Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 10 items for

  • Author or Editor: Elena Shevliakova x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All Modify Search
Sergey Malyshev, Elena Shevliakova, Ronald J. Stouffer, and Stephen W. Pacala

Abstract

The effects of land-use and land-cover change (LULCC) on surface climate using two ensembles of numerical experiments with the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) comprehensive Earth System Model ESM2Mb are investigated in this study. The experiments simulate historical climate with two different assumptions about LULCC: 1) no land-use change with potential vegetation (PV) and 2) with the CMIP5 historical reconstruction of LULCC (LU). Two different approaches were used in the analysis: 1) the authors compare differences in LU and PV climates to evaluate the regional and global effects of LULCC and 2) the authors characterize subgrid climate differences among different land-use tiles within each grid cell in the LU experiment. Using the first method, the authors estimate the magnitude of LULCC effect to be similar to some previous studies. Using the second method, the authors found a pronounced subgrid signal of LULCC in near-surface temperature over majority of areas affected by LULCC. The signal is strongest on croplands, where it is detectable with 95% confidence over 68.5% of all nonglaciated land grid cells in June–July–August, compared to 8.3% in the first method. In agricultural areas, the subgrid signal tends to be stronger than LU–PV signal by a factor of 1.3 in tropics in both summer and winter and by 1.5 in extratropics in winter. This analysis for the first time demonstrates and quantifies the local, subgrid-scale LULCC effects with a comprehensive ESM and compares it to previous global and regional approaches.

Full access
Lori T. Sentman, Elena Shevliakova, Ronald J. Stouffer, and Sergey Malyshev

Abstract

The dynamic vegetation and carbon cycling component, LM3V, of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) prototype Earth system model (ESM2.1), has been designed to simulate the effects of land use on terrestrial carbon pools, including secondary vegetation regrowth. Because of the long time scales associated with the carbon adjustment, special consideration is required when initializing the ESM when historical simulations are conducted. Starting from an equilibrated, preindustrial climate and potential vegetation state in an offline land-only model (LM3V), estimates of historical land use are instantaneously applied in five experiments beginning in the following calendar years: 1500, 1600, 1700, 1750, and 1800. This application results in the land carbon pools experiencing an abrupt change—a carbon shock—and the secondary vegetation needs time to regrow into consistency with the harvesting history. The authors find that it takes approximately 100 years for the vegetation to recover from the carbon shock, whereas soils take at least 150 years to recover. The vegetation carbon response is driven primarily by land-use history, whereas the soil carbon response is affected by both land-use history and the geographic pattern of soil respiration rates. Based on these results, the authors recommend the application of historical land-use scenarios in 1700 to provide sufficient time for the land carbon in ESMs with secondary vegetation to equilibrate to adequately simulate carbon stores at the start of the historical integrations (i.e., 1860) in a computationally efficient manner.

Full access
Kirsten L. Findell, Elena Shevliakova, P. C. D. Milly, and Ronald J. Stouffer

Abstract

Equilibrium experiments with the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory’s climate model are used to investigate the impact of anthropogenic land cover change on climate. Regions of altered land cover include large portions of Europe, India, eastern China, and the eastern United States. Smaller areas of change are present in various tropical regions. This study focuses on the impacts of biophysical changes associated with the land cover change (albedo, root and stomatal properties, roughness length), which is almost exclusively a conversion from forest to grassland in the model; the effects of irrigation or other water management practices and the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide changes associated with land cover conversion are not included in these experiments.

The model suggests that observed land cover changes have little or no impact on globally averaged climatic variables (e.g., 2-m air temperature is 0.008 K warmer in a simulation with 1990 land cover compared to a simulation with potential natural vegetation cover). Differences in the annual mean climatic fields analyzed did not exhibit global field significance. Within some of the regions of land cover change, however, there are relatively large changes of many surface climatic variables. These changes are highly significant locally in the annual mean and in most months of the year in eastern Europe and northern India. They can be explained mainly as direct and indirect consequences of model-prescribed increases in surface albedo, decreases in rooting depth, and changes of stomatal control that accompany deforestation.

Full access
Yan Yu, John P. Dunne, Elena Shevliakova, Paul Ginoux, Sergey Malyshev, Jasmin G. John, and John P. Krasting
Open access
P. C. D. Milly, Sergey L. Malyshev, Elena Shevliakova, Krista A. Dunne, Kirsten L. Findell, Tom Gleeson, Zhi Liang, Peter Phillipps, Ronald J. Stouffer, and Sean Swenson

Abstract

LM3 is a new model of terrestrial water, energy, and carbon, intended for use in global hydrologic analyses and as a component of earth-system and physical-climate models. It is designed to improve upon the performance and to extend the scope of the predecessor Land Dynamics (LaD) and LM3V models by better quantifying the physical controls of climate and biogeochemistry and by relating more directly to components of the global water system that touch human concerns. LM3 includes multilayer representations of temperature, liquid water content, and ice content of both snowpack and macroporous soil–bedrock; topography-based description of saturated area and groundwater discharge; and transport of runoff to the ocean via a global river and lake network. Sensible heat transport by water mass is accounted throughout for a complete energy balance. Carbon and vegetation dynamics and biophysics are represented as in LM3V. In numerical experiments, LM3 avoids some of the limitations of the LaD model and provides qualitatively (though not always quantitatively) reasonable estimates, from a global perspective, of observed spatial and/or temporal variations of vegetation density, albedo, streamflow, water-table depth, permafrost, and lake levels. Amplitude and phase of annual cycle of total water storage are simulated well. Realism of modeled lake levels varies widely. The water table tends to be consistently too shallow in humid regions. Biophysical properties have an artificial stepwise spatial structure, and equilibrium vegetation is sensitive to initial conditions. Explicit resolution of thick (>100 m) unsaturated zones and permafrost is possible, but only at the cost of long (≫300 yr) model spinup times.

Full access
Chris Jones, Eddy Robertson, Vivek Arora, Pierre Friedlingstein, Elena Shevliakova, Laurent Bopp, Victor Brovkin, Tomohiro Hajima, Etsushi Kato, Michio Kawamiya, Spencer Liddicoat, Keith Lindsay, Christian H. Reick, Caroline Roelandt, Joachim Segschneider, and Jerry Tjiputra

Abstract

The carbon cycle is a crucial Earth system component affecting climate and atmospheric composition. The response of natural carbon uptake to CO2 and climate change will determine anthropogenic emissions compatible with a target CO2 pathway. For phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5), four future representative concentration pathways (RCPs) have been generated by integrated assessment models (IAMs) and used as scenarios by state-of-the-art climate models, enabling quantification of compatible carbon emissions for the four scenarios by complex, process-based models. Here, the authors present results from 15 such Earth system GCMs for future changes in land and ocean carbon storage and the implications for anthropogenic emissions. The results are consistent with the underlying scenarios but show substantial model spread. Uncertainty in land carbon uptake due to differences among models is comparable with the spread across scenarios. Model estimates of historical fossil-fuel emissions agree well with reconstructions, and future projections for representative concentration pathway 2.6 (RCP2.6) and RCP4.5 are consistent with the IAMs. For high-end scenarios (RCP6.0 and RCP8.5), GCMs simulate smaller compatible emissions than the IAMs, indicating a larger climate–carbon cycle feedback in the GCMs in these scenarios. For the RCP2.6 mitigation scenario, an average reduction of 50% in emissions by 2050 from 1990 levels is required but with very large model spread (14%–96%). The models also disagree on both the requirement for sustained negative emissions to achieve the RCP2.6 CO2 concentration and the success of this scenario to restrict global warming below 2°C. All models agree that the future airborne fraction depends strongly on the emissions profile with higher airborne fraction for higher emissions scenarios.

Full access
John P. Dunne, Jasmin G. John, Elena Shevliakova, Ronald J. Stouffer, John P. Krasting, Sergey L. Malyshev, P. C. D. Milly, Lori T. Sentman, Alistair J. Adcroft, William Cooke, Krista A. Dunne, Stephen M. Griffies, Robert W. Hallberg, Matthew J. Harrison, Hiram Levy, Andrew T. Wittenberg, Peter J. Phillips, and Niki Zadeh

Abstract

The authors describe carbon system formulation and simulation characteristics of two new global coupled carbon–climate Earth System Models (ESM), ESM2M and ESM2G. These models demonstrate good climate fidelity as described in part I of this study while incorporating explicit and consistent carbon dynamics. The two models differ almost exclusively in the physical ocean component; ESM2M uses the Modular Ocean Model version 4.1 with vertical pressure layers, whereas ESM2G uses generalized ocean layer dynamics with a bulk mixed layer and interior isopycnal layers. On land, both ESMs include a revised land model to simulate competitive vegetation distributions and functioning, including carbon cycling among vegetation, soil, and atmosphere. In the ocean, both models include new biogeochemical algorithms including phytoplankton functional group dynamics with flexible stoichiometry. Preindustrial simulations are spun up to give stable, realistic carbon cycle means and variability. Significant differences in simulation characteristics of these two models are described. Because of differences in oceanic ventilation rates, ESM2M has a stronger biological carbon pump but weaker northward implied atmospheric CO2 transport than ESM2G. The major advantages of ESM2G over ESM2M are improved representation of surface chlorophyll in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans and thermocline nutrients and oxygen in the North Pacific. Improved tree mortality parameters in ESM2G produced more realistic carbon accumulation in vegetation pools. The major advantages of ESM2M over ESM2G are reduced nutrient and oxygen biases in the southern and tropical oceans.

Full access
John P. Dunne, Jasmin G. John, Alistair J. Adcroft, Stephen M. Griffies, Robert W. Hallberg, Elena Shevliakova, Ronald J. Stouffer, William Cooke, Krista A. Dunne, Matthew J. Harrison, John P. Krasting, Sergey L. Malyshev, P. C. D. Milly, Peter J. Phillipps, Lori T. Sentman, Bonita L. Samuels, Michael J. Spelman, Michael Winton, Andrew T. Wittenberg, and Niki Zadeh

Abstract

The physical climate formulation and simulation characteristics of two new global coupled carbon–climate Earth System Models, ESM2M and ESM2G, are described. These models demonstrate similar climate fidelity as the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory’s previous Climate Model version 2.1 (CM2.1) while incorporating explicit and consistent carbon dynamics. The two models differ exclusively in the physical ocean component; ESM2M uses Modular Ocean Model version 4p1 with vertical pressure layers while ESM2G uses Generalized Ocean Layer Dynamics with a bulk mixed layer and interior isopycnal layers. Differences in the ocean mean state include the thermocline depth being relatively deep in ESM2M and relatively shallow in ESM2G compared to observations. The crucial role of ocean dynamics on climate variability is highlighted in El Niño–Southern Oscillation being overly strong in ESM2M and overly weak in ESM2G relative to observations. Thus, while ESM2G might better represent climate changes relating to total heat content variability given its lack of long-term drift, gyre circulation, and ventilation in the North Pacific, tropical Atlantic, and Indian Oceans, and depth structure in the overturning and abyssal flows, ESM2M might better represent climate changes relating to surface circulation given its superior surface temperature, salinity, and height patterns, tropical Pacific circulation and variability, and Southern Ocean dynamics. The overall assessment is that neither model is fundamentally superior to the other, and that both models achieve sufficient fidelity to allow meaningful climate and earth system modeling applications. This affords the ability to assess the role of ocean configuration on earth system interactions in the context of two state-of-the-art coupled carbon–climate models.

Full access
Thomas L. Delworth, Anthony J. Broccoli, Anthony Rosati, Ronald J. Stouffer, V. Balaji, John A. Beesley, William F. Cooke, Keith W. Dixon, John Dunne, K. A. Dunne, Jeffrey W. Durachta, Kirsten L. Findell, Paul Ginoux, Anand Gnanadesikan, C. T. Gordon, Stephen M. Griffies, Rich Gudgel, Matthew J. Harrison, Isaac M. Held, Richard S. Hemler, Larry W. Horowitz, Stephen A. Klein, Thomas R. Knutson, Paul J. Kushner, Amy R. Langenhorst, Hyun-Chul Lee, Shian-Jiann Lin, Jian Lu, Sergey L. Malyshev, P. C. D. Milly, V. Ramaswamy, Joellen Russell, M. Daniel Schwarzkopf, Elena Shevliakova, Joseph J. Sirutis, Michael J. Spelman, William F. Stern, Michael Winton, Andrew T. Wittenberg, Bruce Wyman, Fanrong Zeng, and Rong Zhang

Abstract

The formulation and simulation characteristics of two new global coupled climate models developed at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) are described. The models were designed to simulate atmospheric and oceanic climate and variability from the diurnal time scale through multicentury climate change, given our computational constraints. In particular, an important goal was to use the same model for both experimental seasonal to interannual forecasting and the study of multicentury global climate change, and this goal has been achieved.

Two versions of the coupled model are described, called CM2.0 and CM2.1. The versions differ primarily in the dynamical core used in the atmospheric component, along with the cloud tuning and some details of the land and ocean components. For both coupled models, the resolution of the land and atmospheric components is 2° latitude × 2.5° longitude; the atmospheric model has 24 vertical levels. The ocean resolution is 1° in latitude and longitude, with meridional resolution equatorward of 30° becoming progressively finer, such that the meridional resolution is 1/3° at the equator. There are 50 vertical levels in the ocean, with 22 evenly spaced levels within the top 220 m. The ocean component has poles over North America and Eurasia to avoid polar filtering. Neither coupled model employs flux adjustments.

The control simulations have stable, realistic climates when integrated over multiple centuries. Both models have simulations of ENSO that are substantially improved relative to previous GFDL coupled models. The CM2.0 model has been further evaluated as an ENSO forecast model and has good skill (CM2.1 has not been evaluated as an ENSO forecast model). Generally reduced temperature and salinity biases exist in CM2.1 relative to CM2.0. These reductions are associated with 1) improved simulations of surface wind stress in CM2.1 and associated changes in oceanic gyre circulations; 2) changes in cloud tuning and the land model, both of which act to increase the net surface shortwave radiation in CM2.1, thereby reducing an overall cold bias present in CM2.0; and 3) a reduction of ocean lateral viscosity in the extratropics in CM2.1, which reduces sea ice biases in the North Atlantic.

Both models have been used to conduct a suite of climate change simulations for the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report and are able to simulate the main features of the observed warming of the twentieth century. The climate sensitivities of the CM2.0 and CM2.1 models are 2.9 and 3.4 K, respectively. These sensitivities are defined by coupling the atmospheric components of CM2.0 and CM2.1 to a slab ocean model and allowing the model to come into equilibrium with a doubling of atmospheric CO2. The output from a suite of integrations conducted with these models is freely available online (see http://nomads.gfdl.noaa.gov/).

Full access
Leo J. Donner, Bruce L. Wyman, Richard S. Hemler, Larry W. Horowitz, Yi Ming, Ming Zhao, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Paul Ginoux, S.-J. Lin, M. Daniel Schwarzkopf, John Austin, Ghassan Alaka, William F. Cooke, Thomas L. Delworth, Stuart M. Freidenreich, C. T. Gordon, Stephen M. Griffies, Isaac M. Held, William J. Hurlin, Stephen A. Klein, Thomas R. Knutson, Amy R. Langenhorst, Hyun-Chul Lee, Yanluan Lin, Brian I. Magi, Sergey L. Malyshev, P. C. D. Milly, Vaishali Naik, Mary J. Nath, Robert Pincus, Jeffrey J. Ploshay, V. Ramaswamy, Charles J. Seman, Elena Shevliakova, Joseph J. Sirutis, William F. Stern, Ronald J. Stouffer, R. John Wilson, Michael Winton, Andrew T. Wittenberg, and Fanrong Zeng

Abstract

The Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) has developed a coupled general circulation model (CM3) for the atmosphere, oceans, land, and sea ice. The goal of CM3 is to address emerging issues in climate change, including aerosol–cloud interactions, chemistry–climate interactions, and coupling between the troposphere and stratosphere. The model is also designed to serve as the physical system component of earth system models and models for decadal prediction in the near-term future—for example, through improved simulations in tropical land precipitation relative to earlier-generation GFDL models. This paper describes the dynamical core, physical parameterizations, and basic simulation characteristics of the atmospheric component (AM3) of this model. Relative to GFDL AM2, AM3 includes new treatments of deep and shallow cumulus convection, cloud droplet activation by aerosols, subgrid variability of stratiform vertical velocities for droplet activation, and atmospheric chemistry driven by emissions with advective, convective, and turbulent transport. AM3 employs a cubed-sphere implementation of a finite-volume dynamical core and is coupled to LM3, a new land model with ecosystem dynamics and hydrology. Its horizontal resolution is approximately 200 km, and its vertical resolution ranges approximately from 70 m near the earth’s surface to 1 to 1.5 km near the tropopause and 3 to 4 km in much of the stratosphere. Most basic circulation features in AM3 are simulated as realistically, or more so, as in AM2. In particular, dry biases have been reduced over South America. In coupled mode, the simulation of Arctic sea ice concentration has improved. AM3 aerosol optical depths, scattering properties, and surface clear-sky downward shortwave radiation are more realistic than in AM2. The simulation of marine stratocumulus decks remains problematic, as in AM2. The most intense 0.2% of precipitation rates occur less frequently in AM3 than observed. The last two decades of the twentieth century warm in CM3 by 0.32°C relative to 1881–1920. The Climate Research Unit (CRU) and Goddard Institute for Space Studies analyses of observations show warming of 0.56° and 0.52°C, respectively, over this period. CM3 includes anthropogenic cooling by aerosol–cloud interactions, and its warming by the late twentieth century is somewhat less realistic than in CM2.1, which warmed 0.66°C but did not include aerosol–cloud interactions. The improved simulation of the direct aerosol effect (apparent in surface clear-sky downward radiation) in CM3 evidently acts in concert with its simulation of cloud–aerosol interactions to limit greenhouse gas warming.

Full access