SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
A method is developed for computing the ground temperature accurately over both the diurnal and annual cycles. The ground is divided vertically into only two or three slabs, resulting in very efficient computation. Seasonal storage and release of heat is incorporated, and thus the method is well suited for use in climate models.
Tropical precipitation in climate models presents significant biases in both the large-scale pattern (i.e., double intertropical convergence zone bias) and local-scale characteristics (i.e., drizzling bias with too frequent drizzle/convection and reduced occurrences of no and heavy precipitation). By untangling the coupled system and analyzing the biases in precipitation, cloud, and radiation, this study shows that local-scale drizzling bias in atmospheric models can lead to large-scale double-ITCZ bias in coupled models by inducing convective-regime-dependent biases in precipitation and cloud radiative effects (CRE). The double-ITCZ bias consists of a hemispherically asymmetric component that arises from the asymmetric SST bias and a nearly symmetric component that exists in atmospheric models without the SST bias. By increasing light rain but reducing heavy rain, local-scale drizzling bias induces positive (negative) precipitation bias in the moderate (strong) convective regime, leading to the nearly symmetric wet bias in atmospheric models. By affecting the cloud profile, local-scale drizzling bias induces positive (negative) CRE bias in the stratocumulus (convective) regime in atmospheric models. Because the stratocumulus (convective) region is climatologically more pronounced in the southern (northern) tropics, the CRE bias is deemed to be hemispherically asymmetric and drives warm and wet (cold and dry) biases in the southern (northern) tropics when coupled to ocean. Our results suggest that correcting local-scale drizzling bias is critical for fixing large-scale double-ITCZ bias. Finally, the drizzling and double-ITCZ biases are not alleviated in models with mesoscale (0.25°–0.5°) or even storm-resolving (~3 km) resolution, implying that either large-eddy simulation or fundamental improvement in small-scale subgrid parameterizations is needed.
The comprehensive and innovative evaluation of climate models with newly available global observations is critically needed for the improvement of climate model current-state representation and future-state predictability. A climate model diagnostic evaluation process requires physics-based multi-variable analyses that typically involve large-volume and heterogeneous datasets, making them both computation- and data-intensive. With an exploratory nature of climate data analyses and an explosive growth of datasets and service tools, scientists are struggling to keep track of their datasets, tools, and execution/study history, let alone sharing them with others. In response, we have developed a cloud-enabled, provenance-supported, web-service system called Climate Model Diagnostic Analyzer (CMDA). CMDA enables the physics-based, multivariable model performance evaluations and diagnoses through the comprehensive and synergistic use of multiple observational data, reanalysis data, and model outputs. At the same time, CMDA provides a crowd-sourcing space where scientists can organize their work efficiently and share their work with others. CMDA is empowered by many current state-of-the-art software packages in web service, provenance, and semantic search.
Multimodel ensembling has been widely used to improve climate model predictions, and the improvement strongly depends on the ensembling scheme. In this work, we propose a Bayesian neural network (BNN) ensembling method, which combines climate models within a Bayesian model averaging framework, to improve the predictive capability of model ensembles. Our proposed BNN approach calculates spatiotemporally varying model weights and biases by leveraging individual models' simulation skill, calibrates the ensemble prediction against observations by considering observation data uncertainty, and quantifies epistemic uncertainty when extrapolating to new conditions. More importantly, the BNN method provides interpretability about which climate model contributes more to the ensemble prediction at which locations and times. Thus, beyond its predictive capability, the method also brings insights and understanding of the models to guide further model and data development. In this study, we design experiments using an ensemble of CMIP6 climate model simulations to illustrate the BNN ensembling method's capability with respect to prediction accuracy, interpretability, and uncertainty quantification (UQ). We demonstrate that BNN can correctly assign larger weights to the regions and seasons where the individual model fits the observation better. Moreover, its offered interpretability is consistent with our understanding of localized climate model performance. Additionally, BNN shows an increasing uncertainty when the prediction is farther away from the period with constrained data, which appropriately reflects our trustworthiness of the models in the changing climate.
The interplay between energy, climate, and weather is becoming more complex as our changing climate continues to affect the weather we experience which in turn drives changes in the ever increasing share of renewable energy generation and energy demand. Energy system analyses commonly rely on meteorological inputs to estimate renewable energy generation and energy demand; however, these inputs rarely represent the estimated impacts of future climate change. Climate models and publicly available climate change datasets can be used for this purpose, but the selection of inputs from the myriad of available models and datasets is a nuanced and often subjective process. There is no single perfect climate model or dataset for all applications. In this repository, we include software and the corresponding assessments of various global climate models (GCMs) from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6), evaluating their skills with respect to the historical climate and comparing of their future projections of climate change. We focus on variables that directly affect the energy system including the representation of extreme values that can drive grid resilience events. The objective of this repository is not to recommend the best climate model and dataset for a given analysis, but instead to provide a reference to facilitate the selection of climate models and datasets in subsequent work.
The Climate Model Output Rewriter (CMOR) software was first developed by LLNL’s PCMDI program in early 2000s and was formally released with v1.0 (July 2006), v2.0 (January 2011), and v3.1(June 2016). CMOR is used to produce Climate and Forecast Convention (http://cfconventions.org/) CF-compliant netCDF files, in the standard format required to satisfy the World Climate Research Program (WCRP) Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). The software has been used across multiple phases of the Earth System Modeling (ESM) project CMIP (CMIP3, CMIP5, CMIP6, and planned use in CMIP7) along with numerous parallel projects focused on preparation observations for use in model evaluation (obs4MIPs) and forcing datasets (input4MIPs) to guide ESM simulations to meet strict experimental protocols. More information can be obtained from the CMOR website and code repositories: https://cmor.llnl.gov/; https://github.com/pcmdi/cmor; https://github.com/PCMDI/cmor3_documentation The ESM variable definitions used as input for CMOR can also be viewed in code repositories: https://github.com/PCMDI/cmip3-cmor-tables/; https://github.com/PCMDI/cmip5-cmor-tables/; https://github.com/PCMDI/cmip6-cmor-tables/
Scientists use Global Climate Models (GCMs) to better under the current and past climate states of terrestrial (solid surface) bodies in our solar system and beyond, and the physical processes that control them. GCMs are complex, multi-dimensional computer codes that can generally be divided into two parts: the geophysical fluid dynamics (GFD) framework, which represents accelerations and spatially resolved processes, and the physics routines, which provide the forcing functions for the circulation. Producing a GCM that is appropriate for a particular body—Mars, for example—requires implementing the appropriate physics routines (e.g., radiative transfer, planetary boundary layer physics, dust lifting physics to generate dust storms, etc.) for that body. In this talk, I will give an overview of the components of the NASA Ames Mars GCM and discuss some of the scientific questions we address with this state-of-the-art numerical model.
As climate models become increasingly complex, there is a growing need to comprehensively and systematically assess model performance with respect to observations. Given the increasing number and diversity of climate model simulations in use, the community has moved beyond simple model intercomparison and toward developing methods capable of benchmarking a large number of simulations against a suite of climate metrics. Here, we present a detailed review of evaluation and benchmarking methods and approaches developed in the last decade, focusing primarily on scientific implications for Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) simulations and CMIP6 results that contributed to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6). Based on this review, we explain the resulting contemporary philosophy of model benchmarking, and provide clear distinctions and definitions of the terms model verification, process validation, evaluation, and benchmarking. While significant progress has been made in model development based on systematic evaluation and benchmarking efforts, some climate system biases still remain. The development of open‐source community software packages has played a fundamental role in identifying areas of significant model improvement and bias reduction. We review the key features of several software packages that have been commonly used over the past decade to evaluate and benchmark global and regional climate models. Additionally, we discuss best practices for the selection of evaluation and benchmarking metrics and for interpreting the obtained results, the importance of selecting suitable sources of reference data and accurate uncertainty quantification.
A simple climatic model is developed for a Mars atmosphere containing CO2 and sufficient liquid water to account for the observed hydrologic surface features by the existence of a CO2/H2O greenhouse effect. A latitude-resolved climate model originally devised for terrestrial climate studies is applied to Martian conditions, with the difference between absorbed solar flux and emitted long-wave flux to space per unit area attributed to the divergence of the meridional heat flux and the poleward heat flux assumed to equal the atmospheric eddy heat flux. The global mean energy balance is calculated as a function of atmospheric pressure to assess the CO2/H2O greenhouse liquid water hypothesis, and some latitude-resolved cases are examined in detail in order to clarify the role of atmospheric transport and temperature-albedo feedback. It is shown that the combined CO2/H2O greenhouse at plausible early surface pressures may account for climates hot enough to support a hydrological cycle and running water at present-day insolation and visible albedo levels.
A new radiative transfer model combining the efforts of three groups of researchers is discussed. The model accurately computes radiative transfer in a inhomogeneous absorbing, scattering and emitting atmospheres. As an illustration of the model, results are shown for the effects of dust on the thermal radiation.
A new radiative transfer model combining the efforts of three groups of researchers is discussed. The model accurately computes radiative transfer in a inhomogeneous absorbing, scattering and emitting atmospheres. As an illustration of the model, results are shown for the effects of dust on the thermal radiation.
A new radiative transfer model combining the efforts of three groups of researchers is discussed. The model accurately computes radiative transfer in a inhomogeneous absorbing, scattering and emitting atmospheres. As an illustration of the model, results are shown for the effects of dust on the thermal radiation.
No abstract available
Comparing the output of general circulation models to observations is essential for assessing and improving the quality of models. While numerical weather prediction models are routinely assessed against a large array of observations, comparing climate models and observations usually requires long time series to build robust statistics. Here, we show that by nudging the large-scale atmospheric circulation in coupled climate models, model output can be compared to local observations for individual days. We illustrate this for three climate models during a period in April 2020 when a warm air intrusion reached the MOSAiC (Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate) expedition in the central Arctic. Radiosondes, cloud remote sensing and surface flux observations from the MOSAiC expedition serve as reference observations. The climate models AWI-CM1/ECHAM and AWI-CM3/IFS miss the diurnal cycle of surface temperature in spring, likely because both models assume the snowpack on ice to have a uniform temperature. CAM6, a model that uses three layers to represent snow temperature, represents the diurnal cycle more realistically. During a cold and dry period with pervasive thin mixed-phase clouds, AWI-CM1/ECHAM only produces partial cloud cover and overestimates downwelling shortwave radiation at the surface. AWI-CM3/IFS produces a closed cloud cover but misses cloud liquid water. Our results show that nudging the large-scale circulation to the observed state allows a meaningful comparison of climate model output even to short-term observational campaigns. We suggest that nudging can simplify and accelerate the pathway from observations to climate model improvements and substantially extends the range of observations suitable for model evaluation.
The methods to quantify equilibrium climate sensitivity are still debated. We collect millennial length simulations of coupled climate models and show that the global mean equilibrium warming is higher than those obtained using extrapolation methods from shorter simulations. Specifically, 27 simulations with 15 climate models forced with a range of CO2 concentrations show a median 17% larger equilibrium warming than estimated from the first 150 years of the simulations. The spatial patterns of radiative feedbacks change continuously, in most regions reducing their tendency to stabilizing the climate. In the equatorial Pacific, however, feedbacks become more stabilizing with time. The global feedback evolution is initially dominated by the tropics, with eventual substantial contributions from the midlatitudes. Time dependent feedbacks underscore the need of a measure of climate sensitivity that accounts for the degree of equilibration, so that models, observations, and paleo proxies can be adequately compared and aggregated to estimate future warming.
A seasonal climate model was developed to test the climate sensitivity and, in particular, the Milankovitch (1941) theory. Four climate model versions were implemented to investigate the range of uncertainty in the parameterizations of three basic feedback mechanisms: the ice albedo-temperature, the outgoing long-wave radiation-temperature, and the eddy transport-meridional temperature gradient. It was found that the differences between the simulation of the present climate by the four versions were generally small, especially for annually averaged results. The climate model was also used to study the effect of growing/shrinking of a continental ice sheet, bedrock sinking/uplifting, and sea level changes on the climate system, taking also into account the feedback effects on the climate of the building of the ice caps.
We present here results from the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) simulations for the experiments G6sulfur and G6solar for six Earth system models participating in the Climate Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) Phase 6. The aim of the experiments is to reduce the warming that results from a high-tier emission scenario (Shared Socioeconomic Pathways SSP5-8.5) to that resulting from a medium-tier emission scenario (SSP2-4.5). These simulations aim to analyze the response of climate models to a reduction in incoming surface radiation as a means to reduce global surface temperatures, and they do so either by simulating a stratospheric sulfate aerosol layer or, in a more idealized way, through a uniform reduction in the solar constant in the model. We find that over the final two decades of this century there are considerable inter-model spreads in the needed injection amounts of sulfate (29 ± 9 Tg-SO 2 /yr between 2081 and 2100), in the latitudinal distribution of the aerosol cloud and in the stratospheric temperature changes resulting from the added aerosol layer. Even in the simpler G6solar experiment, there is a spread in the needed solar dimming to achieve the same global temperature target (1.91 ± 0.44 %). The analyzed models already show significant differences in the response to the increasing CO 2 concentrations for global mean temperatures and global mean precipitation (2.05 K ± 0.42 K and 2.28 ± 0.80 %, respectively, for SSP5-8.5 minus SSP2-4.5 averaged over 2081–2100). With aerosol injection, the differences in how the aerosols spread further change some of the underlying uncertainties, such as the global mean precipitation response (–3.79 ± 0.76 % for G6sulfur compared to –2.07 ± 0.40 % for G6solar against SSP2-4.5 between 2081 and 2100). These differences in the behavior of the aerosols also result in a larger uncertainty in the regional surface temperature response among models in the case of the G6sulfur simulations, suggesting the need to devise various, more specific experiments to single out and resolve particular sources of uncertainty. The spread in the modeled response suggests that a degree of caution is necessary when using these results for assessing specific impacts of geoengineering in various aspects of the Earth system. However, all models agree that compared to a scenario with unmitigated warming, stratospheric aerosol geoengineering has the potential to both globally and locally reduce the increase in surface temperatures.
The interplay between energy, climate, and weather is becoming more complex due to increasing contributions of renewable energy generation, energy storage, electrified end uses, and the increasing frequency of extreme weather events. Energy system analyses commonly rely on meteorological inputs to estimate renewable energy generation and energy demand; however, these inputs rarely represent the estimated impacts of future climate change. Climate models and publicly available climate change datasets can be used for this purpose, but the selection of inputs from the myriad of available models and datasets is a nuanced and subjective process. In this work, we assess datasets from various global climate models (GCMs) from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). We present evaluations of their skills with respect to the historical climate and comparisons of their future projections of climate change for two climate change scenarios. We present the results for different climatic and energy system regions and include interactive figures in the accompanying software repository. Previous work has presented similar GCM evaluations, but none have presented variables and metrics specifically intended for comprehensive energy systems analysis including impacts on energy demand, thermal cooling, hydropower, water availability, solar energy generation, and wind energy generation. We focus on GCM output meteorological variables that directly affect these energy system components including the representation of extreme values that can drive grid resilience events. The objective of this work is not to recommend the best climate model and dataset for a given analysis, but instead to provide a reference to facilitate the selection of climate models and scenarios in subsequent work.