Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “model intercomparison”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 181 records · Page 10
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2016

Regime-Based Evaluation of Cloudiness in CMIP5 Models

The concept of Cloud Regimes (CRs) is used to develop a framework for evaluating the cloudiness of 12 fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) models. Reference CRs come from existing global International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) weather states. The evaluation is made possible by the implementation in several CMIP5 models of the ISCCP simulator generating for each gridcell daily joint histograms of cloud optical thickness and cloud top pressure. Model performance is assessed with several metrics such as CR global cloud fraction (CF), CR relative frequency of occurrence (RFO), their product (long-term average total cloud amount [TCA]), cross-correlations of CR RFO maps, and a metric of resemblance between model and ISCCP CRs. In terms of CR global RFO, arguably the most fundamental metric, the models perform unsatisfactorily overall, except for CRs representing thick storm clouds. Because model CR CF is internally constrained by our method, RFO discrepancies yield also substantial TCA errors. Our findings support previous studies showing that CMIP5 models underestimate cloudiness. The multi-model mean performs well in matching observed RFO maps for many CRs, but is not the best for this or other metrics. When overall performance across all CRs is assessed, some models, despite their shortcomings, apparently outperform Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) cloud observations evaluated against ISCCP as if they were another model output. Lastly, cloud simulation performance is contrasted with each model's equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) in order to gain insight on whether good cloud simulation pairs with particular values of this parameter.

cloud climatology↗
NASA NTRS2016

Connecting Paleo and Modern Oceanographic Data to Understand Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation Over Decades to Centuries

Modeling is an important tool for understanding AMOC on all timescales. Mechanistic studies of modern AMOC variability have been hampered by a lack of consistency between free-running models and the sensitivity of AMOC to resolution and parameterization. Recent work within the framework of the phase two Coordinated Ocean- Reference Experiments (CORE-II) addresses this issue head on, looking at model differences of AMOC mean state and interannual variability. One consistent feature across the models is that AMOC mean transport is related to mixed layer depths and Labrador Sea salt content, whereas interannual variability is primarily associated with Labrador Sea temperature anomalies. This is consistent with the hypothesized importance of salt balance for AMOC variability on geological timescales. The simulated relationships between AMOC and subsurface temperature anomalies in fully coupled climate models reveal subsurface AMOC fingerprints that could be used to reconstruct historical AMOC variations at low frequency.With the lack of long-term AMOC observations, models of ocean state that assimilate observational data have been explored as a way to reconstruct AMOC, but comparisons between models indicate they are quite variable in their AMOC representations. Karspeck et al. (2015) found that historical reconstructions of AMOC in such models are sensitive to the details of the data assimilation procedure. The ocean data assimilation community continues to address these issues through improved models and methods for estimating and representing error information.Two objectives of paleoclimate modeling are 1) to provide mechanistic information for interpretation of paleoclimate observations, and 2) to test the ability of predictive models to simulate Earth's climate under different background forcing states. In a good example of the first objective, Schmittner and Lund (2015) and Menviel et al. (2014) provided key information about the proxy signals expected under freshwater disturbance of AMOC, which were used to support the paleoclimate observations made by Henry et al. (2016). In an example of the second objective, Muglia and Schmittner (2015) analyzed Third Paleoclimate Modeling Intercomparison Project (PMIP3) models of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) and found consistently more intense and deeper AMOC transports relative to preindustrial simulations, counter to the paleoclimate consensus of LGM conditions, indicating that some processes are not well represented in the PMIP3 models. One challenge is to find adequate paleo observations against which to test these models. PMIP is now in phase 4 (part of CMIP6), which includes experiments covering five periods in Earth's history: the last millennium, last glacial maximum, last interglacial, and the mid-Pliocene. Newly compiled paleoclimate datasets from the PAGES2k project, more transient simulations, and participation of isotope enabled models planned for CMIP6PMIP4 will enable richer paleo data-model comparisons in the near future.

Kilbourne, Hali↗
NASA NTRS2017

Multi-Model Impacts of Climate Change on Pollution Transport from Global Emission Source Regions

The impacts of climate change on tropospheric transport, diagnosed from a carbon monoxide (CO)-like tracer species emitted from global CO sources, are evaluated from an ensemble of four chemistry-climate model (CCMs) contributing to the Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Model Intercomparison Project (ACCMIP). Model time-slice simulations for present-day and end of the 21st century conditions were performed under the Representative Concentrations Pathways (RCP) climate scenario RCP 8.5. All simulations reveal a strong seasonality in transport, especially over the tropics. The highest CO-tracer mixing ratios aloft occur during boreal winter when strong vertical transport is co-located with biomass burning emission source regions. A consistent and robust decrease in future CO-tracer mixing ratios throughout most of the troposphere, especially in the tropics, and an increase around the tropopause is found across the four CCMs in both winter and summer. Decreases in CO-tracer mixing ratios in the tropical troposphere are associated with reduced convective mass fluxes in this region, which in turn may reflect a weaker Hadley Cell circulation in the future climate. Increases in CO-tracer mixing ratios near the tropopause are largely attributable to a rise in tropopause height, although a poleward shift in the midlatitude jets may also play an important role in the extra-tropical upper troposphere. An increase in CO-tracer mixing ratios also occurs near the Equator, centred over EquatorialCentral Africa, extending from the surface to the mid troposphere which is most likely related to localised decreases in convection in the vicinity of the Intertropical Convergence Zone, resulting in larger CO-tracer mixing ratios over biomass burning regions and smaller mixing ratios downwind.

Tropospheric Transport↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

TPSAS-NF1676L-29139-DND

The Arctic has been warming at a rate outpacing globally-averaged warming by 2-3 times, a phenomenon known as "Arctic Amplification" (AA). AA is evident in observations of Arctic surface temperature over the last century as well as in model predictions. The accuracy of model predictions is crucial to determine our response to climate change, as Arctic changes have consequences for the atmospheric circulation, sea level rise, and the carbon cycle. Unfortunately, models show a wide range of possible futures and intermodel spread in projections of Arctic temperature is larger than for any other region: a 2°C global temperature increase- the limit set by the Paris Climate Agreement- would lead to an Arctic temperature change between 3-7°C according to Coupled Model Intercomparison 5 (CMIP5) models. This intermodel spread represents a key deficiency in the understanding of Arctic feedback processes and how changes in various physical parameters (e.g. sea ice cover, clouds, heat transport and surface fluxes) affect the temperature response. Using a process-oriented decomposition of the simulate Arctic surface energy budget, we attribute the largest contribution to the CMIP5 intermodel spead in projected Arctic warming to the Barents-Kara Sea region. Our results reveal that the increasing seasonal fluxing of ocean heat content is a significant part of the intermodel spread in AA and relates strongly to change in surface turbulent fluxes. Our results indicate that if we are to significantly reduce the intermodel spread in projected AA we must focus on understanding the behavior and physical processes that drive surface energy flows in the B-K sea region.

Patrick Taylor↗
NASA NTRS2021

Snow Reconciles Observed and Simulated Phase Partitioning and Increases Cloud Feedback

The surprising increase of Earth's climate sensitivity in the most recent Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) models has been largely attributed to extratropical cloud feedback, which is thought to be driven by greater supercooled water in present-day cloud phase partitioning (CPP). Here we report that accounting for precipitation in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE3 radiation scheme, neglected in more than 60% of CMIP6 and 90% of CMIP5 models, systematically changes its apparent CPP and substantially increases its cloud feedback, consistent with results using CMIP models. Including precipitation in the comparison with Cloud–Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observations (CALIPSO) measurements and in model radiation schemes is essential to faithfully constrain cloud amount and phase partitioning, and simulate cloud feedbacks. Our findings suggest that making radiation schemes precipitation-aware (missing in most CMIP6 models) should strengthen their positive cloud feedback and further increase their already high mean climate sensitivity.

Earth's climate sensitivity↗
NASA NTRS2023

Global and Zonal-Mean Hydrological Response to Early Eocene Warmth

Earth's hydrological cycle is expected to intensify in response to global warming, with a “wet-gets-wetter, dry-gets-drier” response anticipated over the ocean. Subtropical regions (∼15°–30°N/S) are predicted to become drier, yet proxy evidence from past warm climates suggests these regions may be characterized by wetter conditions. Here we use an integrated data-modeling approach to reconstruct global and zonal-mean rainfall patterns during the early Eocene (∼56–48 million years ago). The Deep-Time Model Intercomparison Project (DeepMIP) model ensemble indicates that the mid- (30°–60°N/S) and high-latitudes (>60°N/S) are characterized by a thermodynamically dominated hydrological response to warming and overall wetter conditions. The tropical band (0°–15°N/S) is also characterized by wetter conditions, with several DeepMIP models simulating narrowing of the Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone. However, the latter is not evident from the proxy data. The subtropics are characterized by negative precipitation-evaporation anomalies (i.e., drier conditions) in the DeepMIP models, but there is surprisingly large inter-model variability in mean annual precipitation (MAP). Intriguingly, we find that models with weaker meridional temperature gradients (e.g., CESM, GFDL) are characterized by a reduction in subtropical moisture divergence, leading to an increase in MAP. These model simulations agree more closely with our new proxy-derived precipitation reconstructions and other key climate metrics and imply that the early Eocene was characterized by reduced subtropical moisture divergence. If the meridional temperature gradient was even weaker than suggested by those DeepMIP models, circulation-induced changes may have outcompeted thermodynamic changes, leading to wetter subtropics. This highlights the importance of accurately reconstructing zonal temperature gradients when reconstructing past rainfall patterns.

Margot J. Cramwinckel↗
DOE OSTI2026

Multi‐Model Ensembles in Ecosystem Modeling: Challenges and Best Practices for Decision‐Making

Ecosystem models are increasingly central to the decision-making for environmental policy, conservation planning, and climate-related investments. Yet, the growing reliance on Multi-Model Ensembles (MMEs) of ecosystem models by practitioners and policymakers, sometimes under tight timelines and imperfect information, has frequently outpaced the scientific rigor required to ensure ensemble reliability. Here, MMEs refer to approaches that combine targeted predictions from multiple models with the expectation of improving robustness and quantifying predictive uncertainty. Poorly designed MMEs may create a false sense of confidence and lead to suboptimal policy and market decisions. This perspective argues that robust decision-making-relevant MMEs must be grounded on two pillars: (1) rigorous Model Intercomparison Projects (MIPs), which identify inter-model agreement and disagreement, characterize model uncertainties, and evaluate robustness with observationally based benchmarks—MIPs' diagnostic evaluation is so critical that it must be needed to drive MME's decision in model selection and weighting, especially when only a limited number of models available; and (2) co-design by both stakeholders and scientists to ensure that scenarios, metrics and uncertainty requirements provide decision-relevant information. Building upon the past success and lessons from the existing MIPs-MMEs efforts (e.g., climate/Earth system/crop), we derived the theoretical basis for MMEs, addressed their specific challenges in ecosystem modeling, and highlighted proper consideration of model numbers and diversity, risk of model inter-dependence, effective calibration of model parameters, possible overdue of some ecosystem model development, critical roles of open benchmark data across a wide range of conditions, and suggested use of Artificial Intelligence to support MIPs-MMEs. We highlighted the under-recognized opportunity for MIPs and MMEs to drive scientific progress and innovation through identifying better performing models, systematic benchmarking, feedback loops, and targeted model improvement. By following actionable best practice guidelines, MMEs can evolve from ad hoc aggregation of models into a trusted backbone of environmental policy and decision-making.

ecosystem modeling↗
DOE OSTI2020

Experimental protocol for sea level projections from ISMIP6 stand-alone ice sheet models

Projection of the contribution of ice sheets to sea level change as part of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) takes the form of simulations from coupled ice sheet–climate models and stand-alone ice sheet models, overseen by the Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison Project for CMIP6 (ISMIP6). This paper describes the experimental setup for process-based sea level change projections to be performed with stand-alone Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet models in the context of ISMIP6. The ISMIP6 protocol relies on a suite of polar atmospheric and oceanic CMIP-based forcing for ice sheet models, in order to explore the uncertainty in projected sea level change due to future emissions scenarios, CMIP models, ice sheet models, and parameterizations for ice–ocean interactions. We describe here the approach taken for defining the suite of ISMIP6 stand-alone ice sheet simulations, document the experimental framework and implementation, and present an overview of the ISMIP6 forcing to be used by participating ice sheet modeling groups.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Description of historical and future projection simulations by the global coupled E3SMv1.0 model as used in CMIP6

Abstract. This paper documents the experimental setup and general features of the coupled historical and future climate simulations with the first version of the US Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SMv1.0). The future projected climate characteristics of E3SMv1.0 at the highest emission scenario (SSP5-8.5) designed in the Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) and the SSP5-8.5 greenhouse gas (GHG) only forcing experiment are analyzed with a focus on regional responses of atmosphere, ocean, sea ice, and land. Due to its high equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS of 5.3 K), E3SMv1.0 is one of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6) models with the largest surface warming by the end of the 21st century under the high-emission SSP5-8.5 scenario. The global mean precipitation change is highly correlated with the global temperature change, while the spatial pattern of the change in runoff is consistent with the precipitation changes. The oceanic mixed layer generally shoals throughout the global ocean. The annual mean Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) is overly weak with a slower change from ∼ 11 to ∼ 6 Sv (Sverdrup) relative to other CMIP6 models. The sea ice, especially in the Northern Hemisphere, decreases rapidly with large seasonal variability. We detect a significant polar amplification in E3SMv1.0 from the atmosphere, ocean, and sea ice. Comparing the SSP5-8.5 all-forcing experiment with the GHG-only experiment, we find that the unmasking of the aerosol effects due to the decline of the aerosol loading in the future projection period causes transient accelerated warming in the all-forcing experiment in the first half of the 21st century. While the oceanic climate response is mainly controlled by the GHG forcing, the land runoff response is impacted primarily by forcings other than GHG over certain regions, e.g., southern North America, southern Africa, central Africa, and eastern Asia. However, the importance of the GHG forcing on the land runoff changes grows in the future climate projection period compared to the historical period.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

CMIP6-based Dynamically Downscaled Hydroclimate Projection over the Conterminous US

This dataset presents a suite of downscaled hydro-climate projections over the conterminous United States (CONUS) based on multiple selected Global Climate Models (GCMs) from the Coupled Models Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6). The CMIP6 GCMs are downscaled dynamically using Regional Climate Model version 4 (RegCM4). Each ensemble member covers the 1980-2019 baseline and 2020-2059 near-future periods under the high-end (SSP585) emission scenario. This dataset is formulated to support the SECURE Water Act Section 9505 Assessment for the US Department of Energy (DOE) Water Power Technologies Office (WPTO). For further details on this dataset, please refer to Kao et al. (2022) and Rastogi et al. (2022).

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
NASA NTRS2015

Inconsistent Strategies to Spin up Models in CMIP5: Implications for Ocean Biogeochemical Model Performance Assessment

During the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) substantial efforts were made to systematically assess the skill of Earth system models. One goal was to check how realistically representative marine biogeochemical tracer distributions could be reproduced by models. In routine assessments model historical hindcasts were compared with available modern biogeochemical observations. However, these assessments considered neither how close modeled biogeochemical reservoirs were to equilibrium nor the sensitivity of model performance to initial conditions or to the spin-up protocols. Here, we explore how the large diversity in spin-up protocols used for marine biogeochemistry in CMIP5 Earth system models (ESMs) contributes to model-to-model differences in the simulated fields. We take advantage of a 500-year spin-up simulation of IPSL-CM5A-LR to quantify the influence of the spin-up protocol on model ability to reproduce relevant data fields. Amplification of biases in selected biogeochemical fields (O2, NO3, Alk-DIC) is assessed as a function of spin-up duration. We demonstrate that a relationship between spin-up duration and assessment metrics emerges from our model results and holds when confronted with a larger ensemble of CMIP5 models. This shows that drift has implications for performance assessment in addition to possibly aliasing estimates of climate change impact. Our study suggests that differences in spin-up protocols could explain a substantial part of model disparities, constituting a source of model-to- model uncertainty. This requires more attention in future model intercomparison exercises in order to provide quantitatively more correct ESM results on marine biogeochemistry and carbon cycle feedbacks.

histories↗
DOE OSTI2020

Bioenergy Technologies in Long-Run Climate Change Mitigation: Results from the EMF-33 Study

Bioenergy is expected to play an important role in long-run climate change mitigation strategies as highlighted by many integrated assessment model (IAM) scenarios. These scenarios, however, also show a very wide range of results, with uncertainty about bioenergy conversion technology deployment and biomass feedstock supply. To date, the underlying differences in model assumptions and parameters for the range of results have not been conveyed. Here we explore the models and results of the 33rd study of the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum to elucidate and explore bioenergy technology specifications and constraints that underlie projected bioenergy outcomes. We first develop and report consistent bioenergy technology characterizations and modeling details. We evaluate the bioenergy technology specifications through a series of analyses—comparison with the literature, model intercomparison, and an assessment of bioenergy technology projected deployments. We find that bioenergy technology coverage and characterization varies substantially across models, spanning different conversion routes, carbon capture and storage opportunities, and technology deployment constraints. Still, the range of technology specification assumptions is largely in line with bottom-up engineering estimates. We then find that variation in bioenergy deployment across models cannot be understood from technology costs alone. Important additional determinants include biomass feedstock costs, the availability and costs of alternative mitigation options in and across end-uses, the availability of carbon dioxide removal possibilities, the speed with which large scale changes in the makeup of energy conversion facilities and integration can take place, and the relative demand for different energy services.

bioenergy↗
NASA NTRS2023

Effects of Forcing Differences and Initial Conditions on Inter-Model Agreement in the VolMIP Volc-Pinatubo-Full Experiment

This paper provides initial results from a multi-model ensemble analysis based on the volc-pinatubo-full experiment performed within the Model Intercomparison Project on the climatic response to Volcanic forcing (VolMIP) as part of the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). The volc-pinatubo-full experiment is based on an ensemble of volcanic forcing-only climate simulations with the same volcanic aerosol dataset across the participating models (the 1991–1993 Pinatubo period from the CMIP6-GloSSAC dataset). The simulations are conducted within an idealized experimental design where initial states are sampled consistently across models from the CMIP6-piControl simulation providing unperturbed preindustrial background conditions. The multi-model ensemble includes output from an initial set of six participating Earth system models (CanESM5, GISS-E2.1-G, IPSL-CM6A-LR, MIROC-E2SL, MPI-ESM1.2-LR and UKESM1). The results show overall good agreement between the different models on the global and hemispheric scales concerning the surface climate responses, thus demonstrating the overall effectiveness of VolMIP's experimental design. However, small yet significant inter-model discrepancies are found in radiative fluxes, especially in the tropics, that preliminary analyses link with minor differences in forcing implementation; model physics, notably aerosol–radiation interactions; the simulation and sampling of El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO); and, possibly, the simulation of climate feedbacks operating in the tropics. We discuss the volc-pinatubo-full protocol and highlight the advantages of volcanic forcing experiments defined within a carefully designed protocol with respect to emerging modelling approaches based on large ensemble transient simulations. We identify how the VolMIP strategy could be improved in future phases of the initiative to ensure a cleaner sampling protocol with greater focus on the evolving state of ENSO in the pre-eruption period.

metadata↗
DOE OSTI2021

Future sea level change under CMIP5 and CMIP6 scenarios from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets

Projections of the sea level contribution from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets rely on atmospheric and oceanic drivers obtained from climate models. The Earth System Models participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6) generally project greater future warming compared with the previous CMIP5 effort. Here we use four CMIP6 models and a selection of CMIP5 models to force multiple ice sheet models as part of the Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison Project for CMIP6 (ISMIP6). We find that the projected sea level contribution at 2100 from the ice sheet model ensemble under the CMIP6 scenarios falls within the CMIP5 range for the Antarctic ice sheet but is significantly increased for Greenland. Warmer atmosphere in CMIP6 models results in higher Greenland mass loss due to surface melt. For Antarctica, CMIP6 forcing is similar to CMIP5 and mass gain from increased snowfall counteracts increased loss due to ocean warming.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2016

The Vulnerability, Impacts, Adaptation and Climate Services Advisory Board (VIACS AB V1.0) Contribution to CMIP6

This paper describes the motivation for the creation of the Vulnerability, Impacts, Adaptation and Climate Services (VIACS) Advisory Board for the Sixth Phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6), its initial activities, and its plans to serve as a bridge between climate change applications experts and climate modelers. The climate change application community comprises researchers and other specialists who use climate information (alongside socioeconomic and other environmental information) to analyze vulnerability, impacts, and adaptation of natural systems and society in relation to past, ongoing, and projected future climate change. Much of this activity is directed toward the co-development of information needed by decisionmakers for managing projected risks. CMIP6 provides a unique opportunity to facilitate a two-way dialog between climate modelers and VIACS experts who are looking to apply CMIP6 results for a wide array of research and climate services objectives. The VIACS Advisory Board convenes leaders of major impact sectors, international programs, and climate services to solicit community feedback that increases the applications relevance of the CMIP6-Endorsed Model Intercomparison Projects (MIPs). As an illustration of its potential, the VIACS community provided CMIP6 leadership with a list of prioritized climate model variables and MIP experiments of the greatest interest to the climate model applications community, indicating the applicability and societal relevance of climate model simulation outputs. The VIACS Advisory Board also recommended an impacts version of Obs4MIPs (observational datasets) and indicated user needs for the gridding and processing of model output.

Vulnerability↗
DOE OSTI2023

Simulations of ocean deoxygenation in the historical era: insights from forced and coupled models

Ocean deoxygenation due to anthropogenic warming represents a major threat to marine ecosystems and fisheries. Challenges remain in simulating the modern observed changes in the dissolved oxygen (O 2 ). Here, we present an analysis of upper ocean (0-700m) deoxygenation in recent decades from a suite of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6) ocean biogeochemical simulations. The physics and biogeochemical simulations include both ocean-only (the Ocean Model Intercomparison Project Phase 1 and 2, OMIP1 and OMIP2) and coupled Earth system (CMIP6 Historical) configurations. We examine simulated changes in the O 2 inventory and ocean heat content (OHC) over the past 5 decades across models. The models simulate spatially divergent evolution of O 2 trends over the past 5 decades. The trend (multi-model mean and spread) for upper ocean global O 2 inventory for each of the MIP simulations over the past 5 decades is 0.03 ± 0.39×10 14 [mol/decade] for OMIP1, -0.37 ± 0.15×10 14 [mol/decade] for OMIP2, and -1.06 ± 0.68×10 14 [mol/decade] for CMIP6 Historical, respectively. The trend in the upper ocean global O2 inventory for the latest observations based on the World Ocean Database 2018 is -0.98×10 14 [mol/decade], in line with the CMIP6 Historical multi-model mean, though this recent observations-based trend estimate is weaker than previously reported trends. A comparison across ocean-only simulations from OMIP1 and OMIP2 suggests that differences in atmospheric forcing such as surface wind explain the simulated divergence across configurations in O 2 inventory changes. Additionally, a comparison of coupled model simulations from the CMIP6 Historical configuration indicates that differences in background mean states due to differences in spin-up duration and equilibrium states result in substantial differences in the climate change response of O 2 . Finally, we discuss gaps and uncertainties in both ocean biogeochemical simulations and observations and explore possible future coordinated ocean biogeochemistry simulations to fill in gaps and unravel the mechanisms controlling the O 2 changes.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

A multi-model assessment of the early last deglaciation (PMIP4 LDv1): a meltwater perspective

Abstract. The last deglaciation (∼20–11 ka BP) is a period of a major, long-term climate transition from a glacial to interglacial state that features multiple centennial- to decadal-scale abrupt climate variations whose root cause is still not fully understood. To better understand this time period, the Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project (PMIP) has provided a framework for an internationally coordinated endeavour in simulating the last deglaciation whilst encompassing a broad range of models. Here, we present a multi-model intercomparison of 17 transient simulations of the early part of the last deglaciation (∼20–15 ka BP) from nine different climate models spanning a range of model complexities and uncertain boundary conditions and forcings. The numerous simulations available provide the opportunity to better understand the chain of events and mechanisms of climate changes between 20 and 15 ka BP and our collective ability to simulate them. We conclude that the amount of freshwater forcing and whether it follows the ice sheet reconstruction or induces an inferred Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) history, heavily impacts the deglacial climate evolution for each simulation rather than differences in the model physics. The course of the deglaciation is consistent between simulations except when the freshwater forcing is above 0.1 Sv – at least 70 % of the simulations agree that there is warming by 15 ka BP in most places excluding the location of meltwater input. For simulations with freshwater forcings that exceed 0.1 Sv from 18 ka BP, warming is delayed in the North Atlantic and surface air temperature correlations with AMOC strength are much higher. However, we find that the state of the AMOC coming out of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) also plays a key role in the AMOC sensitivity to model forcings. In addition, we show that the response of each model to the chosen meltwater scenario depends largely on the sensitivity of the model to the freshwater forcing and other aspects of the experimental design (e.g. CO2 forcing or ice sheet reconstruction). The results provide insight into the ability of our models to simulate the first part of the deglaciation and how choices between uncertain boundary conditions and forcings, with a focus on freshwater fluxes, can impact model outputs. We can use these findings as helpful insight in the design of future simulations of this time period.

Snoll, Brooke (ORCID:0000000230914394)↗
NASA NTRS2015

The AgMIP Coordinated Global and Regional Assessments (CGRA) of Climate Change Impacts on Agriculture and Food Security

The Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) has been working since 2010 to construct a protocol-based framework enabling regional assessments (led by regional experts and modelers) that can provide consistent inputs to global economic and integrated assessment models. These global models can then relay important global-level information that drive regional decision-making and outcomes throughout an interconnected agricultural system. AgMIPs community of nearly 800 climate, crop, livestock, economics, and IT experts has improved the state-of-the-art through model intercomparisons, validation exercises, regional integrated assessments, and the launch of AgMIP programs on all six arable continents. AgMIP is now launching Coordinated Global and Regional Assessments (CGRA) of climate change impacts on agriculture and food security to link global and regional crop and economic models using a protocol-based framework. The CGRA protocols are being developed to utilize historical observations, climate projections, and RCPsSSPs from CMIP5 (and potentially CMIP6), and will examine stakeholder-driven agricultural development and adaptation scenarios to provide cutting-edge assessments of climate changes impact on agriculture and food security. These protocols will build on the foundation of established protocols from AgMIPs 30+ activities, and will emphasize the use of multiple models, scenarios, and scales to enable an accurate assessment of related uncertainties. The CGRA is also designed to provide the outputs necessary to feed into integrated assessment models (IAMs), nutrition and food security assessments, nitrogen and carbon cycle models, and additional impact-sector assessments (e.g., water resources, land-use, biomes, urban areas). This presentation will describe the current status of CGRA planning and initial prototype experiments to demonstrate key aspects of the protocols before wider implementation ahead of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report.

models↗