Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Climate Model Test Beds: Calibrating Nonlinear ESMs focused on E3SM/ACME  (Read 22834 times)

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13516
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Model Test Beds: Calibrating Nonlinear ESMs focused on ACME
« Reply #150 on: October 23, 2017, 09:45:18 PM »
Personally, I suspect that Sentinel-5P's instrument, Tropomi, will show that trends in the Arctic Stratospheric Ozone will lead to more frequent Super El Nino events; which may significantly increase the effective value of ECS later this century:

Title: "Can we solve the mysteries of Earth's atmosphere?"

http://www.euronews.com/2017/10/19/can-we-solve-the-mysteries-of-earth-s-atmosphere

Extract: "Several thousand weather balloons are launched worldwide every day, but it’s not enough to get a really global picture. To do that, you need to go to space, and that’s exactly what ESA’s Sentinel-5P satellite did on launch on 13th October this year.

It’s part of the European Commission’s Copernicus Earth observation programme, and will measure pollution and ozone levels in unprecedented detail, offering vital information on where harmful emission come from, and where they go.

“You have one satellite instrument measuring the complete globe,” stresses Pieternel Levelt, “It means that you have one calibrated instrument measuring everywhere – it means that you can compare the pollution levels in Europe directly with those in China and United States.”

Sentinel-5P’s instrument, Tropomi, developed in the Netherlands, could also be the instrument to clear up the mystery of whether our planet’s ozone layer is on the road to recovery, after harmful CFCs were banned in 1989."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13516
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Model Test Beds: Calibrating Nonlinear ESMs focused on ACME
« Reply #151 on: October 24, 2017, 03:37:08 PM »
It is important that CMIP6 models be properly calibrated to account for stratospheric water vapor and methane:

Noël, S., Weigel, K., Bramstedt, K., Rozanov, A., Weber, M., Bovensmann, H., and Burrows, J. P.: Water Vapour and Methane Coupling in the Stratosphere observed with SCIAMACHY Solar Occultation Measurements, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2017-893, in review, 2017.

https://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/acp-2017-893/

Abstract. An improved stratospheric water vapour data set has been derived from SCIAMACHY/ENVISAT solar occultation measurements.

It is based on the same algorithm which has already been successfully applied to methane and carbon dioxide retrievals, thus resulting in a consistent data set for theses three constituents covering the altitudes 17–45 km, the latitude range between about 50 and 70° N, and the time interval August 2002 to April 2012.

The new water vapour data agree with collocated results from ACE-FTS and MLS/Aura within about 5 %. A significant positive water vapour trend for the time 2003–2011 is observed at lower stratospheric altitudes of about 0.015 ppmv/year around 17 km. Between 30 and 37 km the trends become significantly negative (about −0.01 ppmv/year).

The combined analysis of the SCIAMACHY methane and water vapour time series reveals that stratospheric methane and water vapour are strongly correlated and show a clear temporal variation related to the Quasi-Biannual-Oscillation (QBO). Above about 20 km most of the water vapour seems to be produced by methane, but short-term fluctuations and a temporal variation on a scale of 5–6 years are observed.

At lower altitudes the balance between water vapour and methane is affected by stratospheric transport of water vapour and methane from the tropics to higher latitudes via the shallow branch of the Brewer-Dobson circulation and by the increasing methane input into the stratosphere due to the rise of tropospheric methane after 2007.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13516
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Model Test Beds: Calibrating Nonlinear ESMs focused on ACME
« Reply #152 on: October 24, 2017, 03:57:01 PM »
Attribution is a big part of calibrating ESM projections:

Andrew D. King (23 October 2017), "Attributing changing rates of temperature record-breaking to anthropogenic influences", Earth's Future, DOI: 10.1002/2017EF000611

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017EF000611/abstract?utm_content=buffera7789&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Abstract: "Record-breaking temperatures attract attention from the media, so understanding how and why the rate of record-breaking is changing may be useful in communicating the effects of climate change. A simple methodology designed for estimating the anthropogenic influence on rates of record-breaking in a given timeseries is proposed here. The frequency of hot and cold record-breaking temperature occurrences is shown to be changing due to the anthropogenic influence on the climate. Using ensembles of model simulations with and without human-induced forcings, it is demonstrated that the effect of climate change on global record-breaking temperatures can be detected as far back as the 1930s. On local scales, a climate change signal is detected more recently at most locations. The anthropogenic influence on the increased occurrence of hot record-breaking temperatures is clearer than it is for the decreased occurrence of cold records. The approach proposed here could be applied in rapid attribution studies of record extremes to quantify the influence of climate change on the rate of record-breaking in addition to the climate anomaly being studied. This application is demonstrated for the global temperature record of 2016 and the Central England temperature record in 2014."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13516
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Model Test Beds: Calibrating Nonlinear ESMs focused on ACME
« Reply #153 on: October 26, 2017, 08:54:18 PM »
Climate scientists will need to re-calibrate their paleo climate models to account for the linked finding that paleo-ocean temperatures were cooler than previously assumed:

Bernard et. al. (2017), "Burial-induced oxygen-isotope re-equilibration of fossil foraminifera explains ocean paleotemperature paradoxes", Nature Communications, doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-01225-9

http://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01225-9

See also:

Title: "Oceans Were Colder Than We Thought"

https://www.rdmag.com/news/2017/10/oceans-were-colder-we-thought

Extract: "A team of EPFL and European researchers has discovered a flaw in the way past ocean temperatures have been estimated up to now. Their findings could mean that the current period of climate change is unparalleled over the last 100 million years.

According to the methodology widely used by the scientific community, the temperature of the ocean depths 100 million years ago was around 15 degrees higher than current readings. This approach, however, is now being challenged: ocean temperatures may in fact have remained relatively stable throughout this period, which raises serious concerns about current levels of climate change. These are the conclusions of a study conducted by a team of French researchers from the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS), Sorbonne University and the University of Strasbourg, and Swiss researchers from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL) and the University of Lausanne. The study has just been published in Nature Communications.

“If we are right, our study challenges decades of paleoclimate research,” says Anders Meibom, the head of EPFL’s Laboratory for Biological Geochemistry and a professor at the University of Lausanne. Meibom is categorical: “Oceans cover 70% of our planet. They play a key role in the earth’s climate. Knowing the extent to which their temperatures have varied over geological time is crucial if we are to gain a fuller understanding of how they behave and to predict the consequences of current climate change more accurately.”"
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13516
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Model Test Beds: Calibrating Nonlinear ESMs focused on ACME
« Reply #154 on: October 30, 2017, 10:58:30 PM »
The linked article and associated linked reference study MIS 19 (an interglacial period between 780 and 760 kya) that is particularly relevant to climate sensitivity during the Holocene and they find that the two warmest periods demonstrated particularly high climate sensitivities.  Hopefully, CMIP6 will calibrate their models accordingly:

Title: "Rapid climate changes across northern hemisphere in the earliest Middle Pleistocene"

https://phys.org/news/2017-09-rapid-climate-northern-hemisphere-earliest.html

Extract: "In the interglacial period between 780 and 760 thousand years ago, the Earth's orbital patterns were quite similar to the current (Holocene) era, so this interglacial climate could be useful in predicting the Earth's future climate.

This shows that the second half of this interglacial period, namely the earliest stage of the Middle Pleistocene, was a time of extreme climate change when ice sheets expanded and shrunk causing changes of several meters in sea levels, repeating every 500 to 2000 years.

The phenomenon of rapid temperature rises modulated by bi-centennial cycles ending with a sudden freeze only occurred during a very brief portion of this interglacial period, during the two warmest periods. There is a high possibility that this 200 year period marks the de Vries Cycle (205 years), when the climate was particularly sensitive to solar activity."

See also the associated reference at:

Masayuki Hyodo et al. Millennial-scale northern Hemisphere Atlantic-Pacific climate teleconnections in the earliest Middle Pleistocene, Scientific Reports (2017). DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-10552-2

http://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-10552-2
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13516
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Model Test Beds: Calibrating Nonlinear ESMs focused on ACME
« Reply #155 on: November 07, 2017, 04:52:05 PM »
The linked reference indicates that resolution is a fundamental issue/problem for calibrating coupled climate-ice-sheet models to match the observed paleo-record.  This is not reassuring given that we may soon be moving into Super Interglacial conditions, which none of our current models can simulate.

Löfverström, M. and Liakka, J.: A note on the influence of atmospheric model resolution in coupled climate–ice-sheet simulations, The Cryosphere Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2017-235, in review, 2017.

https://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/tc-2017-235/

Abstract. Coupled climate–ice-sheet simulations have been growing in popularity in recent years. Experiments of this type are however challenging as ice sheets evolve over multi-millennial time scales, which is beyond the practical integration limit for most Earth-system models. A common method to increase model throughput is to trade resolution for computational efficiency (compromises accuracy for speed). Here, we analyze how the resolution of an atmospheric general circulation model (AGCM) influences the simulation quality of a standalone ice-sheet model. Four identical AGCM simulations of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) were run at different horizontal resolutions: T85 (1.4°), T42 (2.8°), T31 (3.8°), and T21 (5.6°). These simulations were subsequently used as forcing of an ice-sheet model. While the T85 climate forcing reproduces the LGM ice sheets to a high accuracy, the intermediate resolution cases (T42 and T31) fail to build the Eurasian Ice Sheet. The T21 case fails in both Eurasia and North America. Sensitivity experiments using different surface mass balance parameterizations improve the simulations of the Eurasian ice-sheet in the T42 case, but the compromise is a substantial ice buildup in Siberia. The T31 and T21 cases are not improving in the same way in Eurasia, though the latter simulates the continent-wide Laurentide Ice Sheet in North America. The difficulty to reproduce the LGM ice sheets in the T21 case is in broad agreement with previous studies using low-resolution atmospheric models, and is caused by a deterioration of the atmospheric climate between the T31 and T21 resolutions. It is speculated that this deficiency may demonstrate a fundamental problem using low-resolution atmospheric models in these types of experiments.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13516
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Model Test Beds: Calibrating Nonlinear ESMs focused on ACME
« Reply #156 on: November 10, 2017, 04:17:13 PM »
The linked reference indicates that in the pre-industrial era about two thirds of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) came from biogenic vapors vs only about half today.  This means that clouds were different in the past compared with today, and that the nature tomorrow's clouds will depend on a combination of how much we clean-up anthropogenic aerosol emissions and also how well biogenic vapor sources fare (including deforestation impacts) in the future.  Climate models (e.g. CMIP6) should be calibrated with this information in mind:

Hamish Gordon, et al (24 August 2017), "Causes and importance of new particle formation in the present-day and preindustrial atmospheres" JGR Atmospheres, DOI: 10.1002/2017JD026844

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017JD026844/abstract

Abstract: "New particle formation has been estimated to produce around half of cloud-forming particles in the present-day atmosphere, via gas-to-particle conversion. Here we assess the importance of new particle formation (NPF) for both the present-day and the preindustrial atmospheres. We use a global aerosol model with parametrizations of NPF from previously published CLOUD chamber experiments involving sulfuric acid, ammonia, organic molecules, and ions. We find that NPF produces around 67% of cloud condensation nuclei at 0.2% supersaturation (CCN0.2%) at the level of low clouds in the preindustrial atmosphere (estimated uncertainty range 45–84%) and 54% in the present day (estimated uncertainty range 38–66%). Concerning causes, we find that the importance of biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOCs) in NPF and CCN formation is greater than previously thought. Removing BVOCs and hence all secondary organic aerosol from our model reduces low-cloud-level CCN concentrations at 0.2% supersaturation by 26% in the present-day atmosphere and 41% in the preindustrial. Around three quarters of this reduction is due to the tiny fraction of the oxidation products of BVOCs that have sufficiently low volatility to be involved in NPF and early growth. Furthermore, we estimate that 40% of preindustrial CCN0.2% are formed via ion-induced NPF, compared with 27% in the present day, although we caution that the ion-induced fraction of NPF involving BVOCs is poorly measured at present. Our model suggests that the effect of changes in cosmic ray intensity on CCN is small and unlikely to be comparable to the effect of large variations in natural primary aerosol emissions."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13516
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Model Test Beds: Calibrating Nonlinear ESMs focused on ACME
« Reply #157 on: November 10, 2017, 05:19:54 PM »
The linked reference studies the paleo decay of the Cordilleran ice sheet and finds that it lost most of its ice mass earlier than consensus science previously thought, and it lost much of its ice mass over a relatively short period.  CMIP6 models should be calibrated with such information which indicates that dry land ice sheets may be less stable during global warming periods.  Personally, I am concerned about the impact of rainfall at increasingly high latitudes (with warming) on both the Greenland Ice Sheet, on Arctic permafrost, and on the WAIS:

B. Menounos et al (10 Nov 2017), "Cordilleran Ice Sheet mass loss preceded climate reversals near the Pleistocene Termination", Science, Vol. 358, Issue 6364, pp. 781-784, DOI: 10.1126/science.aan3001

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6364/781

Abstract: "The Cordilleran Ice Sheet (CIS) once covered an area comparable to that of Greenland. Previous geologic evidence and numerical models indicate that the ice sheet covered much of westernmost Canada as late as 12.5 thousand years ago (ka). New data indicate that substantial areas throughout westernmost Canada were ice free prior to 12.5 ka and some as early as 14.0 ka, with implications for climate dynamics and the timing of meltwater discharge to the Pacific and Arctic oceans. Early Bølling-Allerød warmth halved the mass of the CIS in as little as 500 years, causing 2.5 to 3.0 meters of sea-level rise. Dozens of cirque and valley glaciers, along with the southern margin of the CIS, advanced into recently deglaciated regions during the Bølling-Allerød and Younger Dryas."

Disappearance of an ice sheet

The Cordilleran Ice Sheet is thought to have covered westernmost Canada until about 13,000 years ago, even though the warming and sea level rise of the last deglaciation had begun more than a thousand years earlier. This out-of-phase behavior has puzzled glaciologists because it is not clear what mechanisms could account for it. Menounos et al. report measurements of the ages of cirque and valley glaciers that show that much of western Canada was ice-free as early as 14,000 years ago—a finding that better agrees with the record of global ice volume (see the Perspective by Marcott and Shakun). Previous reconstructions seem not to have adequately reflected the complexity of ice sheet decay.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13516
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Model Test Beds: Calibrating Nonlinear ESMs focused on ACME
« Reply #158 on: November 11, 2017, 11:19:29 PM »
Calibrating CMIP6 models to lessons learned from the last glacial maximum is a good idea:

Kageyam et al. (2017), "The PMIP4 contribution to CMIP6–Part4: Scientific objectives and experimental design of the PMIP4-CMIP6 Last Glacial Maximum experiments and PMIP4 sensitivity experiments", Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 4035–4055, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4035-2017

https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/10/4035/2017/gmd-10-4035-2017-relations.html
&
https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/10/4035/2017/gmd-10-4035-2017.pdf

Abstract: "Abstract. The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM, 21000 years ago) is one of the suite of paleoclimate simulations included in the current phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). It is an interval when insolation was similar to the present, but global ice volume was at a maximum, eustatic sea level was at or close to a minimum, green house gas concentrations were lower, atmospheric aerosol loadings were higher than today, and vegetation and land surface characteristics were different from today. The LGM has been a focus for the Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project (PMIP) since its inception, and thus many of the problems that might be associated with simulating such a radically different climate are well documented. The LGM state provides an ideal case study for evaluating climate model performance because the changes in forcing and temperature between the LGM and pre-industrial are of the same order of magnitude as those projected for the end of the 21st century. Thus, the CMIP6 LGM experiment could provide additional information that can be used to constrain estimates of climate sensitivity. The design of the Tier 1 LGM experiment (lgm) includes an assessment of uncertainties in boundary conditions, in particular through the use of different reconstructions of the ice sheets and of the change in dust forcing. Additional (Tier 2) sensitivity experiments have been designed to quantify feedbacks associated with land surface changes and aerosol loadings, and to isolate the role of individual forcings. Model analysis and evaluation will capitalize on the relative abundance of paleoenvironmental observations and quantitative climate reconstructions already available for the LGM."

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13516
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Model Test Beds: Calibrating Nonlinear ESMs focused on ACME
« Reply #159 on: November 14, 2017, 12:37:02 AM »
The linked reference discusses the study of microbial assemblages in the paleoceanographic record to better understand the sulfate-methane transition zone.  Such information could better delineate risks of future methane releases from Arctic marine sediments:

Han et al. (2017), "Inference on Paleoclimate Change Using Microbial Habitat Preference in Arctic Holocene Sediment", Scientific Reports 7, Article #9652, doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-08757-6

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-08757-6
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13516
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Model Test Beds: Calibrating Nonlinear ESMs focused on ACME
« Reply #160 on: November 25, 2017, 04:37:28 PM »
Calibrating CMIP6 models to lessons learned from 850 to 1849, and from 1850 to 2014, is a good idea

Jungclaus, J. H., Bard, E., Baroni, M., Braconnot, P., Cao, J., Chini, L. P., Egorova, T., Evans, M., González-Rouco, J. F., Goosse, H., Hurtt, G. C., Joos, F., Kaplan, J. O., Khodri, M., Klein Goldewijk, K., Krivova, N., LeGrande, A. N., Lorenz, S. J., Luterbacher, J., Man, W., Maycock, A. C., Meinshausen, M., Moberg, A., Muscheler, R., Nehrbass-Ahles, C., Otto-Bliesner, B. I., Phipps, S. J., Pongratz, J., Rozanov, E., Schmidt, G. A., Schmidt, H., Schmutz, W., Schurer, A., Shapiro, A. I., Sigl, M., Smerdon, J. E., Solanki, S. K., Timmreck, C., Toohey, M., Usoskin, I. G., Wagner, S., Wu, C.-J., Yeo, K. L., Zanchettin, D., Zhang, Q., and Zorita, E.: The PMIP4 contribution to CMIP6 – Part 3: The last millennium, scientific objective, and experimental design for the PMIP4 past1000 simulations, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 4005-4033, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4005-2017, 2017

https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/10/4005/2017/

Abstract. The pre-industrial millennium is among the periods selected by the Paleoclimate Model Intercomparison Project (PMIP) for experiments contributing to the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) and the fourth phase of the PMIP (PMIP4). The past1000 transient simulations serve to investigate the response to (mainly) natural forcing under background conditions not too different from today, and to discriminate between forced and internally generated variability on interannual to centennial timescales. This paper describes the motivation and the experimental set-ups for the PMIP4-CMIP6 past1000 simulations, and discusses the forcing agents orbital, solar, volcanic, and land use/land cover changes, and variations in greenhouse gas concentrations. The past1000 simulations covering the pre-industrial millennium from 850 Common Era (CE) to 1849 CE have to be complemented by historical simulations (1850 to 2014 CE) following the CMIP6 protocol. The external forcings for the past1000 experiments have been adapted to provide a seamless transition across these time periods. Protocols for the past1000 simulations have been divided into three tiers. A default forcing data set has been defined for the Tier 1 (the CMIP6 past1000) experiment. However, the PMIP community has maintained the flexibility to conduct coordinated sensitivity experiments to explore uncertainty in forcing reconstructions as well as parameter uncertainty in dedicated Tier 2 simulations. Additional experiments (Tier 3) are defined to foster collaborative model experiments focusing on the early instrumental period and to extend the temporal range and the scope of the simulations. This paper outlines current and future research foci and common analyses for collaborative work between the PMIP and the observational communities (reconstructions, instrumental data).
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13516
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Model Test Beds: Calibrating Nonlinear ESMs focused on ACME
« Reply #161 on: December 01, 2017, 05:31:42 PM »
The linked article and subsequent associated linked references, address efforts to improve/advance climate forecasting.  While the article addresses a range of efforts from correcting model bias to predicting snow (& associated albedo effects) distribution, in this post I only extract sections related to efforts to better understand the telecommunication of tropical heat energy to the Arctic (see the attached image & caption, which does not show telecommunications of tropical heat energy to Antarctica, which also occurs).  While climate modelers are working hard to improve their projections, I noted that none of the efforts discussed consider the impacts of freshwater hosing events (such as the possible collapse of the WAIS this century).

Merryfield, W. J., F. J. Doblas-Reyes, L. Ferranti, J.-H. Jeong, Y. J. Orsolini, R. I. Saurral, A. A. Scaife, M. A. Tolstykh, and M. Rixen (2017), Advancing climate forecasting, Eos, 98, https://doi.org/10.1029/2017EO086891

https://eos.org/project-updates/advancing-climate-forecasting?utm_source=eos&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EosBuzz120117

Extract: "The heaviest rainfall on Earth occurs over tropical oceans. As water vapor condenses to form droplets in the moist tropical air, the water releases substantial amounts of latent heat. This heat produces deep convection currents that propel the resulting clouds to great heights. The accompanying uplift turns into divergent horizontal winds near the tops of these clouds, high in the troposphere.

Variations in climate alter the patterns of tropical rainfall from year to year. Shifts in upper level divergent winds drive disturbances in atmospheric circulation. These disturbances, known as Rossby or planetary waves, propagate eastward and poleward away from the equator in the winter hemisphere and affect atmospheric circulation in the extratropical regions, outside of the tropics. Such tropical influences on extratropical climate are known as teleconnections (Figure 1).

In some regions of the tropics, climate variations are relatively predictable because strong couplings between the tropical ocean and atmosphere modulate climate on relatively slow oceanic timescales. The most prominent such modulation is the El Niño–Southern Oscillation.
Because the predictable tropical climate influences the less predictable extratropical climate through teleconnections, tropical predictability could enable skillful predictions of the extratropical climate.

These interconnections raise several important and related questions:
•   How much do tropical teleconnections contribute to extratropical climate variability?
•   How well are extratropical circulation responses to tropical climate variability represented in current climate models?
•   To what extent can improvements in the modeling of teleconnections improve the skill of extratropical climate forecasts?

To address these questions, the WGSIP teleconnection initiative is examining how well climate forecast models represent the chain of causation connecting variations in tropical rainfall to planetary wave forcing and propagation and hence to modulation of extratropical climate. A pilot analysis of one model [Scaife et al., 2017] is being extended to many models, drawing on the CHFP archive and other hindcast data sources.

Recent results [Molteni et al., 2015] indicate that teleconnections are more directly connected to tropical rainfall than sea surface temperature, which has often been used to infer teleconnection driving. In addition, climate forecast models show encouraging levels of skill at predicting seasonal rainfall in all tropical ocean basins during the Northern Hemisphere’s winter months, especially in the eastern and western Pacific.

Ongoing efforts will determine how well different models represent the sources and propagation of planetary waves driven by tropical rainfall. We will then relate those model attributes to skill in forecasting winter climate variations in the northern extratropics, including the Arctic and North Atlantic oscillations."

Caption: "Fig. 1. Averaged atmospheric response during winter in the Northern Hemisphere to recent El Niño events, connecting atmospheric changes in the tropics with those at latitudes farther north and south. Dots represent approximate pathways of planetary waves [after Scaife et al., 2017]. Colors show associated changes in sea level pressure (SLP) in hectopascals (hPa), indicative of atmospheric circulation changes. In the Northern Hemisphere, changes are clockwise for positive contours, represented by warm colors, and counterclockwise for negative contours, represented by cool colors; these directions are opposite in the Southern Hemisphere. Credit: Adam Scaife"

See also:
Scaife, A. A., et al. (2017), Tropical rainfall, Rossby waves and regional winter climate predictions, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 143, 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2910.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2910/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+unavailable+on+2nd+Dec+2017+starting+from+0800+EST+%2F+1300+GMT+%2F+21.00+SGT+for+2.5+hours+due+to+urgent+server+maintenance.+Apologies+for+the+inconvenience.

Abstract: "Skilful climate predictions of the winter North Atlantic Oscillation and Arctic Oscillation out to a few months ahead have recently been demonstrated, but the source of this predictability remains largely unknown. Here we investigate the role of the Tropics in this predictability. We show high levels of skill in tropical rainfall predictions, particularly over the Pacific but also the Indian and Atlantic Ocean basins. Rainfall fluctuations in these regions are associated with clear signatures in tropical and extratropical atmospheric circulation that are approximately symmetric about the Equator in boreal winter. We show how these patterns can be explained as steady poleward propagating linear Rossby waves emanating from just a few key source regions. These wave source ‘hotspots’ become more or less active as tropical rainfall varies from winter to winter but they do not change position. Finally, we show that predicted tropical rainfall explains a highly significant fraction of the predicted year-to-year variation of the winter North Atlantic Oscillation."
&

Tompkins, A. M., et al. (2017), The Climate-system Historical Forecast Project: Providing open access to seasonal forecast ensembles from centers around the globe, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0209.1.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0209.1

&

Sanchez-Gomez, E., et al. (2016), Drift dynamics in a coupled model initialized for decadal forecasts, Clim. Dyn., 46, 1819–1840, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-015-2678-y.

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13516
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Model Test Beds: Calibrating Nonlinear ESMs focused on ACME
« Reply #162 on: December 01, 2017, 05:42:39 PM »
The linked reference indicates that current models of methane emissions from peatlands need to be improved to account for hotspots in the peat/soil with varying conditions (including varying ground water elevation):

Yang et al. (2017), "Evaluating the Classical Versus an Emerging Conceptual Model of Peatland Methane Dynamics", Global Biogeochemical Cycles, doi: 10.1002/2017GB005622

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GB005622/abstract;jsessionid=120CA9C25B38DF660F8C127A470C3997.f02t01?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+unavailable+on+2nd+Dec+2017+starting+from+0800+EST+%2F+1300+GMT+%2F+21.00+SGT+for+2.5+hours+due+to+urgent+server+maintenance.+Apologies+for+the+inconvenience.

See also:

Thompson, E. (2017), A new model yields a better picture of methane fluxes, Eos, 98, https://doi.org/10.1029/2017EO086831

https://eos.org/research-spotlights/a-new-model-yields-a-better-picture-of-methane-fluxes?utm_source=eos&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EosBuzz120117

Extract: "… generally speaking, methane is produced below the water table, where there is little to no oxygen, and it is destroyed above the water table, especially right at the boundary, where the most methane accumulates. When the water table is high, a greater proportion of the soil falls into methane-producing conditions. Likewise, when the water table drops, more soil is exposed to oxygen and thereby able to destroy methane. Current models commonly use this relationship to predict net methane production essentially on the basis of water table height.

Now Yang et al. suggest updating this classical conceptual model to include new information on methane dynamics gleaned from recent studies: For example, oxygen-poor pockets within the soil produce methane even above the water table, and methane can be destroyed below the water table in the absence of oxygen, depending on the presence of specific microbes and molecules in the soil that can play the role of oxygen to gain the electrons lost by methane."
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13516
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Model Test Beds: Calibrating Nonlinear ESMs focused on ACME
« Reply #163 on: December 02, 2017, 11:03:20 PM »
The first linked pdf provides a useful summary of the new, DOE sponsored, Energy Exascale Earth System Model, E3SM, project strategy (see also the related attached images), that is subsuming the Accelerated Climate Model for Energy, ACME, project.  The E3SM project was developed, and scheduled to run through 2027, largely because it was concluded that the ACME project could not meet the goal of adequately modeling Earth Systems focused on Water Cycles, Biogeochemistry and Cryosphere Systems; which also implies that E3SM management has concluded that the CMIP6 models are also inadequate to answer associated questions associated with climate risk.  Furthermore, in the extract below, I focus a little bit extra on Cryosphere Systems and I conclude that even after the E3SM project concludes in 2027 that it will not likely be able to replicate the findings of DeConto & Pollard (2016-extended); which may not be the objective of this effort which seem better organized to address the risks of Hansen's ice-climate feedback mechanism [as one can always accept the findings of ice cliff and hydrofracturing models and then introduce the required hosing into any model and Hansen et al (2016) did].

While this E3SM project is impressive and clearly engages the thinking of serious scientists; nevertheless, the final E3SM model is left under the control of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, whom I personally do not trust with regard to their geoengineering efforts (i.e. geoengineering can easily be weaponized which is one of ORNL's specialties).  Indeed, after reviewing the write-up in the various linked sources, I am left with the distinct impression that the authors consider the collapse of the WAIS this century as a foregone conclusion and they just want a model powerful enough to guide geoengineering efforts beginning between 2040 and 2050.  I hope that I am wrong, but I am concerned that what they learned in Phase 1 of the ACME program concerned them [with regard to such topics as: ECS, ESS, GWP25-100 of methane, Ozone RF, Biogeochemistry, Bipolar Seesaw/Climate Attractors, Polar Amplification (telecommunication with the tropics, future rainfall at the poles and albedo flip), and Ice-Climate Feedback] enough to fund and organize the much larger E3SM project. 

D. Bader (September 20, 2017), "Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) Project Strategy"

https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/892182.pdf

Extract: "Mission and science needs defined our three grand challenge science questions and the simulations envisioned to answer those questions by 2027. The grand challenge simulations are not yet possible with current model and computing capabilities. Nevertheless, we developed a set of achievable experiments that make major advances toward answering the grand challenge questions using a modeling system, v1, which we have constructed to run on leadership computing architectures available to the project now. Like all research projects, our early results will be used to refine science questions and develop new testable hypotheses to be addressed with subsequent versions of the modeling system. As shown on the left side of Figure 1, E3SM envisions simulation campaigns of four to five years each with successive versions of the modeling system. Every campaign will inform the next, and we envision three campaigns with successive versions of the modeling system leading to the grand challenge simulations in approximately 10 years.

The three drivers (and each driver’s summary term used hereafter) are:

1. (Water Cycle) How do the hydrological cycle and water resources interact with the climate system on local to global scales?

2. (Biogeochemistry) How do biogeochemical cycles interact with global climate change?

3. Cryosphere Systems) How do rapid changes in cryospheric systems interact with the climate system?

The E3SM project will target at least two base model configurations. The first configuration is a low resolution coupled model with horizontal resolutions comparable to climate models participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). This version will provide more rapid turnaround for development purposes. It will also serve as a useful benchmark for comparison with other CMIP-class models and as the control for evaluating the impacts of increasing resolution. This low resolution coupled model configuration will also be used for the v1 biogeochemistry cycle experiments with the goal of gaining experience with simulations that include biogeochemical processes in the atmosphere, land, ocean, and sea ice components. The second configuration is a global coupled high-resolution version that can provide sufficient detail to address science questions and can further provide improved decision-relevant simulation results for DOE mission needs. This configuration will serve to produce benchmark simulations to evaluate model scientific and computational performance. Simulations for the water cycle experiments will utilize both the low and high resolution configurations to evaluate the impacts of model resolution. Additional configuration will feature regional refinement over North America for better representation of physical and dynamical processes and regional refinement for the ocean and ice over Antarctica and the Southern Ocean to simulate the interactions between ocean circulation and ice shelf cavities.

The ice sheet component, MPAS-LI, will span the Antarctic continent using variable-resolution (down to ~500 m) in regions of dynamic complexity, such as ice streams and grounding lines, but the model is static for the v1 cryosphere experiments. This v1 global uniform high-resolution coupled configuration will be used in the water cycle experiments."

See also:

(http://science.energy.gov/ascr/research/scidac/co-design/)
&
https://exascaleproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Messina-ECP-Presentation-HPCUser-
Forum-2017-04-18.pdf
&
https://www.wcrp-climate.org/images/modelling/WGCM/WGCM21/10oct/11_10-Meehl_CESM_WGCM_2017.pdf
&
https://www2.cisl.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/iCAS%202017%20Messina%20keynote.final_.pdf

“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13516
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Model Test Beds: Calibrating Nonlinear ESMs focused on E3SM/ACME
« Reply #164 on: December 04, 2017, 03:12:21 AM »
The linked reference is proposing to develop 'climate response functions', CRFs, to abrupt stepwise changes in forcing fields.  I highly support implementation of this dynamical approach to improving models for the Arctic Ocean.

Marshall, J., Scott, J., and Proshutinsky, A.: “Climate response functions” for the Arctic Ocean: a proposed coordinated modelling experiment, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 2833-2848, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2833-2017, 2017.

https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/10/2833/2017/

Abstract. A coordinated set of Arctic modelling experiments, which explore how the Arctic responds to changes in external forcing, is proposed. Our goal is to compute and compare climate response functions (CRFs) – the transient response of key observable indicators such as sea-ice extent, freshwater content of the Beaufort Gyre, etc. – to abrupt step changes in forcing fields across a number of Arctic models. Changes in wind, freshwater sources, and inflows to the Arctic basin are considered. Convolutions of known or postulated time series of these forcing fields with their respective CRFs then yield the (linear) response of these observables. This allows the project to inform, and interface directly with, Arctic observations and observers and the climate change community. Here we outline the rationale behind such experiments and illustrate our approach in the context of a coarse-resolution model of the Arctic based on the MITgcm. We conclude by summarizing the expected benefits of such an activity and encourage other modelling groups to compute CRFs with their own models so that we might begin to document their robustness to model formulation, resolution, and parameterization.


“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

AbruptSLR

  • ASIF Emperor
  • Posts: 13516
    • View Profile
Re: Climate Model Test Beds: Calibrating Nonlinear ESMs focused on E3SM/ACME
« Reply #165 on: December 08, 2017, 04:03:09 PM »
The linked information is valuable for helping to calibrate ESMs:

Title: "Examining our Eyes in the Sky"

https://eos.org/editors-vox/examining-our-eyes-in-the-sky?utm_source=eos&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EosBuzz120817

Extract: "A recent paper in Reviews of Geophysics explored the challenges of validating data collected from Earth observation satellites."

See also:

Loew, A., et al. (2017), Validation practices for satellite-based Earth observation data across communities, Rev. Geophys., 55, 779–817, doi:10.1002/2017RG000562.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017RG000562/epdf
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson