Evaluation of climate variability and change in ACCESS historical simulations for CMIP6

被引:13
|
作者
Rashid, Harun A. [1 ]
Sullivan, Arnold [1 ]
Dix, Martin [1 ]
Bi, Daohua [1 ]
Mackallah, Chloe [1 ]
Ziehn, Tilo [1 ]
Dobrohotoff, Peter [1 ]
O'Farrell, Siobhan [1 ]
Harman, Ian N. [2 ]
Bodman, Roger [1 ]
Marsland, Simon [1 ]
机构
[1] CSIRO Oceans & Atmosphere, 107-121 Stn St, Aspendale, Vic 3195, Australia
[2] CSIRO Oceans & Atmosphere, Canberra, ACT, Australia
关键词
ACCESS-CM2; ACCESS-ESM1.5; aerosols; climate change; climate variability modes; CMIP6; coupled climate model; earth system model; evaluation; greenhouse gases; historical simulation; SEA-ICE; PACIFIC; DYNAMICS; DESIGN; ENSO;
D O I
10.1071/ES21028
中图分类号
P4 [大气科学(气象学)];
学科分类号
0706 ; 070601 ;
摘要
We analyse and document the historical simulations performed by two versions of the Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator (ACCESS-CM2 and ACCESS-ESM1.5) for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). Three ensemble members from each model are used to compare the simulated seasonal-mean climate, climate variability and climate change with observations over the historical period. Where appropriate, we also compare the ACCESS model results with the results from 36 other CMIP6 models. We find that the simulations of the winter and summer mean climates (over the global domain) by the two ACCESS models are similar to or better than most of the other CMIP6 models for surface temperature, precipitation and surface specific humidity. For sea-level pressure, both ACCESS models perform worse than most other models. The spatial structures of the prominent climate variability modes (ENSO, IOD, IPO and AMO) also compare favourably with the corresponding observed structures. However, the results for the simulation of the models' temporal variability are mixed. In particular, whereas ACCESS-ESM1.5 simulates ENSO events with similar to 3-year periods (that are closer to the observed periods of 3-7 years), the ACCESS-CM2 simulates ENSO events having quasi-biennial periods. However, ACCESS-CM2 has a much smaller bias (-0.1 W m(-2)) in present-day top-of-the-atmosphere energy balance than ACCESS-ESM1.5 (-0.6 W m(-2)). The ACCESS models simulate the anthropogenic climate change signal in historical global-mean surface temperature reasonably well, although the simulated signal variances are similar to 10% weaker than the observed signal variance (a common bias in most CMIP6 models). Both models also well simulate the major features of observed surface temperature changes, as isolated using a multiple regression model. Despite some identified biases, the two ACCESS models provide high-quality climate simulations that may be used in further analyses of climate variability and change.
引用
收藏
页码:73 / 92
页数:20
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Historical greenhouse gas concentrations for climate modelling (CMIP6)
    Meinshausen, Malte
    Vogel, Elisabeth
    Nauels, Alexander
    Lorbacher, Katja
    Meinshausen, Nicolai
    Etheridge, David M.
    Fraser, Paul J.
    Montzka, Stephen A.
    Rayner, Peter J.
    Trudinger, Cathy M.
    Krummel, Paul B.
    Beyerle, Urs
    Canadell, Josep G.
    Daniel, John S.
    Enting, Ian G.
    Law, Rachel M.
    Lunder, Chris R.
    O'Doherty, Simon
    Prinn, Ron G.
    Reimann, Stefan
    Rubino, Mauro
    Velders, Guus J. M.
    Vollmer, Martin K.
    Wang, Ray H. J.
    Weiss, Ray
    GEOSCIENTIFIC MODEL DEVELOPMENT, 2017, 10 (05) : 2057 - 2116
  • [32] Can direct CMIP6 model simulations reproduce mean annual historical streamflow change?
    Huang, Qi
    Zhang, Yongqiang
    Wei, Haoshan
    CATENA, 2024, 235
  • [33] Evaluation of soil temperature in CMIP6 multimodel simulations
    Zhou, Junzhi
    Zhang, b Jiang
    Huang, Yuanyuan
    AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST METEOROLOGY, 2024, 352
  • [34] Evaluation of the seasonal to decadal variability in dynamic sea level simulations from CMIP5 to CMIP6
    Chenyang Jin
    Hailong Liu
    Pengfei Lin
    Geoscience Letters, 10
  • [35] Evaluation of the seasonal to decadal variability in dynamic sea level simulations from CMIP5 to CMIP6
    Jin, Chenyang
    Liu, Hailong
    Lin, Pengfei
    GEOSCIENCE LETTERS, 2023, 10 (01)
  • [36] Projections of Greenland climate change from CMIP5 and CMIP6
    Zhang, Qinglin
    Huai, Baojuan
    Ding, Minghu
    Sun, Weijun
    Liu, Weigang
    Yan, Jinpei
    Zhao, Shuhui
    Wang, Yetang
    Wang, Yuzhe
    Wang, Lei
    Che, Jiahang
    Dou, Jiahui
    Kang, Limin
    GLOBAL AND PLANETARY CHANGE, 2024, 232
  • [37] Evaluation of CMIP5 and CMIP6 simulations of historical surface air temperature extremes using proper evaluation methods
    Thorarinsdottir, Thordis L.
    Sillmann, Jana
    Haugen, Marion
    Gissibl, Nadine
    Sandstad, Marit
    ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2020, 15 (12)
  • [38] Correction to: Model uncertainties in climate change impacts on Sahel precipitation in ensembles of CMIP5 and CMIP6 simulations
    Paul-Arthur Monerie
    Caroline M. Wainwright
    Moussa Sidibe
    Akintomide Afolayan Akinsanola
    Climate Dynamics, 2020, 55 : 2309 - 2310
  • [39] Contrasting internally and externally generated Atlantic Multidecadal Variability and the role for AMOC in CMIP6 historical simulations
    Robson, Jon
    Sutton, Rowan
    Menary, Matthew B.
    Lai, Michael W. K.
    PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY A-MATHEMATICAL PHYSICAL AND ENGINEERING SCIENCES, 2023, 381 (2262):
  • [40] The Mediterranean climate change hotspot in the CMIP5 and CMIP6 projections
    Cos, Josep
    Doblas-Reyes, Francisco
    Jury, Martin
    Marcos, Raul
    Bretonniere, Pierre-Antoine
    Samso, Margarida
    EARTH SYSTEM DYNAMICS, 2022, 13 (01) : 321 - 340