Search Results

You are looking at 31 - 35 of 35 items for :

  • Decadal variability x
  • CCSM4/CESM1 x
  • All content x
Clear All
Richard B. Neale, Jadwiga Richter, Sungsu Park, Peter H. Lauritzen, Stephen J. Vavrus, Philip J. Rasch, and Minghua Zhang

Atmosphere Model . Int. J. High Perform. Comput. Appl. , 26 , 74 – 89 , doi:10.1177/1094342011428142 . Deser , C. , and Coauthors , 2012 : ENSO and Pacific decadal variability in Community Climate System Model version 4 . J. Climate , 25 , 2622 – 2651 . Dole , R. , and Coauthors , 2011 : Was there a basis for anticipating the 2010 Russian heat wave? Geophys. Res. Lett. , 38 , L06702 , doi:10.1029/2010GL046582 . Emmons , L. K. , and Coauthors , 2009 : Description and evaluation of

Full access
A. Gettelman, J. E. Kay, and K. M. Shell

clarify the aforementioned results. First, we recalculate feedbacks from the CAM5 modified Cess experiment using only 5 years of data. The feedbacks are essentially the same ( Table 3 ) as when calculated with 10 years of output, indicating that statistically 5 years is sufficient to eliminate the effects of interannual variability. For the SOM experiments, we have analyzed both 10 and 20 years of output and also found similar agreement. We also evaluated feedbacks if we use the ΔSST from the CAM4 SOM

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

1. Motivation and research questions Arctic amplification, broadly defined as greater-than-global Arctic warming in response to external forcing and/or internal climate variability, is ubiquitous in climate models and observations ( Manabe and Stouffer 1980 ; Miller et al. 2010 ; Serreze and Barry 2011 ). Despite a long and rich history of numerical model experiments and observational analysis, the relative importance of processes controlling Arctic amplification is still subject to debate

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

( Cavalieri et al.1999 ). 3. Climate change projections for the twenty-first century R. B. Neale et al. (2013, personal communication) show that CESM1(CAM5) follows the time evolution of twentieth-century globally averaged surface air temperatures better than CCSM4. As noted by Meehl et al. (2012a) , CCSM4 was somewhat warmer than the observations over the last couple decades of the twentieth century. It was speculated that inclusion of only the direct effect (without the additional cooling effects of

Full access
A. Gettelman, J. E. Kay, and J. T. Fasullo

and physical (cloud) processes. Method ( section 2 ) and models ( section 3 ) are defined below. Results are in section 4 . The paper finishes with a discussion of physical mechanisms ( section 5 ) and conclusions ( section 6 ). 2. Method We will diagnose climate feedbacks and climate sensitivity in a suite of GCM experiments, and then explore how the variability is correlated with model states. a. Sensitivity and feedbacks We use the radiative kernel method ( Soden and Held 2006 ) to estimate

Full access