Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (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.

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

At least 19 records

Uncertainty-informed selection of CMIP6 Earth System Model subsets for use in multisectoral and impact models

Earth system models (ESMs) and general circulation models (GCMs) are heavily used to provide inputs to sectoral impact and multisector dynamic models, which include representations of energy, water, land, economics, and their interactions. Therefore, representing the full range of model uncertainty, scenario uncertainty, and interannual variability that ensembles of these models capture is critical to the exploration of the future co-evolution of the integrated human–Earth system. The pre-eminent source of these ensembles has been the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). With more modeling centers participating in each new CMIP phase, the size of the model archive is rapidly increasing, which can be intractable for impact modelers to effectively utilize due to computational constraints and the challenges of analyzing large datasets. In this work, we present a method to select a subset of the latest phase, CMIP6, featuring models for use as inputs to a sectoral impact or multisector dynamics models, while prioritizing preservation of the range of model uncertainty, scenario uncertainty, and interannual variability in the full CMIP6 ensemble results. This method is intended to help impact modelers select climate information from the CMIP archive efficiently for use in downstream models that require global coverage of climate information. This is particularly critical for large-ensemble experiments of multisector dynamic models that may be varying additional features beyond climate inputs in a factorial design, thus putting constraints on the number of climate simulations that can be used. We focus on temperature and precipitation outputs of CMIP6 models, as these are two of the most used variables among impact models, and many other key input variables for impacts are at least correlated with one or both of temperature and precipitation (e.g., relative humidity). Besides preserving the multi-model ensemble variance characteristics, we prioritize selecting CMIP6 models in the subset that preserve the very likely distribution of equilibrium climate sensitivity values as assessed by the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. This approach could be applied to other output variables of climate models and, possibly when combined with emulators, offers a flexible framework for designing more efficient experiments on human-relevant climate impacts. It can also provide greater insight into the properties of existing CMIP6 models.

Snyder, Abigail C.↗

Dynamical Sensitivity in Response to a Wide Range of Abrupt CO 2 Forcings

An improved understanding of dynamical variability is important for projecting future changes in extratropical weather and the interaction between the extratropical troposphere and the tropics, stratosphere, cryosphere and ocean. Despite their simplicity, the abrupt 2x- and 4xCO 2 forcing simulations from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) Phase 6 DECK experiments enable a mechanistic look into the forcing and feedback response characteristics of models that can be unambiguously attributed to an increase in carbon dioxide concentrations. Thus, while typically used to evaluate the climate sensitivity in models, with a primary focus on global surface temperature change, here we focus on several measures of extratropical variability, including projected changes in the storm tracks and in stratospheric polar vortex variability. Results are primarily based on simulations produced using low- and high-top versions of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies Model (ModelE) but results are also presented from the larger CMIP6 multi-model ensemble. In addition to the 2x- and 4xCO 2 simulations, we also explore the linearity of the response of extratropical dynamical variability in ModelE to varying levels of CO 2 spanning the range 1/8-8xCO 2 . In particular, we show that the expansion of the jet streams varies nonlinearly with increasing CO 2 , especially in the Northern Hemisphere, and that this can be interpreted in terms of variations in ocean heat transport. The impact of composition feedbacks on changes in variability is also discussed.

dynamical variability↗

The PMIP4 Last Glacial Maximum experiments: preliminary results and comparison with the PMIP3 simulations

The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM, ∼ 21 000 years ago) has been a major focus for evaluating how well state-of-the-art climate models simulate climate changes as large as those expected in the future using paleoclimate reconstructions. A new generation of climate models has been used to generate LGM simulations as part of the Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project (PMIP) contribution to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). Here, we provide a preliminary analysis and evaluation of the results of these LGM experiments (PMIP4, most of which are PMIP4-CMIP6) and compare them with the previous generation of simulations (PMIP3, most of which are PMIP3-CMIP5). We show that the global averages of the PMIP4 simulations span a larger range in terms of mean annual surface air temperature and mean annual precipitation compared to the PMIP3-CMIP5 simulations, with some PMIP4 simulations reaching a globally colder and drier state. However, the multi-model global cooling average is similar for the PMIP4 and PMIP3 ensembles, while the multi-model PMIP4 mean annual precipitation average is drier than the PMIP3 one. There are important differences in both atmospheric and oceanic circulations between the two sets of experiments, with the northern and southern jet streams being more poleward and the changes in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation being less pronounced in the PMIP4-CMIP6 simulations than in the PMIP3-CMIP5 simulations. Changes in simulated precipitation patterns are influenced by both temperature and circulation changes. Differences in simulated climate between individual models remain large. Therefore, although there are differences in the average behaviour across the two ensembles, the new simulation results are not fundamentally different from the PMIP3-CMIP5 results. Evaluation of large-scale climate features, such as land–sea contrast and polar amplification, confirms that the models capture these well and within the uncertainty of the paleoclimate reconstructions. Nevertheless, regional climate changes are less well simulated: the models underestimate extratropical cooling, particularly in winter, and precipitation changes. These results point to the utility of using paleoclimate simulations to understand the mechanisms of climate change and evaluate model performance.

Last Glacial Maximum↗

High-Resolution Model Intercomparison Project phase 2 (HighResMIP2) towards CMIP7

Abstract. Robust projections and predictions of climate variability and change, particularly at regional scales, rely on the driving processes being represented with fidelity in model simulations. Consequently, the role of enhanced horizontal resolution in improved process representation in all components of the climate system continues to be of great interest. Recent simulations suggest the possibility of significant changes in both large-scale aspects of the ocean and atmospheric circulations and in the regional responses to climate change, as well as improvements in representations of small-scale processes and extremes, when resolution is enhanced. The first phase of the High-Resolution Model Intercomparison Project (HighResMIP1) was successful at producing a baseline multi-model assessment of global simulations with model grid spacings of 25–50 km in the atmosphere and 10–25 km in the ocean, a significant increase when compared to models with standard resolutions on the order of 1° that are typically used as part of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) experiments. In addition to over 250 peer-reviewed manuscripts using the published HighResMIP1 datasets, the results were widely cited in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report and were the basis of a variety of derived datasets, including tracked cyclones (both tropical and extratropical), river discharge, storm surge, and impact studies. There were also suggestions from the few ocean eddy-rich coupled simulations that aspects of climate variability and change might be significantly influenced by improved process representation in such models. The compromises that HighResMIP1 made should now be revisited, given the recent major advances in modelling and computing resources. Aspects that will be reconsidered include experimental design and simulation length, complexity, and resolution. In addition, larger ensemble sizes and a wider range of future scenarios would enhance the applicability of HighResMIP. Therefore, we propose the High-Resolution Model Intercomparison Project phase 2 (HighResMIP2) to improve and extend the previous work, to address new science questions, and to further advance our understanding of the role of horizontal resolution (and hence process representation) in state-of-the-art climate simulations. With further increases in high-performance computing resources and modelling advances, along with the ability to take full advantage of these computational resources, an enhanced investigation of the drivers and consequences of variability and change in both large- and synoptic-scale weather and climate is now possible. With the arrival of global cloud-resolving models (currently run for relatively short timescales), there is also an opportunity to improve links between such models and more traditional CMIP models, with HighResMIP providing a bridge to link understanding between these domains. HighResMIP also aims to link to other CMIP projects and international efforts such as the World Climate Research Program lighthouse activities and various digital twin initiatives. It also has the potential to be used as training and validation data for the fast-evolving machine learning climate models.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

An evolving Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 7 (CMIP7) and Fast Track in support of future climate assessment

The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) coordinates community-based efforts to answer key and timely climate science questions, facilitate delivery of relevant multi-model simulations through shared infrastructure, and support national and international climate assessments. Generations of CMIP have evolved through extensive community engagement from punctuated phasing into more continuous support for the design of experimental protocols, infrastructure for data publication and access, and public delivery of climate information. We identify four fundamental research questions motivating a seventh phase of coupled model intercomparison relating to patterns of sea surface temperature change, changing weather, the water–carbon–climate nexus, and tipping points. Key CMIP7 advances include an expansion of baseline experiments, a focus on CO 2 -emissions-driven experiments, sustained support for community MIPs, periodic updating of historical forcings and diagnostics requests, and a collection of prioritized experiments, or the “Assessment Fast Track”, drawn from community MIPs to support climate research, assessment, and service goals across prediction and projection, characterization, attribution, and process understanding.

Environmental sciences↗

Better Constraining Supercooled Clouds Could Reduce Projected Warming Spread

The increase of climate sensitivity to rising greenhouse gas concentrations in the coupled model intercomparison project phase 6 (CMIP6) Earth system models (ESMs) compared to CMIP5 ESMs is primarily attributed to a larger extratropical cloud response to climate change, referred to as cloud feedback. The ratio of supercooled liquid cloud water relative to all cloud water, termed liquid phase ratio (LPR), which has also notably increased in many recent ESMs, is thought to be a primary driver of the extratropical cloud feedback increase. Unlike the preponderance of previous studies that compare native model LPR directly with observations, here we evaluate LPR over three ESM generations against Cloud–Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observations (CALIPSO) using an instrument simulator approach, which mimics instrument limitations and uses consistent cloud definitions and resolutions. We find that current coupled model intercomparison project (CMIP) ESMs collectively simulate greater LPR than previous CMIP generations and overestimate LPR compared to observations, contrary to previous findings, likely driven by past inconsistent comparisons of ESM outputs with CALIPSO observations. We further show that greater LPR in ESM present-day climate is unexpectedly correlated with a smaller extratropical cloud feedback, attributable to a decrease of cloud amount exceeding the increase of cloud optical depth. Finally, our results suggest that improving constraints on model LPR using our evaluation framework would likely reduce the spread in CMIP6 climate sensitivities, owing to its effect on extratropical cloud feedback from supercooled clouds.

greenhouse gas concentrations↗

The need for carbon-emissions-driven climate projections in CMIP7

Abstract. Previous phases of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) have primarily focused on simulations driven by atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs), for both idealized model experiments and climate projections of different emissions scenarios. We argue that although this approach was practical to allow parallel development of Earth system model simulations and detailed socioeconomic futures, carbon cycle uncertainty as represented by diverse, process-resolving Earth system models (ESMs) is not manifested in the scenario outcomes, thus omitting a dominant source of uncertainty in meeting the Paris Agreement. Mitigation policy is defined in terms of human activity (including emissions), with strategies varying in their timing of net-zero emissions, the balance of mitigation effort between short-lived and long-lived climate forcers, their reliance on land use strategy, and the extent and timing of carbon removals. To explore the response to these drivers, ESMs need to explicitly represent complete cycles of major GHGs, including natural processes and anthropogenic influences. Carbon removal and sequestration strategies, which rely on proposed human management of natural systems, are currently calculated in integrated assessment models (IAMs) during scenario development with only the net carbon emissions passed to the ESM. However, proper accounting of the coupled system impacts of and feedback on such interventions requires explicit process representation in ESMs to build self-consistent physical representations of their potential effectiveness and risks under climate change. We propose that CMIP7 efforts prioritize simulations driven by CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use and projected deployment of carbon dioxide removal technologies, as well as land use and management, using the process resolution allowed by state-of-the-art ESMs to resolve carbon–climate feedbacks. Post-CMIP7 ambitions should aim to incorporate modeling of non-CO2 GHGs (in particular, sources and sinks of methane and nitrous oxide) and process-based representation of carbon removal options. These developments will allow three primary benefits: (1) resources to be allocated to policy-relevant climate projections and better real-time information related to the detectability and verification of emissions reductions and their relationship to expected near-term climate impacts, (2) scenario modeling of the range of possible future climate states including Earth system processes and feedbacks that are increasingly well-represented in ESMs, and (3) optimal utilization of the strengths of ESMs in the wider context of climate modeling infrastructure (which includes simple climate models, machine learning approaches and kilometer-scale climate models).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Snow Reconciles Observed and Simulated Phase Partitioning and Increases Cloud Feedback

The surprising increase of Earth's climate sensitivity in the most recent coupled model intercomparison project (CMIP) models has been largely attributed to extratropical cloud feedback, which is thought to be driven by greater supercooled water in present-day cloud phase partitioning (CPP). Here, we report that accounting for precipitation in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE3 radiation scheme, neglected in more than 60% of CMIP6 and 90% of CMIP5 models, systematically changes its apparent CPP and substantially increases its cloud feedback, consistent with results using CMIP models. Including precipitation in the comparison with cloud–aerosol lidar and infrared pathfinder satellite observations (CALIPSO) measurements and in model radiation schemes is essential to faithfully constrain cloud amount and phase partitioning, and simulate cloud feedbacks. Our findings suggest that making radiation schemes precipitation-aware (missing in most CMIP6 models) should strengthen their positive cloud feedback and further increase their already high mean climate sensitivity.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

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

Abstract 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.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

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↗

Bimodality in simulated precipitation frequency distributions and its relationship with convective parameterizations

Abstract Bimodality in precipitation frequency distributions is often evident in atmospheric models, but rarely in observations. This study i) proposes a metric to objectively quantify the bimodality in precipitation distributions, ii) evaluates model simulations contributed to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) phase 5 (CMIP5), phase 6 (CMIP6), and the DYnamics of the Atmospheric general circulation Modeled On Non-hydrostatic Domains (DYAMOND) project by comparing them to satellite-based and reanalysis precipitation products, and iii) investigates possible origins of bimodal precipitation distributions. Our results reveal that about 83% (20 out of 24) of CMIP5 and 70% (21 out of 30) of CMIP6 models used in this study exhibit bimodal distributions. The few DYAMOND models that use a deep convective parameterization also show bimodal distributions, while most DYAMOND models do not. Predictably, the bimodality originates from the separation of precipitation process between resolved grid-scale and parameterized subgrid-scale. However, in a larger number of models bimodality arises from the parameterized subgrid-scale convective precipitation alone.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Significant impact of forcing uncertainty in a large ensemble of climate model simulations

Forcing due to solar and volcanic variability, on the natural side, and greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions, on the anthropogenic side, are the main inputs to climate models. Reliable climate model simulations of past and future climate change depend crucially upon them. Here we analyze large ensembles of simulations using a comprehensive Earth System Model to quantify uncertainties in global climate change attributable to differences in prescribed forcings. The different forcings considered here are those used in the two most recent phases of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), namely CMIP5 and CMIP6. We show significant differences in simulated global surface air temperature due to volcanic aerosol forcing in the second half of the 19th century and in the early 21st century. The latter arise from small-to-moderate eruptions incorporated in CMIP6 simulations but not in CMIP5 simulations. We also find significant differences in global surface air temperature and Arctic sea ice area due to anthropogenic aerosol forcing in the second half of the 20th century and early 21st century. These differences are as large as those obtained in different versions of an Earth System Model employing identical forcings. In simulations from 2015 to 2100, we find significant differences in the rates of projected global warming arising from CMIP5 and CMIP6 concentration pathways that differ slightly but are equivalent in terms of their nominal radiative forcing levels in 2100. Our results highlight the influence of assumptions about natural and anthropogenic aerosol loadings on carbon budgets, the likelihood of meeting Paris targets, and the equivalence of future forcing scenarios.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

PCMDI Metrics Package

The Program for Climate Model Diagnosis & Intercomparison (PCMDI) Metrics Package (PMP) is used to provide "quick-look" objective comparisons of Earth System Models (ESMs) with one another and available observations. The PMP provides a diverse suite of analysis utilities each of which produce summary statistics that gauge the consistency between climate model simulations and available observations. The primary application of the PMP is to evaluate simulations from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). It can also be used to provide objective performance summaries during the model development process as well as selected research purposes.

Ullrich, PaulA [Lawrence Livermore National Labora↗

Use-Inspired, Process-Oriented GCM Selection: Prioritizing Models for Regional Dynamical Downscaling

Dynamical downscaling is a crucial process for providing regional climate information for broad uses, using coarser-resolution global models to drive higher-resolution regional climate simulations. The pool of global climate models (GCMs) providing the fields needed for dynamical downscaling has increased from the previous generations of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). However, with limited computational resources, the need for prioritizing the GCMs for subsequent downscaling studies remains. GCM selection for dynamical downscaling should focus on evaluating processes relevant for providing boundary conditions to the regional models and be inspired by regional uses such as the response of extremes to changes in the boundary conditions. This leads to the need for metrics representing processes of relevance to diverse stakeholders and subregions of a domain. Procedures to account for metric redundancy and the statistical distinguishability of GCM rankings are required. Further, procedures for selecting realizations from ensembles of top-performing GCM simulations can be used to span the range of climate change signals in multiple ways. As a result, distinct weighting of metrics and prioritization of particular realizations may depend on user needs. We provide high-level guidelines for such region-specific evaluations and address how CMIP7 might enable dynamical downscaling of a representative sample of high-quality models across representative shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Blocking Simulations in GFDL GCMs for CMIP5 and CMIP6

Abstract The frequency of atmospheric blocking has been largely underestimated by general circulation models (GCMs) participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). Errors in the onset, persistence, barotropicity, geographical preference, seasonality, intensity, and moving speed of global blocking were diagnosed in 10 Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) GCMs for recent CMIP5 and CMIP6 using a detection approach that combines zonal eddies and the reversal of zonal winds. The blocking frequency, similar at 500 and 250 hPa, is underestimated by 50% in the Atlantic–Europe region during December–February but is overestimated by 60% in the Pacific–North America region during that season and by 70% in the southwest Pacific during July–August. These blocking biases at 500 hPa were investigated in the five CMIP6 models that showed improvements over the CMIP5 versions. The Atlantic–Europe underestimate corresponds to lower instantaneous blocking rates, lower persistent blocking rates, and higher persistent stationary ridge rates; the number of blocks with a duration of 4–5 days is only 40%–65% of that in observations. In contrast, the overestimate consists of excessive blocks with a duration longer than 12 days in the Pacific–North America and up to twice as many 4–6-day events in the southwest Pacific. Simulated December–February blocks up to 12 days in the Pacific–North America region tend to be stronger and to move more slowly than those in observations. Diagnostic sensitivity tests indicated that the zonal mean and zonal eddy components of the mean state play a key role, as replacing each with that of observations substantially reduced many of the outstanding biases in these GCMs.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Towards provision of regularly updated climate data from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project

The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) is a flagship of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP). CMIP has become a recognised ‘brand’ in climate circles evolving over the last thirty years from a targeted research activity by a small number of climate modelling centres intercomparing their Earth System Model (ESM) simulations to a broad international coordinated research effort (Durack et al, 2025). CMIP is organized as a research activity leveraging funded and in-kind contributions from experts within modelling centres and the broader scientific community supported more recently by a fully-funded International Project Office. Within CMIP, Model Intercomparison Projects (MIPs) are community-designed to understand past, present and future climate. CMIP data provides a valuable resource for climate research and is routinely used to assess model representation of climate processes and test scientific hypotheses in the context of model uncertainty and (forced and internal) variability as evident from its prolific use in scientific publications1 . The impact relies on enabling infrastructure (most prominently via the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF)), which allows sharing of simulation output, provision of the boundary conditions used in each simulation, and definition of the data standards that are essential to facilitating wide use of the data. The impact is supplemented by the wide-ranging scrutiny to which model simulations are subjected. Beyond its use in research, CMIP data is a key resource for communities producing derived climate information from downscaling and impact studies, such as the Coordinated Regional Downscaling Experiment (CORDEX; Gutowski et al., 2016) and the Intersectoral Impacts MIP (ISIMIP; Frieler et al., 2024). Government, academic and commercial entities also increasingly rely on CMIP and its downstream data for climate risk assessments and climate services (for example, Copernicus Climate Change Service and World Bank portal). This means that, although CMIP is a research activity, it increasingly serves a secondary and very relevant role as a provider of climate data – a long-recognised dichotomy (Stevens, 2024). Research and applications have distinct needs, with the former requiring flexibility and generality and the latter consistency. Here we explain how the design of the research activity has been adapted to reduce the burdens imposed by applications and how the research infrastructure might evolve to further enable scientific inquiry. We propose one possible approach to consistently providing model information and projections for applications in the future.

Environmental sciences↗

helios: An R package to process heating and cooling degrees for GCAM

helios is an open-source R package that estimates population-weighted heating and cooling degree-hours (HDH and CDH) and degree-days (HDD and CDD) at various temporal (e.g., energy dispatch segments, monthly, yearly) and spatial scales (e.g., U.S. states, global political regions, countries). The degree hour and degree day outputs from helios are used to inform electricity demand load in the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM) as well as in GCAM-USA (which is the version of GCAM with U.S. state-level details). helios uses a workflow with four steps: processing raw data; calculating heating and cooling degrees; visualizing performance diagnostics; and outputing results in various formats. There are two sources of widely-used climate data compatible with helios: (1) hourly climate data with 12-km resolution that are dynamically downscaled with the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model and projected using a thermal global warming (TGW) approach; and (2) daily climate data with 0.5-degree resolution from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) that is bias-adjusted and statistical downscaled by the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP). In summary, helios is a model that standardizes methodology of heating and cooling degrees-hours and degree-days using publicly available data and advance the understanding of the impact of spatial and temporal temperature variability on building energy services.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

ARM Data-Oriented Metrics and Diagnostics Package for Climate Model Evaluation

A Python-based metrics and diagnostics package is currently being developed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Infrastructure Team at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) to facilitate the use of long-term, high-frequency measurements from the ARM Facility in evaluating the regional climate simulation of clouds, radiation, and precipitation. This metrics and diagnostics package computes climatological means of targeted climate model simulation and generates tables and plots for comparing the model simulation with ARM observational data. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) model data sets are also included in the package to enable model intercomparison as demonstrated in Zhang et al. (2017). The mean of the CMIP model can serve as a reference for individual models. Basic performance metrics are computed to measure the accuracy of mean state and variability of climate models. The evaluated physical quantities include cloud fraction, temperature, relative humidity, cloud liquid water path, total column water vapor, precipitation, sensible and latent heat fluxes, and radiative fluxes, with plan to extend to more fields, such as aerosol and microphysics properties. Process-oriented diagnostics focusing on individual cloud- and precipitation-related phenomena are also being developed for the evaluation and development of specific model physical parameterizations. The version 1.0 package is designed based on data collected at ARM’s Southern Great Plains (SGP) Research Facility, with the plan to extend to other ARM sites. The metrics and diagnostics package is currently built upon standard Python libraries and additional Python packages developed by DOE (such as CDMS and CDAT). The ARM metrics and diagnostic package is available publicly with the hope that it can serve as an easy entry point for climate modelers to compare their models with ARM data. In this report, we first present the input data, which constitutes the core content of the metrics and diagnostics package in section 2, and a user's guide documenting the workflow/structure of the version 1.0 codes, and including step-by-step instruction for running the package in section 3.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗