An official website of the United States government
Abstract Earth system models are valuable tools for understanding how the Arctic snow‐ice system and the feedbacks therein may respond to a warming climate. In this analysis, we investigate snow on Arctic sea ice to better understand how snow conditions may change under different forcing scenarios. First, we use in situ, airborne, and satellite observations to assess the realism of the Community Earth System Model (CESM) in simulating snow on Arctic sea ice. CESM versions one and two are evaluated, with V1 being the Large Ensemble experiment (CESM1‐LE) and V2 being configured with low‐ and high‐top atmospheric components. The assessment shows CESM2 underestimates snow depth and produces overly uniform snow distributions, whereas CESM1‐LE produces a highly variable, excessively‐thick snow cover. Observations indicate that snow in CESM2 accumulates too slowly in autumn, too quickly in winter‐spring, and melts too soon and rapidly in late spring. The 1950–2050 trends in annual mean snow depths are markedly smaller in CESM2 (−0.8 cm decade−1) than in CESM1‐LE (−3.6 cm decade−1) due to CESM2 having less snow overall. A perennial, thick sea‐ice cover, cool summers, and excessive summer snowfall facilitate a thicker, longer‐lasting snow cover in CESM1‐LE. Under the SSP5‐8.5 forcing scenario, CESM2 shows that, compared to present‐day, snow on Arctic sea ice will: (1) undergo enhanced, earlier spring melt, (2) accumulate less in summer‐autumn, (3) sublimate more, and (4) facilitate marginally more snow‐ice formation. CESM2 also reveals that summers with snow‐free ice can occur ∼30–60 years before an ice‐free central Arctic, which may promote faster sea‐ice melt.
more »
« less
Improvements in Wintertime Surface Temperature Variability in the Community Earth System Model Version 2 (CESM2) Related to the Representation of Snow Density
Abstract The Community Earth System Model (CESM) is widely used for the prediction and understanding of climate variability and change. Accurate simulation of the behavior of near surface air temperature (T2m) is critical in such a model for addressing societally relevant problems. However, previous versions of CESM suffered from an overestimation of wintertimeT2mvariability in Northern Hemisphere (NH) land regions. Here, it is shown that the latest version of CESM (CESM2) exhibits a much improved representation of wintertimeT2mvariability compared to its predecessor and it now compares well with observations. A series of targeted experiments reveal that an important contributor to this improvement is the local effects of changes to the representation of snow density within the land surface component. Increased snow densities in CESM2 lead to enhanced conductance of the snow layer. As a result, larger heat fluxes across the snow layer are induced in the presence ofT2manomalies, leading to a greater dampening of surface and near surface atmospheric temperature anomalies. The implications for future projections with CESM2 are also considered through comparison of the CESM1 and CESM2 large ensembles. Aligned with the reduction in surface temperature variability, compared to CESM1, CESM2 exhibits reduced ensemble spread in future projections of NH winter mean temperature and a smaller decline in daily wintertimeT2mvariability under climate change. Overall, this improvement has increased the accuracy of CESM2 as a tool for the study of wintertimeT2mvariability and change.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1939988
- PAR ID:
- 10446536
- Publisher / Repository:
- DOI PREFIX: 10.1029
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems
- Volume:
- 14
- Issue:
- 4
- ISSN:
- 1942-2466
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract. Earth system models (ESMs) allow us to explore minimally observed components of the Antarctic Ice Sheet (AIS) climate system, both historically andunder future climate change scenarios. Here, we present and analyze surface climate output from the most recent version of the National Center forAtmospheric Research's ESM: the Community Earth System Model version 2 (CESM2). We compare AIS surface climate and surface mass balance (SMB) trendsas simulated by CESM2 with reanalysis and regional climate models and observations. We find that CESM2 substantially better represents the mean-state AIS near-surface temperature, wind speed, and surface melt compared with its predecessor, CESM1. This improvement likely results from theinclusion of new cloud microphysical parameterizations and changes made to the snow model component. However, we also find that grounded CESM2 SMB(2269 ± 100 Gt yr−1) is significantly higher than all other products used in this study and that both temperature andprecipitation are increasing across the AIS during the historical period, a trend that cannot be reconciled with observations. This study provides acomprehensive analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the representation of AIS surface climate in CESM2, work that will be especially useful inpreparation for CESM3 which plans to incorporate a coupled ice sheet model that interacts with the ocean and atmosphere.more » « less
-
Abstract The relative importance of radiative feedbacks and emissions scenarios in controlling surface warming patterns is challenging to quantify across model generations. We analyze three variants of the Community Earth System Model (CESM) with differing equilibrium climate sensitivities under identical CMIP5 historical and high‐emissions scenarios. CESM1, our base model, exhibits Arctic‐amplified warming with the least warming in the Southern Hemisphere middle latitudes. A variant of CESM1 with enhanced extratropical shortwave cloud feedbacks shows slightly increased late‐21st century warming at all latitudes. In the next‐generation model, CESM2, global‐mean warming is also slightly greater, but the warming is zonally redistributed in a pattern mirroring cloud and surface albedo feedbacks. However, if the nominally equivalent CMIP6 scenario is applied to CESM2, the redistributed warming pattern is preserved, but global‐mean warming is significantly greater. These results demonstrate how model structural differences and scenario differences combine to produce differences in climate projections across model generations.more » « less
-
Abstract. Climate simulation uncertainties arise from internal variability, model structure, and external forcings. Model intercomparisons (such as the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project; CMIP) and single-model large ensembles have provided insight into uncertainty sources. Under the Community Earth System Model (CESM) project, large ensembles have been performed for CESM2 (a CMIP6-era model) and CESM1 (a CMIP5-era model). We refer to these as CESM2-LE and CESM1-LE. The external forcing used in these simulations has changed to be consistent with their CMIP generation. As a result, differences between CESM2-LE and CESM1-LE ensemble means arise from changes in both model structure and forcing. Here we present new ensemble simulations which allow us to separate the influences of these model structural and forcing differences. Our new CESM2 simulations are run with CMIP5 forcings equivalent to those used in the CESM1-LE. We find a strong influence of historical forcing uncertainty due to aerosol effects on simulated climate. For the historical period, forcing drives reduced global warming and ocean heat uptake in CESM2-LE relative to CESM1-LE that is counteracted by the influence of model structure. The influence of the model structure and forcing vary across the globe, and the Arctic exhibits a distinct signal that contrasts with the global mean. For the 21st century, the importance of scenario forcing differences (SSP3–7.0 for CESM2-LE and RCP8.5 for CESM1-LE) is evident. The new simulations presented here allow us to diagnose the influence of model structure on 21st century change, despite large scenario forcing differences, revealing that differences in the meridional distribution of warming are caused by model structure. Feedback analysis reveals that clouds and their impact on shortwave radiation explain many of these structural differences between CESM2 and CESM1. In the Arctic, albedo changes control transient climate evolution differences due to structural differences between CESM2 and CESM1.more » « less
-
We assess Antarctic sea ice climatology and variability in version 2 of the Community Earth System Model (CESM2), and compare it to that in the older CESM1 and (where appropriate) real-world observations. In CESM2, Antarctic sea ice is thinner and less extensive than in CESM1, though sea ice area is still approximately 1 million km2 greater in CESM2 than in present-day observations. Though there is less Antarctic sea ice in CESM2, the annual cycle of ice growth and melt is more vigorous in CESM2 than in CESM1. A new mushy-layer thermodynamics formulation implemented in the latest version of the Community Ice Code (CICE) in CESM2 accounts for both greater frazil ice forma- tion in coastal polynyas and more snow-to-ice conversion near the edge of the ice pack in the new model. Greater winter ice divergence in CESM2 (relative to CESM1) is due to stronger stationary wave activity and greater wind stress curl over the ice pack. Greater wind stress curl, in turn, drives more warm water upwelling under the ice pack, thinning it and decreasing its extent. Overall, differences between Antarctic sea ice in CESM2 and CESM1 arise due to both differences in their sea ice thermodynamics formulations, and differences in their coupled atmosphere-ocean states.more » « less
