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 Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) is a community diagnostics and performance metrics tool designed to improve comprehensive and routine evaluation of Earth system models (ESMs) participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). It has undergone rapid development since the first release in 2016 and is now a well-tested tool that provides end-to-end provenance tracking to ensure reproducibility. It consists of (1) an easy-to-install, well-documented Python package providing the core functionalities (ESMValCore) that performs common preprocessing operations and (2) a diagnostic part that includes tailored diagnostics and performance metrics for specific scientific applications. Here we describe large-scale diagnostics of the second major release of the tool that supports the evaluation of ESMs participating in CMIP Phase 6 (CMIP6). ESMValTool v2.0 includes a large collection of diagnostics and performance metrics for atmospheric, oceanic, and terrestrial variables for the mean state, trends, and variability. ESMValTool v2.0 also successfully reproduces figures from the evaluation and projections chapters of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and incorporates updates from targeted analysis packages, such as the NCAR Climate Variability Diagnostics Package for the evaluation of modes of variability, the Thermodynamic Diagnostic Tool (TheDiaTo) to evaluate the energetics of the climate system, as well as parts of AutoAssess that contains a mix of top–down performance metrics. The tool has been fully integrated into the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) infrastructure at the Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum (DKRZ) to provide evaluation results from CMIP6 model simulations shortly after the output is published to the CMIP archive. A result browser has been implemented that enables advanced monitoring of the evaluation results by a broad user community at much faster timescales than what was possible in CMIP5.
13 February 2020 in Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
Quasi‐biennial oscillations (QBOs) in thirteen atmospheric general circulation models forced with both observed and annually repeating sea surface temperatures (SSTs) are evaluated. In most models the QBO period is close to, but shorter than, the observed period of 28 months. Amplitudes are within ±20% of the observed QBO amplitude at 10 hPa, but typically about half of that observed at lower altitudes (50 and 70 hPa). For almost all models, the oscillation's amplitude profile shows an overall upward shift compared to reanalysis and its meridional extent is too narrow. Asymmetry in the duration of eastward and westward phases is reasonably well captured, though not all models replicate the observed slowing of the descending westward shear. Westward phases are generally too weak, and most models have an eastward time mean wind bias throughout the depth of the QBO. The intercycle period variability is realistic and in some models is enhanced in the experiment with observed SSTs compared to the experiment with repeated annual cycle SSTs. Mean periods are also sensitive to this difference between SSTs, but only when parametrized non‐orographic gravity wave (NOGW) sources are coupled to tropospheric parameters and not prescribed with a fixed value. Overall, however, modelled QBOs are very similar whether or not the prescribed SSTs vary interannually. A portrait of the overall ensemble performance is provided by a normalized grading of QBO metrics. To simulate a QBO, all but one model used parametrized NOGWs, which provided the majority of the total wave forcing at altitudes above 70 hPa in most models. Hence the representation of NOGWs either explicitly or through parametrization is still a major uncertainty underlying QBO simulation in these present‐day experiments.
The Stratosphere–troposphere Processes And their Role in Climate (SPARC) Quasi-Biennial Oscillation initiative (QBOi) aims to improve the fidelity of tropical stratospheric variability in general circulation and Earth system models by conducting coordinated numerical experiments and analysis. In the equatorial stratosphere, the QBO is the most conspicuous mode of variability. Five coordinated experiments have therefore been designed to (i) evaluate and compare the verisimilitude of modelled QBOs under present-day conditions, (ii) identify robustness (or alternatively the spread and uncertainty) in the simulated QBO response to commonly imposed changes in model climate forcings (e.g. a doubling of CO2 amounts), and (iii) examine model dependence of QBO predictability. This paper documents these experiments and the recommended output diagnostics. The rationale behind the experimental design and choice of diagnostics is presented. To facilitate scientific interpretation of the results in other planned QBOi studies, consistent descriptions of the models performing each experiment set are given, with those aspects particularly relevant for simulating the QBO tabulated for easy comparison.
17 January 2020 in Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
We compare the response of the Quasi‐Biennial Oscillation (QBO) to a warming climate in eleven atmosphere general circulation models that performed time‐slice simulations for present‐day, doubled, and quadrupled CO2 climates. No consistency was found among the models for the QBO period response, with the period decreasing by 8 months in some models and lengthening by up to 13 months in others in the doubled CO2 simulations. In the quadrupled CO2 simulations, a reduction in QBO period of 14 months was found in some models, whereas in several others the tropical oscillation no longer resembled the present‐day QBO, although it could still be identified in the deseasonalized zonal mean zonal wind timeseries. In contrast, all the models projected a decrease in the QBO amplitude in a warmer climate with the largest relative decrease near 60 hPa. In simulations with doubled and quadrupled CO2, the multi‐model mean QBO amplitudes decreased by 36 and 51%, respectively. Across the models the differences in the QBO period response were most strongly related to how the gravity wave momentum flux entering the stratosphere and tropical vertical residual velocity responded to the increases in CO2 amounts. Likewise it was found that the robust decrease in QBO amplitudes was correlated across the models to changes in vertical residual velocity, parametrized gravity wave momentum fluxes, and to some degree the resolved upward wave flux. We argue that uncertainty in the representation of the parameterized gravity waves is the most likely cause of the spread among the eleven models in the QBO's response to climate change.
18 May 2020 in Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
We analyze the stratospheric waves in models participating in phase 1 of the Stratosphere–troposphere Processes And their Role in Climate (SPARC) Quasi‐Biennial Oscillation initiative (QBOi). All models have robust Kelvin and mixed Rossby‐gravity wave modes in winds and temperatures at 50 hPa and represent them better than most of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) models. There is still some spread among the models, especially concerning the mixed Rossby‐gravity waves. We attribute the variability in equatorial waves among the QBOi models in part to the varying horizontal and vertical resolutions, to systematic biases in zonal winds, and to the considerable variability in convectively coupled waves in the troposphere among the models: only roughly half of the QBOi models have realistic convectively coupled Kelvin waves and only a few models have convectively coupled mixed Rossby‐gravity waves. The models with stronger convectively coupled waves tend to produce larger zonal mean forcing due to resolved waves in the QBO region. Finally we evaluate the Eliassen–Palm (EP) flux and EP flux divergence of the resolved waves in the QBOi models. We find that there is a large spread in the forcing from resolved waves in the QBO region, and the resolved wave forcing has a robust correlation with model vertical resolution.