The match between climate services demands and Earth System Models supplies

Earth System Models (ESM) are key ingredients of many of the climate services that are currently being developed and delivered. However, ESMs have more applications than the provision of climate services, and similarly many climate services use more sources of information than ESMs. This discussion paper elaborates on dilemmas that are evident at the interface between ESMs and climate services, in particular: (a) purposes of the models versus service development, (b) gap between the spatial and temporal scales of the models versus the scales needed in applications, and (c) Tailoring climate model results to real-world applications. A continued and broad-minded dialogue between the ESM developers and climate services providers’ communities is needed to improve both the optimal use and direction of ESM development and climate service development. We put forward considerations to improve this dialogue between the communities developing ESMs and climate services, in order to increase the mutual benefit that enhanced understanding of prospects and limitations of ESMs and climate services will bring.This work and its contributors (B. van den Hurk, C. Hewitt, J. Bessembinder, F. Doblas-Reyes, R. Döscher) were funded by the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme of the European Union: Project ref. 689029 (Climateurope project). The co-author and editor of the journal states that she was not involved in the review process of the paper.Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version

Quality assessment of atmospheric surface fields over the Baltic Sea from an ensemble of regional climate model simulations with respect to ocean dynamics

Climate model results for the Baltic Sea region from an ensemble of eight simulations using the Rossby Centre Atmosphere model version 3 (RCA3) driven with lateral boundary data from global climate models (GCMs) are compared with results from a downscaled ERA40 simulation and gridded observations from 1980-2006. The results showed that data from RCA3 scenario simulations should not be used as forcing for Baltic Sea models in climate change impact studies because biases of the control climate significantly affect the simulated changes of future projections. For instance, biases of the sea ice cover in RCA3 in the present climate affect the sensitivity of the model's response to changing climate due to the ice-albedo feedback. From the large ensemble of available RCA3 scenario simulations two GCMs with good performance in downscaling experiments during the control period 1980-2006 were selected. In this study, only the quality of atmospheric surface fields over the Baltic Sea was chosen as a selection criterion. For the greenhouse gas emission scenario A1B two transient simulations for 1961-2100 driven by these two GCMs were performed using the regional, fully coupled atmosphere-ice-ocean model RCAO. It was shown that RCAO has the potential to improve the results in downscaling experiments driven by GCMs considerably, because sea surface temperatures and sea ice concentrations are calculated more realistically with RCAO than when RCA3 has been forced with surface boundary data from GCMs. For instance, the seasonal 2 m air temperature cycle is closer to observations in RCAO than in RCA3 downscaling simulations. However, the parameterizations of air-sea fluxes in RCAO need to be improved

Tundra shrubification and tree-line advance amplify arctic climate warming:results from an individual-based dynamic vegetation model

One major challenge to the improvement of regional climate scenarios for the northern high latitudes is to understand land surface feedbacks associated with vegetation shifts and ecosystem biogeochemical cycling. We employed a customized, Arctic version of the individual-based dynamic vegetation model LPJ-GUESS to simulate the dynamics of upland and wetland ecosystems under a regional climate model-downscaled future climate projection for the Arctic and Subarctic. The simulated vegetation distribution (1961-1990) agreed well with a composite map of actual arctic vegetation. In the future (2051-2080), a poleward advance of the forest-tundra boundary, an expansion of tall shrub tundra, and a dominance shift from deciduous to evergreen boreal conifer forest over northern Eurasia were simulated. Ecosystems continued to sink carbon for the next few decades, although the size of these sinks diminished by the late 21st century. Hot spots of increased CH4 emission were identified in the peatlands near Hudson Bay and western Siberia. In terms of their net impact on regional climate forcing, positive feedbacks associated with the negative effects of tree-line, shrub cover and forest phenology changes on snow-season albedo, as well as the larger sources of CH4, may potentially dominate over negative feedbacks due to increased carbon sequestration and increased latent heat flux

EC-Earth3-AerChem : a global climate model with interactive aerosols and atmospheric chemistry participating in CMIP6

This paper documents the global climate model EC-Earth3-AerChem, one of the members of the EC-Earth3 family of models participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). EC-Earth3-AerChem has interactive aerosols and atmospheric chemistry and contributes to the Aerosols and Chemistry Model Intercomparison Project (AerChemMIP). In this paper, we give an overview of the model, describe in detail how it differs from the other EC-Earth3 configurations, and outline the new features compared with the previously documented version of the model (EC-Earth 2.4). We explain how the model was tuned and spun up under preindustrial conditions and characterize the model's general performance on the basis of a selection of coupled simulations conducted for CMIP6. The net energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere in the preindustrial control simulation is on average 0.09 Wm(-2) with a standard deviation due to interannual variability of 0.25 Wm(-2), showing no significant drift. The global surface air temperature in the simulation is on average 14.08 degrees C with an interannual standard deviation of 0.17 degrees C, exhibiting a small drift of 0.015 +/- 0.005 degrees C per century. The model's effective equilibrium climate sensitivity is estimated at 3.9 degrees C, and its transient climate response is estimated at 2.1 degrees C. The CMIP6 historical simulation displays spurious interdecadal variability in Northern Hemisphere temperatures, resulting in a large spread across ensemble members and a tendency to underestimate observed annual surface temperature anomalies from the early 20th century onwards. The observed warming of the Southern Hemisphere is well reproduced by the model. Compared with the ECMWF (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts) Reanalysis version 5 (ERA5), the surface air temperature climatology for 1995-2014 has an average bias of -0.86 +/- 0.05 degrees C with a standard deviation across ensemble members of 0.35 degrees C in the North-ern Hemisphere and 1.29 +/- 0.02 degrees C with a corresponding standard deviation of 0.05 degrees C in the Southern Hemisphere. The Southern Hemisphere warm bias is largely caused by errors in shortwave cloud radiative effects over the Southern Ocean, a deficiency of many climate models. Changes in the emissions of near-term climate forcers (NTCFs) have significant effects on the global climate from the second half of the 20th century onwards. For the SSP3-7.0 Shared Socioeconomic Pathway, the model gives a global warming at the end of the 21st century (2091-2100) of 4.9 degrees C above the preindustrial mean. A 0.5 degrees C stronger warming is obtained for the AerChemMIP scenario with reduced emissions of NTCFs. With concurrent reductions of future methane concentrations, the warming is projected to be reduced by 0.5 degrees C.Peer reviewe

The EC-Earth3 Earth system model for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6

The Earth system model EC-Earth3 for contributions to CMIP6 is documented here, with its flexible coupling framework, major model configurations, a methodology for ensuring the simulations are comparable across different high-performance computing (HPC) systems, and with the physical performance of base configurations over the historical period. The variety of possible configurations and sub-models reflects the broad interests in the EC-Earth community. EC-Earth3 key performance metrics demonstrate physical behavior and biases well within the frame known from recent CMIP models. With improved physical and dynamic features, new Earth system model (ESM) components, community tools, and largely improved physical performance compared to the CMIP5 version, EC-Earth3 represents a clear step forward for the only European community ESM. We demonstrate here that EC-Earth3 is suited for a range of tasks in CMIP6 and beyond.The development of EC-Earth3 was supported by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under project IS-ENES3, the third phase of the distributed e-infrastructure of the European Network for Earth System Modelling (ENES) (grant agreement no. 824084, PRIMAVERA grant no. 641727, and CRESCENDO grant no. 641816). Etienne Tourigny and Raffaele Bernardello have received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement nos. 748750 (SPFireSD project) and 708063 (NeTNPPAO project). Ivana Cvijanovic was supported by Generalitat de Catalunya (Secretaria d'Universitats i Recerca del Departament d’Empresa i Coneixement) through the Beatriu de Pinós program. Yohan Ruprich-Robert was funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program in the framework of Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant INADEC (grant agreement 800154). Paul A. Miller, Lars Nieradzik, David Wårlind, Roland Schrödner, and Benjamin Smith acknowledge financial support from the strategic research area “Modeling the Regional and Global Earth System” (MERGE) and the Lund University Centre for Studies of Carbon Cycle and Climate Interactions (LUCCI). Paul A. Miller, David Wårlind, and Benjamin Smith acknowledge financial support from the Swedish national strategic e-science research program eSSENCE. Paul A. Miller further acknowledges financial support from the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet) under project no. 621-2013-5487. Shuting Yang acknowledges financial support from a Synergy Grant from the European Research Council under the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013)/ERC (grant agreement 610055) as part of the ice2ice project and the NordForsk-funded Nordic Centre of Excellence project (award 76654) ARCPATH. Marianne Sloth Madsen acknowledges financial support from the Danish National Center for Climate Research (NCKF). Andrea Alessandri and Peter Anthoni acknowledge funding from the Helmholtz Association in its ATMO program. Thomas Arsouze, Arthur Ramos, and Valentina Sicardi received funding from the Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades as part of the DeCUSO project (CGL2017-84493-R).​​​​​​​Peer Reviewed"Article signat per 61 autors/es: Ralf Döscher, Mario Acosta, Andrea Alessandri, Peter Anthoni, Thomas Arsouze, Tommi Bergman, Raffaele Bernardello, Souhail Boussetta, Louis-Philippe Caron, Glenn Carver, Miguel Castrillo, Franco Catalano, Ivana Cvijanovic, Paolo Davini, Evelien Dekker, Francisco J. Doblas-Reyes, David Docquier, Pablo Echevarria, Uwe Fladrich, Ramon Fuentes-Franco, Matthias Gröger, Jost v. Hardenberg, Jenny Hieronymus, M. Pasha Karami, Jukka-Pekka Keskinen, Torben Koenigk, Risto Makkonen, François Massonnet, Martin Ménégoz, Paul A. Miller, Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Lars Nieradzik, Twan van Noije, Paul Nolan, Declan O'Donnell, Pirkka Ollinaho11, Gijs van den Oord, Pablo Ortega, Oriol Tintó Prims, Arthur Ramos, Thomas Reerink, Clement Rousset, Yohan Ruprich-Robert, Philippe Le Sager, Torben Schmith, Roland Schrödner, Federico Serva, Valentina Sicardi, Marianne Sloth Madsen, Benjamin Smith, Tian Tian, Etienne Tourigny, Petteri Uotila, Martin Vancoppenolle, Shiyu Wang, David Wårlind, Ulrika Willén, Klaus Wyser, Shuting Yang, Xavier Yepes-Arbós, and Qiong Zhang"Postprint (author's final draft

EC-Earth3-AerChem: a global climate model with interactive aerosols and atmospheric chemistry participating in CMIP6

This paper documents the global climate model EC-Earth3-AerChem, one of the members of the EC-Earth3 family of models participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). EC-Earth3-AerChem has interactive aerosols and atmospheric chemistry and contributes to the Aerosols and Chemistry Model Intercomparison Project (AerChemMIP). In this paper, we give an overview of the model, describe in detail how it differs from the other EC-Earth3 configurations, and outline the new features compared with the previously documented version of the model (EC-Earth 2.4). We explain how the model was tuned and spun up under preindustrial conditions and characterize the model's general performance on the basis of a selection of coupled simulations conducted for CMIP6. The net energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere in the preindustrial control simulation is on average −0.09 W m−2 with a standard deviation due to interannual variability of 0.25 W m−2, showing no significant drift. The global surface air temperature in the simulation is on average 14.08 ∘C with an interannual standard deviation of 0.17 ∘C, exhibiting a small drift of 0.015 ± 0.005 ∘C per century. The model's effective equilibrium climate sensitivity is estimated at 3.9 ∘C, and its transient climate response is estimated at 2.1 ∘C. The CMIP6 historical simulation displays spurious interdecadal variability in Northern Hemisphere temperatures, resulting in a large spread across ensemble members and a tendency to underestimate observed annual surface temperature anomalies from the early 20th century onwards. The observed warming of the Southern Hemisphere is well reproduced by the model. Compared with the ECMWF (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts) Reanalysis version 5 (ERA5), the surface air temperature climatology for 1995–2014 has an average bias of −0.86 ± 0.05 ∘C with a standard deviation across ensemble members of 0.35 ∘C in the Northern Hemisphere and 1.29 ± 0.02 ∘C with a corresponding standard deviation of 0.05 ∘C in the Southern Hemisphere. The Southern Hemisphere warm bias is largely caused by errors in shortwave cloud radiative effects over the Southern Ocean, a deficiency of many climate models. Changes in the emissions of near-term climate forcers (NTCFs) have significant effects on the global climate from the second half of the 20th century onwards. For the SSP3-7.0 Shared Socioeconomic Pathway, the model gives a global warming at the end of the 21st century (2091–2100) of 4.9 ∘C above the preindustrial mean. A 0.5 ∘C stronger warming is obtained for the AerChemMIP scenario with reduced emissions of NTCFs. With concurrent reductions of future methane concentrations, the warming is projected to be reduced by 0.5 ∘C

The EC-Earth3 Earth system model for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6

The Earth system model EC-Earth3 for contributions to CMIP6 is documented here, with its flexible coupling framework, major model configurations, a methodology for ensuring the simulations are comparable across different high-performance computing (HPC) systems, and with the physical performance of base configurations over the historical period. The variety of possible configurations and sub-models reflects the broad interests in the EC-Earth community. EC-Earth3 key performance metrics demonstrate physical behavior and biases well within the frame known from recent CMIP models. With improved physical and dynamic features, new Earth system model (ESM) components, community tools, and largely improved physical performance compared to the CMIP5 version, EC-Earth3 represents a clear step forward for the only European community ESM. We demonstrate here that EC-Earth3 is suited for a range of tasks in CMIP6 and beyond.Peer reviewe