Search NASA⌕ Search

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.

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

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2017

The PMIP4 Contribution to CMIP6-Part 4: Scientific Objectives and Experimental Design of the PMIP4-CMIP6 Last Glacial Maximum Experiments and PMIP4 Sensitivity Experiments

The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM, 21,000 years ago) is one of the suite of paleoclimate simulations included in the current phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). It is an interval when insolation was similar to the present, but global ice volume was at a maximum, eustatic sea level was at or close to a minimum, greenhouse gas concentrations were lower, atmospheric aerosol loadings were higher than today, and vegetation and land-surface characteristics were different from today. The LGM has been a focus for the Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project (PMIP) since its inception, and thus many of the problems that might be associated with simulating such a radically different climate are well documented. The LGM state provides an ideal case study for evaluating climate model performance because the changes in forcing and temperature between the LGM and pre-industrial are of the same order of magnitude as those projected for the end of the 21st century. Thus, the CMIP6 LGM experiment could provide additional information that can be used to constrain estimates of climate sensitivity. The design of the Tier 1 LGM experiment (lgm) includes an assessment of uncertainties in boundary conditions, in particular through the use of different reconstructions of the ice sheets and of the change in dust forcing. Additional (Tier 2) sensitivity experiments have been designed to quantify feedbacks associated with land-surface changes and aerosol loadings, and to isolate the role of individual forcings. Model analysis and evaluation will capitalize on the relative abundance of paleoenvironmental observations and quantitative climate reconstructions already available for the LGM.

Kageyama, Masa↗
NASA NTRS2020

Historical and Future Changes in Air Pollutants from CMIP6 Models

Poor air quality is currently responsible for large impacts on human health across the world. In addition, the air pollutants ozone (O3) and particulate matter less than 2.5 µm in diameter (PM2.5) are also radiatively active in the atmosphere and can influence Earth's climate. It is important to understand the effect of air quality and climate mitigation measures over the historical period and in different future scenarios to ascertain any impacts from air pollutants on both climate and human health. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) presents an opportunity to analyse the change in air pollutants simulated by the current generation of climate and Earth system models that include a representation of chemistry and aerosols (particulate matter). The shared socio-economic pathways (SSPs) used within CMIP6 encompass a wide range of trajectories in precursor emissions and climate change, allowing for an improved analysis of future changes to air pollutants. Firstly, we conduct an evaluation of the available CMIP6 models against surface observations of O3 and PM2.5. CMIP6 models consistently overestimate observed surface O3 concentrations across most regions and in most seasons by up to 16 ppb, with a large diversity in simulated values over Northern Hemisphere continental regions. Conversely, observed surface PM2.5 concentrations are consistently underestimated in CMIP6 models by up to 10 µg m−3, particularly for the Northern Hemisphere winter months, with the largest model diversity near natural emission source regions. The biases in CMIP6 models when compared to observations of O3 and PM2.5 are similar to those found in previous studies. Over the historical period (1850–2014) large increases in both surface O3 and PM2.5 are simulated by the CMIP6 models across all regions, particularly over the mid to late 20th century, when anthropogenic emissions increase markedly. Large regional historical changes are simulated for both pollutants across East and South Asia with an annual mean increase of up to 40 ppb for O3 and 12 µg m−3 for PM2.5. In future scenarios containing strong air quality and climate mitigation measures (ssp126), annual mean concentrations of air pollutants are substantially reduced across all regions by up to 15 ppb for O3 and 12 µg m−3 for PM2.5. However, for scenarios that encompass weak action on mitigating climate and reducing air pollutant emissions (ssp370), annual mean increases in both surface O3 (up 10 ppb) and PM2.5 (up to 8 µg m−3) are simulated across most regions, although, for regions like North America and Europe small reductions in PM2.5 are simulated due to the regional reduction in precursor emissions in this scenario. A comparison of simulated regional changes in both surface O3 and PM2.5 from individual CMIP6 models highlights important regional differences due to the simulated interaction of aerosols, chemistry, climate and natural emission sources within models. The projection of regional air pollutant concentrations from the latest climate and Earth system models used within CMIP6 shows that the particular future trajectory of climate and air quality mitigation measures could have important consequences for regional air quality, human health and near-term climate. Differences between individual models emphasise the importance of understanding how future Earth system feedbacks influence natural emission sources, e.g. response of biogenic emissions under climate change.

Air pollutants↗
NASA NTRS2020

Large-scale features and evaluation of the PMIP4-CMIP6 midHolocene simulations

The mid-Holocene (6000 years ago) is a standard time period for the evaluation of the simulated response of global climate models using palaeoclimate reconstructions. The latest mid-Holocene simulations are a palaeoclimate entry card for the Palaeoclimate Model Intercomparison Project (PMIP4) component of the current phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) – hereafter referred to as PMIP4-CMIP6. Here we provide an initial analysis and evaluation of the results of the experiment for the mid-Holocene. We show that state-of-the-art models produce climate changes that are broadly consistent with theory and observations, including increased summer warming of the Northern Hemisphere and associated shifts in tropical rainfall. Many features of the PMIP4-CMIP6 simulations were present in the previous generation (PMIP3-CMIP5) of simulations. The PMIP4-CMIP6 ensemble for the mid-Holocene has a global mean temperature change of −0.3 K, which is −0.2 K cooler than the PMIP3-CMIP5 simulations predominantly as a result of the prescription of realistic greenhouse gas concentrations in PMIP4-CMIP6. Biases in the magnitude and the sign of regional responses identified in PMIP3-CMIP5, such as the amplification of the northern African monsoon, precipitation changes over Europe, and simulated aridity in mid-Eurasia, are still present in the PMIP4-CMIP6 simulations. Despite these issues, PMIP4-CMIP6 and the mid-Holocene provide an opportunity both for quantitative evaluation and derivation of emergent constraints on the hydrological cycle, feedback strength, and potentially climate sensitivity.

mid-Holocene simulations↗
NASA NTRS2021

Future Sea Level Change Under CMIP5 and CMIP6 Scenarios From the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets

Projections of the sea level contribution from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets (GrIS and AIS) rely on atmospheric and oceanic drivers obtained from climate models. The Earth System Models participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6) generally project greater future warming compared with the previous Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) effort. Here we use four CMIP6 models and a selection of CMIP5 models to force multiple ice sheet models as part of the Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison Project for CMIP6 (ISMIP6). We find that the projected sea level contribution at 2100 from the ice sheet model ensemble under the CMIP6 scenarios falls within the CMIP5 range for the Antarctic ice sheet but is significantly increased for Greenland. Warmer atmosphere in CMIP6 models results in higher Greenland mass loss due to surface melt. For Antarctica, CMIP6 forcing is similar to CMIP5 and mass gain from increased snowfall counteracts increased loss due to ocean warming.

Antarctica↗
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↗
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↗
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↗
NASA NTRS2020

An Overview of CMIP5 and CMIP6 Simulated Cloud Ice, Radiation Fields, Surface Wind Stress, Sea Surface Temperatures and Precipitation over Tropical and Subtropical Oceans

The potential links between ice water path (IWP), radiation, circulation, sea surface temperature (SST) and precipitation over the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans resulting from the falling ice radiative effects (FIREs) are examined from present day model outputs of CMIP5 and CMIP6. The latter is divided into two subsets with (SON6) and without FIREs (NOS6) as more models with FIREs are included in CMIP6 than in CMIP5. Improvement in floating cloud ice (~20 g m-2) is noticeable over convective regions in CMIP6 relative to CMIP5. The inclusion of FIREs in SON6 subset may contribute to reduce biases of overestimated outgoing longwave radiation and downward surface shortwave and overestimated reflected shortwave at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) by magnitudes of 4?8 W m-2 over convective regions against CERES, compared to NOS6 subset. The reduced biases in radiative fluxes in convective regions stabilize the atmosphere and lead to circulation, SST, cloud and precipitation changes over the trade-wind regions, as seen from improved radiative fluxes (4?15 W m-2), surface wind stress biases, SST (0.2?0.8 K) and precipitation (1 mm day-1) biases. The significant improvement from NOS6 to SON6 leads to improved multi-model means for CMIP6 relative to CMIP5 for radiation fields over the trade wind regions but the degradation over convective zones is attributed to NOS6 subset. The results suggest that other sources of uncertainty and deficiencies in climate models may play significant roles for reducing discrepancies although FIREs, via radiation-circulation coupling, may be one of the factors that help to reduce regional biases.

Jui-Lin F Li↗
NASA NTRS2022

NASA Global Daily Downscale Projections, CMIP6

We describe the latest version of the NASA Earth Exchange Global Daily Downscaled Projections (NEX-GDDP-CMIP6). The archive contains downscaled historical and future projections for 1950–2100 based on output from Phase 6 of the Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). The downscaled products were produced using a daily variant of the monthly bias correction/spatial disaggregation (BCSD) method and are at 1/4-degree horizontal resolution. Currently, eight variables from five CMIP6 experiments (historical, SSP126, SSP245, SSP370, and SSP585) are provided as procurable from thirty-five global climate models.

Climate↗
NASA NTRS2021

Exploring uncertainties in global crop yield projections in a large ensemble of crop models and CMIP5 and CMIP6 climate scenarios

Concerns over climate change are motivated in large part because of their impact on human society. Assessing the effect of that uncertainty on specific potential impacts is demanding, since it requires a systematic survey over both climate and impacts models. We provide a comprehensive evaluation of uncertainty in projected crop yields for maize, spring and winter wheat, rice, and soybean, using a suite of nine crop models and up to 45 CMIP5 and 34 CMIP6 climate projections for three different forcing scenarios. To make this task computationally tractable, we use a new set of statistical crop model emulators. We find that climate and crop models contribute about equally to overall uncertainty. While the ranges of yield uncertainties under CMIP5 and CMIP6 projections are similar, median impact in aggregate total caloric production is typically more negative for the CMIP6 projections (+1% to −19%) than for CMIP5 (+5% to −13%). In the first half of the 21st century and for individual crops is the spread across crop models typically wider than that across climate models, but we find distinct differences between crops: globally, wheat and maize uncertainties are dominated by the crop models, but soybean and rice are more sensitive to the climate projections. Climate models with very similar global mean warming can lead to very different aggregate impacts so that climate model uncertainties remain a significant contributor to agricultural impacts uncertainty. These results show the utility of large-ensemble methods that allow comprehensively evaluating factors affecting crop yields or other impacts under climate change. The crop model ensemble used here is unbalanced and pulls the assumption that all projections are equally plausible into question. Better methods for consistent model testing, also at the level of individual processes, will have to be developed and applied by the crop modeling community.

crop yield projections↗
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 NTRS2022

Southern Ocean Solar Reflection Biases in Cmip6 Models Linked to Cloud Phase and Vertical Structure Representations

Over the Southern Ocean (SO, 40˚S-70˚S), climate models have consistently underestimated solar reflection. Here we evaluate the relationship between cloud profiles, cloud phase and radiation over the SO in Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) models against Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) and Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observations (CALIPSO). We find that the lack of solar reflection is slightly improved in CMIP6 models compared to CMIP5’s, attributable to a better representation of cloud fraction and phase. We show that clouds have a different vertical structure and radiative effect south and north of where the 0˚C isotherm meets the surface (~55˚S). Although the models capture the greater vertical extent of clouds south of 55˚S, they fail to reproduce the observed increase in solar reflection, which we pinpoint to cloud phase biases. Increasing CMIP6 supercooled liquid cloud opacity should help reduce their persistent SW biases.

Southern Ocean↗
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 NTRS2020

Historical Total Ozone Radiative Forcing Derived from CMIP6 Simulations

Radiative forcing (RF) time series for total ozone from 1850 up to present-day are calculated based on historical simulations of ozone from 10 climate models contributing to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). In addition, RF is calculated for ozone fields prepared as input for CMIP6 models without chemistry schemes and from a chemical transport model simulation. A radiative kernel for ozone is constructed and used to derive the RF. The ozone RF in 2010 (200530 -2014) relative to 1850 is 0.35 W m-2 [0.08 to 0.61] (5-95% uncertainty range) based on models with both tropospheric and stratospheric chemistry. One of these models has a negative present-day total ozone RF. Excluding this model, the present-day ozone RF increases to 0.39 W m-2 [0.27 to 0.51] (533 - 95% uncertainty range). The rest of the models have RF close to or stronger than the RF time series assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in the fifth assessment report with the primary driver likely being the new precursor emissions used in CMIP6. The rapid adjustments beyond stratospheric temperature are estimated to be weak and thus the RF is a good measure of effective radiative forcing.

ozone↗
NASA NTRS2020

Effective radiative forcing and adjustments in CMIP6 models

The effective radiative forcing, which includes the instantaneous forcing plus adjustments from the atmosphere and surface, has emerged as the key metric of evaluating human and natural influence on the climate. We evaluate effective radiative forcing and adjustments in 17 contemporary climate models that are participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) and have contributed to the Radiative Forcing Model Intercomparison Project (RFMIP). Present-day (2014) global-mean anthropogenic forcing relative to pre-industrial (1850) levels from climate models stands at 2.00 (±0.23) W/sq. m, comprised of 1.81 (±0.09) W/sq. m from CO2, 1.08 (± 0.21) W/sq. m from other well-mixed greenhouse gases, −1.01 (± 0.23) W/sq. m from aerosols and −0.09 (±0.13) W/sq. m from land use change. Quoted uncertainties are 1 standard deviation across model best estimates, and 90 % confidence in the reported forcings, due to internal variability, is typically within 0.1 W/sq. m. The majority of the remaining 0.21 W/sq. m is likely to be from ozone. In most cases, the largest contributors to the spread in effective radiative forcing (ERF) is from the instantaneous radiative forcing (IRF) and from cloud responses, particularly aerosol–cloud interactions to aerosol forcing. As determined in previous studies, cancellation of tropospheric and surface adjustments means that the stratospherically adjusted radiative forcing is approximately equal to ERF for greenhouse gas forcing but not for aerosols, and consequentially, not for the anthropogenic total. The spread of aerosol forcing ranges from −0.63 to −1.37 W/sq. m, exhibiting a less negative mean and narrower range compared to 10 CMIP5 models. The spread in 4×CO2 forcing has also narrowed in CMIP6 compared to 13 CMIP5 models. Aerosol forcing is uncorrelated with climate sensitivity. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that the increasing spread in climate sensitivity in CMIP6 models, particularly related to high-sensitivity models, is a consequence of a stronger negative present-day aerosol forcing and little evidence that modelling groups are systematically tuning climate sensitivity or aerosol forcing to recreate observed historical warming.

effective radiative forcing↗