The scenario model intercomparison project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3461–3482

BC O’neill, C Tebaldi, DP Van Vuuren, V Eyring, P Friedlingstein, G Hurtt, R Knutti, E Kriegler, JF Lamarque, J Lowe, GA Meehl, R Moss, K Riahi, BM Sanderson

2016-01-01

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Datasets for the CMIP6 Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) Simulations with the Coupled Model CAS FGOALS-f3-L

Shuwen Zhao,Yongqiang Yu,Pengfei Lin,Hailong Liu,Bian He,Qing Bao,Yuyang Guo,Lijuan Hua,Kangjun Chen,Xiaowei Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-020-0112-9

IF: 5.8

2020-11-21

Advances in Atmospheric Sciences

Abstract:Abstract The datasets for the tier-1 Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) experiments from the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) Flexible Global Ocean-Atmosphere-Land System model, finite-volume version 3 (CAS FGOALS-f3-L) are described in this study. ScenarioMIP is one of the core MIP experiments in phase 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). Considering future CO 2 , CH 4 , N 2 O and other gases’ concentrations, as well as land use, the design of ScenarioMIP involves eight pathways, including two tiers (tier-1 and tier-2) of priority. Tier-1 includes four combined Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) with radiative forcing, i.e., SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5, in which the globally averaged radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere around the year 2100 is approximately 2.6, 4.5, 7.0 and 8.5 W m −2 , respectively. This study provides an introduction to the ScenarioMIP datasets of this model, such as their storage location, sizes, variables, etc. Preliminary analysis indicates that surface air temperatures will increase by about 1.89°C, 3.07°C, 4.06°C and 5.17°C by around 2100 under these four scenarios, respectively. Meanwhile, some other key climate variables, such as sea-ice extension, precipitation, heat content, and sea level rise, also show significant long-term trends associated with the radiative forcing increases. These datasets will help us understand how the climate will change under different anthropogenic and radiative forcings.

meteorology & atmospheric sciences
G6-1.5K-SAI: a new Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) experiment integrating recent advances in solar radiation modification studies

Daniele Visioni,Alan Robock,Jim Haywood,Matthew Henry,Simone Tilmes,Douglas G. MacMartin,Ben Kravitz,Sarah J. Doherty,John Moore,Chris Lennard,Shingo Watanabe,Helene Muri,Ulrike Niemeier,Olivier Boucher,Abu Syed,Temitope S. Egbebiyi,Roland Séférian,Ilaria Quaglia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2583-2024

IF: 5.1

2024-04-10

Geoscientific Model Development

Abstract:The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) has proposed multiple model experiments during phases 5 and 6 of the Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), with the latest set of model experiments proposed in 2015. With phase 7 of CMIP in preparation and with multiple efforts ongoing to better explore the potential space of outcomes for different solar radiation modifications (SRMs) both in terms of deployment strategies and scenarios and in terms of potential impacts, the GeoMIP community has identified the need to propose and conduct a new experiment that could serve as a bridge between past iterations and future CMIP7 experiments. Here we report the details of such a proposed experiment, named G6-1.5K-SAI, to be conducted with the current generation of scenarios and models from CMIP6 and clarify the reasoning behind many of the new choices introduced. Namely, compared to the CMIP6 GeoMIP scenario G6sulfur, we decided on (1) an intermediate emission scenario as a baseline (the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2-4.5), (2) a start date set in the future that includes both considerations for the likelihood of exceeding 1.5 °C above preindustrial levels and some considerations for a likely start date for an SRM implementation, and (3) a deployment strategy for stratospheric aerosol injection that does not inject in the tropical pipe in order to obtain a more latitudinally uniform aerosol distribution. We also offer more details regarding the preferred experiment length and number of ensemble members and include potential options for second-tier experiments that some modeling groups might want to run. The specifics of the proposed experiment will further allow for a more direct comparison between results obtained from CMIP6 models and those obtained from future scenarios for CMIP7.

geosciences, multidisciplinary
LongRunMIP: Motivation and Design for a Large Collection of Millennial-Length AOGCM Simulations

Maria Rugenstein,Jonah Bloch-Johnson,Ayako Abe-Ouchi,Timothy Andrews,Urs Beyerle,Long Cao,Tarun Chadha,Gokhan Danabasoglu,Jean-Louis Dufresne,Lei Duan,Marie-Alice Foujols,Thomas Froelicher,Olivier Geoffroy,Jonathan Gregory,Reto Knutti,Chao Li,Alice Marzocchi,Thorsten Mauritsen,Matthew Menary,Elisabeth Moyer,Larissa Nazarenko,David Paynter,David Saint-Martin,Gavin A. Schmidt,Akitomo Yamamoto,Shuting Yang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-d-19-0068.1

IF: 9.116

2019-01-01

Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

Abstract:We present a model intercomparison project, LongRunMIP, the first collection of millennial-length (1,000+ years) simulations of complex coupled climate models with a representation of ocean, atmosphere, sea ice, and land surface, and their interactions. Standard model simulations are generally only a few hundred years long. However, modeling the long-term equilibration in response to radiative forcing perturbation is important for understanding many climate phenomena, such as the evolution of ocean circulation, time- and temperature-dependent feedbacks, and the differentiation of forced signal and internal variability. The aim of LongRunMIP is to facilitate research into these questions by serving as an archive for simulations that capture as much of this equilibration as possible. The only requirement to participate in LongRunMIP is to contribute a simulation with elevated, constant CO2 forcing that lasts at least 1,000 years. LongRunMIP is an MIP of opportunity in that the simulations were mostly performed prior to the conception of the archive without an agreed-upon set of experiments. For most models, the archive contains a preindustrial control simulation and simulations with an idealized (typically abrupt) CO2 forcing. We collect 2D surface and top-of-atmosphere fields and 3D ocean temperature and salinity fields. Here, we document the collection of simulations and discuss initial results, including the evolution of surface and deep ocean temperature and cloud radiative effects. As of October 2019, the collection includes 50 simulations of 15 models by 10 modeling centers. The data of LongRunMIP are publicly available. We encourage submissions of more simulations in the future.
AR6 scenarios database: an assessment of current practices and future recommendations

Glen P. Peters,Alaa Al Khourdajie,Ida Sognnaes,Benjamin M. Sanderson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-023-00050-9

2023-09-08

npj Climate Action

Abstract:Mitigation scenarios have become an important element of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. We critically assess the curation of the IPCC mitigation scenarios database, with a focus on improving curation and utilisation. The existing method of curation favours particular models, and results may have limited statistical meaning. We draw lessons from experiences with the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) used by the IPCC Working Group I and II communities. We propose that the scientific community takes a more active role in curating the database around policy-relevant knowledge gaps, through an open and peer reviewed process of Model Intercomparison Projects (MIPs) supplemented with individual model studies. The database should be publicly accessible from the time of scenario submission, and actively involve a broad community in developing tools and analysing the database. These suggestions can broaden participation, increase transparency, and enhance the relevance of the database for users.
CAS FGOALS-g3 Model Datasets for the CMIP6 Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP)

Ye Pu,Hongbo Liu,Ruojing Yan,Hao Yang,Kun Xia,Yiyuan Li,Li Dong,Lijuan Li,He Wang,Yan Nie,Mirong Song,Jinbo Xie,Shuwen Zhao,Kangjun Chen,Bin Wang,Jianghao Li,Ling Zuo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-020-2032-0

IF: 5.8

2020-08-13

Advances in Atmospheric Sciences

Abstract:Abstract This paper describes the datasets from the Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) simulation experiments run with the Chinese Academy of Sciences Flexible Global Ocean-Atmosphere-Land System Model, GridPoint version 3 (CAS FGOALS-g3). FGOALS-g3 is driven by eight shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) with different sets of future emission, concentration, and land-use scenarios. All Tier 1 and 2 experiments were carried out and were initialized using historical runs. A branch run method was used for the ensemble simulations. Model outputs were three-hourly, six-hourly, daily, and/or monthly mean values for the primary variables of the four component models. An evaluation and analysis of the simulations is also presented. The present results are expected to aid research into future climate change and socio-economic development.

meteorology & atmospheric sciences
Scenario Setup and Forcing Data for Impact Model Evaluation and Impact Attribution Within the Third Round of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (Isimip3a)

Katja Frieler,Jan Volkholz,Stefan Lange,Jacob Schewe,Matthias Mengel,Maria del Rocio Rivas Lopez,Christian Otto,Christopher P. O. Reyer,Dirk Nikolaus Karger,Johanna T. Malle,Simon Treu,Christoph Menz,Julia L. Blanchard,Cheryl S. Harrison,Colleen M. Petrik,Tyler D. Eddy,Kelly Ortega-Cisneros,Camilla Novaglio,Yannick Rousseau,Reg A. Watson,Charles Stock,Xiao Liu,Ryan Heneghan,Derek Tittensor,Olivier Maury,Matthias Buechner,Thomas Vogt,Tingting Wang,Fubao Sun,Inga J. Sauer,Johannes Koch,Inne Vanderkelen,Jonas Jaegermeyr,Christoph Mueller,Sam Rabin,Jochen Klar,Iliusi D. Vega del Valle,Gitta Lasslop,Sarah Chadburn,Eleanor Burke,Angela Gallego-Sala,Noah Smith,Jinfeng Chang,Stijn Hantson,Chantelle Burton,Anne Gaedeke,Fang Li,Simon N. Gosling,Hannes Mueller Schmied,Fred Hattermann,Jida Wang,Fangfang Yao,Thomas Hickler,Rafael Marce,Don Pierson,Wim Thiery,Daniel Mercado-Bettin,Robert Ladwig,Ana Isabel Ayala-Zamora,Matthew Forrest,Michel Bechtold

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1-2024

IF: 5.1

2024-01-01

Geoscientific Model Development

Abstract:This paper describes the rationale and the protocol of the first component of the third simulation round of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP3a, http://www.isimip.org, last access: 2 November 2023) and the associated set of climate-related and direct human forcing data (CRF and DHF, respectively). The observation-based climate-related forcings for the first time include high-resolution observational climate forcings derived by orographic downscaling, monthly to hourly coastal water levels, and wind fields associated with historical tropical cyclones. The DHFs include land use patterns, population densities, information about water and agricultural management, and fishing intensities. The ISIMIP3a impact model simulations driven by these observation-based climate-related and direct human forcings are designed to test to what degree the impact models can explain observed changes in natural and human systems. In a second set of ISIMIP3a experiments the participating impact models are forced by the same DHFs but a counterfactual set of atmospheric forcings and coastal water levels where observed trends have been removed. These experiments are designed to allow for the attribution of observed changes in natural, human, and managed systems to climate change, rising CH4 and CO2 concentrations, and sea level rise according to the definition of the Working Group II contribution to the IPCC AR6.
The computational and energy cost of simulation and storage for climate science: lessons from CMIP6

Mario C. Acosta,Sergi Palomas,Stella V. Paronuzzi Ticco,Gladys Utrera,Joachim Biercamp,Pierre-Antoine Bretonniere,Reinhard Budich,Miguel Castrillo,Arnaud Caubel,Francisco Doblas-Reyes,Italo Epicoco,Uwe Fladrich,Sylvie Joussaume,Alok Kumar Gupta,Bryan Lawrence,Philippe Le Sager,Grenville Lister,Marie-Pierre Moine,Jean-Christophe Rioual,Sophie Valcke,Niki Zadeh,Venkatramani Balaji

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3081-2024

IF: 5.1

2024-04-19

Geoscientific Model Development

Abstract:Abstract. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) is one of the biggest international efforts aimed at better understanding the past, present, and future of climate changes in a multi-model context. A total of 21 model intercomparison projects (MIPs) were endorsed in its sixth phase (CMIP6), which included 190 different experiments that were used to simulate 40 000 years and produced around 40 PB of data in total. This paper presents the main findings obtained from the CPMIP (the Computational Performance Model Intercomparison Project), a collection of a common set of metrics, specifically designed for assessing climate model performance. These metrics were exclusively collected from the production runs of experiments used in CMIP6 and primarily from institutions within the IS-ENES3 consortium. The document presents the full set of CPMIP metrics per institution and experiment, including a detailed analysis and discussion of each of the measurements. During the analysis, we found a positive correlation between the core hours needed, the complexity of the models, and the resolution used. Likewise, we show that between 5 %–15 % of the execution cost is spent in the coupling between independent components, and it only gets worse by increasing the number of resources. From the data, it is clear that queue times have a great impact on the actual speed achieved and have a huge variability across different institutions, ranging from none to up to 78 % execution overhead. Furthermore, our evaluation shows that the estimated carbon footprint of running such big simulations within the IS-ENES3 consortium is 1692 t of CO2 equivalent. As a result of the collection, we contribute to the creation of a comprehensive database for future community reference, establishing a benchmark for evaluation and facilitating the multi-model, multi-platform comparisons crucial for understanding climate modelling performance. Given the diverse range of applications, configurations, and hardware utilised, further work is required for the standardisation and formulation of general rules. The paper concludes with recommendations for future exercises aimed at addressing the encountered challenges which will facilitate more collections of a similar nature.

geosciences, multidisciplinary
CERESMIP: a climate modeling protocol to investigate recent trends in the Earth's Energy Imbalance

Gavin A. Schmidt,Timothy Andrews,Susanne E. Bauer,Paul J. Durack,Norman G. Loeb,V. Ramaswamy,Nathan P. Arnold,Michael G. Bosilovich,Jason Cole,Larry W. Horowitz,Gregory C. Johnson,John M. Lyman,Brian Medeiros,Takuro Michibata,Dirk Olonscheck,David Paynter,Shiv Priyam Raghuraman,Michael Schulz,Daisuke Takasuka,Vijay Tallapragada,Patrick C. Taylor,Tilo Ziehn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2023.1202161

2023-07-03

Frontiers in Climate

Abstract:The Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES) project has now produced over two decades of observed data on the Earth's Energy Imbalance (EEI) and has revealed substantive trends in both the reflected shortwave and outgoing longwave top-of-atmosphere radiation components. Available climate model simulations suggest that these trends are incompatible with purely internal variability, but that the full magnitude and breakdown of the trends are outside of the model ranges. Unfortunately, the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (Phase 6) (CMIP6) protocol only uses observed forcings to 2014 (and Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP) projections thereafter), and furthermore, many of the ‘observed' drivers have been updated substantially since the CMIP6 inputs were defined. Most notably, the sea surface temperature (SST) estimates have been revised and now show up to 50% greater trends since 1979, particularly in the southern hemisphere. Additionally, estimates of short-lived aerosol and gas-phase emissions have been substantially updated. These revisions will likely have material impacts on the model-simulated EEI. We therefore propose a new, relatively low-cost, model intercomparison, CERESMIP, that would target the CERES period (2000-present), with updated forcings to at least the end of 2021. The focus will be on atmosphere-only simulations, using updated SST, forcings and emissions from 1990 to 2021. The key metrics of interest will be the EEI and atmospheric feedbacks, and so the analysis will benefit from output from satellite cloud observation simulators. The Tier 1 request would consist only of an ensemble of AMIP-style simulations, while the Tier 2 request would encompass uncertainties in the applied forcing, atmospheric composition, single and all-but-one forcing responses. We present some preliminary results and invite participation from a wide group of models.
The PMIP 4 contribution to CMIP 6 – Part 3 : the Last Millennium

J. Jungclaus,E. Bard,M. Baroni,P. Braconnot,Jian Cao,L. Chini,T. Egorova,M. Evans,J. González-Rouco,H. Goosse,G. Hurtt,F. Joos,J. Kaplan,M. Khodri,K. K. Goldewijk,N. Krivova,A. Legrande,S. Lorenz,J. Luterbacher,W. Man,A. Maycock,M. Meinshausen,A. Moberg,R. Muscheler,Christoph Nehrbass-Ahles,B. Otto-Bliesner,S. Phipps,J. Pongratz,E. Rozanov,G. Schmidt,H. Schmidt,W. Schmutz,A. Schurer,A. Shapiro,M. Sigl,J. Smerdon,S. Solanki,C. Timmreck,M. Toohey,I. Usoskin,S. Wagner,Chi‐Ju Wu,K. L. Yeo,D. Zanchettin,Qiong Zhang,E. Zorita

2016-01-01

Abstract:Citation for published version: Jungclaus, JH, Bard, E, Baroni, M, Braconnot, P, Cao, J, Chini, LP, Egorova, T, Evans, M, GonzálezRouco, JF, Goosse, H, Hurtt, G, Joos, F, Kaplan, J, Khodri, M, Goldewijk, KK, Krivova, N, Legrande, AN, Lorenz, SJ, Luterbacher, J, Man, W, Meinshausen, M, Moberg, A, Nehrbass-Ahles, C, Otto-Bliesner, BL, Phipps, SJ, Pongratz, J, Rozanov, E, Schmidt, GA, Schmidt, H, Schmutz, W, Schurer, A, Shapiro1, AI, Sigl, M, Smerdon, JE, Solanki, SK, Timmreck, C, Toohey, M, Usoskin, IG, Wagner, S, Wu, C-Y, Yeo, KL, Zanchettin, D, Zhang, Q & Zorita, E 2017, 'The PMIP4 contribution to CMIP6 – Part 3: the Last Millennium, Scientific Objective and Experimental Design for the PMIP4 past1000 simulations', Geoscientific Model Development. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2016-278
The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment

Richard H. Moss,Jae A. Edmonds,Kathy A. Hibbard,Martin R. Manning,Steven K. Rose,Detlef P. van Vuuren,Timothy R. Carter,Seita Emori,Mikiko Kainuma,Tom Kram,Gerald A. Meehl,John F. B. Mitchell,Nebojsa Nakicenovic,Keywan Riahi,Steven J. Smith,Ronald J. Stouffer,Allison M. Thomson,John P. Weyant,Thomas J. Wilbanks

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08823

IF: 64.8

2010-02-01

Nature

Abstract:Setting the scenesClimatologists use model-based 'scenarios' to provide plausible descriptions of how the future might unfold when evaluating uncertainty about the effects of human actions on climate. The traditional method of establishing these scenarios was a time-consuming sequential process, each discipline taking turns to add data and complexity. As Richard Moss and colleagues explain in a Perspectives review, climate change researchers have now established a new coordinated parallel process that integrates the tasks of developing scenarios, making projections and evaluating their impact. These 'next generation' scenarios should make for faster, more rigorous assessment of proposals for climate mitigation and adaptation.

multidisciplinary sciences
CMIP6 Simulations With the CMCC Earth System Model (CMCC‐ESM2)

T. Lovato,D. Peano,M. Butenschön,S. Materia,D. Iovino,E. Scoccimarro,P. G. Fogli,A. Cherchi,A. Bellucci,S. Gualdi,S. Masina,A. Navarra

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/2021ms002814

IF: 8.469

2022-03-01

Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems

Abstract:This article introduces the second generation CMCC Earth System Model (CMCC‐ESM2) that extends a number of marine and terrestrial biogeochemical processes with respect to its CMIP5 predecessor. In particular, land biogeochemistry was extended to a wider set of carbon pools and plant functional types, along with a prognostic representation of the nitrogen cycle. The marine ecosystem representation was reshaped toward an intermediate complexity of lower trophic level interactions, including an interactive benthic compartment and a new formulation of heterotrophic bacterial population. Details are provided on the model setup and implementation for the different experiments performed as contribution to the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. CMCC‐ESM2 shows an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 3.57°C and a transient climate response of 1.97°C which are close to the CMIP5 and CMIP6 multi‐model averages. The evaluation of the coupled climate‐carbon response in the historical period against available observational datasets show a consistent representation of both physical and biogeochemical quantities. However, the land carbon sink is found to be weaker than the current global carbon estimates and the simulated marine primary production is slightly below the satellite‐based average over recent decades. Future projections coherently show a prominent global warming over the northern hemisphere with intensified precipitations at high latitudes. The expected ranges of variability for oceanic pH and oxygen, as well as land carbon and nitrogen soil storage, compare favorably with those assessed from other CMIP6 models. Earth System Models integrate our knowledge on the underlying physical and biogeochemical mechanisms that drive or influence the global climate and the biosphere over the land and in the ocean. These models are used to provide realistic estimates of climate variability and its response to perturbations in the chemical constituents of the atmosphere and modifications of the terrestrial surface. This work describes the science at the base of the second generation Earth System Model developed at the Euro‐Mediterranean Centre on Climate Change and the major results obtained from the simulation of historical (from the pre‐industrial period until present) and different future scenarios up to 2100 in the context of the sixth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. The model provides a solid representation of the present‐day physical climate and biosphere dynamics in comparison to available observations and data reconstruction of the recent past. The projected global warming signal and carbon accumulation within terrestrial and oceanic systems under future climate scenarios are comparable to the findings of other models involved in the sixth intercomparison project. This work introduces the second generation CMCC Earth System Model (CMCC‐ESM2) and its configuration for CMIP6 Estimated climate sensitivity and carbon‐climate feedbacks are similar to average of CMIP5 and locate in the lower end of CMIP6 Both climate and biogeochemical dynamics are assessed through the comparison with observations and previous literature findings This work introduces the second generation CMCC Earth System Model (CMCC‐ESM2) and its configuration for CMIP6 Estimated climate sensitivity and carbon‐climate feedbacks are similar to average of CMIP5 and locate in the lower end of CMIP6 Both climate and biogeochemical dynamics are assessed through the comparison with observations and previous literature findings

meteorology & atmospheric sciences
Supplementary Material to &Amp;quot;large-Scale Features and Evaluation of the PMIP4-CMIP6 &lt;i&gt;midholocene&lt;/i&gt; Simulations&quot;

Chris Brierley,Anni Zhao,Sandy P. Harrison,Pascalé Braconnot,Charles Williams,David Thornalley,Xiaoxu Shi,Jean-Yves Peterschmitt,Rumi Ohgaito,Darrell S. Kaufman,Masa Kageyama,J. C. Hargreaves,Michael P. Erb,Julien Emile‐Geay,Roberta D’Agostino,Deepak Chandan,Matthieu Carré,Patrick J. Bartlein,Weipeng Zheng,Zhongshi Zhang,Qiong Zhang,Hu Yang,E. M. Volodin,Robert A. Tomas,Cody Routson,W. Richard Peltier,Bette L. Otto‐Bliesner,Polina Morozova,Nicholas P. McKay,Gerrit Lohmann,Allegra N. LeGrande,Chuncheng Guo,Jian Cao,Esther C. Brady,J. D. Annan,Ayako Abe‐Ouchi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2019-168-supplement

2020-01-01

Abstract:The mid-Holocene (6,000 years ago) is a standard experiment for the evaluation of the simulated response of global climate models using paleoclimate reconstructions.The latest mid-Holocene simulations are a contribution by the Palaeoclimate Model Intercomparison Project (PMIP4) to the current phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6).
The Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISI–MIP): Project framework

Lila Warszawski,Katja Frieler,Veronika Huber,Franziska Piontek,Olivia Serdeczny,Jacob Schewe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1312330110

IF: 11.1

2013-12-16

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract:The Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project offers a framework to compare climate impact projections in different sectors and at different scales. Consistent climate and socio-economic input data provide the basis for a cross-sectoral integration of impact projections. The project is designed to enable quantitative synthesis of climate change impacts at different levels of global warming. This report briefly outlines the objectives and framework of the first, fast-tracked phase of Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project, based on global impact models, and provides an overview of the participating models, input data, and scenario set-up.

multidisciplinary sciences
From Many to One: Consensus Inference in a MIP

Noel Cressie,Michael Bertolacci,Andrew Zammit-Mangion

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL098277

2021-07-09

Abstract:A Model Intercomparison Project (MIP) consists of teams who each estimate the same underlying quantity (e.g., temperature projections to the year 2070), and the spread of the estimates indicates their uncertainty. It recognizes that a community of scientists will not agree completely but that there is value in looking for a consensus and information in the range of disagreement. A simple average of the teams' outputs gives a consensus estimate, but it does not recognize that some outputs are more variable than others. Statistical analysis of variance (ANOVA) models offer a way to obtain a weighted consensus estimate of outputs with a variance that is the smallest possible and hence the tightest possible 'one-sigma' and 'two-sigma' intervals. Modulo dependence between MIP outputs, the ANOVA approach weights a team's output inversely proportional to its variation. When external verification data are available for evaluating the fidelity of each MIP output, ANOVA weights can also provide a prior distribution for Bayesian Model Averaging to yield a consensus estimate. We use a MIP of carbon dioxide flux inversions to illustrate the ANOVA-based weighting and subsequent consensus inferences.

Applications,Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics,Geophysics,Methodology
The EC-Earth3 Earth system model for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6

Ralf Döscher,Mario Acosta,Andrea Alessandri,Peter Anthoni,Thomas Arsouze,Tommi Bergman,Raffaele Bernardello,Souhail Boussetta,Louis-Philippe Caron,Glenn Carver,Miguel Castrillo,Franco Catalano,Ivana Cvijanovic,Paolo Davini,Evelien Dekker,Francisco J. Doblas-Reyes,David Docquier,Pablo Echevarria,Uwe Fladrich,Ramon Fuentes-Franco,Matthias Gröger,Jost v. Hardenberg,Jenny Hieronymus,M. Pasha Karami,Jukka-Pekka Keskinen,Torben Koenigk,Risto Makkonen,François Massonnet,Martin Ménégoz,Paul A. Miller,Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro,Lars Nieradzik,Twan van Noije,Paul Nolan,Declan O'Donnell,Pirkka Ollinaho,Gijs van den Oord,Pablo Ortega,Oriol Tintó Prims,Arthur Ramos,Thomas Reerink,Clement Rousset,Yohan Ruprich-Robert,Philippe Le Sager,Torben Schmith,Roland Schrödner,Federico Serva,Valentina Sicardi,Marianne Sloth Madsen,Benjamin Smith,Tian Tian,Etienne Tourigny,Petteri Uotila,Martin Vancoppenolle,Shiyu Wang,David Wårlind,Ulrika Willén,Klaus Wyser,Shuting Yang,Xavier Yepes-Arbós,Qiong Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2973-2022

IF: 5.1

2022-04-08

Geoscientific Model Development

Abstract:Abstract. The Earth system model EC-Earth3 for contributions to CMIP6 is documented here, with its flexible coupling framework, major model configurations, a methodology for ensuring the simulations are comparable across different high-performance computing (HPC) systems, and with the physical performance of base configurations over the historical period. The variety of possible configurations and sub-models reflects the broad interests in the EC-Earth community. EC-Earth3 key performance metrics demonstrate physical behavior and biases well within the frame known from recent CMIP models. With improved physical and dynamic features, new Earth system model (ESM) components, community tools, and largely improved physical performance compared to the CMIP5 version, EC-Earth3 represents a clear step forward for the only European community ESM. We demonstrate here that EC-Earth3 is suited for a range of tasks in CMIP6 and beyond.

geosciences, multidisciplinary
The UK contribution to CMIP6/PMIP4: mid-Holocene and Last Interglacial experiments with HadGEM3, and comparison to the pre-industrial era and proxy data

Charles J. R. Williams,Maria-Vittoria Guarino,Emilie Capron,Irene Malmierca-Vallet,Joy S. Singarayer,Louise C. Sime,Daniel J. Lunt,Paul J. Valdes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2019-160

2020-01-13

Abstract:Abstract. Palaeoclimate model simulations are an important tool to improve our understanding of the mechanisms of climate change. These simulations also provide tests of the ability of models to simulate climates very different to today. Here we present the results from two simulations using the latest version of the UK’s physical climate model, HadGEM3-GC3.1; the mid-Holocene (~ 6 ka) and Last Interglacial (~ 127 ka) simulations, both conducted under the auspices of CMIP6/PMIP4. These periods are of particular interest to PMIP4 because they represent the two most recent warm periods in Earth history, where atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases and continental configuration is similar to the pre-industrial period but where there were significant changes to the Earth’s orbital configuration, resulting in a very different seasonal cycle of radiative forcing. Results for these simulations are assessed against proxy data, previous versions of the UK model, and models from the previous CMIP5 exercise. When the current version is compared to the previous generation of the UK model, the most recent version suggests limited improvement. In common with these previous model versions, the simulations reproduce global land and ocean temperatures (both surface and at 1.5 m) and a West African monsoon that is consistent with the latitudinal and seasonal distribution of insolation. The Last Interglacial simulation appears to accurately capture Northern Hemisphere temperature changes, but without the addition of Last Interglacial meltwater forcing cannot capture the magnitude of Southern Hemisphere changes. Model-data comparisons indicate that some geographical regions, and some seasons, produce better matches to the palaeodata (relative to pre-industrial) than others. Model-model comparisons, relative to previous generations same model and other models, indicate similarity between generations in terms of both the intensity and northward enhancement of the mid-Holocene West African monsoon, both of which are underestimated. On the Saharan greening which occurred the mid-Holocene African Humid Period, simulation results are likewise consistent with other models. The most recent version of the UK model appears to still be unable to reproduce the amount of rainfall necessary to support grassland across the Sahara.
Interactions between atmospheric composition and climate change – progress in understanding and future opportunities from AerChemMIP, PDRMIP, and RFMIP

Fiedler, Stephanie

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2387-2024

IF: 5.1

2024-03-22

Geoscientific Model Development

Abstract:The climate science community aims to improve our understanding of climate change due to anthropogenic influences on atmospheric composition and the Earth's surface. Yet not all climate interactions are fully understood, and uncertainty in climate model results persists, as assessed in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report. We synthesize current challenges and emphasize opportunities for advancing our understanding of the interactions between atmospheric composition, air quality, and climate change, as well as for quantifying model diversity. Our perspective is based on expert views from three multi-model intercomparison projects (MIPs) – the Precipitation Driver Response MIP (PDRMIP), the Aerosol Chemistry MIP (AerChemMIP), and the Radiative Forcing MIP (RFMIP). While there are many shared interests and specializations across the MIPs, they have their own scientific foci and specific approaches. The partial overlap between the MIPs proved useful for advancing the understanding of the perturbation–response paradigm through multi-model ensembles of Earth system models of varying complexity. We discuss the challenges of gaining insights from Earth system models that face computational and process representation limits and provide guidance from our lessons learned. Promising ideas to overcome some long-standing challenges in the near future are kilometer-scale experiments to better simulate circulation-dependent processes where it is possible and machine learning approaches where they are needed, e.g., for faster and better subgrid-scale parameterizations and pattern recognition in big data. New model constraints can arise from augmented observational products that leverage multiple datasets with machine learning approaches. Future MIPs can develop smart experiment protocols that strive towards an optimal trade-off between the resolution, complexity, and number of simulations and their length and, thereby, help to advance the understanding of climate change and its impacts.

geosciences, multidisciplinary
The need for carbon-emissions-driven climate projections in CMIP7

Benjamin M. Sanderson,Ben B. B. Booth,John Dunne,Veronika Eyring,Rosie A. Fisher,Pierre Friedlingstein,Matthew J. Gidden,Tomohiro Hajima,Chris D. Jones,Colin G. Jones,Andrew King,Charles D. Koven,David M. Lawrence,Jason Lowe,Nadine Mengis,Glen P. Peters,Joeri Rogelj,Chris Smith,Abigail C. Snyder,Isla R. Simpson,Abigail L. S. Swann,Claudia Tebaldi,Tatiana Ilyina,Carl-Friedrich Schleussner,Roland Séférian,Bjørn H. Samset,Detlef van Vuuren,Sönke Zaehle

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8141-2024

IF: 5.1

2024-11-27

Geoscientific Model Development

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 CO 2 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-CO 2 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).

geosciences, multidisciplinary
Uncertainty-informed selection of CMIP6 Earth system model subsets for use in multisectoral and impact models

Snyder, Abigail

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1301-2024

IF: 5.4583

2024-10-16

Earth System Dynamics

Abstract: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.

geosciences, multidisciplinary

The scenario model intercomparison project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3461–3482

Datasets for the CMIP6 Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) Simulations with the Coupled Model CAS FGOALS-f3-L

G6-1.5K-SAI: a new Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) experiment integrating recent advances in solar radiation modification studies

LongRunMIP: Motivation and Design for a Large Collection of Millennial-Length AOGCM Simulations

AR6 scenarios database: an assessment of current practices and future recommendations

CAS FGOALS-g3 Model Datasets for the CMIP6 Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP)

Scenario Setup and Forcing Data for Impact Model Evaluation and Impact Attribution Within the Third Round of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (Isimip3a)

The computational and energy cost of simulation and storage for climate science: lessons from CMIP6

CERESMIP: a climate modeling protocol to investigate recent trends in the Earth's Energy Imbalance

The PMIP 4 contribution to CMIP 6 – Part 3 : the Last Millennium

The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment

CMIP6 Simulations With the CMCC Earth System Model (CMCC‐ESM2)

Supplementary Material to &Amp;quot;large-Scale Features and Evaluation of the PMIP4-CMIP6 &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;midholocene&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; Simulations&amp;quot;

The Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISI–MIP): Project framework

From Many to One: Consensus Inference in a MIP

The EC-Earth3 Earth system model for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6

The UK contribution to CMIP6/PMIP4: mid-Holocene and Last Interglacial experiments with HadGEM3, and comparison to the pre-industrial era and proxy data

Interactions between atmospheric composition and climate change – progress in understanding and future opportunities from AerChemMIP, PDRMIP, and RFMIP

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

Uncertainty-informed selection of CMIP6 Earth system model subsets for use in multisectoral and impact models

Supplementary Material to &Amp;quot;large-Scale Features and Evaluation of the PMIP4-CMIP6 <i>midholocene</i> Simulations"