Characterization of the Present-Day Arctic Atmosphere in CCSM4

Similar documents
A Look at the Present- Day Arc2c Atmosphere in CCSM4

Influence of clouds on radiative fluxes in the Arctic. J. English, J. Kay, A. Gettelman CESM Workshop / PCWG Meeting June 20, 2012

(1) (2) (3) Gijs de Boer (1), Edwin W. Eloranta (1), Matthew D. Shupe (2), Taneil Uttal (2), Jennifer Kay (3) ESRL

The Arctic Energy Budget

Arctic climate projections and progress towards a new CCSM. Marika Holland NCAR

The importance of long-term Arctic weather station data for setting the research stage for climate change studies

Changing predictability characteristics of Arctic sea ice in a warming climate

Seasonality of the Jet Response to Arctic Warming

Extreme, transient Moisture Transport in the high-latitude North Atlantic sector and Impacts on Sea-ice concentration:

The Cryosphere Radiative Effect in CESM. Justin Perket Mark Flanner CESM Polar Climate Working Group Meeting Wednesday June 19, 2013

Changes in seasonal cloud cover over the Arctic seas from satellite and surface observations

Arctic Ocean simulation in the CCSM4

The MODIS Cloud Data Record

Seasonal forecasting activities at ECMWF

BMKG Research on Air sea interaction modeling for YMC

Global climate predictions: forecast drift and bias adjustment issues

An Overview of Atmospheric Analyses and Reanalyses for Climate

GAMINGRE 8/1/ of 7

Seeking a consistent view of energy and water flows through the climate system

Interannual Variations of Arctic Cloud Types:

Aquarius Data Release V2.0 Validation Analysis Gary Lagerloef, Aquarius Principal Investigator H. Kao, ESR And Aquarius Cal/Val Team

Atmospheric circulation analysis for seasonal forecasting

Sea Ice Update. Marika Holland and David Bailey. National Center for Atmospheric Research. CESM Workshop. University of Toronto

Environment and Climate Change Canada / GPC Montreal

Worrying about Snow. Ed B-W, UW, Seattle with CC Bitz. Thanks to NCAR (Jen Kay, PCWG)

On assessing temporal variability and trends of coupled arctic energy budgets. Michael Mayer Leo Haimberger

SC-WACCM! and! Problems with Specifying the Ozone Hole

The Arctic Sea Ice Cover

Observed Southern Ocean Cloud Properties and Shortwave Reflection

The Northern Hemisphere Sea ice Trends: Regional Features and the Late 1990s Change. Renguang Wu

Interannual variation of MODIS NDVI in Lake Taihu and its relation to climate in submerged macrophyte region

On the use of satellite remote sensing to determine direct aerosol radiative effect over land : A case study over China

Constraining Model Predictions of Arctic Sea Ice With Observations. Chris Ander 27 April 2010 Atmos 6030

From short range forecasts to climate change projections of extreme events in the Baltic Sea region

Antarctic Cloud Radiative Forcing at the Surface Estimated from the AVHRR Polar Pathfinder and ISCCP D1 Datasets,

Interannual variability of top-ofatmosphere. CERES instruments

ALASKA REGION CLIMATE OUTLOOK BRIEFING. November 17, 2017 Rick Thoman National Weather Service Alaska Region

Today s Lecture: Land, biosphere, cryosphere (All that stuff we don t have equations for... )

Local Ctimatotogical Data Summary White Hall, Illinois

Jordan G. Powers Kevin W. Manning. Mesoscale and Microscale Meteorology Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder, CO

Sierra Weather and Climate Update

Changing Hydrology under a Changing Climate for a Coastal Plain Watershed

(1) Arctic Sea Ice Predictability,

Evaluation of Satellite and Reanalysis Products of Downward Surface Solar Radiation over East Asia

Predictability of Sudden Stratospheric Warmings in sub-seasonal forecast models

An Annual Cycle of Arctic Cloud Microphysics

Introduction to Climate ~ Part I ~

Influence of Clouds and Aerosols on the Earth s Radiation Budget Using Clouds and the Earth s Radiant Energy System (CERES) Measurements

UPPLEMENT A COMPARISON OF THE EARLY TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY DROUGHT IN THE UNITED STATES TO THE 1930S AND 1950S DROUGHT EPISODES

>200 LWP+IWP (g m 2 )

Supplementary appendix

Characterization of the solar irradiation field for the Trentino region in the Alps

Climate Models and Snow: Projections and Predictions, Decades to Days

CESM1-WACCM: Comparison with CCSM4/ CESM CMIP5 simulations

Radiative Climatology of the North Slope of Alaska and the Adjacent Arctic Ocean

Assessing the impact of Arctic sea ice variability on Greenland Ice Sheet surface mass and energy exchange

How well do we know the climatological characteristics of the North Atlantic jet stream? Isla Simpson, CAS, CDG, NCAR

2003 Moisture Outlook

Climatography of the United States No

An Assessment of Contemporary Global Reanalyses in the Polar Regions

A Preliminary Assessment of the Simulation of Cloudiness at SHEBA by the ECMWF Model. Tony Beesley and Chris Bretherton. Univ.

Photo courtesy National Geographic

Simulations of Lake Processes within a Regional Climate Model

S e a s o n a l F o r e c a s t i n g f o r t h e E u r o p e a n e n e r g y s e c t o r

Global Ocean Monitoring: Recent Evolution, Current Status, and Predictions

Recent trends in energy flows through the Arctic climate system. Michael Mayer Leo Haimberger

Linkages between Arctic sea ice loss and midlatitude

Faisal S. Syed, Shahbaz M.,Nadia R.,Siraj I. K., M. Adnan Abid, M. Ashfaq, F. Giorgi, J. Pal, X. Bi

Atmospheric Boundary Layer over Land, Ocean, and Ice. Xubin Zeng, Michael Brunke, Josh Welty, Patrick Broxton University of Arizona

High-latitude influence on mid-latitude weather and climate

Short-term sea ice forecasts with the RASM-ESRL coupled model

Colorado s 2003 Moisture Outlook

Climatography of the United States No

Evaluation and Intercomparison of Cloud Fraction and Radiative Fluxes in Recent Reanalyses over the Arctic Using BSRN Surface Observations

ALASKA REGION CLIMATE FORECAST BRIEFING. January 23, 2015 Rick Thoman ESSD Climate Services

Dust storm variability over EGYPT By Fathy M ELashmawy Egyptian Meteorological Authority

The effect of ocean mixed layer depth on climate in slab ocean aquaplanet ABSTRACT

Variability of Reference Evapotranspiration Across Nebraska

Trends in Climate Teleconnections and Effects on the Midwest

M. Mielke et al. C5816

ENSO Outlook by JMA. Hiroyuki Sugimoto. El Niño Monitoring and Prediction Group Climate Prediction Division Japan Meteorological Agency

Drought in Southeast Colorado

Life Cycle of Convective Systems over Western Colombia

13.10 RECENT ARCTIC CLIMATE TRENDS OBSERVED FROM SPACE AND THE CLOUD-RADIATION FEEDBACK

Quality Control of the National RAWS Database for FPA Timothy J Brown Beth L Hall

Seasonal Weather Forecast Talk Show on Capricorn FM and North West FM

The University of Texas at Austin, Jackson School of Geosciences, Austin, Texas 2. The National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado 3

Extratropical and Polar Cloud Systems

Climatography of the United States No

Climatography of the United States No

Ground-Based Observations of Clouds in the Arctic --

Hail and the Climate System: Large Scale Environment Relationships for the Continental United States

Modeling the Arctic Climate System

Relationship between atmospheric circulation indices and climate variability in Estonia

The Arctic Surface Energy Budget as Simulated with the IPCC AR4 AOGCMs

Agricultural Science Climatology Semester 2, Anne Green / Richard Thompson

5.6. Barrow, Alaska, USA

Time Series Analysis

On the presence of tropical vortices over the Southeast Asian Sea- Maritime Continent region

Climatography of the United States No

Transcription:

Characterization of the Present-Day Arctic Atmosphere in CCSM4 Gijs de Boer 1, Bill Chapman 2, Jennifer Kay 3, Brian Medeiros 3, Matthew Shupe 4, Steve Vavrus, and John Walsh 6 (1) (2) (3) (4) ESRL () (6) CCSM Polar Climate Working Group Meeting, Boulder, CO, February 28 - March 1, 211

Goals: - Document the ability of CCSM4 to simulate the present-day Arctic atmosphere via evaluation of several key variables - SLP - Tsfc - Cloudiness - Atmospheric Energy Budget - Precipitation/Evaporation - Boundary Layer Stability - Document the ability of CCSM4 to correctly simulate variability within the system for some variables CCSM Polar Climate Working Group Meeting, Boulder, CO, February 28 - March 1, 211

Area of Study: Map courtesy of NOAA (modified) CCSM Polar Climate Working Group Meeting, Boulder, CO, February 28 - March 1, 211

Simulations: - Seven present-day AR CCSM4 simulations (6 ensemble members + MOAR) - MOAR ( Mother Of All Runs ) has high frequency output (up to 3 hourly for some variables), allowing for evaluation extremes, and monthly distributions - All simulations run at f9_g16 (.9 x1.2 ) atmosphere and land grids, gx1v6 displaced pole ocean and sea ice grids CCSM Polar Climate Working Group Meeting, Boulder, CO, February 28 - March 1, 211

Surface Temperature: - Spatial patterns simulated very well - Small but potentially important negative bias across most of Arctic - Largest negative biases east of Greenland - Largest variability between ensemble members along Barents Sea - Largest biases and smallest standard deviation during JJA - Smallest biases during FMA - RMSE of ~2-3. K -ERA-4 courtesy of Bill Chapman CCSM Polar Climate Working Group Meeting, Boulder, CO, February 28 - March 1, 211

Surface Temperature Variability: 6-hourly Temperature (K) Relative Frequency.2.1..2.1..2.1. CCSM4 ERA-4 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 24 28 24 28 24 28 24 28 -ERA-4 courtesy of Bill Chapman Temperature (K) CCSM Polar Climate Working Group Meeting, Boulder, CO, February 28 - March 1, 211

Sea Level Pressure: - Beaufort High (-1 mb bias)!! - Generally negative biases throughout Arctic (except for June) - Largest variability between ensemble members along Barents and Kara Seas during winter and spring - Largest biases and largest standard deviation during spring - Very small biases during JJA - RMSE of ~2-13 mb -ERA-4 courtesy of Bill Chapman CCSM Polar Climate Working Group Meeting, Boulder, CO, February 28 - March 1, 211

Clouds: ** Clouds are challenging to evaluate ** - Short datasets (1-2 years at a given location) - Cloud Fraction definition is not standardized, and sampling issues exist - Different thresholds used by different sensors, so we included a wide range of estimates including human, satellite and ground-based observations - Sampling -- Quick and dirty evaluation of station sampling errors provides estimate of sampling induced error (~%), but more thorough evaluation is needed and planned 11 11 11 11 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 9.69.69.69.6 8 8.4 8.4 8.4.4 7 7.2 7.2 7.2.2 6 4 3 6..48 4.46 3 6..48 4.46 3 6..48 4.46 3..48.46 2.44 2.44 2.44 2.44 1.42 1.42 1.42 1.42 1 1 2 2 3 3.4 1 1 2 2 3 3.4 1 1 2 2 3 3.4 1 1 2 2 3 3.4 CCSM Polar Climate Working Group Meeting, Boulder, CO, February 28 - March 1, 211

Clouds: Cloud Fraction 9 8 7 6 4 3 2 9 8 7 6 4 - Observational datasets peak during different times. - CCSM4 tends to underestimate cloud occurrence during most of the year (except summer months) - Low clouds are particularly underestimated during all but summer months (Impact of FREEZEDRY not yet fully evaluated) 3 2 2 4 6 8 1 12 Month -CloudSAT/CALIPSO dataset courtesy of Jennifer Kay -SATEST courtesy of Steve Vavrus (includes estimates from ISCCP, TOVS Path-B, HIRS, MODIS, PATMOS, Wang and Key, and CERES) -GRDEST courtesy of Steve Vavrus (includes COADS, Huschke, Hahn et al. and Makshtas et al.) -SHEBA/Bar/Eur courtesy of Matthew Shupe CCSM Polar Climate Working Group Meeting, Boulder, CO, February 28 - March 1, 211

Clouds: Water Path (gm -2 ) 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 Barrow Eureka SHEBA - All-sky cloud liquid/ice water paths compared to surface observation stations - CCSM4 liquid water path is too high for all locations, though seasonal cycle is captured - CCSM4 ice water path is generally too low (except for Eureka winter) - IWP seasonal cycle does not appear to be captured in the simulations - Despite a lack of clouds (CF), liquid clouds that are present are found to be too thick, particularly during summer 1 2 4 6 8 1 12 Liquid CCSM4 Month Ice OBS -Surface observations courtesy of Matthew Shupe CCSM Polar Climate Working Group Meeting, Boulder, CO, February 28 - March 1, 211

Clouds: 1 Liquid CCSM4s1 Ice Barrow Mixed Total 8 1 Liquid CCSM4 Ice SHEBA Mixed Total 8 6 1 Observations 6 4 2 Height (km) 1 1 Observations CCSM4-Obs % 4 2 2 Height (km) 1 1 CCSM4s1-Obs Std(2yr_s1) Std(ensemble) % % 2 2 4 1 1 Height (km) Fb Ap Jn Au Oc De Fb Ap Jn Au Oc De Fb Ap Jn Au Oc De Fb Ap Jn Au Oc De 1 1 Liquid Ice CCSM4 Observations CCSM4-Obs Month Eureka Mixed Total 1 2 4 % % 2 4 8 6 4 2 2 1 Fb Ap Jn Au Oc De Fb Ap Jn Au Oc De Fb Ap Jn Au Oc De Fb Ap Jn Au Oc De Month % Fb Ap Jn Au Oc De Fb Ap Jn Au Oc De Fb Ap Jn Au Oc De Fb Ap Jn Au Oc De Month CCSM Polar Climate Working Group Meeting, Boulder, CO, February 28 - March 1, 211 % -Surface observations courtesy of Matthew Shupe

Energy Budget: Wm -2 1 1 6 2 2 6 1 12 1 8 6 2 4 6 8 1 12 Month - General temporal patterns well simulated - Small differences between year period and 2 year period. - TOA radiation is under-predicted during summer months, while SFC radiation is over predicted. Too much outgoing LW at TOA (assuming incoming SW is correct). - Atmospheric energy storage during late spring/early summer is too high due in part to under-simulated fluxes into the earth s surface. E t = F rad + F sfc + F wall -JRA/NRA 21-2 and CERES from Porter et al. (21) -NRA (1979-21) and ERA-4 (1979-2) from Serreze et al. (27) CCSM Polar Climate Working Group Meeting, Boulder, CO, February 28 - March 1, 211

Precipitation/Evaporation: $*& -!- **! 3/. ##3- %2! MM DAY ")!3 ##3-34$ MM DAY MM DAY -ERA-4 courtesy of Bill Chapman CCSM Polar Climate Working Group Meeting, Boulder, CO, February 28 - March 1, 211

Lower Tropospheric Stability: % of total cases % of total cases 2 16 12 8 4 2 16 12 8 4 2 16 12 8 4 2 16 12 8 4 DJF JJA -2 2-2 2 DJF JJA Ocean MAM SON T (K) Land MAM SON - Difference between monthly mean T8 and T2m is plotted here - The atmosphere is demonstrated to be too stable for all seasons besides fall over land and ocean and possibly winter over land surfaces. - Not limited to extremely stable air (e.g. summer) - Left edge is almost always captured (exception Spring over land), but is usually under-represented. -2 2-2 2 CCSM4 CCSM3 CMIP3 T (K) ERA-4 (shading) ERA-Int (dash) -ERA-4/ERA-interim courtesy of Brian Medeiros CCSM Polar Climate Working Group Meeting, Boulder, CO, February 28 - March 1, 211

Lower Tropospheric Stability: 6-hourly Inv. Strength (K/km) CCSM4 ERA-4 Relative Frequency.1.1..1.1..1.1. Jan Feb Mar Apr 34% 32% 34% 32% 31% 3% May Jun Jul Aug 63% 74% 73% 8% 89% 77% Sep Oct Nov Dec 66% 4% 3% 8% 69% 42% 42% 4% 7% 8% 3% 3% -ERA-4/ERA-interim courtesy of Brian Medeiros 1 3 4 1 3 4 1 3 4 1 3 4 Inversion Strength (K/km) CCSM Polar Climate Working Group Meeting, Boulder, CO, February 28 - March 1, 211

Summary: The good: - Surface temperature, both spatial distribution and variability - Seasonal representation of overall energy budget The bad: - Lower tropospheric stability. Much too stable, too often - Cloud phase based on temperature dependent partitioning (gone in CESM1/CAM) - Cloud liquid water path -- severely over-simulated during summer months - Cloud ice water path -- generally under-simulated The Ugly: - Cloud fraction -- both evaluation and simulated quantity - P-E evaluation (measurements/datasets need improvement) - SLP fields demonstrating missing Beaufort High CCSM Polar Climate Working Group Meeting, Boulder, CO, February 28 - March 1, 211

EXTRA SLIDES V CCSM Polar Climate Working Group Meeting, Boulder, CO, February 28 - March 1, 211

4 2 2 4 2 1 1 Wm -2 2 6 2 2 6 1 11 1 9 2 4 6 8 1 12 Month CCSM Polar Climate Working Group Meeting, Boulder, CO, February 28 - March 1, 211