Ocean biogeochemistry in the Norwegian Earth System Model version 2 (NorESM2)

Tjiputra, Jerry; Schwinger, Jörg; Bentsen, Mats; Morée, Anne L.; Gao, Shuang; Bethke, Ingo; Heinze, Christoph; Goris, Nadine; Gupta, Alok; He, Yongqi; Olivié, Dirk; Seland, Øyvind; Schulz, Mıchael

doi:10.5194/gmd-13-2393-2020

Cited by 95 publications

(90 citation statements)

References 134 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sea ice is simulated using the LANL CICE4.1 model (Hunke and Lipscomb, 2010). Coupling of the ocean and sea ice to the atmosphere is through the OASIS-MCT coupler (Valcke, 2013). The physical climate model configuration used here is very similar to the version (ACCESS1.3) that contributed to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5; Bi et al, 2013).…”

Section: Land Oceanmentioning

confidence: 99%

Carbon–concentration and carbon–climate feedbacks in CMIP6 models and their comparison to CMIP5 models

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Results from the fully and biogeochemically coupled simulations in which CO2 increases at a rate of 1 % yr−1 (1pctCO2) from its preindustrial value are analyzed to quantify the magnitude of carbon–concentration and carbon–climate feedback parameters which measure the response of ocean and terrestrial carbon pools to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the resulting change in global climate, respectively. The results are based on 11 comprehensive Earth system models from the most recent (sixth) Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) and compared with eight models from the fifth CMIP (CMIP5). The strength of the carbon–concentration feedback is of comparable magnitudes over land (mean ± standard deviation = 0.97 ± 0.40 PgC ppm−1) and ocean (0.79 ± 0.07 PgC ppm−1), while the carbon–climate feedback over land (−45.1 ± 50.6 PgC ∘C−1) is about 3 times larger than over ocean (−17.2 ± 5.0 PgC ∘C−1). The strength of both feedbacks is an order of magnitude more uncertain over land than over ocean as has been seen in existing studies. These values and their spread from 11 CMIP6 models have not changed significantly compared to CMIP5 models. The absolute values of feedback parameters are lower for land with models that include a representation of nitrogen cycle. The transient climate response to cumulative emissions (TCRE) from the 11 CMIP6 models considered here is 1.77 ± 0.37 ∘C EgC−1 and is similar to that found in CMIP5 models (1.63 ± 0.48 ∘C EgC−1) but with somewhat reduced model spread. The expressions for feedback parameters based on the fully and biogeochemically coupled configurations of the 1pctCO2 simulation are simplified when the small temperature change in the biogeochemically coupled simulation is ignored. Decomposition of the terms of these simplified expressions for the feedback parameters is used to gain insight into the reasons for differing responses among ocean and land carbon cycle models.

show abstract

Section: Land Oceanmentioning

confidence: 99%

Carbon–concentration and carbon–climate feedbacks in CMIP6 models and their comparison to CMIP5 models

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…CAM6-Nor employs parameterisations for particulate aerosols and for aerosol-radiation-cloud interactions from NorESM1 and NorESM1.2 as described by Kirkevåg et al (2013Kirkevåg et al ( , 2018. NorESM2-specific changes to model physics and dynamics which are not aerosol related are described by Toniazzo et al (2020;Toniazzo, 2020).…”

Section: Atmosphere Model Cam6-normentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It also uses a different atmospheric aerosol module (OsloAero6; Kirkevåg et al, 2018;Olivié, 2020). Additionally, NorESM2 features specific modifications and tunings of the physics and dynamics of the atmosphere component (Toniazzo et al, 2020;Toniazzo, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Compared to CAM6 (Bogenschutz et al, 2018) of CESM2, the atmospheric component of NorESM2, CAM6-Nor, incorporates a number of modifications. These involve the independently developed module for the life cycle of particulate aerosols, and the representation of aerosolradiation-cloud interactions (Kirkevåg et al, 2013(Kirkevåg et al, , 2018; changes in the moist convection scheme and the local moist energy formulation (Toniazzo, 2020); global conservation of rotational momentum (Toniazzo et al, 2020); and an updated parameterisation of the surface flux layer for the computation Figure 1. Overview of the different components in NorESM2 and their interactions (CIME: configuration handler; CAM6-Nor: atmosphere and aerosol; CICE5.1.2: sea ice; CLM5: land and vegetation, MOSART: river transport; BLOM: ocean; iHAMOCC: ocean carbon cycle).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Overview of the Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM2) and key climate response of CMIP6 DECK, historical, and scenario simulations

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The second version of the coupled Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM2) is presented and evaluated. NorESM2 is based on the second version of the Community Earth System Model (CESM2) and shares with CESM2 the computer code infrastructure and many Earth system model components. However, NorESM2 employs entirely different ocean and ocean biogeochemistry models. The atmosphere component of NorESM2 (CAM-Nor) includes a different module for aerosol physics and chemistry, including interactions with cloud and radiation; additionally, CAM-Nor includes improvements in the formulation of local dry and moist energy conservation, in local and global angular momentum conservation, and in the computations for deep convection and air–sea fluxes. The surface components of NorESM2 have minor changes in the albedo calculations and to land and sea-ice models. We present results from simulations with NorESM2 that were carried out for the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). Two versions of the model are used: one with lower (∼ 2∘) atmosphere–land resolution and one with medium (∼ 1∘) atmosphere–land resolution. The stability of the pre-industrial climate and the sensitivity of the model to abrupt and gradual quadrupling of CO2 are assessed, along with the ability of the model to simulate the historical climate under the CMIP6 forcings. Compared to observations and reanalyses, NorESM2 represents an improvement over previous versions of NorESM in most aspects. NorESM2 appears less sensitive to greenhouse gas forcing than its predecessors, with an estimated equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.5 K in both resolutions on a 150-year time frame; however, this estimate increases with the time window and the climate sensitivity at equilibration is much higher. We also consider the model response to future scenarios as defined by selected Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) from the Scenario Model Intercomparison Project defined under CMIP6. Under the four scenarios (SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0, and SSP5-8.5), the warming in the period 2090–2099 compared to 1850–1879 reaches 1.3, 2.2, 3.0, and 3.9 K in NorESM2-LM, and 1.3, 2.1, 3.1, and 3.9 K in NorESM-MM, robustly similar in both resolutions. NorESM2-LM shows a rather satisfactory evolution of recent sea-ice area. In NorESM2-LM, an ice-free Arctic Ocean is only avoided in the SSP1-2.6 scenario.

show abstract

“…However, the constant composition commitment instead results primarily from the future CO 2 and other emissions that are required to maintain stable atmospheric concentrations over time (Matthews and Weaver, 2010;Matthews and Solomon, 2013). Another related concept is the future "emissions commitment" which quantifies the committed future CO 2 (and other) emissions that will occur as a result of the continued operation of existing fossil fuel infrastructure (Davis et al, 2010;Davis and Socolow, 2014;Smith et al, 2019;Tong et al, 2019). This concept is also distinct from the ZEC, as it quantifies an aspect of socioeconomic inertia (rather than climate inertia), which has been argued to be an important driver of potentially unavoidable future climate warming (Matthews and Solomon, 2013;Matthews, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is there warming in the pipeline? A multi-model analysis of the Zero Emissions Commitment from CO<sub>2</sub>

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The Zero Emissions Commitment (ZEC) is the change in global mean temperature expected to occur following the cessation of net CO2 emissions and as such is a critical parameter for calculating the remaining carbon budget. The Zero Emissions Commitment Model Intercomparison Project (ZECMIP) was established to gain a better understanding of the potential magnitude and sign of ZEC, in addition to the processes that underlie this metric. A total of 18 Earth system models of both full and intermediate complexity participated in ZECMIP. All models conducted an experiment where atmospheric CO2 concentration increases exponentially until 1000 PgC has been emitted. Thereafter emissions are set to zero and models are configured to allow free evolution of atmospheric CO2 concentration. Many models conducted additional second-priority simulations with different cumulative emission totals and an alternative idealized emissions pathway with a gradual transition to zero emissions. The inter-model range of ZEC 50 years after emissions cease for the 1000 PgC experiment is −0.36 to 0.29 ∘C, with a model ensemble mean of −0.07 ∘C, median of −0.05 ∘C, and standard deviation of 0.19 ∘C. Models exhibit a wide variety of behaviours after emissions cease, with some models continuing to warm for decades to millennia and others cooling substantially. Analysis shows that both the carbon uptake by the ocean and the terrestrial biosphere are important for counteracting the warming effect from the reduction in ocean heat uptake in the decades after emissions cease. This warming effect is difficult to constrain due to high uncertainty in the efficacy of ocean heat uptake. Overall, the most likely value of ZEC on multi-decadal timescales is close to zero, consistent with previous model experiments and simple theory.

show abstract

Ocean biogeochemistry in the Norwegian Earth System Model version 2 (NorESM2)

Cited by 95 publications

References 134 publications

Carbon–concentration and carbon–climate feedbacks in CMIP6 models and their comparison to CMIP5 models

Carbon–concentration and carbon–climate feedbacks in CMIP6 models and their comparison to CMIP5 models

Overview of the Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM2) and key climate response of CMIP6 DECK, historical, and scenario simulations

Is there warming in the pipeline? A multi-model analysis of the Zero Emissions Commitment from CO<sub>2</sub>

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Ocean biogeochemistry in the Norwegian Earth System Model version 2 (NorESM2)

Cited by 95 publications

References 134 publications

Carbon–concentration and carbon–climate feedbacks in CMIP6 models and their comparison to CMIP5 models

Carbon–concentration and carbon–climate feedbacks in CMIP6 models and their comparison to CMIP5 models

Overview of the Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM2) and key climate response of CMIP6 DECK, historical, and scenario simulations

Is there warming in the pipeline? A multi-model analysis of the Zero Emissions Commitment from CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Is there warming in the pipeline? A multi-model analysis of the Zero Emissions Commitment from CO<sub>2</sub>