Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 6 of 6 items for :

  • Author or Editor: Jennifer E. Kay x
  • CCSM4/CESM1 x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search
Esther C. Brady
,
Bette L. Otto-Bliesner
,
Jennifer E. Kay
, and
Nan Rosenbloom

Abstract

Results are presented from the Community Climate System Model, version 4 (CCSM4), simulation of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) from phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) at the standard 1° resolution, the same resolution as the majority of the CCSM4 CMIP5 long-term simulations for the historical and future projection scenarios. The forcings and boundary conditions for this simulation follow the protocols of the Paleoclimate Modeling Intercomparison Project, version 3 (PMIP3). Two additional CCSM4 CO2 sensitivity simulations, in which the concentrations are abruptly changed at the start of the simulation to the low 185 ppm LGM concentrations (LGMCO2) and to a quadrupling of the preindustrial concentration (4×CO2), are also analyzed. For the full LGM simulation, the estimated equilibrium cooling of the global mean annual surface temperature is 5.5°C with an estimated radiative forcing of −6.2 W m−2. The radiative forcing includes the effects of the reduced LGM greenhouse gases, ice sheets, continental distribution with sea level lowered by approximately 120 m from the present, and orbital parameters, but not changes to atmospheric aerosols or vegetation biogeography. The LGM simulation has an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of 3.1(±0.3)°C, comparable to the CCSM4 4×CO2 result. The LGMCO2 simulation shows a greater ECS of 4.2°C. Other responses found at the LGM in CCSM4 include a global precipitation rate decrease at a rate of ~2% °C−1, similar to climate change simulations in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC AR4); a strengthening of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) with a shoaling of North Atlantic Deep Water and a filling of the deep basin up to sill depth with Antarctic Bottom Water; and an enhanced seasonal cycle accompanied by reduced ENSO variability in the eastern Pacific Ocean’s SSTs.

Full access
Kevin Raeder
,
Jeffrey L. Anderson
,
Nancy Collins
,
Timothy J. Hoar
,
Jennifer E. Kay
,
Peter H. Lauritzen
, and
Robert Pincus

Abstract

The Community Atmosphere Model (CAM) has been interfaced to the Data Assimilation Research Testbed (DART), a community facility for ensemble data assimilation. This provides a large set of data assimilation tools for climate model research and development. Aspects of the interface to the Community Earth System Model (CESM) software are discussed and a variety of applications are illustrated, ranging from model development to the production of long series of analyses. CAM output is compared directly to real observations from platforms ranging from radiosondes to global positioning system satellites. Such comparisons use the temporally and spatially heterogeneous analysis error estimates available from the ensemble to provide very specific forecast quality evaluations. The ability to start forecasts from analyses, which were generated by CAM on its native grid and have no foreign model bias, contributed to the detection of a code error involving Arctic sea ice and cloud cover. The potential of parameter estimation is discussed. A CAM ensemble reanalysis has been generated for more than 15 yr. Atmospheric forcings from the reanalysis were required as input to generate an ocean ensemble reanalysis that provided initial conditions for decadal prediction experiments. The software enables rapid experimentation with differing sets of observations and state variables, and the comparison of different models against identical real observations, as illustrated by a comparison of forecasts initialized by interpolated ECMWF analyses and by DART/CAM analyses.

Full access
Jennifer E. Kay
,
Marika M. Holland
,
Cecilia M. Bitz
,
Edward Blanchard-Wrigglesworth
,
Andrew Gettelman
,
Andrew Conley
, and
David Bailey

Abstract

This study uses coupled climate model experiments to identify the influence of atmospheric physics [Community Atmosphere Model, versions 4 and 5 (CAM4; CAM5)] and ocean model complexity (slab ocean, full-depth ocean) on the equilibrium Arctic climate response to an instantaneous CO2 doubling. In slab ocean model (SOM) experiments using CAM4 and CAM5, local radiative feedbacks, not atmospheric heat flux convergence, are the dominant control on the Arctic surface response to increased greenhouse gas forcing. Equilibrium Arctic surface air temperature warming and amplification are greater in the CAM5 SOM experiment than in the equivalent CAM4 SOM experiment. Larger 2 × CO2 radiative forcing, more positive Arctic surface albedo feedbacks, and less negative Arctic shortwave cloud feedbacks all contribute to greater Arctic surface warming and sea ice loss in CAM5 as compared to CAM4. When CAM4 is coupled to an active full-depth ocean model, Arctic Ocean horizontal heat flux convergence increases in response to the instantaneous CO2 doubling. Though this increased ocean northward heat transport slightly enhances Arctic sea ice extent loss, the representation of atmospheric processes (CAM4 versus CAM5) has a larger influence on the equilibrium Arctic surface climate response than the degree of ocean coupling (slab ocean versus full-depth ocean). These findings underscore that local feedbacks can be more important than northward heat transport for explaining the equilibrium Arctic surface climate response and response differences in coupled climate models. That said, the processes explaining the equilibrium climate response differences here may be different than the processes explaining intermodel spread in transient climate projections.

Full access
Gijs de Boer
,
William Chapman
,
Jennifer E. Kay
,
Brian Medeiros
,
Matthew D. Shupe
,
Steve Vavrus
, and
John Walsh

Abstract

Simulation of key features of the Arctic atmosphere in the Community Climate System Model, version 4 (CCSM4) is evaluated against observational and reanalysis datasets for the present-day (1981–2005). Surface air temperature, sea level pressure, cloud cover and phase, precipitation and evaporation, the atmospheric energy budget, and lower-tropospheric stability are evaluated. Simulated surface air temperatures are found to be slightly too cold when compared with the 40-yr ECMWF Re-Analysis (ERA-40). Spatial patterns and temporal variability are well simulated. Evaluation of the sea level pressure demonstrates some large biases, most noticeably an under simulation of the Beaufort High during spring and autumn. Monthly Arctic-wide biases of up to 13 mb are reported. Cloud cover is underpredicted for all but summer months, and cloud phase is demonstrated to be different from observations. Despite low cloud cover, simulated all-sky liquid water paths are too high, while ice water path was generally too low. Precipitation is found to be excessive over much of the Arctic compared to ERA-40 and the Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) estimates. With some exceptions, evaporation is well captured by CCSM4, resulting in PE estimates that are too high. CCSM4 energy budget terms show promising agreement with estimates from several sources. The most noticeable exception to this is the top of the atmosphere (TOA) fluxes that are found to be too low while surface fluxes are found to be too high during summer months. Finally, the lower troposphere is found to be too stable when compared to ERA-40 during all times of year but particularly during spring and summer months.

Full access
Gerald A. Meehl
,
Warren M. Washington
,
Julie M. Arblaster
,
Aixue Hu
,
Haiyan Teng
,
Jennifer E. Kay
,
Andrew Gettelman
,
David M. Lawrence
,
Benjamin M. Sanderson
, and
Warren G. Strand

Abstract

Future climate change projections for phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) are presented for the Community Earth System Model version 1 that includes the Community Atmospheric Model version 5 [CESM1(CAM5)]. These results are compared to the Community Climate System Model, version 4 (CCSM4) and include simulations using the representative concentration pathway (RCP) mitigation scenarios, and extensions for those scenarios beyond 2100 to 2300. Equilibrium climate sensitivity of CESM1(CAM5) is 4.10°C, which is higher than the CCSM4 value of 3.20°C. The transient climate response is 2.33°C, compared to the CCSM4 value of 1.73°C. Thus, even though CESM1(CAM5) includes both the direct and indirect effects of aerosols (CCSM4 had only the direct effect), the overall climate system response including forcing and feedbacks is greater in CESM1(CAM5) compared to CCSM4. The Atlantic Ocean meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) in CESM1(CAM5) weakens considerably in the twenty-first century in all the RCP scenarios, and recovers more slowly in the lower forcing scenarios. The total aerosol optical depth (AOD) changes from ~0.12 in 2006 to ~0.10 in 2100, compared to a preindustrial 1850 value of 0.08, so there is less negative forcing (a net positive forcing) from that source during the twenty-first century. Consequently, the change from 2006 to 2100 in aerosol direct forcing in CESM1(CAM5) contributes to greater twenty-first century warming relative to CCSM4. There is greater Arctic warming and sea ice loss in CESM1(CAM5), with an ice-free summer Arctic occurring by about 2060 in RCP8.5 (2040s in September) as opposed to about 2100 in CCSM4 (2060s in September).

Full access
Alexandra Jahn
,
Kara Sterling
,
Marika M. Holland
,
Jennifer E. Kay
,
James A. Maslanik
,
Cecilia M. Bitz
,
David A. Bailey
,
Julienne Stroeve
,
Elizabeth C. Hunke
,
William H. Lipscomb
, and
Daniel A. Pollak

Abstract

To establish how well the new Community Climate System Model, version 4 (CCSM4) simulates the properties of the Arctic sea ice and ocean, results from six CCSM4 twentieth-century ensemble simulations are compared here with the available data. It is found that the CCSM4 simulations capture most of the important climatological features of the Arctic sea ice and ocean state well, among them the sea ice thickness distribution, fraction of multiyear sea ice, and sea ice edge. The strongest bias exists in the simulated spring-to-fall sea ice motion field, the location of the Beaufort Gyre, and the temperature of the deep Arctic Ocean (below 250 m), which are caused by deficiencies in the simulation of the Arctic sea level pressure field and the lack of deep-water formation on the Arctic shelves. The observed decrease in the sea ice extent and the multiyear ice cover is well captured by the CCSM4. It is important to note, however, that the temporal evolution of the simulated Arctic sea ice cover over the satellite era is strongly influenced by internal variability. For example, while one ensemble member shows an even larger decrease in the sea ice extent over 1981–2005 than that observed, two ensemble members show no statistically significant trend over the same period. It is therefore important to compare the observed sea ice extent trend not just with the ensemble mean or a multimodel ensemble mean, but also with individual ensemble members, because of the strong imprint of internal variability on these relatively short trends.

Full access