3 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
- ItemProjecting Antarctica's contribution to future sea level rise from basal ice shelf melt using linear response functions of 16 ice sheet models (LARMIP-2)(Göttingen : Copernicus Publ., 2020) Levermann, Anders; Winkelmann, Ricarda; Albrecht, Torsten; Goelzer, Heiko; Golledge, Nicholas R.; Greve, Ralf; Huybrechts, Philippe; Jordan, Jim; Leguy, Gunter; Martin, Daniel; Morlighem, Mathieu; Pattyn, Frank; Pollard, David; Quiquet, Aurelien; Rodehacke, Christian; Seroussi, Helene; Sutter, Johannes; Zhang, Tong; Van Breedam, Jonas; Calov, Reinhard; DeConto, Robert; Dumas, Christophe; Garbe, Julius; Gudmundsson, G. Hilmar; Hoffman, Matthew J.; Humbert, Angelika; Kleiner, Thomas; Lipscomb, William H.; Meinshausen, Malte; Ng, Esmond; Nowicki, Sophie M.J.; Perego, Mauro; Price, Stephen F.; Saito, Fuyuki; Schlegel, Nicole-Jeanne; Sun, Sainan; van de Wal, Roderik S.W.The sea level contribution of the Antarctic ice sheet constitutes a large uncertainty in future sea level projections. Here we apply a linear response theory approach to 16 state-of-the-art ice sheet models to estimate the Antarctic ice sheet contribution from basal ice shelf melting within the 21st century. The purpose of this computation is to estimate the uncertainty of Antarctica's future contribution to global sea level rise that arises from large uncertainty in the oceanic forcing and the associated ice shelf melting. Ice shelf melting is considered to be a major if not the largest perturbation of the ice sheet's flow into the ocean. However, by computing only the sea level contribution in response to ice shelf melting, our study is neglecting a number of processes such as surface-mass-balance-related contributions. In assuming linear response theory, we are able to capture complex temporal responses of the ice sheets, but we neglect any self-dampening or self-amplifying processes. This is particularly relevant in situations in which an instability is dominating the ice loss. The results obtained here are thus relevant, in particular wherever the ice loss is dominated by the forcing as opposed to an internal instability, for example in strong ocean warming scenarios. In order to allow for comparison the methodology was chosen to be exactly the same as in an earlier study (Levermann et al., 2014) but with 16 instead of 5 ice sheet models. We include uncertainty in the atmospheric warming response to carbon emissions (full range of CMIP5 climate model sensitivities), uncertainty in the oceanic transport to the Southern Ocean (obtained from the time-delayed and scaled oceanic subsurface warming in CMIP5 models in relation to the global mean surface warming), and the observed range of responses of basal ice shelf melting to oceanic warming outside the ice shelf cavity. This uncertainty in basal ice shelf melting is then convoluted with the linear response functions of each of the 16 ice sheet models to obtain the ice flow response to the individual global warming path. The model median for the observational period from 1992 to 2017 of the ice loss due to basal ice shelf melting is 10.2 mm, with a likely range between 5.2 and 21.3 mm. For the same period the Antarctic ice sheet lost mass equivalent to 7.4mm of global sea level rise, with a standard deviation of 3.7mm (Shepherd et al., 2018) including all processes, especially surface-mass-balance changes. For the unabated warming path, Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5), we obtain a median contribution of the Antarctic ice sheet to global mean sea level rise from basal ice shelf melting within the 21st century of 17 cm, with a likely range (66th percentile around the mean) between 9 and 36 cm and a very likely range (90th percentile around the mean) between 6 and 58 cm. For the RCP2.6 warming path, which will keep the global mean temperature below 2 °C of global warming and is thus consistent with the Paris Climate Agreement, the procedure yields a median of 13 cm of global mean sea level contribution. The likely range for the RCP2.6 scenario is between 7 and 24 cm, and the very likely range is between 4 and 37 cm. The structural uncertainties in the method do not allow for an interpretation of any higher uncertainty percentiles.We provide projections for the five Antarctic regions and for each model and each scenario separately. The rate of sea level contribution is highest under the RCP8.5 scenario. The maximum within the 21st century of the median value is 4 cm per decade, with a likely range between 2 and 9 cm per decade and a very likely range between 1 and 14 cm per decade. © Author(s) 2020.
- ItemA protocol for the intercomparison of marine fishery and ecosystem models: Fish-MIP v1.0(Göttingen : Copernicus GmbH, 2018) Tittensor, D.P.; Eddy, T.D.; Lotze, H.K.; Galbraith, E.D.; Cheung, W.; Barange, M.; Blanchard, J.L.; Bopp, L.; Bryndum-Buchholz, A.; Büchner, M.; Bulman, C.; Carozza, D.A.; Christensen, V.; Coll, M.; Dunne, J.P.; Fernandes, J.A.; Fulton, E.A.; Hobday, A.J.; Huber, V.; Jennings, S.; Jones, M.; Lehodey, P.; Link, J.S.; MacKinson, S.; Maury, O.; Niiranen, S.; Oliveros-Ramos, R.; Roy, T.; Schewe, J.; Shin, Y.-J.; Silva, T.; Stock, C.A.; Steenbeek, J.; Underwood, P.J.; Volkholz, J.; Watson, J.R.; Walker, N.D.Model intercomparison studies in the climate and Earth sciences communities have been crucial to building credibility and coherence for future projections. They have quantified variability among models, spurred model development, contrasted within-and among-model uncertainty, assessed model fits to historical data, and provided ensemble projections of future change under specified scenarios. Given the speed and magnitude of anthropogenic change in the marine environment and the consequent effects on food security, biodiversity, marine industries, and society, the time is ripe for similar comparisons among models of fisheries and marine ecosystems. Here, we describe the Fisheries and Marine Ecosystem Model Intercomparison Project protocol version 1.0 (Fish-MIP v1.0), part of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP), which is a cross-sectoral network of climate impact modellers. Given the complexity of the marine ecosystem, this class of models has substantial heterogeneity of purpose, scope, theoretical underpinning, processes considered, parameterizations, resolution (grain size), and spatial extent. This heterogeneity reflects the lack of a unified understanding of the marine ecosystem and implies that the assemblage of all models is more likely to include a greater number of relevant processes than any single model. The current Fish-MIP protocol is designed to allow these heterogeneous models to be forced with common Earth System Model (ESM) Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) outputs under prescribed scenarios for historic (from the 1950s) and future (to 2100) time periods; it will be adapted to CMIP phase 6 (CMIP6) in future iterations. It also describes a standardized set of outputs for each participating Fish-MIP model to produce. This enables the broad characterization of differences between and uncertainties within models and projections when assessing climate and fisheries impacts on marine ecosystems and the services they provide. The systematic generation, collation, and comparison of results from Fish-MIP will inform an understanding of the range of plausible changes in marine ecosystems and improve our capacity to define and convey the strengths and weaknesses of model-based advice on future states of marine ecosystems and fisheries. Ultimately, Fish-MIP represents a step towards bringing together the marine ecosystem modelling community to produce consistent ensemble medium-and long-term projections of marine ecosystems.
- ItemThe PMIP4 contribution to CMIP6 - Part 3: The last millennium, scientific objective, and experimental design for the PMIP4 past1000 simulations(Göttingen : Copernicus GmbH, 2017) Jungclaus, J.H.; Bard, E.; Baroni, M.; Braconnot, P.; Cao, J.; Chini, L.P.; Egorova, T.; Evans, M.; Fidel González-Rouco, J.; Goosse, H.; Hurtt, G.C.; Joos, F.; Kaplan, J.O.; Khodri, M.; Klein Goldewijk, K.; Krivova, N.; Legrande, A.N.; Lorenz, S.J.; Luterbacher, J.; Man, W.; Maycock, A.C.; Meinshausen, M.; Moberg, A.; Muscheler, R.; Nehrbass-Ahles, C.; Otto-Bliesner, B.I.; Phipps, S.J.; Pongratz, J.; Rozanov, E.; Schmidt, G.A.; Schmidt, H.; Schmutz, W.; Schurer, A.; Shapiro, A.I.; Sigl, M.; Smerdon, J.E.; Solanki, S.K.; Timmreck, C.; Toohey, M.; Usoskin, I.G.; Wagner, S.; Wu, C.-J.; Leng Yeo, K.; Zanchettin, D.; Zhang, Q.; Zorita, E.The pre-industrial millennium is among the periods selected by the Paleoclimate Model Intercomparison Project (PMIP) for experiments contributing to the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) and the fourth phase of the PMIP (PMIP4). The past1000 transient simulations serve to investigate the response to (mainly) natural forcing under background conditions not too different from today, and to discriminate between forced and internally generated variability on interannual to centennial timescales. This paper describes the motivation and the experimental set-ups for the PMIP4-CMIP6 past1000 simulations, and discusses the forcing agents orbital, solar, volcanic, and land use/land cover changes, and variations in greenhouse gas concentrations. The past1000 simulations covering the pre-industrial millennium from 850 Common Era (CE) to 1849 CE have to be complemented by historical simulations (1850 to 2014 CE) following the CMIP6 protocol. The external forcings for the past1000 experiments have been adapted to provide a seamless transition across these time periods. Protocols for the past1000 simulations have been divided into three tiers. A default forcing data set has been defined for the Tier 1 (the CMIP6 past1000) experiment. However, the PMIP community has maintained the flexibility to conduct coordinated sensitivity experiments to explore uncertainty in forcing reconstructions as well as parameter uncertainty in dedicated Tier 2 simulations. Additional experiments (Tier 3) are defined to foster collaborative model experiments focusing on the early instrumental period and to extend the temporal range and the scope of the simulations. This paper outlines current and future research foci and common analyses for collaborative work between the PMIP and the observational communities (reconstructions, instrumental data).