Articles | Volume 9, issue 7
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2335-2016
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2335-2016
Development and technical paper
 | 
07 Jul 2016
Development and technical paper |  | 07 Jul 2016

Northern Hemisphere storminess in the Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM1-M)

Erlend M. Knudsen and John E. Walsh

Related authors

Communicating climate change in a “post-factual” society: lessons learned from the Pole to Paris campaign
Erlend M. Knudsen and Oria J. de Bolsée
Geosci. Commun., 2, 83–93, https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2-83-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2-83-2019, 2019
Short summary
Meteorological conditions during the ACLOUD/PASCAL field campaign near Svalbard in early summer 2017
Erlend M. Knudsen, Bernd Heinold, Sandro Dahlke, Heiko Bozem, Susanne Crewell, Irina V. Gorodetskaya, Georg Heygster, Daniel Kunkel, Marion Maturilli, Mario Mech, Carolina Viceto, Annette Rinke, Holger Schmithüsen, André Ehrlich, Andreas Macke, Christof Lüpkes, and Manfred Wendisch
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 17995–18022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-17995-2018,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-17995-2018, 2018
Short summary

Related subject area

Climate and Earth system modeling
CICERO Simple Climate Model (CICERO-SCM v1.1.1) – an improved simple climate model with a parameter calibration tool
Marit Sandstad, Borgar Aamaas, Ane Nordlie Johansen, Marianne Tronstad Lund, Glen Philip Peters, Bjørn Hallvard Samset, Benjamin Mark Sanderson, and Ragnhild Bieltvedt Skeie
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6589–6625, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6589-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6589-2024, 2024
Short summary
Development of a plant carbon–nitrogen interface coupling framework in a coupled biophysical-ecosystem–biogeochemical model (SSiB5/TRIFFID/DayCent-SOM v1.0)
Zheng Xiang, Yongkang Xue, Weidong Guo, Melannie D. Hartman, Ye Liu, and William J. Parton
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6437–6464, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6437-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6437-2024, 2024
Short summary
Dynamical Madden–Julian Oscillation forecasts using an ensemble subseasonal-to-seasonal forecast system of the IAP-CAS model
Yangke Liu, Qing Bao, Bian He, Xiaofei Wu, Jing Yang, Yimin Liu, Guoxiong Wu, Tao Zhu, Siyuan Zhou, Yao Tang, Ankang Qu, Yalan Fan, Anling Liu, Dandan Chen, Zhaoming Luo, Xing Hu, and Tongwen Wu
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6249–6275, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6249-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6249-2024, 2024
Short summary
Implementation of a brittle sea ice rheology in an Eulerian, finite-difference, C-grid modeling framework: impact on the simulated deformation of sea ice in the Arctic
Laurent Brodeau, Pierre Rampal, Einar Ólason, and Véronique Dansereau
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6051–6082, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6051-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6051-2024, 2024
Short summary
HSW-V v1.0: localized injections of interactive volcanic aerosols and their climate impacts in a simple general circulation model
Joseph P. Hollowed, Christiane Jablonowski, Hunter Y. Brown, Benjamin R. Hillman, Diana L. Bull, and Joseph L. Hart
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5913–5938, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5913-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5913-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

AMAP: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), Tech. rep., Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), New York, USA, 2005.
AMAP: Snow, water, ice and permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA): Climate change and the cryosphere, Tech. rep., Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), Oslo, Norway, 2011.
Barnes, E.: Revisiting the evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in midlatitudes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 4734–4739, https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50880, 2013.
Barnes, E. and Polvani, L.: Response of the midlatitude jets, and of their variability, to increased greenhouse gases in the CMIP5 models, J. Climate, 26, 7117–7135, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00536.1, 2013.
Barnes, E. and Screen, J.: The impact of Arctic warming on the midlatitude jet-stream: Can it? Has it? Will it?, WIREs Clim. Change, 6, 277–286, https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.337, 2015.
Download
Short summary
In this paper, two global climate models (NorESM1-M and CCSM4) are compared to an observational-based data set (ERA-Interim) for their ability to simulate historical Arctic storminess in autumn. With this in hand, the models are run through the 21st century. We find an overall significant increase in precipitation expected, with generally fewer and weaker storms in midlatitudes and partly more and stronger storms in high-latitudes. The tendencies are strongest in areas of Arctic sea ice retreat.