Search

The Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator (ACCESS) has contributed to the World Climate Research Programme’s Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) using two fully coupled model versions (ACCESS-CM2 and ACCESS-ESM1.5) and two ocean–sea-ice model versions (1° and 0.25° resolution versions of ACCESS-OM2). The fully coupled models differ primarily in the configuration and version of their atmosphere components (including the aerosol scheme), with smaller differences in their sea-ice and land model versions. Additionally, ACCESS-ESM1.5 includes biogeochemistry in the land and ocean components and can be run with an interactive carbon cycle. CMIP6 comprises core experiments and associated thematic Model Intercomparison Projects (MIPs). This paper provides an overview of the CMIP6 submission, including the methods used for the preparation of input forcing datasets and the post-processing of model output, along with a comprehensive list of experiments performed, detailing their initialisation, duration, ensemble number and computational cost. A small selection of model output is presented, focusing on idealised experiments and their variants at global scale. Differences in the climate simulation of the two coupled models are highlighted. ACCESS-CM2 produces a larger equilibrium climate sensitivity (4.7°C) than ACCESS-ESM1.5 (3.9°C), likely a result of updated atmospheric parameterisation in recent versions of the atmospheric component of ACCESS-CM2. The idealised experiments run with ACCESS-ESM1.5 show that land and ocean carbon fluxes respond to both changing atmospheric CO2 and to changing temperature. ACCESS data submitted to CMIP6 are available from the Earth System Grid Federation (https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.2281 and https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.2288). The information provided in this paper should facilitate easier use of these significant datasets by the broader climate community.

The Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator (ACCESS) has contributed to the World Climate Research Programme’s Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) using two fully coupled model versions (ACCESS-CM2 and ACCESS-ESM1.5) and two ocean–sea-ice model versions (1° and 0.25° resolution versions of ACCESS-OM2). The fully coupled models differ primarily in the configuration and version of their atmosphere components (including the aerosol scheme), with smaller differences in their sea-ice and land model versions. Additionally, ACCESS-ESM1.5 includes biogeochemistry in the land and ocean components and can be run with an interactive carbon cycle. CMIP6 comprises core experiments and associated thematic Model Intercomparison Projects (MIPs). This paper provides an overview of the CMIP6 submission, including the methods used for the preparation of input forcing datasets and the post-processing of model output, along with a comprehensive list of experiments performed, detailing their initialisation, duration, ensemble number and computational cost. A small selection of model output is presented, focusing on idealised experiments and their variants at global scale. Differences in the climate simulation of the two coupled models are highlighted. ACCESS-CM2 produces a larger equilibrium climate sensitivity (4.7°C) than ACCESS-ESM1.5 (3.9°C), likely a result of updated atmospheric parameterisation in recent versions of the atmospheric component of ACCESS-CM2. The idealised experiments run with ACCESS-ESM1.5 show that land and ocean carbon fluxes respond to both changing atmospheric CO2 and to changing temperature. ACCESS data submitted to CMIP6 are available from the Earth System Grid Federation (https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.2281 and https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.2288). The information provided in this paper should facilitate easier use of these significant datasets by the broader climate community.

The Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator (ACCESS) has contributed to the World Climate Research Programme’s Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) using two fully coupled model versions (ACCESS-CM2 and ACCESS-ESM1.5) and two ocean–sea-ice model versions (1° and 0.25° resolution versions of ACCESS-OM2). The fully coupled models differ primarily in the configuration and version of their atmosphere components (including the aerosol scheme), with smaller differences in their sea-ice and land model versions. Additionally, ACCESS-ESM1.5 includes biogeochemistry in the land and ocean components and can be run with an interactive carbon cycle. CMIP6 comprises core experiments and associated thematic Model Intercomparison Projects (MIPs). This paper provides an overview of the CMIP6 submission, including the methods used for the preparation of input forcing datasets and the post-processing of model output, along with a comprehensive list of experiments performed, detailing their initialisation, duration, ensemble number and computational cost. A small selection of model output is presented, focusing on idealised experiments and their variants at global scale. Differences in the climate simulation of the two coupled models are highlighted. ACCESS-CM2 produces a larger equilibrium climate sensitivity (4.7°C) than ACCESS-ESM1.5 (3.9°C), likely a result of updated atmospheric parameterisation in recent versions of the atmospheric component of ACCESS-CM2. The idealised experiments run with ACCESS-ESM1.5 show that land and ocean carbon fluxes respond to both changing atmospheric CO2 and to changing temperature. ACCESS data submitted to CMIP6 are available from the Earth System Grid Federation (https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.2281 and https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.2288). The information provided in this paper should facilitate easier use of these significant datasets by the broader climate community.

The Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator (ACCESS) has contributed to the World Climate Research Programme’s Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) using two fully coupled model versions (ACCESS-CM2 and ACCESS-ESM1.5) and two ocean–sea-ice model versions (1° and 0.25° resolution versions of ACCESS-OM2). The fully coupled models differ primarily in the configuration and version of their atmosphere components (including the aerosol scheme), with smaller differences in their sea-ice and land model versions. Additionally, ACCESS-ESM1.5 includes biogeochemistry in the land and ocean components and can be run with an interactive carbon cycle. CMIP6 comprises core experiments and associated thematic Model Intercomparison Projects (MIPs). This paper provides an overview of the CMIP6 submission, including the methods used for the preparation of input forcing datasets and the post-processing of model output, along with a comprehensive list of experiments performed, detailing their initialisation, duration, ensemble number and computational cost. A small selection of model output is presented, focusing on idealised experiments and their variants at global scale. Differences in the climate simulation of the two coupled models are highlighted. ACCESS-CM2 produces a larger equilibrium climate sensitivity (4.7°C) than ACCESS-ESM1.5 (3.9°C), likely a result of updated atmospheric parameterisation in recent versions of the atmospheric component of ACCESS-CM2. The idealised experiments run with ACCESS-ESM1.5 show that land and ocean carbon fluxes respond to both changing atmospheric CO2 and to changing temperature. ACCESS data submitted to CMIP6 are available from the Earth System Grid Federation (https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.2281 and https://doi.org/10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.2288). The information provided in this paper should facilitate easier use of these significant datasets by the broader climate community.

Many nations responded to the corona virus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic by restricting travel and other activities during 2020, resulting in temporarily reduced emissions of CO2, other greenhouse gases and ozone and aerosol precursors. We present the initial results from a coordinated Intercomparison, CovidMIP, of Earth system model simulations which assess the impact on climate of these emissions reductions. 12 models performed multiple initial-condition ensembles to produce over 300 simulations spanning both initial condition and model structural uncertainty. We find model consensus on reduced aerosol amounts (particularly over southern and eastern Asia) and associated increases in surface shortwave radiation levels. However, any impact on near-surface temperature or rainfall during 2020–2024 is extremely small and is not detectable in this initial analysis. Regional analyses on a finer scale, and closer attention to extremes (especially linked to changes in atmospheric composition and air quality) are required to test the impact of COVID-19-related emission reductions on near-term climate. © 2021. Crown Copyright. © 2021. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. This article is published with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

Many nations responded to the corona virus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic by restricting travel and other activities during 2020, resulting in temporarily reduced emissions of CO2, other greenhouse gases and ozone and aerosol precursors. We present the initial results from a coordinated Intercomparison, CovidMIP, of Earth system model simulations which assess the impact on climate of these emissions reductions. 12 models performed multiple initial-condition ensembles to produce over 300 simulations spanning both initial condition and model structural uncertainty. We find model consensus on reduced aerosol amounts (particularly over southern and eastern Asia) and associated increases in surface shortwave radiation levels. However, any impact on near-surface temperature or rainfall during 2020–2024 is extremely small and is not detectable in this initial analysis. Regional analyses on a finer scale, and closer attention to extremes (especially linked to changes in atmospheric composition and air quality) are required to test the impact of COVID-19-related emission reductions on near-term climate. © 2021. Crown Copyright. © 2021. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. This article is published with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

Many nations responded to the corona virus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic by restricting travel and other activities during 2020, resulting in temporarily reduced emissions of CO2, other greenhouse gases and ozone and aerosol precursors. We present the initial results from a coordinated Intercomparison, CovidMIP, of Earth system model simulations which assess the impact on climate of these emissions reductions. 12 models performed multiple initial-condition ensembles to produce over 300 simulations spanning both initial condition and model structural uncertainty. We find model consensus on reduced aerosol amounts (particularly over southern and eastern Asia) and associated increases in surface shortwave radiation levels. However, any impact on near-surface temperature or rainfall during 2020–2024 is extremely small and is not detectable in this initial analysis. Regional analyses on a finer scale, and closer attention to extremes (especially linked to changes in atmospheric composition and air quality) are required to test the impact of COVID-19-related emission reductions on near-term climate. © 2021. Crown Copyright. © 2021. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. This article is published with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

Many nations responded to the corona virus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic by restricting travel and other activities during 2020, resulting in temporarily reduced emissions of CO2, other greenhouse gases and ozone and aerosol precursors. We present the initial results from a coordinated Intercomparison, CovidMIP, of Earth system model simulations which assess the impact on climate of these emissions reductions. 12 models performed multiple initial-condition ensembles to produce over 300 simulations spanning both initial condition and model structural uncertainty. We find model consensus on reduced aerosol amounts (particularly over southern and eastern Asia) and associated increases in surface shortwave radiation levels. However, any impact on near-surface temperature or rainfall during 2020–2024 is extremely small and is not detectable in this initial analysis. Regional analyses on a finer scale, and closer attention to extremes (especially linked to changes in atmospheric composition and air quality) are required to test the impact of COVID-19-related emission reductions on near-term climate. © 2021. Crown Copyright. © 2021. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. This article is published with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

Many nations responded to the corona virus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic by restricting travel and other activities during 2020, resulting in temporarily reduced emissions of CO2, other greenhouse gases and ozone and aerosol precursors. We present the initial results from a coordinated Intercomparison, CovidMIP, of Earth system model simulations which assess the impact on climate of these emissions reductions. 12 models performed multiple initial-condition ensembles to produce over 300 simulations spanning both initial condition and model structural uncertainty. We find model consensus on reduced aerosol amounts (particularly over southern and eastern Asia) and associated increases in surface shortwave radiation levels. However, any impact on near-surface temperature or rainfall during 2020–2024 is extremely small and is not detectable in this initial analysis. Regional analyses on a finer scale, and closer attention to extremes (especially linked to changes in atmospheric composition and air quality) are required to test the impact of COVID-19-related emission reductions on near-term climate. © 2021. Crown Copyright. © 2021. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. This article is published with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

The most recent version of the ACCESS-AM2 atmosphere-only climate model is introduced with results from the CMIP6 Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP) experiments configured with two land-surface models: CABLE and JULES. AMIP simulations are required as part of the CMIP6 core experiments. They are forced by prescribed time-varying observed sea surface temperature and sea-ice variations as well as variations in natural and anthropogenic external forcings. We evaluate the performance of the two configurations using three historical realisations for each. Model biases are estimated both globally and for the Australian region. The model shows close agreement with observed interannual variations of global-mean temperature across the latitude range 65°N–65°S. This is also true for the land-only temperature for 65°N–65°S, and a more stringent test of the model is driven by specified observed sea surface temperatures. Patterns of mean precipitation are simulated reasonably well, although there are biases in the amount and distribution of precipitation, typical of longstanding problems in representing this aspect of the climate. Selected features of the atmospheric circulation are discussed, including air temperatures and wind speeds. For the Australian region, in addition to examining the climatological patterns of temperature and precipitation, important drivers of climate variability are reviewed: El Niño-Southern Oscillation, the Indian Ocean Dipole and the Southern Annular Mode. In general, the correlation patterns for precipitation simulated by ACCESS-AM2 are somewhat weaker than in observations, although the ensemble means show better agreement than individual ensemble members. Overall, the two different land-surface schemes perform similarly. ACCESS-AM2 has reduced root mean square errors for both temperature and precipitation of around 15–20% at the global scale compared to the older CMIP5 versions of the model: ACCESS 1.0 and ACCESS 1.3.

The effective radiative forcing, which includes the instantaneous forcing plus adjustments from the atmosphere and surface, has emerged as the key metric of evaluating human and natural influence on the climate. We evaluate effective radiative forcing and adjustments in 17 contemporary climate models that are participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) and have contributed to the Radiative Forcing Model Intercomparison Project (RFMIP). Present-day (2014) global-mean anthropogenic forcing relative to pre-industrial (1850) levels from climate models stands at 2.00 (±0.23) W m−2, comprised of 1.81 (±0.09) W m−2 from CO2, 1.08 (± 0.21) W m−2 from other well-mixed greenhouse gases, −1.01 (± 0.23) W m−2 from aerosols and −0.09 (±0.13) W m−2 from land use change. Quoted uncertainties are 1 standard deviation across model best estimates, and 90 % confidence in the reported forcings, due to internal variability, is typically within 0.1 W m−2. The majority of the remaining 0.21 W m−2 is likely to be from ozone. In most cases, the largest contributors to the spread in effective radiative forcing (ERF) is from the instantaneous radiative forcing (IRF) and from cloud responses, particularly aerosol–cloud interactions to aerosol forcing. As determined in previous studies, cancellation of tropospheric and surface adjustments means that the stratospherically adjusted radiative forcing is approximately equal to ERF for greenhouse gas forcing but not for aerosols, and consequentially, not for the anthropogenic total. The spread of aerosol forcing ranges from −0.63 to −1.37 W m−2, exhibiting a less negative mean and narrower range compared to 10 CMIP5 models. The spread in 4×CO2 forcing has also narrowed in CMIP6 compared to 13 CMIP5 models. Aerosol forcing is uncorrelated with climate sensitivity. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that the increasing spread in climate sensitivity in CMIP6 models, particularly related to high-sensitivity models, is a co

The effective radiative forcing, which includes the instantaneous forcing plus adjustments from the atmosphere and surface, has emerged as the key metric of evaluating human and natural influence on the climate. We evaluate effective radiative forcing and adjustments in 17 contemporary climate models that are participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) and have contributed to the Radiative Forcing Model Intercomparison Project (RFMIP). Present-day (2014) global-mean anthropogenic forcing relative to pre-industrial (1850) levels from climate models stands at 2.00 (±0.23) W m−2, comprised of 1.81 (±0.09) W m−2 from CO2, 1.08 (± 0.21) W m−2 from other well-mixed greenhouse gases, −1.01 (± 0.23) W m−2 from aerosols and −0.09 (±0.13) W m−2 from land use change. Quoted uncertainties are 1 standard deviation across model best estimates, and 90 % confidence in the reported forcings, due to internal variability, is typically within 0.1 W m−2. The majority of the remaining 0.21 W m−2 is likely to be from ozone. In most cases, the largest contributors to the spread in effective radiative forcing (ERF) is from the instantaneous radiative forcing (IRF) and from cloud responses, particularly aerosol–cloud interactions to aerosol forcing. As determined in previous studies, cancellation of tropospheric and surface adjustments means that the stratospherically adjusted radiative forcing is approximately equal to ERF for greenhouse gas forcing but not for aerosols, and consequentially, not for the anthropogenic total. The spread of aerosol forcing ranges from −0.63 to −1.37 W m−2, exhibiting a less negative mean and narrower range compared to 10 CMIP5 models. The spread in 4×CO2 forcing has also narrowed in CMIP6 compared to 13 CMIP5 models. Aerosol forcing is uncorrelated with climate sensitivity. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that the increasing spread in climate sensitivity in CMIP6 models, particularly related to high-sensitivity models, is a co

The effective radiative forcing, which includes the instantaneous forcing plus adjustments from the atmosphere and surface, has emerged as the key metric of evaluating human and natural influence on the climate. We evaluate effective radiative forcing and adjustments in 17 contemporary climate models that are participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) and have contributed to the Radiative Forcing Model Intercomparison Project (RFMIP). Present-day (2014) global-mean anthropogenic forcing relative to pre-industrial (1850) levels from climate models stands at 2.00 (±0.23) W m−2, comprised of 1.81 (±0.09) W m−2 from CO2, 1.08 (± 0.21) W m−2 from other well-mixed greenhouse gases, −1.01 (± 0.23) W m−2 from aerosols and −0.09 (±0.13) W m−2 from land use change. Quoted uncertainties are 1 standard deviation across model best estimates, and 90 % confidence in the reported forcings, due to internal variability, is typically within 0.1 W m−2. The majority of the remaining 0.21 W m−2 is likely to be from ozone. In most cases, the largest contributors to the spread in effective radiative forcing (ERF) is from the instantaneous radiative forcing (IRF) and from cloud responses, particularly aerosol–cloud interactions to aerosol forcing. As determined in previous studies, cancellation of tropospheric and surface adjustments means that the stratospherically adjusted radiative forcing is approximately equal to ERF for greenhouse gas forcing but not for aerosols, and consequentially, not for the anthropogenic total. The spread of aerosol forcing ranges from −0.63 to −1.37 W m−2, exhibiting a less negative mean and narrower range compared to 10 CMIP5 models. The spread in 4×CO2 forcing has also narrowed in CMIP6 compared to 13 CMIP5 models. Aerosol forcing is uncorrelated with climate sensitivity. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that the increasing spread in climate sensitivity in CMIP6 models, particularly related to high-sensitivity models, is a co

The effective radiative forcing, which includes the instantaneous forcing plus adjustments from the atmosphere and surface, has emerged as the key metric of evaluating human and natural influence on the climate. We evaluate effective radiative forcing and adjustments in 17 contemporary climate models that are participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) and have contributed to the Radiative Forcing Model Intercomparison Project (RFMIP). Present-day (2014) global-mean anthropogenic forcing relative to pre-industrial (1850) levels from climate models stands at 2.00 (±0.23) W m−2, comprised of 1.81 (±0.09) W m−2 from CO2, 1.08 (± 0.21) W m−2 from other well-mixed greenhouse gases, −1.01 (± 0.23) W m−2 from aerosols and −0.09 (±0.13) W m−2 from land use change. Quoted uncertainties are 1 standard deviation across model best estimates, and 90 % confidence in the reported forcings, due to internal variability, is typically within 0.1 W m−2. The majority of the remaining 0.21 W m−2 is likely to be from ozone. In most cases, the largest contributors to the spread in effective radiative forcing (ERF) is from the instantaneous radiative forcing (IRF) and from cloud responses, particularly aerosol–cloud interactions to aerosol forcing. As determined in previous studies, cancellation of tropospheric and surface adjustments means that the stratospherically adjusted radiative forcing is approximately equal to ERF for greenhouse gas forcing but not for aerosols, and consequentially, not for the anthropogenic total. The spread of aerosol forcing ranges from −0.63 to −1.37 W m−2, exhibiting a less negative mean and narrower range compared to 10 CMIP5 models. The spread in 4×CO2 forcing has also narrowed in CMIP6 compared to 13 CMIP5 models. Aerosol forcing is uncorrelated with climate sensitivity. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that the increasing spread in climate sensitivity in CMIP6 models, particularly related to high-sensitivity models, is a co