ALBERT

Description: The effective radiative forcing, which includes the instantaneous forcing plus adjustments from the atmosphere and surface, has emerged as the key metric of evaluating human and natural influence on the climate. We evaluate effective radiative forcing and adjustments in 17 contemporary climate models that are participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) and have contributed to the Radiative Forcing Model Intercomparison Project (RFMIP). Present-day (2014) global-mean anthropogenic forcing relative to pre-industrial (1850) levels from climate models stands at 2.00 (±0.23) W m−2, comprised of 1.81 (±0.09) W m−2 from CO2, 1.08 (± 0.21) W m−2 from other well-mixed greenhouse gases, −1.01 (± 0.23) W m−2 from aerosols and −0.09 (±0.13) W m−2 from land use change. Quoted uncertainties are 1 standard deviation across model best estimates, and 90 % confidence in the reported forcings, due to internal variability, is typically within 0.1 W m−2. The majority of the remaining 0.21 W m−2 is likely to be from ozone. In most cases, the largest contributors to the spread in effective radiative forcing (ERF) is from the instantaneous radiative forcing (IRF) and from cloud responses, particularly aerosol–cloud interactions to aerosol forcing. As determined in previous studies, cancellation of tropospheric and surface adjustments means that the stratospherically adjusted radiative forcing is approximately equal to ERF for greenhouse gas forcing but not for aerosols, and consequentially, not for the anthropogenic total. The spread of aerosol forcing ranges from −0.63 to −1.37 W m−2, exhibiting a less negative mean and narrower range compared to 10 CMIP5 models. The spread in 4×CO2 forcing has also narrowed in CMIP6 compared to 13 CMIP5 models. Aerosol forcing is uncorrelated with climate sensitivity. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that the increasing spread in climate sensitivity in CMIP6 models, particularly related to high-sensitivity models, is a consequence of a stronger negative present-day aerosol forcing and little evidence that modelling groups are systematically tuning climate sensitivity or aerosol forcing to recreate observed historical warming.

Description: Model calibration (or "tuning") is a necessary part of developing and testing coupled ocean-atmosphere climate models regardless of their main scientific purpose. There is an increasing recognition that this process needs to become more transparent for both users of climate model output and other developers. Knowing how and why climate models are tuned and which targets are used is essential to avoiding possible misattributions of skillful predictions to data accommodation and vice versa. This paper describes the approach and practice of model tuning for the six major U.S. climate modeling centers. While details differ among groups in terms of scientific missions, tuning targets and tunable parameters, there is a core commonality of approaches. However, practices differ significantly on some key aspects, in particular, in the use of initialized forecast analyses as a tool, the explicit use of the historical transient record, and the use of the present day radiative imbalance vs. the implied balance in the pre-industrial as a target.

Description: This paper documents coupled simulations of two developmental versions of the Community Atmosphere Model (CAM) towards CAM6. The configuration called CAM5.4 introduces new microphysics, aerosol, and ice nucleation changes, among others to CAM. The CAM5.5 configuration represents a more radical departure as it uses an assumed PDF-based unified cloud parameterization to replace the turbulence, shallow convection, and warm cloud macrophysics in CAM. This assumed PDF method has been widely used in the last decade in atmosphere-only climate simulations, but has never been documented in coupled mode. Here we compare the simulated coupled climates of CAM5.4 and CAM5.5 and compare them to the control coupled simulation produced by CAM5.3. We find that CAM5.5 has lower cloud forcing biases when compared to the control simulations. Improvements are also seen in the simulated amplitude of the El Niño 3.4 index, an improved representation of the diurnal cycle of precipitation, sub-tropical surface wind stresses, and double Intertropical Convergence zone biases.  Degradations are seen in Amazon precipitation as well as slightly colder sea surface temperatures and thinner Arctic Sea Ice. Simulation of the 20th century results in a credible simulation that ends slightly colder than the control coupled simulation. The authors find this is due to aerosol indirect effects that are slightly stronger in the new version of the model and propose a solution to ameliorate this. Overall, in these relatively untuned coupled simulations, CAM5.5 produces a credible climate that is appropriate for science applications and is ready for integration into the National Center for Atmospheric Research's (NCAR's) next generation climate model.

Description: Model calibration (or tuning) is a necessary part of developing and testing coupled ocean–atmosphere climate models regardless of their main scientific purpose. There is an increasing recognition that this process needs to become more transparent for both users of climate model output and other developers. Knowing how and why climate models are tuned and which targets are used is essential to avoiding possible misattributions of skillful predictions to data accommodation and vice versa. This paper describes the approach and practice of model tuning for the six major US climate modeling centers. While details differ among groups in terms of scientific missions, tuning targets, and tunable parameters, there is a core commonality of approaches. However, practices differ significantly on some key aspects, in particular, in the use of initialized forecast analyses as a tool, the explicit use of the historical transient record, and the use of the present-day radiative imbalance vs. the implied balance in the preindustrial era as a target.

Description: This paper documents coupled simulations of two developmental versions of the Community Atmosphere Model (CAM) towards CAM6. The configuration called CAM5.4 introduces new microphysics, aerosol, and ice nucleation changes, among others to CAM. The CAM5.5 configuration represents a more radical departure, as it uses an assumed probability density function (PDF)-based unified cloud parameterization to replace the turbulence, shallow convection, and warm cloud macrophysics in CAM. This assumed PDF method has been widely used in the last decade in atmosphere-only climate simulations but has never been documented in coupled mode. Here, we compare the simulated coupled climates of CAM5.4 and CAM5.5 and compare them to the control coupled simulation produced by CAM5.3. We find that CAM5.5 has lower cloud forcing biases when compared to the control simulations. Improvements are also seen in the simulated amplitude of the Niño-3.4 index, an improved representation of the diurnal cycle of precipitation, subtropical surface wind stresses, and double Intertropical Convergence Zone biases. Degradations are seen in Amazon precipitation as well as slightly colder sea surface temperatures and thinner Arctic sea ice. Simulation of the 20th century results in a credible simulation that ends slightly colder than the control coupled simulation. The authors find this is due to aerosol indirect effects that are slightly stronger in the new version of the model and propose a solution to ameliorate this. Overall, in these early coupled simulations, CAM5.5 produces a credible climate that is appropriate for science applications and is ready for integration into the National Center for Atmospheric Research's (NCAR's) next-generation climate model.