7 Search Results

We illustrate the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory's CM4.0 physical climate model, with emphasis on those aspects that may be of particular importance to users of this model and its simulations. The model is built with the AM4.0/LM4.0 atmosphere/land model and OM4.0 ocean model. Topics include the rationale for key choices made in the model formulation, the stability as well as drift of the preindustrial control simulation, and comparison of key aspects of the historical simulations with observations from recent decades. Notable achievements include the relatively small biases in seasonal spatial patterns of top-of-atmosphere fluxes, surface temperature, and precipitation; reduced doublemore » Intertropical Convergence Zone bias; dramatically improved representation of ocean boundary currents; a high-quality simulation of climatological Arctic sea ice extent and its recent decline; and excellent simulation of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation spectrum and structure. Areas of concern include inadequate deep convection in the Nordic Seas; an inaccurate Antarctic sea ice simulation; precipitation and wind composites still affected by the equatorial cold tongue bias; muted variability in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation; strong 100 year quasiperiodicity in Southern Ocean ventilation; and a lack of historical warming before 1990 and too rapid warming thereafter due to high climate sensitivity and strong aerosol forcing, in contrast to the observational record. Overall, CM4.0 scores very well in its fidelity against observations compared to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 generation in terms of both mean state and modes of variability and should prove a valuable new addition for analysis across a broad array of applications.« less

Both climate forcing and climate sensitivity persist as stubborn uncertainties limiting the extent to which climate models can provide actionable scientific scenarios for climate change. A key, explicit control on cloud–aerosol interactions, the largest uncertainty in climate forcing, is the vertical velocity of cloud-scale updrafts. Model-based studies of climate sensitivity indicate that convective entrainment, which is closely related to updraft speeds, is an important control on climate sensitivity. Updraft vertical velocities also drive many physical processes essential to numerical weather prediction.Vertical velocities and their role in atmospheric physical processes have been given very limited attention in models for climate andmore » numerical weather prediction. The relevant physical scales range down to tens of meters and are thus frequently sub-grid and require parameterization. Many state-of-science convection parameterizations provide mass fluxes without specifying vertical velocities, and parameterizations that do provide vertical velocities have been subject to limited evaluation against what have until recently been scant observations. Atmospheric observations imply that the distribution of vertical velocities depends on the areas over which the vertical velocities are averaged. Distributions of vertical velocities in climate models may capture this behavior, but it has not been accounted for when parameterizing cloud and precipitation processes in current models.New observations of convective vertical velocities offer a potentially promising path toward developing process-level cloud models and parameterizations for climate and numerical weather prediction. Taking account of the scale dependence of resolved vertical velocities offers a path to matching cloud-scale physical processes and their driving dynamics more realistically, with a prospect of reduced uncertainty in both climate forcing and sensitivity.« less

In this paper, we define a set of 21 atmospheric states, or recurring weather patterns, for a region surrounding the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program's Southern Great Plains site using an iterative clustering technique. The states are defined using dynamic and thermodynamic variables from reanalysis, tested for statistical significance with cloud radar data from the Southern Great Plains site, and are determined every 6 h for 14 years, creating a time series of atmospheric state. The states represent the various stages of the progression of synoptic systems through the region (e.g., warm fronts, warm sectors, cold fronts, cold northerly advection, andmore » high-pressure anticyclones) with a subset of states representing summertime conditions with varying degrees of convective activity. We use the states to classify output from the NOAA/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory AM3 model to test the model's simulation of the frequency of occurrence of the states and of the cloud occurrence during each state. The model roughly simulates the frequency of occurrence of the states but exhibits systematic cloud occurrence biases. Comparison of observed and model-simulated International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project histograms of cloud top pressure and optical thickness shows that the model lacks high thin cloud under all conditions, but biases in thick cloud are state-dependent. Frontal conditions in the model do not produce enough thick cloud, while fair-weather conditions produce too much. Finally, we find that increasing the horizontal resolution of the model improves the representation of thick clouds under all conditions but has little effect on high thin clouds. However, increasing resolution also changes the distribution of states, causing an increase in total cloud occurrence bias.« less

Model calibration (or tuning) is a necessary part of developing and testing coupled ocean–atmosphere climate models regardless of their main scientific purpose. There is an increasing recognition that this process needs to become more transparent for both users of climate model output and other developers. Knowing how and why climate models are tuned and which targets are used is essential to avoiding possible misattributions of skillful predictions to data accommodation and vice versa. This paper describes the approach and practice of model tuning for the six major US climate modeling centers. While details differ among groups in terms of scientificmore » missions, tuning targets, and tunable parameters, there is a core commonality of approaches. Furthermore, practices differ significantly on some key aspects, in particular, in the use of initialized forecast analyses as a tool, the explicit use of the historical transient record, and the use of the present-day radiative imbalance vs. the implied balance in the preindustrial era as a target.« less

Both climate forcing and climate sensitivity persist as stubborn uncertainties limiting the extent to which climate models can provide actionable scientific scenarios for climate change. A key, explicit control on cloud-aerosol interactions, the largest uncertainty in climate forcing, is the vertical velocity of cloud-scale updrafts. Model-based studies of climate sensitivity indicate that convective entrainment, which is closely related to updraft speeds, is an important control on climate sensitivity. Updraft vertical velocities also drive many physical processes essential to numerical weather prediction. Vertical velocities and their role in atmospheric physical processes have been given very limited attention in models for climatemore » and numerical weather prediction. The relevant physical scales range down to tens of meters and are thus frequently sub-grid and require parameterization. Many state-of-science convection parameterizations provide mass fluxes without specifying vertical velocities, and parameterizations which do provide vertical velocities have been subject to limited evaluation against what have until recently been scant observations. Atmospheric observations imply that the distribution of vertical velocities depends on the areas over which the vertical velocities are averaged. Distributions of vertical velocities in climate models may capture this behavior, but it has not been accounted for when parameterizing cloud and precipitation processes in current models. New observations of convective vertical velocities offer a potentially promising path toward developing process-level cloud models and parameterizations for climate and numerical weather prediction. Taking account of scale-dependence of resolved vertical velocities offers a path to matching cloud-scale physical processes and their driving dynamics more realistically, with a prospect of reduced uncertainty in both climate forcing and sensitivity.« less

In this two–part paper, a description is provided of a version of the AM4.0/LM4.0 atmosphere/land model that will serve as a base for a new set of climate and Earth system models (CM4 and ESM4) under development at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL). This version, with roughly 100 km horizontal resolution and 33 levels in the vertical, contains an aerosol model that generates aerosol fields from emissions and a “light” chemistry mechanism designed to support the aerosol model but with prescribed ozone. In Part 1, the quality of the simulation in AMIP (Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project) mode—with prescribed seamore » surface temperatures (SSTs) and sea–ice distribution—is described and compared with previous GFDL models and with the CMIP5 archive of AMIP simulations. Here, the model's Cess sensitivity (response in the top–of–atmosphere radiative flux to uniform warming of SSTs) and effective radiative forcing are also presented. In Part 2, the model formulation is described more fully and key sensitivities to aspects of the model formulation are discussed, along with the approach to model tuning.« less

Here, in Part 2 of this two–part paper, documentation is provided of key aspects of a version of the AM4.0/LM4.0 atmosphere/land model that will serve as a base for a new set of climate and Earth system models (CM4 and ESM4) under development at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL). The quality of the simulation in AMIP (Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project) mode has been provided in Part 1. Part 2 provides documentation of key components and some sensitivities to choices of model formulation and values of parameters, highlighting the convection parameterization and orographic gravity wave drag. The approach taken tomore » tune the model's clouds to observations is a particular focal point. Care is taken to describe the extent to which aerosol effective forcing and Cess sensitivity have been tuned through the model development process, both of which are relevant to the ability of the model to simulate the evolution of temperatures over the last century when coupled to an ocean model.« less