Submitted as: model experiment description paper 17 Feb 2021
Submitted as: model experiment description paper | 17 Feb 2021
The SMHI Large Ensemble (SMHI-LENS) with EC-Earth3
- 1Rossby Centre, Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI), 601 76 Norrköping, Sweden
- 2Bolin Centre for Climate Research, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
- 1Rossby Centre, Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI), 601 76 Norrköping, Sweden
- 2Bolin Centre for Climate Research, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
Abstract. The Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute used the global climate model EC-Earth3 to perform a large ensemble of simulations (SMHI-LENS). It consists of 50 members, covers the period 1970 to 2100 and comprises the SSP1-1.9, SSP3-3.4, SSP5-3.4-OS and SSP5-8.5 scenarios. Thus, it is currently the only large ensemble that allows for analyzing the effect of delayed mitigation actions versus no mitigation efforts and versus earlier efforts leading to similar radiative forcing at year 2100. We describe the set-up of the SMHI-LENS in detail and provide first examples for its application. The ensemble mean future changes of key variables in atmosphere and ocean are analyzed and compared against the variability across the ensemble members. In agreement with other large ensemble simulations, we find that the future changes in the near surface temperature are more robust than those for precipitation or sea level pressure. As an example for a possible application of the SMHI-LENS, we analyse the probability of exceeding specific global surface warming levels in the different scenarios. None of the scenarios is able to keep global warming in the 21st century below 1.5 °C. In SSP1-1.9 there is a probability of approximately 70 % to stay below 2 °C warming while all other SSPs exceed this target in every single member of SMHI-LENS during the course of the century. We also investigate the point in time when the SSP5-8.5 and SSP5-3.4 ensembles separate, i.e. when their differences become significant, and likewise when the SSP5-3.4-OS and SSP4-3.4 ensembles become similar. Last, we show that the time of emergence of a separation between different scenarios can vary by several decades when reducing the ensemble size to 10 members.
Klaus Wyser et al.
Status: open (until 14 Apr 2021)
-
CC1: 'Comment on gmd-2020-428', John Fyfe, 18 Feb 2021
reply
Dear Klaus,
I would like to point out that the second sentence in your abstract is incorrect. CanESM5 has a 50-member ensemble of simulations from 1850 to 2100 folowing historical forcings from 1850 to 2015 and SSP1-1.0, SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5. All of this output is avaialble on the ESGF and you can find the documenting paper here: . In addition, a 10-member ensemble of CanESM5 simulations is avialable on the ESGF based onCMIP5 historical forcings and RCPs.
With best regards,
John Fyfe-
CC2: 'Reply on CC1', Klaus Wyser, 19 Feb 2021
reply
Hej John---
Thanks for your comment. I think you refer to the 3rd sentence of the abstract: "Thus, it is currently the only large ensemble that allows for analyzing the effect of delayed mitigation actions versus no mitigation efforts and versus earlier efforts leading to similar radiative forcing at year 2100." and my guess is that you wonder why we state that SMHI-LENS is the _only_ large ensemble that allows for studying the effect of delayed or no mitigation efforts. We are well aware of the large CanESM5 ensemble that is available on the ESGF. However, one of the strength of the SMHI-LENS is that comprises SSP5-3.4over that allows to study the effect of a delayed mitigation effort that doesn't start before the mid of the 21st century. Comparing SSP5-3.4over against SSP4-3.4 allows us to investigate the impact from overshooting during a few decades and the benefits from early mitigation vs delayed mitigation. Comparing SSP5-3.4over against SSP5-8.5 allows us to investigate the impact from delayed mitiagtaion vs no mitigation. These were the motivations for selecting these uncommon scenarios, and therefore we think our scenario is unique and the only one that allows for studying delayed mitigation efforts.
Best regards,
Klaus
-
CC3: 'Reply on CC2', John Fyfe, 19 Feb 2021
reply
Sorry, Klaus, I think I read your abstact too quickly and missed those scenarios. Nice work. I'm looking foward to reading your manuscript.
With best regards,
John
-
CC3: 'Reply on CC2', John Fyfe, 19 Feb 2021
reply
-
CC2: 'Reply on CC1', Klaus Wyser, 19 Feb 2021
reply
Klaus Wyser et al.
Klaus Wyser et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
193 | 43 | 6 | 242 | 0 | 0 |
- HTML: 193
- PDF: 43
- XML: 6
- Total: 242
- BibTeX: 0
- EndNote: 0
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1