change for temperature and precipitation averaged over models and scenarios have familiar features, and an analysis of their variations confirms model structural differences to be the dominant source of uncertainty. Models also differ with respect to the size and evolution of internal variability as measured by individual models' initial condition ensemble spreads, according to a set of initial condition ensemble simulations available under SSP3-7.0. These experiments suggest a tendency for internal variability to decrease along the course of the century in this scenario, a result that will benefit from further analysis over a larger set of models. Benefits of mitigation, all else being equal in terms of societal drivers, appear clearly when comparing scenarios developed under the same SSP but to which different degrees of mitigation have been applied. It is also found that a mild overshoot in temperature of a few decades around mid-century, as represented in SSP5-3.4OS, does not affect the end outcome of temperature and precipitation changes by 2100, which return to the same levels as those reached by the gradually increasing SSP4-3.4 (not erasing the possibility, however, that other aspects of the system may not be as easily reversible). Central estimates of the time at which the ensemble means of the different scenarios reach a given warming level might be biased by the inclusion of models that have shown faster warming in the historical period than the observed. Those estimates show all scenarios reaching 1.5 °C of warming compared to the 1850–1900 baseline in the second half of the current decade, with the time span between slow and fast warming covering between 20 and 27 years from present. The warming level of 2 °C of warming is reached as early as 2039 by the ensemble mean under SSP5-8.5 but as late as the mid-2060s under SSP1-2.6. The highest warming level considered (5 °C) is reached by the ensemble mean only under SSP5-8.5 and not until the mid-2090s.d-2090s.

Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMI↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Response of the Ozone Layer Under Abrupt 4xCO2 in CMIP6

Previous studies indicate a possible role of stratospheric ozone chemistry feedbacks in the climate response to 4xCO2, either via a reduction in equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) (Nowack et al., 2015), or via changes in the tropospheric circulation (Chiodo and Polvani, 2017). However, these effects are subject to uncertainty. Part of the uncertainty may stem from the dependency of the feedback on the pattern of the ozone response, as the radiative efficiency of ozone largely depends on its vertical distribution (Lacis et al., 1990). Here, an analysis is presented of the ozone layer response to 4xCO2 in chemistry–climate models (CCMs) which participated to CMIP intercomparisons. In a previous study using CMIP5 models, it has been shown that under 4xCO2, ozone decreases in the tropical lower stratosphere, and increases over the high latitudes and throughout the upper stratosphere. It was also found that a substantial portion of the spread in the tropical column ozone is tied to inter-model spread in tropical upwelling, which is in turn partly tied to ECS (Chiodo et al., 2018). Here, we revisit this connection using4xCO2 data from CMIP6, thereby exploiting the larger number of CCMs than in CMIP5. In addition, we explore the linearity of the ozone response, by complementing the analysis with simulations using transient CO2 forcing (1pc/year). We show that the pattern of the ozone response in is similar to CMIP5. In some models (e.g. WACCM), we find larger ozone responses in CMIP6 than in CMIP5, partly because of the larger ECS and thus larger upwelling response in the tropical pipe. In this presentation, we will discuss the relationship between radiative forcing, transport and ozone, as well as further implications for CMIP6 models.

Ozone layer↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeled Impacts of LULC and Climate Change Predictions on Water Quality in Belize

Land use and land cover (LULC) change can have detrimental effects on water quality. In Belize, agricultural expansion creates the risk of increased sediment load and excess nutrients in runoff water, while deforestation removes potential infiltration sites for this outflow. Climate change and evolving precipitation rates can intensify the quantity of runoff, further enabling the flow of sediments and excess nutrients out to the lagoon surrounding the Belize Barrier Reef Reserve System (BBRRS). This study estimated future water quality in Belize by projecting LULC change through 2090 across Belize’s major watersheds based on observed trends from 2008-2018. Those LULC projections were subsequently combined with soil type data, elevation, and precipitation rates into a hydrologic model to produce runoff estimates as a proxy for water quality. The two Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP-6) scenarios employed in the study represented bookend climate change scenarios, and both predicted lower precipitation rates in Belize over the next century due to climate change. When holding LULC change constant, these climate scenarios projected a decrease in runoff, suggesting a positive relationship between precipitation and runoff. The southern watersheds in particular are projected to experience greater decreases in annual rainfall and runoff by 2090. When holding climate constant, runoff increased by approximately 2.8% in the Conservation-focused LULC scenario by 2090, which was 28% lower than the Business as Usual scenario and 42% lower than the Development scenario.

water resources↗

NASA NTRS2021

The Influence of Direct Radiative Forcing Versus Indirect Sea Surface Temperature Warming on Southern Hemisphere Subtropical Anticyclones Under Global Warming

Southern hemisphere subtropical anticyclones are projected to change in a warmer climate during both austral summer and winter. A recent study of CMIP 5 & 6 projections found a combination of local diabatic heating changes and static-stability-induced changes in baroclinic eddy growth as the dominant drivers. Yet the underlying mechanisms forcing these changes still remain uninvestigated. This study aims to enhance our mechanistic understanding of what drives these Southern Hemisphere anticyclones changes during both seasons. Using an AGCM, we decompose the response to CO2-induced warming into two components: (1) the fast atmospheric response to direct CO2 radiative forcing, and (2) the slow atmospheric response due to indirect sea surface temperature warming. Additionally, we isolate the influence of tropical diabatic heating with AGCM added heating experiments. As a complement to our numerical AGCM experiments, we analyze the Atmospheric and Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project experiments. Results from sensitivity experiments show that slow subtropical sea surface temperature warming primarily forces the projected changes in subtropical anticyclones through baroclinicity change. Fast CO2 atmospheric radiative forcing on the other hand plays a secondary role, with the most notable exception being the South Atlantic subtropical anticyclone in austral winter, where it opposes the forcing by sea surface temperature changes resulting in a muted net response. Lastly, we find that tropical diabatic heating changes only significantly influence Southern Hemisphere subtropical anticyclone changes through tropospheric wind shear changes during austral winter.

Subtropical anticyclone↗

NASA NTRS2021

Increases in Future AR Count and Size: Overview of 2 the ARTMIP Tier 2 CMIP5/6 Experiment

The Atmospheric River (AR) Tracking Method Intercomparison Project (ARTMIP) is a community effort to systematically assess how the uncertainties from AR detectors (ARDTs) impact our scientific understanding of ARs. This study describes the ARTMIP Tier 2 experimental design and initial results using the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) Phases 5 and 6 multi-model ensembles. We show that AR statistics from a given ARDT in CMIP5/6 historical simulations compare remarkably well with the MERRA-2 reanalysis. In CMIP5/6 future simulations, most ARDTs project a global increase in AR frequency, counts, and sizes, especially along the western coastlines of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. We find that the choice of ARDT is the dominant contributor to the uncertainty in projected AR frequency when compared with model choice. These results imply that new projects investigating future changes in ARs should explicitly consider ARDT uncertainty as a core part of the experimental design. Plain Language Summary: Atmospheric rivers (ARs) are a type of weather pattern known to be important for moving water vapor from the warm, moist tropics to the cool, dry polar regions; when they reach midlatitudes in the winter time, they are commonly associated with heavy precipitation. Recent studies that assess the impacts of global climate change on ARs tend to agree that there will be more ARs in a warmer climate, and that ARs will tend to be more extreme. However, it has been increasingly recognized by the AR research community that these results may depend on the method used to identify ARs and the choice of climate model. This study reports results from a controlled experiment, involving an international research community, that aims to show how different AR identification methods and climate models might impact our scientific understanding of ARs in the future. This experiment shows that there will likely be more ARs in the future, and that ARs will generally have a larger spatial footprint. This experiment also shows that uncertainty in these results are large, with the uncertainty from AR identification methods outweighing that of climate models. Future efforts to better understand the physics of ARs may help us reduce this uncertainty.

T A OBrien↗

NASA NTRS2023

Upper Arctic Ocean Properties and Relationships with Sea Ice in CMIP6 Historical Simulations

While current-generation CMIP and OMIP models have clear biases in their upper Arctic Ocean hydrography, it is less clear how these biases impact the models' ability to simulate the observed Arctic sea ice mean state and trends. In this study we seek to quantify cross-relationship between sea ice and ocean states in CMIP6 historical simulations and identify common model behaviors. Multi-model mean (MMM) simulations exhibit accelerated changes in the ice and ocean system since the late 20th century. Underlying the MMM is strong inter-model variation in the simulated ice and ocean mean states and their temporal variability including trends. Despite such inter-model differences, all models show a similar ratio between sea ice reduction and upper ocean warming such that models with higher ocean warming also have higher SIE reduction and vice versa. Our results also highlight the urgent needs of reliable Arctic Ocean observations or data products in order to better contextualize modeling results.

Upper Arctic Ocean↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Role of Internal Variability and Feedbacks Controlling AMOC Stability

A bi-stable mode of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is found in a 10-member ensemble simulation of the SSP2-4.5 scenario using the NASA GISS-E2-1-G climate model. Local feedbacks in the subpolar North Atlantic region in conjunction with internal variability in sea-ice transport and melt play a critical role in causing the divergent behavior of the AMOC in the ensemble members. While other fully coupled models have demonstrated the important role of surface freshening in leading to AMOC shutdown, either through hosing experiments or increased precipitation and greenhouse gas warming at high latitudes, in the GISS simulations, there are no external freshwater perturbations. This is the first time that a CMIP-class model has shown such a bifurcation across an initial condition ensemble.

Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

AMOC Stability in GISS-E2-1-G: A Case of Stochastic Bifurcation

A 10-member ensemble simulation using the NASA GISS-E2-1-G climate model shows a clear bifurcation in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) strength under the SSP2-4.5 future scenario, leading to 8 stable AMOC-on and 2 stable AMOC-off climate states after 400 years of integration, despite identical forcing of each ensemble member. Ocean models have previously shown a tipping point where sufficient forcing (e.g. by freshwater inputs) can shut down the AMOC. A variety of fully coupled models have demonstrated this, either through hosing experiments or increased precipitation and warming at high latitudes due to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. In the GISS simulations, there are no external freshwater perturbations. The bifurcation arises freely in the coupled system and is the result of stochastic variability associated with sea-ice transport and melting in the Irminger Sea following a slowing of the GHG concentration increase at the end of the twenty-first century. We believe this is the first time that a CMIP-class model has shown such a bifurcation across an initial condition ensemble.

GISS ModelE2.1↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Global Climate Impacts of Greenland and Antarctic Glacial Melt: A Comparative Study

GISS ModelE2.1↗

NASA NTRS2021

The Response of the Ozone Layer Under Abrupt 4xCO2 in CMIP6

Previous studies indicate a possible role of stratospheric ozone chemistry feedbacks in the climate response to 4xCO2, either via a reduction in equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) (Nowack et al.,2015), or via changes in the tropospheric circulation (Chiodo and Polvani, 2017). However, these effects are subject to uncertainty. Part of the uncertainty may stem from the dependency of the feedback on the pattern of the ozone response, as the radiative efficiency of ozone largely depends on its vertical distribution (Lacis et al., 1990). Here, an analysis is presented of the ozone layer response to 4xCO2 in chemistry–climate models (CCMs) which participated to CMIP intercomparisons. In a previous study using CMIP5 models, it has been shown that under 4xCO2, ozone decreases in the tropical lower stratosphere, and increases over the high latitudes and throughout the upper stratosphere. It was also found that a substantial portion of the spread in the tropical column ozone is tied to inter-model spread in tropical upwelling, which is in turn tied to ECS (Chiodo et al., 2018). Here, we revisit this connection using 4xCO2 data from CMIP6, thereby exploiting the larger number of CCMs than in CMIP5. In addition, we explore the linearity of the ozone response, by complementing the analysis with simulations using lower CO 2 forcing levels (2xCO2). We show that the pattern of the ozone response in is similar to CMIP5. In some models (e.g. WACCM), we find larger ozone responses in CMIP6 than in CMIP5, partly because of the larger ECS and thus larger upwelling response in the tropical pipe. In this presentation, we will discuss the relationship between radiative forcing, transport and ozone, as well as further implications for CMIP6 models.

Ozone layer↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Climate Information and Lessons Learned from the NASA Earth eXchange (NEX), Short-term Prediction Research and Transition Center (NASA SPoRT), and the NASA Regional Climate Model Evaluation System (RCMES)

Climate resilience can emerge from a combination of (1) climate projections that enable future-oriented planning and (2) contemporary observations that can be used for adaptation in the face of realized climate. NASA is uniquely positioned to provide global climate projections and satellite-based observations to users who must take a global perspective on climate risk (e.g., supply chain managers). Here, we will share the capabilities and experiences of three NASA projects. The first project, the NASA Earth eXchange (NEX) provides two downscaled climate projections, NEX-GDDP-CMIP6, a global 25 km resolution product, and NEX-DCP30-CMIP6, an 800 m resolution product covering the coterminous U.S. specifically designed for U.S. National Climate Assessment (NCA). NEX also offers land surface products that mirror the twice-daily products provided by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) but are derived from operational geostationary weather satellite data collected at 5-10 minutes intervals. The second project, the Short-term Prediction Research and Transition Center (SPoRT), was established in 2002 to transition unique NASA satellite products and capabilities to stakeholders to improve decision-making that benefits society. SPoRT provides products and capabilities derived from NASA observations and models to end users in government, academia, and the private sector. SPoRT translates NASA Earth science into actionable solutions reaching over 400 stakeholders across 80 organizations. Finally, the Regional Climate Model Evaluation System (RCMES) is designed to facilitate regional-scale evaluations of climate models by providing standardized access to a vast and comprehensive set of observations, such as satellite, in-situ, and reanalyses, and modeling resources such as CMIP & CORDEX. These three projects form part of the core capabilities at the NASA Centers deliver climate information under the new NASA Earth Science to Action (ES2A) strategy.

NEX↗

NASA NTRS2024

Aera-Mip: Emission Pathways, Remaining Budgets, and Carbon Cycle Dynamics Compatible With 1.5 and 2 °C Global Warming Stabilization

While international climate policies now focus on limiting global warming to well below 2 °C or pursuing a 1.5 °C level of global warming, the climate modelling community has not provided an experimental design in which all Earth system models (ESMs) converge and stabilize at the same prescribed global warming levels. This gap hampers accurate estimations based on comprehensive ESMs of the carbon emission pathways and budgets needed to meet such agreed warming levels and of the associated climate impacts under temperature stabilization. Here, we apply the Adaptive Emission Reduction Approach (AERA) with ESMs to provide such simulations in which all models converge at 1.5 and 2.0 °C warming levels by adjusting their emissions over time. These emission-driven simulations provide a wide range of emission pathways and resulting atmospheric CO 2 projections for a given warming level, uncovering uncertainty ranges that were previously missing in the traditional Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) scenarios with prescribed greenhouse gas concentration pathways. Meeting the 1.5 °C warming level requires a 40 % (full model range: 7 % to 76 %) reduction in multi-model mean CO 2 -forcing-equivalent (CO 2 -fe) emissions from 2025 to 2030, a 98 % (57 % to 127 %) reduction from 2025 to 2050, and a stabilization at 1.0 (−1.7 to 2.9) PgC yr−1 from 2100 onward after the 1.5 °C global warming level is reached. Meeting the 2.0 °C warming level requires a 47 % (8 % to 92 %) reduction in multi-model mean CO 2 -fe emissions until 2050 and a stabilization at 1.7 (−1.5 to 2.7) PgC yr−1 from 2100 onward. The on-average positive emissions under stabilized global temperatures are the result of a decreasing transient climate response to cumulative CO 2 -fe emissions over time under stabilized global warming. This evolution is consistent with a slightly negative zero emissions commitment – initially assumed to be zero – and leads to an increase in the post-2025 CO 2 -fe emission budget by a factor of 2.2 (−0.8 to 6.9) by 2150 for the 1.5 °C warming level and a factor of 1.4 (0.9 to 2.4) for the 2.0 °C warming level compared to its first estimate in 2025. The median CO 2 -only carbon budget by 2150, relative to 2020, is 800 GtCO 2 for the 1.5 °C warming level and 2250 GtCO 2 for the 2.0 °C warming level. These median values exceed the median IPCC AR6 estimates by 60 % for the 1.5 °C warming level and 67 % for 2.0 °C. Some of the differences may be explained by the choice of the mitigation scenario for non-CO 2 radiative agents. Our simulations highlight shifts in carbon uptake dynamics under stabilized temperature, such as a cessation of the carbon sinks in the North Atlantic and in tropical forests. On the other hand, the Southern Ocean remains a carbon sink centuries after temperatures stabilize. Overall, this new type of warming-level-based emission-driven simulation offers a more coherent assessment across climate models and opens up a wide range of possibilities for studying both the carbon cycle and climate impacts, such as extreme events, under climate stabilization.

Adaptive Emission Reduction Approach↗