Search

Climate models are becoming increasingly sophisticated as climate scientists continually work to improve the realism with which the processes influencing Earth's climate are represented. One example is the treatment of cloud microphysics: as complexity is added to cloud microphysical schemes, Earth's energy budget can respond to changes in climate forcings, such as carbon dioxide or aerosols, in new ways. This increase in degrees of freedom has illuminated larger spread in climate sensitivity across the latest generation of climate models participating Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, Phase 6, with more high climate sensitivity models (Zelinka et al., 2020, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019gl085782). Whilst the historical record gives us just over a century of data to apply toward climate sensitivity constraints (e.g., Nijsse et al., 2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-737-2020), the ocean is still taking up much of the heat trapped by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and the climate system is far from equilibrium which limits our understanding how climate sensitivity might change in response to long-term forced climate change. Here we discuss the valuable tests that paleoclimate reconstructions can provide the latest generation of climate models, as demonstrated by the recent study of Zhu et al., 2022, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021ms002776. Their study provides an example of the benefits for climate model development when climate models are confronted with simulating climates very different from today. Ideally the climate model development stage under future iterations of CMIP will involve such tests as an effort to constrain global climate sensitivity and the regional patterns of climate, such as polar amplification and subtropical aridification., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Geophysical Union.)

A climate model's ability to reproduce observed historical warming is sometimes viewed as a measure of quality. Yet, for practical reasons it cannot be considered a purely empirical result of the modeling efforts because the desired result is known in advance and so is a potential target of tuning. Here we report how the latest edition of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology Earth System Models (MPI-ESM1.2) atmospheric component (ECHAM6.3) had its sensitivity systematically tuned in order to improve the modeled match with the instrumental record. In practice, this was done by targeting an equilibrium climate sensitivity of about 3 K, slightly lower than in the previous model generation (MPI-ESM), which warmed more than observed, and in particular by addressing a climate sensitivity of about 7 K in an intermediate version of the model. In the process we identified several controls on cloud feedback, some of which confirm recently proposed hypotheses. We find the model exhibits excellent fidelity with the observed centennial global warming. We further find that an alternative approach with high climate sensitivity compensated by strong aerosol cooling instead would yield colder than observed results in the second half of the twentieth century., (©2020. The Authors.)

A new release of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology Earth System Model version 1.2 (MPI-ESM1.2) is presented. The development focused on correcting errors in and improving the physical processes representation, as well as improving the computational performance, versatility, and overall user friendliness. In addition to new radiation and aerosol parameterizations of the atmosphere, several relatively large, but partly compensating, coding errors in the model's cloud, convection, and turbulence parameterizations were corrected. The representation of land processes was refined by introducing a multilayer soil hydrology scheme, extending the land biogeochemistry to include the nitrogen cycle, replacing the soil and litter decomposition model and improving the representation of wildfires. The ocean biogeochemistry now represents cyanobacteria prognostically in order to capture the response of nitrogen fixation to changing climate conditions and further includes improved detritus settling and numerous other refinements. As something new, in addition to limiting drift and minimizing certain biases, the instrumental record warming was explicitly taken into account during the tuning process. To this end, a very high climate sensitivity of around 7 K caused by low-level clouds in the tropics as found in an intermediate model version was addressed, as it was not deemed possible to match observed warming otherwise. As a result, the model has a climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO 2 over preindustrial conditions of 2.77 K, maintaining the previously identified highly nonlinear global mean response to increasing CO 2 forcing, which nonetheless can be represented by a simple two-layer model., (©2019. The Authors.)

Weather and climate models struggle to represent lower tropospheric temperature and moisture profiles and surface fluxes in Arctic winter, partly because they lack or misrepresent physical processes that are specific to high latitudes. Observations have revealed two preferred states of the Arctic winter boundary layer. In the cloudy state, cloud liquid water limits surface radiative cooling, and temperature inversions are weak and elevated. In the radiatively clear state, strong surface radiative cooling leads to the build-up of surface-based temperature inversions. Many large-scale models lack the cloudy state, and some substantially underestimate inversion strength in the clear state. Here, the transformation from a moist to a cold dry air mass is modelled using an idealized Lagrangian perspective. The trajectory includes both boundary layer states, and the single-column experiment is the first L agrangian Arc tic air form ation experiment (Larcform 1) organized within GEWEX GASS (Global atmospheric system studies). The intercomparison reproduces the typical biases of large-scale models: Some models lack the cloudy state of the boundary layer due to the representation of mixed-phase micro-physics or to the interaction between micro-and macrophysics. In some models, high emissivities of ice clouds or the lack of an insulating snow layer prevent the build-up of surface-based inversions in the radiatively clear state. Models substantially disagree on the amount of cloud liquid water in the cloudy state and on turbulent heat fluxes under clear skies. Observations of air mass transformations including both boundary layer states would allow for a tighter constraint of model behaviour.