Effective radiative forcing and adjustments in CMIP6 models

Smith, Christopher J.; Kramer, Ryan J.; Myhre, Gunnar; Alterskjær, Kari; Collins, William; Sima, Adriana; Boucher, Olivier; Dufresne, Jean-Louis; Nabat, Pierre; Michou, Martine; Yukimoto, Seiji; Cole, Jason; Paynter, David; Shiogama, Hideo; O'Connor, Fiona M.; Robertson, Eddy; Wiltshire, Andy; Andrews, Timothy; Hannay, Cécile; Miller, Ron; Nazarenko, Larissa; Kirkevåg, Alf; Olivié, Dirk; Fiedler, Stephanie; Lewinschal, Anna; Mackallah, Chloe; Dix, Martin; Pincus, Robert; Forster, Piers M.

doi:10.5194/acp-20-9591-2020

Effective radiative forcing and adjustments in CMIP6 models

Journal Article · Mon Aug 17 00:00:00 EDT 2020 · Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (Online)

DOI:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-9591-2020· OSTI ID:1647673

; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; Nabat, Pierre; Michou, Martine; ; ; ; Shiogama, Hideo; O'Connor, Fiona M.; Robertson, Eddy; Wiltshire, Andy; Andrews, Timothy; Hannay, Cécile; more »

Abstract. The effective radiative forcing, which includes the instantaneous forcing plus adjustments from the atmosphere and surface, has emerged as the key metric of evaluating human and natural influence on the climate. We evaluate effective radiative forcing and adjustments in 17 contemporary climate models that are participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) and have contributed to the Radiative Forcing Model Intercomparison Project (RFMIP). Present-day (2014) global-mean anthropogenic forcing relative to pre-industrial (1850) levels from climate models stands at 2.00 (±0.23) W m−2, comprised of 1.81 (±0.09) W m−2 from CO2, 1.08 (± 0.21) W m−2 from other well-mixed greenhouse gases, −1.01 (± 0.23) W m−2 from aerosols and −0.09 (±0.13) W m−2 from land use change. Quoted uncertainties are 1 standard deviation across model best estimates, and 90 % confidence in the reported forcings, due to internal variability, is typically within 0.1 W m−2. The majority of the remaining 0.21 W m−2 is likely to be from ozone. In most cases, the largest contributors to the spread in effective radiative forcing (ERF) is from the instantaneous radiative forcing (IRF) and from cloud responses, particularly aerosol–cloud interactions to aerosol forcing. As determined in previous studies, cancellation of tropospheric and surface adjustments means that the stratospherically adjusted radiative forcing is approximately equal to ERF for greenhouse gas forcing but not for aerosols, and consequentially, not for the anthropogenic total. The spread of aerosol forcing ranges from −0.63 to −1.37 W m−2, exhibiting a less negative mean and narrower range compared to 10 CMIP5 models. The spread in 4×CO2 forcing has also narrowed in CMIP6 compared to 13 CMIP5 models. Aerosol forcing is uncorrelated with climate sensitivity. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that the increasing spread in climate sensitivity in CMIP6 models, particularly related to high-sensitivity models, is a consequence of a stronger negative present-day aerosol forcing and little evidence that modelling groups are systematically tuning climate sensitivity or aerosol forcing to recreate observed historical warming.

View Journal Article

Sponsoring Organization:: USDOE

OSTI ID:: 1647673

Alternate ID(s):: OSTI ID: 1770589

Journal Information:: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (Online), Journal Name: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (Online) Journal Issue: 16 Vol. 20; ISSN 1680-7324

Publisher:: Copernicus Publications, EGUCopyright Statement

Country of Publication:: Germany

Language:: English

References (81)

Quantifying components of aerosol-cloud-radiation interactions in climate models Zelinka, Mark D.; Andrews, Timothy; Forster, Piers M. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 119, Issue 12 https://doi.org/10.1002/2014JD021710	journal	June 2014
Radiative flux and forcing parameterization error in aerosol-free clear skies: RADIATION PARAMETERIZATION ERRORS Pincus, Robert; Mlawer, Eli J.; Oreopoulos, Lazaros Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 42, Issue 13 https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL064291	journal	July 2015
Radiative forcing of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide: A significant revision of the methane radiative forcing: Greenhouse Gas Radiative Forcing Etminan, M.; Myhre, G.; Highwood, E. J. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 43, Issue 24 https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071930	journal	December 2016
Recommendations for diagnosing effective radiative forcing from climate models for CMIP6: RECOMMENDED EFFECTIVE RADIATIVE FORCING Forster, Piers M.; Richardson, Thomas; Maycock, Amanda C. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 121, Issue 20 https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD025320	journal	October 2016
Rapid Adjustments Cause Weak Surface Temperature Response to Increased Black Carbon Concentrations: Rapid Adjustments Cause Weak BC Response Stjern, Camilla Weum; Samset, Bjørn Hallvard; Myhre, Gunnar Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 122, Issue 21 https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD027326	journal	November 2017
The Met Office Global Coupled Model 3.0 and 3.1 (GC3.0 and GC3.1) Configurations Williams, K. D.; Copsey, D.; Blockley, E. W. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Vol. 10, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.1002/2017MS001115	journal	February 2018
Forcing and feedback in the MPI-ESM-LR coupled model under abruptly quadrupled CO ₂ : FORCING AND FEEDBACK IN THE MPI-ESM-LR Block, K.; Mauritsen, T. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Vol. 5, Issue 4 https://doi.org/10.1002/jame.20041	journal	October 2013
Evaluating adjusted forcing and model spread for historical and future scenarios in the CMIP5 generation of climate models: FORCING IN CMIP5 CLIMATE MODELS Forster, Piers M.; Andrews, Timothy; Good, Peter Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 118, Issue 3 https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50174	journal	February 2013
Studies with a flexible new radiation code. I: Choosing a configuration for a large-scale model Edwards, J. M.; Slingo, A. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, Vol. 122, Issue 531 https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49712253107	journal	April 1996
Potential predictability of Eurasian snow cover Schlosser, C. Atmospheric Science Letters, Vol. 2, Issue 1-4 https://doi.org/10.1006/asle.2001.0037	journal	June 2001
On the interpretation of inter-model spread in CMIP5 climate sensitivity estimates Vial, Jessica; Dufresne, Jean-Louis; Bony, Sandrine Climate Dynamics, Vol. 41, Issue 11-12 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1725-9	journal	March 2013
Effective radiative forcing from historical land use change Andrews, Timothy; Betts, Richard A.; Booth, Ben B. B. Climate Dynamics, Vol. 48, Issue 11-12 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-016-3280-7	journal	August 2016
Combining ERBE and ISCCP data to assess clouds in the Hadley Centre, ECMWF and LMD atmospheric climate models Webb, M.; Senior, C.; Bony, S. Climate Dynamics, Vol. 17, Issue 12 https://doi.org/10.1007/s003820100157	journal	September 2001
Low-Cloud Feedbacks from Cloud-Controlling Factors: A Review Klein, Stephen A.; Hall, Alex; Norris, Joel R. Surveys in Geophysics, Vol. 38, Issue 6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10712-017-9433-3	journal	October 2017
An alternative to radiative forcing for estimating the relative importance of climate change mechanisms: ALTERNATIVE TO RADIATIVE FORCING Shine, Keith P.; Cook, Jolene; Highwood, Eleanor J. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 30, Issue 20 https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018141	journal	October 2003
A new method for diagnosing radiative forcing and climate sensitivity Gregory, J. M. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, Issue 3 https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GL018747	journal	January 2004
Efficacy of climate forcings Hansen, J. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 110, Issue D18 https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD005776	journal	January 2005
Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity Kiehl, Jeffrey T. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, Issue 22 https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL031383	journal	January 2007
Forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivity in CMIP5 coupled atmosphere-ocean climate models: CLIMATE SENSITIVITY IN CMIP5 MODELS Andrews, Timothy; Gregory, Jonathan M.; Webb, Mark J. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 39, Issue 9 https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL051607	journal	May 2012
On the robustness of tropospheric adjustment in CMIP5 models: TROPOSPHERIC ADJUSTMENT IN CMIP5 MODELS Kamae, Youichi; Watanabe, Masahiro Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 39, Issue 23 https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL054275	journal	December 2012
Understanding Rapid Adjustments to Diverse Forcing Agents Smith, C. J.; Kramer, R. J.; Myhre, G. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 45, Issue 21 https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GL079826	journal	November 2018
Comparison of Effective Radiative Forcing Calculations Using Multiple Methods, Drivers, and Models Tang, T.; Shindell, D.; Faluvegi, G. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 124, Issue 8 https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD030188	journal	April 2019
Developments in the MPI‐M Earth System Model version 1.2 (MPI‐ESM1.2) and Its Response to Increasing CO ₂ Mauritsen, Thorsten; Bader, Jürgen; Becker, Tobias Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Vol. 11, Issue 4 https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001400	journal	April 2019
The DOE E3SM Coupled Model Version 1: Overview and Evaluation at Standard Resolution Golaz, Jean‐Christophe; Caldwell, Peter M.; Van Roekel, Luke P. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Vol. 11, Issue 7 https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001603	journal	July 2019
Causes of Higher Climate Sensitivity in CMIP6 Models Zelinka, Mark D.; Myers, Timothy A.; McCoy, Daniel T. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 47, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085782	journal	January 2020
Are Changes in Atmospheric Circulation Important for Black Carbon Aerosol Impacts on Clouds, Precipitation, and Radiation? Johnson, B. T.; Haywood, J. M.; Hawcroft, M. K. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 124, Issue 14 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD030568	journal	July 2019
Efficacy of Climate Forcings in PDRMIP Models Richardson, T. B.; Forster, P. M.; Smith, C. J. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 124, Issue 23 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD030581	journal	December 2019
Evaluation of CMIP6 DECK Experiments With CNRM‐CM6‐1 Voldoire, A.; Saint‐Martin, D.; Sénési, S. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Vol. 11, Issue 7 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001683	journal	July 2019
UKESM1: Description and Evaluation of the U.K. Earth System Model Sellar, Alistair A.; Jones, Colin G.; Mulcahy, Jane P. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001739	journal	December 2019
Evaluation of CNRM Earth System Model, CNRM‐ESM2‐1: Role of Earth System Processes in Present‐Day and Future Climate Séférian, Roland; Nabat, Pierre; Michou, Martine Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Vol. 11, Issue 12 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001791	journal	December 2019
Structure and Performance of GFDL's CM4.0 Climate Model Held, I. M.; Guo, H.; Adcroft, A. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Vol. 11, Issue 11 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001829	journal	November 2019
Forcings, Feedbacks, and Climate Sensitivity in HadGEM3‐GC3.1 and UKESM1 Andrews, Timothy; Andrews, Martin B.; Bodas‐Salcedo, Alejandro Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Vol. 11, Issue 12 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001866	journal	December 2019
The Community Earth System Model Version 2 (CESM2) Danabasoglu, G.; Lamarque, J. ‐F.; Bacmeister, J. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Vol. 12, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001916	journal	February 2020
Presentation and Evaluation of the IPSL‐CM6A‐LR Climate Model Boucher, Olivier; Servonnat, Jérôme; Albright, Anna Lea Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Vol. 12, Issue 7 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS002010	journal	July 2020
GISS‐E2.1: Configurations and Climatology Kelley, Maxwell; Schmidt, Gavin A.; Nazarenko, Larissa S. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, Vol. 12, Issue 8 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS002025	journal	August 2020
Bounding global aerosol radiative forcing of climate change Bellouin, N.; Quaas, J.; Gryspeerdt, E. Reviews of Geophysics https://doi.org/10.1029/2019RG000660	journal	November 2019
Radiative forcing and temperature trends from stratospheric ozone changes de F. Forster, Piers M.; Shine, Keith P. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 102, Issue D9 https://doi.org/10.1029/96JD03510	journal	May 1997
Offset of the potential carbon sink from boreal forestation by decreases in surface albedo Betts, Richard A. Nature, Vol. 408, Issue 6809 https://doi.org/10.1038/35041545	journal	November 2000
Energy budget constraints on climate sensitivity in light of inconstant climate feedbacks Armour, Kyle C. Nature Climate Change, Vol. 7, Issue 5 https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3278	journal	April 2017
Latest climate models confirm need for urgent mitigation Forster, Piers M.; Maycock, Amanda C.; McKenna, Christine M. Nature Climate Change, Vol. 10, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0660-0	journal	December 2019
A real-time Global Warming Index Haustein, K.; Allen, M. R.; Forster, P. M. Scientific Reports, Vol. 7, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-14828-5	journal	November 2017
Observationally constrained aerosol–cloud semi-direct effects Allen, Robert J.; Amiri-Farahani, Anahita; Lamarque, Jean-Francois npj Climate and Atmospheric Science, Vol. 2, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-019-0073-9	journal	May 2019
Configuration and spin-up of ACCESS-CM2, the new generation Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator Coupled Model Bi, Daohua; Dix, Martin; Marsland, Simon Journal of Southern Hemisphere Earth Systems Science https://doi.org/10.1071/ES19040	journal	January 2020
An assessment of methods for computing radiative forcing in climate models Chung, Eui-Seok; Soden, Brian J. Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 10, Issue 7 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/7/074004	journal	July 2015
The influence of non-CO ₂ forcings on cumulative carbon emissions budgets Tokarska, Katarzyna B.; Gillett, Nathan P.; Arora, Vivek K. Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 13, Issue 3 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaafdd	journal	March 2018
Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes Santer, B. D. Science, Vol. 301, Issue 5632 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1084123	journal	July 2003
Aerosols, Cloud Microphysics, and Fractional Cloudiness Albrecht, B. A. Science, Vol. 245, Issue 4923 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.245.4923.1227	journal	September 1989
Reducing uncertainties in climate models Soden, Brian J.; Collins, William D.; Feldman, Daniel R. Science, Vol. 361, Issue 6400 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau1864	journal	July 2018
W ATER V APOR F EEDBACK AND G LOBAL W ARMING Held, Isaac M.; Soden, Brian J. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, Vol. 25, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.441	journal	November 2000
The Influence of Pollution on the Shortwave Albedo of Clouds Twomey, S. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Vol. 34, Issue 7 https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1977)034<1149:TIOPOT>2.0.CO;2	journal	July 1977
Using the Radiative Kernel Technique to Calculate Climate Feedbacks in NCAR’s Community Atmospheric Model Shell, Karen M.; Kiehl, Jeffrey T.; Shields, Christine A. Journal of Climate, Vol. 21, Issue 10 https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JCLI2044.1	journal	May 2008
Quantifying Climate Feedbacks Using Radiative Kernels Soden, Brian J.; Held, Isaac M.; Colman, Robert Journal of Climate, Vol. 21, Issue 14 https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JCLI2110.1	journal	July 2008
Adjustments in the Forcing-Feedback Framework for Understanding Climate Change Sherwood, Steven C.; Bony, Sandrine; Boucher, Olivier Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 96, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00167.1	journal	February 2015
CMIP5 Scientific Gaps and Recommendations for CMIP6 Stouffer, R. J.; Eyring, V.; Meehl, G. A. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 98, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00013.1	journal	January 2017
PDRMIP: A Precipitation Driver and Response Model Intercomparison Project—Protocol and Preliminary Results Myhre, G.; Forster, P. M.; Samset, B. H. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 98, Issue 6 https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0019.1	journal	June 2017
Computing and Partitioning Cloud Feedbacks Using Cloud Property Histograms. Part I: Cloud Radiative Kernels Zelinka, Mark D.; Klein, Stephen A.; Hartmann, Dennis L. Journal of Climate, Vol. 25, Issue 11 https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00248.1	journal	June 2012
Using Relative Humidity as a State Variable in Climate Feedback Analysis Held, Isaac M.; Shell, Karen M. Journal of Climate, Vol. 25, Issue 8 https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00721.1	journal	April 2012
On the Longwave Climate Feedbacks Huang, Yi Journal of Climate, Vol. 26, Issue 19 https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00025.1	journal	October 2013
Indirect Aerosol Effect Increases CMIP5 Models’ Projected Arctic Warming Chylek, Petr; Vogelsang, Timothy J.; Klett, James D. Journal of Climate, Vol. 29, Issue 4 https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0362.1	journal	February 2016
Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) Top-of-Atmosphere (TOA) Edition-4.0 Data Product Loeb, Norman G.; Doelling, David R.; Wang, Hailan Journal of Climate, Vol. 31, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0208.1	journal	January 2018
Estimating Shortwave Radiative Forcing and Response in Climate Models Taylor, K. E.; Crucifix, M.; Braconnot, P. Journal of Climate, Vol. 20, Issue 11 https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI4143.1	journal	June 2007
Global and Arctic effective radiative forcing of anthropogenic gases and aerosols in MRI-ESM2.0 Oshima, Naga; Yukimoto, Seiji; Deushi, Makoto Progress in Earth and Planetary Science, Vol. 7, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40645-020-00348-w	journal	August 2020
The Meteorological Research Institute Earth System Model Version 2.0, MRI-ESM2.0: Description and Basic Evaluation of the Physical Component Yukimoto, Seiji; Kawai, Hideaki; Koshiro, Tsuyoshi Journal of the Meteorological Society of Japan. Ser. II, Vol. 97, Issue 5 https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.2019-051	journal	January 2019
Historical (1850–2000) gridded anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions of reactive gases and aerosols: methodology and application Lamarque, J. -F.; Bond, T. C.; Eyring, V. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 10, Issue 15 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-7017-2010	journal	January 2010
Estimates of aerosol radiative forcing from the MACC re-analysis Bellouin, N.; Quaas, J.; Morcrette, J. -J. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 13, Issue 4 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-2045-2013	journal	January 2013
Technical Note: Estimating aerosol effects on cloud radiative forcing Ghan, S. J. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 13, Issue 19 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-9971-2013	journal	January 2013
Separating radiative forcing by aerosol–cloud interactions and rapid cloud adjustments in the ECHAM–HAMMOZ aerosol–climate model using the method of partial radiative perturbations Mülmenstädt, Johannes; Gryspeerdt, Edward; Salzmann, Marc Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 19, Issue 24 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-15415-2019	journal	January 2019
Surprising similarities in model and observational aerosol radiative forcing estimates Gryspeerdt, Edward; Mülmenstädt, Johannes; Gettelman, Andrew Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 20, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-613-2020	journal	January 2020
On the climate sensitivity and historical warming evolution in recent coupled model ensembles Flynn, Clare Marie; Mauritsen, Thorsten Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 20, Issue 13 https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-7829-2020	journal	January 2020
Surface and top-of-atmosphere radiative feedback kernels for CESM-CAM5 Pendergrass, Angeline G.; Conley, Andrew; Vitt, Francis M. Earth System Science Data, Vol. 10, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-317-2018	journal	January 2018
Radiative forcing of climate change from the Copernicus reanalysis of atmospheric composition Bellouin, Nicolas; Davies, Will; Shine, Keith P. Earth System Science Data, Vol. 12, Issue 3 https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-1649-2020	journal	January 2020
Historical greenhouse gas concentrations for climate modelling (CMIP6) Meinshausen, Malte; Vogel, Elisabeth; Nauels, Alexander Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 10, Issue 5 https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2057-2017	journal	January 2017
AerChemMIP: quantifying the effects of chemistry and aerosols in CMIP6 Collins, William J.; Lamarque, Jean-François; Schulz, Michael Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 10, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-585-2017	journal	January 2017
FAIR v1.3: a simple emissions-based impulse response and carbon cycle model Smith, Christopher J.; Forster, Piers M.; Allen, Myles Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 11, Issue 6 https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2273-2018	journal	January 2018
Historical (1750–2014) anthropogenic emissions of reactive gases and aerosols from the Community Emissions Data System (CEDS) Hoesly, Rachel M.; Smith, Steven J.; Feng, Leyang Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 11, Issue 1 https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-369-2018	journal	January 2018
A production-tagged aerosol module for Earth system models, OsloAero5.3 – extensions and updates for CAM5.3-Oslo Kirkevåg, Alf; Grini, Alf; Olivié, Dirk Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 11, Issue 10 https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3945-2018	journal	January 2018
Global emissions pathways under different socioeconomic scenarios for use in CMIP6: a dataset of harmonized emissions trajectories through the end of the century Gidden, Matthew J.; Riahi, Keywan; Smith, Steven J. Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 12, Issue 4 https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1443-2019	journal	January 2019
Description and basic evaluation of simulated mean state, internal variability, and climate sensitivity in MIROC6 Tatebe, Hiroaki; Ogura, Tomoo; Nitta, Tomoko Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 12, Issue 7 https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2727-2019	journal	January 2019
The Canadian Earth System Model version 5 (CanESM5.0.3) Swart, Neil C.; Cole, Jason N. S.; Kharin, Viatcheslav V. Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 12, Issue 11 https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4823-2019	journal	January 2019
Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization Eyring, Veronika; Bony, Sandrine; Meehl, Gerald A. Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 9, Issue 5 https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016	journal	January 2016
The Radiative Forcing Model Intercomparison Project (RFMIP): experimental protocol for CMIP6 Pincus, Robert; Forster, Piers M.; Stevens, Bjorn Geoscientific Model Development, Vol. 9, Issue 9 https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3447-2016	journal	January 2016

Similar Records

Why Does E3SMv2 Have High Aerosol Sensitivity?

Technical Report · Fri Sep 01 00:00:00 EDT 2023 · OSTI ID:1999725

Radiative forcing in the ACCMIP historical and future climate simulations

Journal Article · Mon Dec 31 23:00:00 EST 2012 · Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (Online) · OSTI ID:1072890

Effective radiative forcing and adjustments in CMIP6 models

Citation Formats

References (81)

Similar Records

Related Subjects