the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
New model ensemble reveals how forcing uncertainty and model structure alter climate simulated across CMIP generations of the Community Earth System Model
Marika M. Holland
Cecile Hannay
John Fasullo
Alexandra Jahn
Jennifer E. Kay
Michael Mills
Isla R. Simpson
William Wieder
Peter Lawrence
Erik Kluzek
David Bailey
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 on 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 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 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.
- Preprint
(1793 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(81 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Marika M. Holland et al.
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2023-125', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Sep 2023
reply
In this paper the authors seek to raise awareness of the contribution of external forcings, particularly historical, to climate model simulation uncertainties. Using the CESM large ensembles, including some new simulations using alternate CMIP forcings, they quantify the relative impacts of model changes and forcings in the CESM model framework. The newly presented CESM2-CMIP5 simulations are made publicly available as a resource for the wider research community to further investigate the impacts of forcings in the CESM large ensembles.
The paper is generally very well written, with clearly presented results supported by appropriate figures. The subject matter is a good fit for GMD and I recommend publications of this article subject to some minor changes.
Some particular issues to note are as follows:
- One has to be very careful when talking about the direction of fluxes – particularly when considering net fluxes and differences therein. In that regard the flux definitions in section 4 need to be made a bit more clearly with mention that net fluxes are considered positive down (or “downward”).
- Some of the ensemble naming is a little confusing. In particular it is a little confusing that “CESM2-LE” is used for the whole ensemble or for the 1st 50 members. It would be best to be a bit clearer here.
- The 15 CESM2-CMIP5 simulations are introduced as being “newly presented” but it looks like DeRepentigny et al. (2022) has already presented results from 10 of these simulations (or are they different?). This point should be made somewhere. The fact that some of the simulations might have been used already elsewhere does not take away from the novelty of this paper.
I include a pdf containing more detailed comments.
Marika M. Holland et al.
Marika M. Holland et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
304 | 89 | 8 | 401 | 16 | 6 | 6 |
- HTML: 304
- PDF: 89
- XML: 8
- Total: 401
- Supplement: 16
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1