Editorial Type:
Article
Article Type:
Research Article

Improvements to the NCAR CSM-1 for Transient Climate Simulations

B. A. Boville National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado*

Search for other papers by B. A. Boville in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
J. T. Kiehl National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado*

Search for other papers by J. T. Kiehl in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
,
P. J. Rasch National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado*

Search for other papers by P. J. Rasch in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
, and
F. O. Bryan National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado*

Search for other papers by F. O. Bryan in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
Print Publication:
15 Jan 2001
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2001)014<0164:ITTNCF>2.0.CO;2
Page(s):
164–179
Restricted access

Abstract

Improvements to the NCAR Climate System Model, CSM-1, primarily for transient climate forcing simulations, are discussed. The impact of the individual changes is assessed through atmosphere–land or ocean–ice experiments, and through short coupled simulations. A 270-yr control simulation has been performed using the model with all of the changes, defined as CSM-1.3. Trace gas concentrations appropriate for 1870 were used and the model produced a stable surface climate with less deep ocean drift than CSM-1.

Changing the aerodynamic roughness length of sea ice to a value appropriate for first year ice reduced the deep ocean salinity trend by a factor of 100 and error in the transport by the Antarctic circumpolar current by 50% (60 × 106 m3 s−1). Three new features were added to the Community Climate Model, version 3 (CCM3), which is the atmospheric component of CSM-1. These additions were N2O, CH4, CFC11, and CFC12 as prognostic tracers and the oxidation of CH4 to form water vapor; a prognostic cloud water formulation; and direct radiative effects of sulfate aerosols from a sulfate chemistry model (either online or using previously calculated three-dimensional aerosol loadings). Although these features represent substantial changes to the CCM3 formulation, allowing greatly improved flexibility for climate change experiments, they have relatively modest impact on the control simulation.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Byron A. Boville, NCAR/CDG, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000.

Abstract

Improvements to the NCAR Climate System Model, CSM-1, primarily for transient climate forcing simulations, are discussed. The impact of the individual changes is assessed through atmosphere–land or ocean–ice experiments, and through short coupled simulations. A 270-yr control simulation has been performed using the model with all of the changes, defined as CSM-1.3. Trace gas concentrations appropriate for 1870 were used and the model produced a stable surface climate with less deep ocean drift than CSM-1.

Changing the aerodynamic roughness length of sea ice to a value appropriate for first year ice reduced the deep ocean salinity trend by a factor of 100 and error in the transport by the Antarctic circumpolar current by 50% (60 × 106 m3 s−1). Three new features were added to the Community Climate Model, version 3 (CCM3), which is the atmospheric component of CSM-1. These additions were N2O, CH4, CFC11, and CFC12 as prognostic tracers and the oxidation of CH4 to form water vapor; a prognostic cloud water formulation; and direct radiative effects of sulfate aerosols from a sulfate chemistry model (either online or using previously calculated three-dimensional aerosol loadings). Although these features represent substantial changes to the CCM3 formulation, allowing greatly improved flexibility for climate change experiments, they have relatively modest impact on the control simulation.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Byron A. Boville, NCAR/CDG, P.O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307-3000.

Save
Cover Journal of Climate
Journal of Climate

  • Alcamo, J., A. Bouwman, J. Edmonds, A. Grubler, T. Morita, and A. Sugandhy, 1995: An evaluation of the IPCC IS92 emission scenarios. Climate Change 1994: Radiative Forcing of Climate Change and an Evaluation of the IPCC IS92 Emission Scenarios, J. Houghton et al., Eds., Cambridge University Press, 247–304.

  • Barth, M., P. J. Rasch, J. T. Kiehl, C. M. Benkovitz, and S. E. Schwartz, 2000: Sulfur chemistry in the National Center for Atmospheric Research Community Climate Model: Description, evaluation, features and sensitivity to aqueous chemistry. J. Geophys. Res.,105, 1387–1415.

  • Boville, B. A., and P. R. Gent, 1998: The NCAR climate system model, version one. J. Climate,11, 1115–1130.

  • ——, and J. W. Hurrell, 1998: A comparison of the atmospheric circulations in CCM3 and CSM1. J. Climate,11, 1327–1341.

  • Briegleb, B. P., and D. H. Bromwich, 1998: Polar climate simulation of the NCAR CCM3. Part II: Atmosphere and surface. J. Climate,11, 1270–1286.

  • Broeker, W. S., S. Sutherland, and T.-H. Peng, 1999: A possible slowdown of southern ocean deep water formation. Science,286, 1132–1135.

  • Bryan, F. O., 1998: Climate drift in a multi-century integration of the NCAR climate system model. J. Climate,11, 1455–1471.

  • Bryan, K., 1984: Accelerating the convergence to equilibrium of ocean-climate models. J. Phys. Oceanogr.,14, 666–673.

  • Dai, A., T. M. L. Wigley, B. A. Boville, J. T. Kiehl, and L. E. Buja, 2001: Climates of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries simulated by the NCAR Climate System Model. J. Climate,14, 485–519.

  • Flato, G. M., and W. D. Hibler, 1992: Modeling ice pack as a cavitating fluid. J. Phys. Oceanogr.,22, 626–651.

  • Garcia, R. R., and S. Solomon, 1994: A new numerical model of the middle atmosphere. Part II: Ozone and related species. J. Geophys. Res.,99, 12 937–12 951.

  • Gent, P. R., F. O. Bryan, G. Danabasoglu, S. C. Doney, W. R. Holland, W. G. Large, and J. C. McWilliams, 1998: The NCAR climate system model global ocean component. J. Climate,11, 1287–1306.

  • Greatbatch, R. J., 1994: A note on the representation of steric sea level in models that conserve volume rather than mass. J. Geophys. Res.,99, 12 767–12 771.

  • Guest, P. S., and K. L. Davidson, 1991: The aerodynamic roughness of different types of sea ice. J. Geophys. Res.,96, 4709–4721.

  • Holton, J. R., P. H. Haynes, M. E. McIntyre, A. R. Douglass, R. B. Rood, and L. Pfister, 1995: Stratosphere–troposphere exchange. Rev. Geophys.,33, 403–439.

  • Jones, R. L., J. A. Pyle, J. E. Harries, A. M. Zavody, J. M. Russell III, and J. C. Gille, 1986: The water vapour budget of the stratosphere studied using LIMS and SAMS satellite data. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,112, 1127–1143.

  • Kiehl, J. T., J. J. Hack, G. B. Bonan, B. A. Boville, D. L. Williamson, and P. J. Rasch, 1998: The National Center for Atmospheric Research Community Climate Model: CCM3. J. Climate,11, 1131–1149.

  • ——, T. L. Schneider, R. W. Portmann, and S. Solomon, 1999: Climate forcing due to tropospheric and stratospheric ozone. J. Geophys. Res.,104, 31 239–31 254.

  • ——, ——, P. J. Rasch, M. Barth, and J. Wong, 2000: Radiative forcing due to sulfate aerosols from simulations with the National Center for Atmospheric Research Community Climate Model, version 3. J. Geophys. Res.,105, 1441–1457.

  • Le Texier, H., S. Solomon, and R. Garcia, 1988: The role of molecular hydrogen and methane oxidation in the water vapour budget of the stratosphere. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,114, 281–295.

  • Mote, P. W., J. R. Holton, J. Russel, and B. A. Boville, 1993: A comparison of observed (HALOE) and modeled (CCM2) methane and stratospheric water vapor. Geophys. Res. Lett.,20, 1419–1422.

  • Parker, D. E., C. K. Folland, and M. Jackson, 1995: Marine surface temperature: Observed variations and data requirements. Climatic Change,31, 559–600.

  • Randel, W. J., F. Wu, J. M. Russell III, A. Roche, and J. W. Waters, 1998: Seasonal cycles and QBO variations in stratospheric CH4 and H2O observed in UARS HALOE data. J. Atmos. Sci.,55, 163–185.

  • Rasch, P. J., and J. E. Kristjánsson, 1998: A comparison of the CCM3 model climate using diagnosed and predicted condensate parameterizations. J. Climate,11, 1587–1614.

  • ——, M. Barth, J. T. Kiehl, C. M. Benkovitz, and S. E. Schwartz, 2000: A description of the global sulfur cycle and its controlling processes in the National Center for Atmospheric Research Community Climate Model, version 3. J. Geophys. Res.,105, 1367–1385.

  • Semtner, A. J., 1976: A model for the thermodynamic growth of sea ice in numerical investigations of climate. J. Phys. Oceanogr.,6, 379–387.

  • Shea, D. J., K. E. Trenberth, and R. W. Reynolds, 1990: A global monthly sea surface temperature climatology. NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-345+STR, 167 pp.

  • Trenberth, K. E., 1997: The heat budget of the atmosphere and ocean. Proc. First Int. Conf. on Reanalysis, Silver Spring, MD, WCRP-104, WMO/TD 876, 17–20.

  • Wang, W.-C., M. P. Dudek, X. Z. Liang, and J. T. Kiehl, 1991: Inadequacy of effective CO2 as a proxy in simulating the greenhouse effect of other radiatively active gases. Nature,350, 573–577.

  • Weatherly, J. W., B. P. Briegleb, W. G. Large, and J. A. Maslanik, 1998: Sea ice and polar climate in the NCAR CSM. J. Climate,11, 1472–1486.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 1043 787 31
PDF Downloads 122 43 2