Short ensembles: an efficient method for discerning climate-relevant sensitivities in atmospheric general circulation models

Abstract. This paper explores the feasibility of an experimentation strategy for investigating sensitivities in fast components of atmospheric general circulation models. The basic idea is to replace the traditional serial-in-time long-term climate integrations by representative ensembles of shorter simulations. The key advantage of the proposed method lies in its efficiency: since fewer days of simulation are needed, the computational cost is less, and because individual realizations are independent and can be integrated simultaneously, the new dimension of parallelism can dramatically reduce the turnaround time in benchmark tests, sensitivities studies, and model tuning exercises. The strategy is not appropriate for exploring sensitivity of all model features, but it is very effective in many situations. Two examples are presented using the Community Atmosphere Model, version 5. In the first example, the method is used to characterize sensitivities of the simulated clouds to time-step length. Results show that 3-day ensembles of 20 to 50 members are sufficient to reproduce the main signals revealed by traditional 5-year simulations. A nudging technique is applied to an additional set of simulations to help understand the contribution of physics–dynamics interaction to the detected time-step sensitivity. In the second example, multiple empirical parameters related to cloud microphysics and aerosol life cycle are perturbed simultaneously in order to find out which parameters have the largest impact on the simulated global mean top-of-atmosphere radiation balance. It turns out that 12-member ensembles of 10-day simulations are able to reveal the same sensitivities as seen in 4-year simulations performed in a previous study. In both cases, the ensemble method reduces the total computational time by a factor of about 15, and the turnaround time by a factor of several hundred. The efficiency of the method makes it particularly useful for the development of high-resolution, costly, and complex climate models.

[1]  P. Mahadevan,et al.  An overview , 2007, Journal of Biosciences.

[2]  Can a relaxation technique be used to validate clouds and sulphur species in a GCM , 1999 .

[3]  James G. Hudson,et al.  Evaluation of aerosol direct radiative forcing in MIRAGE , 2001 .

[4]  S. Ghan,et al.  Constraining the influence of natural variability to improve estimates of global aerosol indirect effects in a nudged version of the Community Atmosphere Model 5 , 2012 .

[5]  N. McFarlane,et al.  Sensitivity of Climate Simulations to the Parameterization of Cumulus Convection in the Canadian Climate Centre General Circulation Model , 1995, Data, Models and Analysis.

[6]  Richard Neale,et al.  Toward a Minimal Representation of Aerosols in Climate Models: Description and Evaluation in the Community Atmosphere Model CAM5 , 2012 .

[7]  Prabhat,et al.  The effect of horizontal resolution on simulation quality in the Community Atmospheric Model, CAM5.1 , 2014 .

[8]  S. Klein,et al.  Global simulations of ice nucleation and ice supersaturation with an improved cloud scheme in the Community Atmosphere Model , 2010 .

[9]  Karl E. Taylor,et al.  An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design , 2012 .

[10]  Sally A. McFarlane,et al.  A Sensitivity Study of Radiative Fluxes at the Top of Atmosphere to Cloud-Microphysics and Aerosol Parameters in the Community Atmosphere Model CAM5 , 2013 .

[11]  S. M. Marlais,et al.  An Overview of the Results of the Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP I) , 1999 .

[12]  Thomas Reichler,et al.  Analysis and Reduction of Systematic Errors through a Seamless Approach to Modeling Weather and Climate , 2010 .

[13]  Shaocheng Xie,et al.  Metrics and Diagnostics for Precipitation-Related Processes in Climate Model Short-Range Hindcasts , 2013 .

[14]  S. Bony,et al.  On the Correspondence between Mean Forecast Errors and Climate Errors in CMIP5 Models , 2013 .

[15]  Sally A. McFarlane,et al.  Uncertainty quantification and parameter tuning in the CAM5 Zhang‐McFarlane convection scheme and impact of improved convection on the global circulation and climate , 2012 .

[16]  David L. Williamson,et al.  Evaluating Parameterizations in General Circulation Models: Climate Simulation Meets Weather Prediction , 2004 .

[17]  Matthew D. Collins,et al.  Towards quantifying uncertainty in transient climate change , 2006 .

[18]  John F. B. Mitchell,et al.  Intercomparison and interpretation of climate feedback processes in 19 atmospheric general circulation models , 1990 .

[19]  David L. Williamson,et al.  Moisture and temperature balances at the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Southern Great Plains Site in forecasts with the Community Atmosphere Model (CAM2) , 2005 .

[20]  S. Ghan,et al.  A New Two-Moment Bulk Stratiform Cloud Microphysics Scheme in the Community Atmosphere Model, Version 3 (CAM3). Part II: Single-Column and Global Results , 2008 .

[21]  Jean-Christophe Golaz,et al.  Cloud tuning in a coupled climate model: Impact on 20th century warming , 2013 .

[22]  R. Neale,et al.  The Impact of Convection on ENSO: From a Delayed Oscillator to a Series of Events , 2008 .

[23]  C. Bretherton,et al.  The University of Washington Shallow Convection and Moist Turbulence Schemes and Their Impact on Climate Simulations with the Community Atmosphere Model , 2009 .

[24]  P. Rasch,et al.  Climate response of the South Asian monsoon system to anthropogenic aerosols , 2012 .

[25]  Richard Neale,et al.  Parametric sensitivity analysis of precipitation at global and local scales in the Community Atmosphere Model CAM5 , 2015 .

[26]  Kenneth S. Carslaw,et al.  Mapping the uncertainty in global CCN using emulation , 2012 .

[27]  Johannes Quaas,et al.  Global mean cloud feedbacks in idealized climate change experiments , 2006 .

[28]  Philip J. Rasch,et al.  Effects of Convective Momentum Transport on the Atmospheric Circulation in the Community Atmosphere Model, Version 3 , 2008 .

[29]  Leonard A. Smith,et al.  Uncertainty in predictions of the climate response to rising levels of greenhouse gases , 2005, Nature.

[30]  Daniel Klocke,et al.  A comparison of two numerical weather prediction methods for diagnosing fast‐physics errors in climate models , 2014 .

[31]  C. Bretherton,et al.  A New Moist Turbulence Parameterization in the Community Atmosphere Model , 2009 .

[32]  U. Lohmann,et al.  Impact of parametric uncertainties on the present-day climate and on the anthropogenic aerosol effect , 2010 .

[33]  Shian‐Jiann Lin,et al.  Multidimensional Flux-Form Semi-Lagrangian Transport Schemes , 1996 .

[34]  Colas Schretter,et al.  Monte Carlo and Quasi-Monte Carlo Methods , 2016 .

[35]  D. Lawrence,et al.  Parameterization improvements and functional and structural advances in Version 4 of the Community Land Model , 2011 .

[36]  B. Soden,et al.  An Assessment of Climate Feedbacks in Coupled Ocean–Atmosphere Models , 2006 .

[37]  Yun Qian,et al.  Some issues in uncertainty quantification and parameter tuning: a case study of convective parameterization scheme in the WRF regional climate model , 2011 .

[38]  Sungsu Park,et al.  Integrating Cloud Processes in the Community Atmosphere Model, Version 5 , 2014 .

[39]  Andrew Gettelman,et al.  A new two-moment bulk stratiform cloud microphysics scheme in the Community Atmosphere Model, version 3 (CAM3). Part I: Description and numerical tests , 2008 .

[40]  R. Colman,et al.  A comparison of climate feedbacks in general circulation models , 2003 .

[41]  E. Mlawer,et al.  Radiative transfer for inhomogeneous atmospheres: RRTM, a validated correlated-k model for the longwave , 1997 .

[42]  Xiaoqing Wu,et al.  Performance of the New NCAR CAM3.5 in East Asian Summer Monsoon Simulations: Sensitivity to Modifications of the Convection Scheme , 2010 .

[43]  David L. Williamson,et al.  Diagnosis of Community Atmospheric Model 2 (CAM2) in numerical weather forecast configuration at Atmospheric Radiation Measurement sites , 2005 .

[44]  M. Webb,et al.  Quantification of modelling uncertainties in a large ensemble of climate change simulations , 2004, Nature.

[45]  David S. Lee,et al.  Historical (1850–2000) gridded anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions of reactive gases and aerosols: methodology and application , 2010 .

[46]  Andrew Gettelman,et al.  A new two-moment bulk stratiform cloud microphysics scheme in the NCAR Community Atmosphere Model (CAM3), Part II: Single-Column and Global Results , 2007 .

[47]  Tim N. Palmer,et al.  Using numerical weather prediction to assess climate models , 2007 .

[48]  Richard J. Beckman,et al.  A Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output From a Computer Code , 2000, Technometrics.

[49]  P. Rasch,et al.  Short-term modulation of Indian summer monsoon rainfall by West Asian dust , 2014 .

[50]  Lennart Bengtsson,et al.  On the potential of assimilating meteorological analyses in a global climate model for the purpose of model validation , 1996 .

[51]  D. Klocke,et al.  Tuning the climate of a global model , 2012 .

[52]  Y. Qian,et al.  Responses of East Asian summer monsoon to natural and anthropogenic forcings in the 17 latest CMIP5 models , 2013 .

[53]  Shaocheng Xie,et al.  On the Correspondence between Short- and Long-Time-Scale Systematic Errors in CAM4/CAM5 for the Year of Tropical Convection , 2012 .

[54]  G. Mann,et al.  The magnitude and causes of uncertainty in global model simulations of cloud condensation nuclei , 2013 .

[55]  Sandrine Bony,et al.  An Assessment of the Primary Sources of Spread of Global Warming Estimates from Coupled Atmosphere–Ocean Models , 2008 .

[56]  W. Collins,et al.  Radiative forcing by long‐lived greenhouse gases: Calculations with the AER radiative transfer models , 2008 .

[57]  Shian‐Jiann Lin.  A “Vertically Lagrangian” Finite-Volume Dynamical Core for Global Models , 2004 .