24 research outputs found

    Future Climate Change under SSP Emission Scenarios with GISS-E2.1

    Get PDF
    Abstract This paper presents the response to anthropogenic forcing in the GISS-E2.1 climate models for the 21st century Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) emission scenarios within the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6). The experiments were performed using an updated and improved version of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) coupled general circulation model that includes two different versions for atmospheric composition: a non-interactive version (NINT) with prescribed composition and a tuned aerosol indirect effect (AIE) and the One-Moment Aerosol model (OMA) version with fully interactive aerosols which includes a parameterized first indirect aerosol effect on clouds. The effective climate sensitivities are 3.0ÂșC and 2.9ÂșC for the NINT and OMA models, respectively. Each atmospheric version is coupled to two different ocean general circulation models: the GISS ocean model (E2.1-G) and HYCOM (E2.1-H). We describe the global mean responses for all future scenarios and spatial patterns of change for surface air temperature and precipitation for four of the marker scenarios: SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, SSP4-6.0, and SSP5-8.5. By 2100, global mean warming ranges from 1.5ÂșC to 5.2ÂșC relative to 1850-1880 mean temperature. Two high-mitigation scenarios SSP1-1.9 and SSP1-2.6 limit the surface warming to below 2°C by the end of the 21st century, except for the NINT E2.1-H model that simulates 2.2°C of surface warming. For the high emission scenario SSP5-8.5, the range is 4.6-5.2ÂșC at 2100. Due to about 15\% larger effective climate sensitivity (ECS) and stronger transient climate response (TCR) in both NINT and OMA CMIP6 models compared to CMIP5 versions, there is a stronger warming by 2100 in the SSP emission scenarios than in the comparable RCP scenarios in CMIP5. Changes in sea ice area are highly correlated to global mean surface air temperature anomalies and show steep declines in both hemispheres, with the largest sea ice area decreases occurring during September in the Northern Hemisphere in both E2.1-G (-1.21×106 km2/°C) and E2.1-H models (-0.94×106 km2/°C). Both coupled models project decreases in the Atlantic overturning stream function by 2100. The largest decrease of 56-65\% in the 21st century overturning stream function is produced in the warmest scenario SSP5-8.5 in the E2.1-G model, comparable to the reduction in the corresponding CMIP5 GISS-E2 RCP8.5 simulation. Both low-end scenarios SSP1-1.9 and SSP1-2.6 also simulate substantial reductions of the overturning (9-37\%) with slow recovery of about 10\% by the end of the 21st century (relative to the maximum decrease at the middle of the 21st century)Development of GISS-E2.1 was supported by the NASA Modeling, Analysis, and Prediction (MAP) Program. CMIP6 simulations with GISS-E2.1 were made possible by the NASA High-End Computing (HEC) Program through the NASA Center for Climate Simulation (NCCS) at Goddard Space Flight Center. We thank Ellen Salmon and the NCCS staff for hosting and providing convenient access to the model output. CMIP6 standard variables analyzed in this study are available through the Earth System Grid Federation and from https://portal.nccs.nasa.gov/datashare/giss_cmip6.Peer Reviewed"Article signat per 46 autors/es: Larissa S. Nazarenko, Nick Tausnev, Gary L. Russell, David Rind, Ron L. Miller, Gavin A. Schmidt, Susanne E. Bauer, Maxwell Kelley, Reto Ruedy, Andrew S. Ackerman, Igor Aleinov, Michael Bauer, Rainer Bleck, Vittorio Canuto, GrĂ©gory Cesana, Ye Cheng, Thomas L. Clune, Ben I. Cook, Carlos A. Cruz, Anthony D. Del Genio, Gregory S. Elsaesser, Greg Faluvegi, Nancy Y. Kiang, Daehyun Kim, Andrew A. Lacis, Anthony Leboissetier, Allegra N. LeGrande, Ken K. Lo, John Marshall, Elaine E. Matthews, Sonali McDermid, Keren Mezuman, Lee T. Murray, Valdar Oinas, Clara Orbe, Carlos PĂ©rez GarcĂ­a-Pando, Jan P. Perlwitz, Michael J. Puma, Anastasia Romanou, Drew T. Shindell, Shan Sun, Kostas Tsigaridis, George Tselioudis, Ensheng Weng, Jingbo Wu, Mao-Sung Yao "Postprint (author's final draft

    Global warming in the pipeline

    Full text link
    Improved knowledge of glacial-to-interglacial global temperature change implies that fast-feedback equilibrium climate sensitivity is at least ~4{\deg}C for doubled CO2 (2xCO2), with likely range 3.5-5.5{\deg}C. Greenhouse gas (GHG) climate forcing is 4.1 W/m2 larger in 2021 than in 1750, equivalent to 2xCO2 forcing. Global warming in the pipeline is greater than prior estimates. Eventual global warming due to today's GHG forcing alone -- after slow feedbacks operate -- is about 10{\deg}C. Human-made aerosols are a major climate forcing, mainly via their effect on clouds. We infer from paleoclimate data that aerosol cooling offset GHG warming for several millennia as civilization developed. A hinge-point in global warming occurred in 1970 as increased GHG warming outpaced aerosol cooling, leading to global warming of 0.18{\deg}C per decade. Aerosol cooling is larger than estimated in the current IPCC report, but it has declined since 2010 because of aerosol reductions in China and shipping. Without unprecedented global actions to reduce GHG growth, 2010 could be another hinge point, with global warming in following decades 50-100% greater than in the prior 40 years. The enormity of consequences of warming in the pipeline demands a new approach addressing legacy and future emissions. The essential requirement to "save" young people and future generations is return to Holocene-level global temperature. Three urgently required actions are: 1) a global increasing price on GHG emissions, 2) purposeful intervention to rapidly phase down present massive geoengineering of Earth's climate, and 3) renewed East-West cooperation in a way that accommodates developing world needs.Comment: 48 pages, 27 figures. Correction of formatting error on page 21, which messed up placement of all following figure

    Volcanic Contribution to Decadal Changes in Tropospheric Temperature

    Get PDF
    Despite continued growth in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, global mean surface and tropospheric temperatures have shown slower warming since 1998 than previously. Possible explanations for the slow-down include internal climate variability, external cooling influences and observational errors. Several recent modelling studies have examined the contribution of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions to the muted surface warming. Here we present a detailed analysis of the impact of recent volcanic forcing on tropospheric temperature, based on observations as well as climate model simulations. We identify statistically significant correlations between observations of stratospheric aerosol optical depth and satellite-based estimates of both tropospheric temperature and short-wave fluxes at the top of the atmosphere. We show that climate model simulations without the effects of early twenty-first-century volcanic eruptions overestimate the tropospheric warming observed since 1998. In two simulations with more realistic volcanic influences following the 1991 Pinatubo eruption, differences between simulated and observed tropospheric temperature trends over the period 1998 to 2012 are up to 15% smaller, with large uncertainties in the magnitude of the effect. To reduce these uncertainties, better observations of eruption-specific properties of volcanic aerosols are needed, as well as improved representation of these eruption-specific properties in climate model simulations

    CMIP5 Historical Simulations (1850-2012) with GISS ModelE2

    Get PDF
    Observations of climate change during the CMIP5 extended historical period (1850-2012) are compared to trends simulated by six versions of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE2 Earth System Model. The six models are constructed from three versions of the ModelE2 atmospheric general circulation model, distinguished by their treatment of atmospheric composition and the aerosol indirect effect, combined with two ocean general circulation models, HYCOM and Russell. Forcings that perturb the model climate during the historical period are described. Five-member ensemble averages from each of the six versions of ModelE2 simulate trends of surface air temperature, atmospheric temperature, sea ice and ocean heat content that are in general agreement with observed trends, although simulated warming is slightly excessive within the past decade. Only simulations that include increasing concentrations of long-lived greenhouse gases match the warming observed during the twentieth century. Differences in twentieth-century warming among the six model versions can be attributed to differences in climate sensitivity, aerosol and ozone forcing, and heat uptake by the deep ocean. Coupled models with HYCOM export less heat to the deep ocean, associated with reduced surface warming in regions of deepwater formation, but greater warming elsewhere at high latitudes along with reduced sea ice. All ensembles show twentieth-century annular trends toward reduced surface pressure at southern high latitudes and a poleward shift of the midlatitude westerlies, consistent with observations

    Dansgaard-Oeschger events in climate models: review and baseline Marine Isotope Stage 3 (MIS3) protocol

    Get PDF
    Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) events, millennial-scale climate oscillations between stadial and interstadial conditions (of up to 10-15°C in amplitude at high northern latitudes), occurred throughout the Marine Isotope Stage 3 (MIS3; 27.8-59.4ka) period. The climate modelling community up to now has not been able to answer the question of whether our climate models are too stable to simulate D-O events. To address this, this paper lays the ground-work for a MIS3 D-O protocol for general circulation models which are used in the International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) assessments. We review the following: D-O terminology, community progress on simulating D-O events in these IPCC-class models (processes and published examples), and evidence about the boundary conditions under which D-O events occur. We find that no model exhibits D-O-like behaviour under pre-industrial conditions. Some, but not all, models exhibit D-O-like oscillations under MIS3 and/or full glacial conditions. Greenhouse gases and ice sheet configurations are crucial. However most models have not run simulations of long enough duration to be sure which models show D-O-like behaviour, under either MIS3 or full glacial states. We propose a MIS3 baseline protocol at 34ka, which features low obliquity values, medium to low MIS3 greenhouse gas values, and the intermediate ice sheet configuration, which our review suggests are most conducive to D-O-like behaviour in models. We also provide a protocol for a second freshwater (Heinrich-event-preconditioned) experiment, since previous work suggests that this variant may be helpful in preconditioning a state in models which is conducive to D-O events. This review provides modelling groups investigating MIS3 D-O oscillations with a common framework, which is aimed at (1) maximising the chance of the occurrence of D-O-like events in the simulations, (2) allowing more precise model-data evaluation, and (3) providing an adequate central point for modellers to explore model stability.Evan J. Gowan is funded by an international postdoctoral fellowship from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. Bette Otto-Bliesner acknowledges funding by the National Center for Atmospheric Research, which is a major facility sponsored by the National Science Foundation under cooperative agreement no. 1852977. Xu Zhang acknowledges funding from NSFC (no. 42075047). Matthias Prange and Ute Merkel acknowledge support from the PalMod project (http://www.palmod.de, last access: 14 April 2023; FKZ 01LP1916C), funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). Kira Rehfeld and Nils Weitzel acknowledge funding by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation), project no. 395588486, and the PalMod project (https://www.palmod.de/, last access: 13 October 2022), subproject no. 01LP1926C. Chuncheng Guo acknowledges funding from the Research Council of Norway under grant no. 325333 (ABRUPT).Peer reviewe

    GISS‐E2.1: Configurations and Climatology

    Get PDF
    This paper describes the GISS‐E2.1 contribution to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, Phase 6 (CMIP6). This model version differs from the predecessor model (GISS‐E2) chiefly due to parameterization improvements to the atmospheric and ocean model components, while keeping atmospheric resolution the same. Model skill when compared to modern era climatologies is significantly higher than in previous versions. Additionally, updates in forcings have a material impact on the results. In particular, there have been specific improvements in representations of modes of variability (such as the Madden‐Julian Oscillation and other modes in the Pacific) and significant improvements in the simulation of the climate of the Southern Oceans, including sea ice. The effective climate sensitivity to 2 × CO2 is slightly higher than previously at 2.7–3.1°C (depending on version) and is a result of lower CO2 radiative forcing and stronger positive feedbacks.Climate modeling at GISS is supported by the NASA Modeling, Analysis and Prediction program, and resources supporting this work were provided by the NASA High‐End Computing (HEC) Program through the NASA Center for Climate Simulation (NCCS) at Goddard Space Flight Center. We thank Ángel Adames and John Fasullo for providing figures and data from their multimodel comparisons. We also thank the two anonymous reviewers who helped improve the clarity and usefulness of the manuscript.Peer Reviewed"Article signat per 46 autors/es: Maxwell Kelley Gavin A. Schmidt Larissa S. Nazarenko Susanne E. Bauer Reto Ruedy Gary L. Russell Andrew S. Ackerman Igor Aleinov Michael Bauer Rainer Bleck Vittorio Canuto GrĂ©gory Cesana Ye Cheng Thomas L. Clune Ben I. Cook Carlos A. Cruz Anthony D. Del Genio Gregory S. Elsaesser Greg Faluvegi Nancy Y. Kiang Daehyun Kim Andrew A. Lacis Anthony Leboissetier Allegra N. LeGrande Ken K. Lo John Marshall Elaine E. Matthews Sonali McDermid Keren Mezuman Ron L. Miller Lee T. Murray Valdar Oinas Clara Orbe Carlos PĂ©rez GarcĂ­a‐Pando Jan P. Perlwitz Michael J. Puma David Rind Anastasia Romanou Drew T. Shindell Shan Sun Nick Tausnev Kostas Tsigaridis George Tselioudis Ensheng Weng Jingbo Wu Mao‐Sung Yao"Postprint (published version
    corecore