1 / 15

Status of the Sea Ice Model Testing of CICE4.0 in the coupled model context is underway

The status of the sea ice model is being evaluated and modified with improvements such as enhanced ridging formulation and thermodynamics. Short-term simulations are proposed to assess climate changes.

anicklas
Download Presentation

Status of the Sea Ice Model Testing of CICE4.0 in the coupled model context is underway

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Status of the Sea Ice Model • Testing of CICE4.0 in the coupled model context is underway • Includes numerous SE improvements, improved ridging formulation, improvements to the vertical thermodynamics • The influence that these modifications have on the simulated climate is being assessed • Additional modifications have been introduced and are being tested within CICE4.0 • Melt pond parameterization and improved shortwave radiation treatment • By early 2007, we anticipate that the new sea ice model will include all of these modifications

  2. Short-Term Simulations Using the Community Climate System Model Background • Discussed at several past CAB meetings, especially by Eric Sundquist and Tom Crowley at CAB meeting last February. • The issue came up again at the SSC/CAB/ WG Cochairs meeting in Breckenridge. • There was extensive discussion of short -term climate simulations at the Aspen WGCM/AIMES Workshop held in August. • CGD discussion last Monday, Nov 6th.

  3. Start in about 1980, then run in pure simulation or simulation/assimilation mode until 2005. The short-term simulation would be from 2006 to 2030. Need an ensemble size of >10 to address extremes. Does it make an important difference if the CCSM is initialized to the actual climate of 2005? This requires data assimilation into the ocean, and possibly sea ice extent. Do we need to initialize the tropical Pacific for ENSO and N Atlantic for MOC? Short-Term Simulations: Proposed Form

  4. CCSM3: Present Day Control Runs Maximum MOC in North Atlantic Blue: T85, 1Red: T42, 1 Black: T31, 3

  5. Increases in Global Ocean Temps(Results from CCSM3 Ensemble) L = Levitus et al (2005) Ensemble Members Relative Model Error < 25% Gent et al, J Climate 11, CCSM3 Special Issue, 2006

  6. Because the runs are short, the atmosphere model can be run at higher resolution: produces relevant regional information for the relatively near-term. Most of the climate change is already committed, so much less dependent on future GHG scenarios. The much smaller range in transient climate response makes the multi-model ensemble more interesting because the range in model sensitivity is no longer the primary cause for the differences in the model short-term simulations. Advantages of Short-Term Simulations

  7. Projections for Arctic Land Temp

  8. No experience so far with assimilating data into the CCSM ocean and sea ice components, or with coupled model assimilation a la Hadley Centre. Should run chemistry in prognostic mode or with time slices? Should carbon cycle be included? This increases the CCSM project workload as these S-T simulations would be in addition to the more familiar, long future scenario runs planned for CCSM4 that includes a form of carbon cycle. Challenges of Short-Term Simulations

  9. Scientific Opportunities I • Runs without and with data assimilation between 1980-2005 could be used to address the decadal timescale predictability of the climate system. • Stimulus for multi-scale modeling activities, eg very high resolution one-way downscaling over the U.S.A. • What is impact on SST biases in the upwelling regions? • Changes in extremes, eg heat waves, floods, droughts. • Atmospheric chemistry component added; simulations of air pollution (aerosols, ozone) in major urban areas.

  10. Scientific Opportunities II • Assessment of aerosol forcing compared with ongoing observations may allow a better understanding of aerosol climate forcing, and hence climate sensitivity. • Better representation of soil, topographic, vegetation controls of carbon cycle; different permafrost classes. • S-t runs emphasize human-induced land use changes, which requires use of the dynamic vegetation module. • Mineral aerosols might help sort out the importance of human versus natural controls of dust emissions.

  11. Nino3 SST Power Spectrum Gent and Kiehl, 2004; Collins et al, 2006

  12. B31.001 Same FV as 400 yr control POP2 ocean with several improvements Land with new hydrology Standard CSIM

  13. HadiSST data set 1949-2004 Less power than, but longer than, Reynolds data set

  14. B31.002 Changes to FV deep convection scheme and momentum transport due to convection

More Related