Model calibration using ESEm v1.1.0 – an open, scalable Earth system emulator

Geoscientific Model Development Copernicus GmbH 14:12 (2021) 7659-7672

Authors:

Duncan Watson-Parris, Andrew Williams, Lucia Deaconu, Philip Stier

Abstract:

<jats:p>Abstract. Large computer models are ubiquitous in the Earth sciences. These models often have tens or hundreds of tuneable parameters and can take thousands of core hours to run to completion while generating terabytes of output. It is becoming common practice to develop emulators as fast approximations, or surrogates, of these models in order to explore the relationships between these inputs and outputs, understand uncertainties, and generate large ensembles datasets. While the purpose of these surrogates may differ, their development is often very similar. Here we introduce ESEm: an open-source tool providing a general workflow for emulating and validating a wide variety of models and outputs. It includes efficient routines for sampling these emulators for the purpose of uncertainty quantification and model calibration. It is built on well-established, high-performance libraries to ensure robustness, extensibility and scalability. We demonstrate the flexibility of ESEm through three case studies using ESEm to reduce parametric uncertainty in a general circulation model and explore precipitation sensitivity in a cloud-resolving model and scenario uncertainty in the CMIP6 multi-model ensemble. </jats:p>

Apparent temperature and heat‐related illnesses during international athletic championships: A prospective cohort study

Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports Wiley 31:11 (2021) 2092-2102

Authors:

Karsten Hollander, Milan Klöwer, Andy Richardson, Laurent Navarro, Sébastien Racinais, Volker Scheer, Andrew Murray, Pedro Branco, Toomas Timpka, Astrid Junge, Pascal Edouard

Compressing atmospheric data into its real information content

Nature Computational Science Springer Nature 1:11 (2021) 713-724

Authors:

Milan Klöwer, Miha Razinger, Juan J Dominguez, Peter D Düben, Tim N Palmer

Using Non-Linear Causal Models to Study Aerosol-Cloud Interactions in the Southeast Pacific

(2021)

Authors:

Andrew Jesson, Peter Manshausen, Alyson Douglas, Duncan Watson-Parris, Yarin Gal, Philip Stier

Aerosol absorption in global models from AeroCom phase III

Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics European Geosciences Union 21:20 (2021) 15929-15947

Authors:

Maria Sand, Bjorn H Samset, Gunnar Myhre, Jonas Gliss, Susanne E Bauer, Huisheng Bian, Mian Chin, Ramiro Checa-Garcia, Paul Ginoux, Zak Kipling, Alf Kirkevag, Harri Kokkola, Philippe Le Sager, Marianne T Lund, Hitoshi Matsui, Twan van Noije, Dirk JL Olivie, Samuel Remy, Michael Schulz, Philip Stier, Camilla W Stjern, Toshihiko Takemura, Kostas Tsigaridis, Svetlana G Tsyro, Duncan Watson-Parris

Abstract:

Aerosol-induced absorption of shortwave radiation can modify the climate through local atmospheric heating, which affects lapse rates, precipitation, and cloud formation. Presently, the total amount of aerosol absorption is poorly constrained, and the main absorbing aerosol species (black carbon (BC), organic aerosols (OA), and mineral dust) are diversely quantified in global climate models. As part of the third phase of the Aerosol Comparisons between Observations and Models (AeroCom) intercomparison initiative (AeroCom phase III), we here document the distribution and magnitude of aerosol absorption in current global aerosol models and quantify the sources of intermodel spread, highlighting the difficulties of attributing absorption to different species. In total, 15 models have provided total present-day absorption at 550 nm (using year 2010 emissions), 11 of which have provided absorption per absorbing species. The multi-model global annual mean total absorption aerosol optical depth (AAOD) is 0.0054 (0.0020 to 0.0098; 550 nm), with the range given as the minimum and maximum model values. This is 28 % higher compared to the 0.0042 (0.0021 to 0.0076) multi-model mean in AeroCom phase II (using year 2000 emissions), but the difference is within 1 standard deviation, which, in this study, is 0.0023 (0.0019 in Phase II). Of the summed component AAOD, 60 % (range 36 %–84 %) is estimated to be due to BC, 31 % (12 %–49 %) is due to dust, and 11 % (0 %–24 %) is due to OA; however, the components are not independent in terms of their absorbing efficiency. In models with internal mixtures of absorbing aerosols, a major challenge is the lack of a common and simple method to attribute absorption to the different absorbing species. Therefore, when possible, the models with internally mixed aerosols in the present study have performed simulations using the same method for estimating absorption due to BC, OA, and dust, namely by removing it and comparing runs with and without the absorbing species. We discuss the challenges of attributing absorption to different species; we compare burden, refractive indices, and density; and we contrast models with internal mixing to models with external mixing. The model mean BC mass absorption coefficient (MAC) value is 10.1 (3.1 to 17.7) m2 g−1 (550 nm), and the model mean BC AAOD is 0.0030 (0.0007 to 0.0077). The difference in lifetime (and burden) in the models explains as much of the BC AAOD spread as the difference in BC MAC values. The difference in the spectral dependency between the models is striking. Several models have an absorption Ångstrøm exponent (AAE) close to 1, which likely is too low given current knowledge of spectral aerosol optical properties. Most models do not account for brown carbon and underestimate the spectral dependency for OA.