skip to main content


This content will become publicly available on January 1, 2025

Title: New model ensemble reveals how forcing uncertainty and model structure alter climate simulated across CMIP generations of the Community Earth System Model

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
Award ID(s):
1847398
NSF-PAR ID:
10503708
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Publisher / Repository:
Copernicus Publications
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Geoscientific Model Development
Volume:
17
Issue:
4
ISSN:
1991-9603
Page Range / eLocation ID:
1585 to 1602
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. 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
  2. Abstract

    Simulations of 21st century climate with Community Earth System Model version 2 (CESM2) using the standard atmosphere (CAM6), denoted CESM2(CAM6), and the latest generation of the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model (WACCM6), denoted CESM2(WACCM6), are presented, and a survey of general results is described. The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of CESM2(CAM6) is 5.3°C, and CESM2(WACCM6) is 4.8°C, while the transient climate response (TCR) is 2.1°C in CESM2(CAM6) and 2.0°C in CESM2(WACCM6). Thus, these two CESM2 model versions have higher values of ECS than the previous generation of model, the CESM (CAM5) (hereafter CESM1), that had an ECS of 4.1°C, though the CESM2 versions have lower values of TCR compared to the CESM1 with a somewhat higher value of 2.3°C. All model versions produce credible simulations of the time evolution of historical global surface temperature. The higher ECS values for the CESM2 versions are reflected in higher values of global surface temperature increase by 2,100 in CESM2(CAM6) and CESM2(WACCM6) compared to CESM1 between comparable emission scenarios for the high forcing scenario. Future warming among CESM2 model versions and scenarios diverges around 2050. The larger values of TCR and ECS in CESM2(CAM6) compared to CESM1 are manifested by greater warming in the tropics. Associated with a higher climate sensitivity, for CESM2(CAM6) the first instance of an ice‐free Arctic in September occurs for all scenarios and ensemble members in the 2030–2050 time frame, but about a decade later in CESM2(WACCM6), occurring around 2040–2060.

     
    more » « less
  3. null (Ed.)
    We compare atmospheric temperature changes in satellite data and in older and newer multi-model and single-model ensembles performed under phases 5 and 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5 and CMIP6). In the lower stratosphere, multi-decadal stratospheric cooling during the period of strong ozone depletion is smaller in newer CMIP6 simulations than in CMIP5 or satellite data. In the troposphere, however, despite differences in the forcings and climate sensitivity of the CMIP5 and CMIP6 ensembles, their ensemble-average global warming over the satellite era is remarkably similar. We also examine four well-understood properties of tropical behavior governed by basic physical processes. The first three properties are ratios between trends in water vapor (WV) and trends in sea surface temperature (SST), the temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT), and the temperature of the mid- to upper troposphere (TMT). The fourth property is the ratio between TMT and SST trends. All four trend ratios are tightly constrained in CMIP simulations. Observed ratios diverge markedly when calculated with SST, TLT, and TMT trends produced by different groups. Observed data sets with larger warming of the tropical ocean surface and tropical troposphere yield atmospheric moistening that is closer to model results. For the TMT/SST ratio, model-data consistency depends on the selected combination of observed data sets used to estimate TMT and SST trends. If model expectations of these four covariance relationships are realistic, one interpretation of our findings is that they reflect a systematic low bias in satellite tropospheric temperature trends. Alternately, the observed atmospheric moistening signal may be overestimated. Given the large structural uncertainties in observed tropical TMT and SST trends, and because satellite WV data are available from one group only, it is difficult to determine which interpretation is more credible. Nevertheless, our analysis illustrates the diagnostic power of simultaneously considering multiple complementary variables and points towards possible problems with certain observed data sets. 
    more » « less
  4. Abstract

    We provide an assessment of the current and future states of Arctic sea ice simulated by the Community Earth System Model version 2 (CESM2). The CESM2 is the version of the CESM contributed to the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). We analyze changes in Arctic sea ice cover in two CESM2 configurations with differing atmospheric components: the CESM2(CAM6) and the CESM2(WACCM6). Over the historical period, the CESM2(CAM6) winter ice thickness distribution is biased thin, which leads to lower summer ice area compared to CESM2(WACCM6) and observations. In both CESM2 configurations, the timing of first ice‐free conditions is insensitive to the choice of CMIP6 future emissions scenario. In fact, the probability of an ice‐free Arctic summer remains low only if global warming stays below 1.5°C, which none of the CMIP6 scenarios achieve. By the end of the 21st century, the CESM2 simulates less ocean heat loss during the fall months compared to its previous version, delaying sea ice formation and leading to ice‐free conditions for up to 8 months under the high emissions scenario. As a result, both CESM2 configurations exhibit an accelerated decline in winter and spring ice area, a behavior that had not been previously seen in CESM simulations. Differences in climate sensitivity and higher levels of atmospheric CO2by 2100 in the CMIP6 high emissions scenario compared to its CMIP5 analog could explain why this winter ice loss was not previously simulated by the CESM.

     
    more » « less
  5. 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