Model Information of Potential Use to the IPCC Lead Authors and the AR4.
UKMO-HadCM3
28 July 2006
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
Met Office
United Kingdom
HadCM3
2000
Gordon, C., C. Cooper, C.A. Senior, H.T. Banks, J.M. Gregory, T.C. Johns, J.F.B. Mitchell and R.A. Wood, 2000. The simulation of SST, sea ice extents and ocean heat transports in a version of the Hadley Centre coupled model without flux adjustments. Clim. Dyn., 16, 147-168.
Pope, V., M.L. Gallani, P.R. Rowntree, R.A. Stratton, 2000, The impact of new physical parameterizations in the Hadley Centre climate model: HadAM3. Clim Dyn 16: 123-146
Johns T.C., J. M. Gregory, W. J. Ingram, C. E. Johnson, A. Jones, J. A. Lowe, J. F. B. Mitchell, D. L. Roberts, B. M. H. Sexton, D. S. Stevenson, S. F. B. Tett and M. J. Woodage, 2003, Anthropogenic climate change for 1860 to 2100 simulated with the HadCM3 model under updated emissions scenarios, Clim. Dyn 20: 583-612, describe anthropogenic experiments and sulfur cycle
Slab 2xCO2 : 0.89 K W-1m2
Coupled : effective climate sensitivity in a transient 1%to2xCO2 at time of doubling : 0.83 K W-1m2
AMIP :
PMIP2 : uses HadCM3 but with an updated version of the land surface scheme (MOSES II)
CMIP
1. resolution
2.75o latitude by 3.75o longitude
2. numerical scheme/grid (advective and time-stepping schemes; model top; vertical coordinate and number of layers above 200 hPa and below 850 hPa)
hydrostatic, grid point model using an Arakawa B grid and hybrid vertical coordinates. Eulerian advection scheme.
3. list of prognostic variables (be sure to include, as appropriate, liquid water, chemical species, ice, etc.). Model output variable names are not needed, just a generic
4. descriptive name (e.g., temperature, northward and eastward wind components, etc.)
temperature,U-V velocity, surface pressure, liquid water content, liquid water potential temperature, cloud fraction, sulfur dioxide (SO2), dimethyl sulfide (DMS) and three modes of sulfate aerosol
5. name, terse descriptions, and references (journal articles, web pages) for all major parameterizations. Include, as appropriate, descriptions of:
a. clouds
Smith (1990) modified by Gregory and Morris (1996)
b. convection
Gregory and Rowntree (1990) with addition of convective downdrafts (Gregory and Allen 1991)
c. boundary layer
Smith (1990, 1993).
d. SW, LW radiation
Edwards and Slingo (1996). Six spectral band in the shortwave and eight in the longwave. Effects of minor greenhouse gases as well as CO2, water vapour and ozone are explicitly represented.
e. any special handling of wind and temperature at top of model
1. resolution
1.25o x 1.25o
2. numerical scheme/grid, including advection scheme, time-stepping scheme, vertical coordinate, free surface or rigid lid, virtual salt flux or freshwater flux
1-hour time step, standard "rigid-lid" barotropic solution, virtual salt flux with a standard salinity of 35 PSU.
3. list of prognostic variables and tracers
Temperature, Salinity, U and V baroclinic velocity, mixed-layer depth
4. name, terse descriptions, and references (journal articles, web pages) for all parameterizations. Include, as appropriate, descriptions of:
a. eddy parameterization
Gent and Mc Williams (1997) with a variable thickness diffusion parameterization (Wright 1997, Visbeck et al., 1997).
b. bottom boundary layer treatment and/or sill overflow treatment
Convective adjustment is modified in the region of the Denamk Straits and Iceland-Scotland ridge better to represent down-slope mixing of the overflow water (based on Roether et al., 1994)
c. mixed-layer treatment
Kraus-Turner 1967, and K-theory scheme (Pacanowski and Philander 1981) for momentum
d. sunlight penetration
two-band scheme (one more penetrative) assuming pure water type 1B (Paulson and Simpson, Journ. Phys. Ocean., 7, p. 952 (1977), with coefficients adjusted.
e. tidal mixing
no
f. river mouth mixing
no: runoff added to P-E flux in the into top ocean layer.
g. mixing isolated seas with the ocean
Mediterranean water is partially mixed with Atlantic water across the Strait of Gibraltar as a simple representation of water mass exchange. Similar parameterization for Hudson Bay.
h. treatment of North Pole "singularity" (filtering, pole rotation, artificial island?)
Artificial island and Fourier filtering North of 74.5oN.
1. horizontal resolution, number of layers, number of thickness categories
same resolution as ocean model.
2. numerical scheme/grid, including advection scheme, time-stepping scheme,
3. list of prognostic variables
sea-ice fraction, thickness, snow depth, U and V velocities.
4. completeness (dynamics? rheology? leads? snow treatment on sea ice)
simple thermodynamic 1-layer scheme including leads and snow-cover (Cattle and Crossley 1995). Parameterization of ice concentration based on that of Hiblet (1979) + simple parameterization of ice dynamics based on Bryan (1969). Ice rheology crudely represented by preventing convergence of ice once the ice depth reaches 4m.
5. treatment of salinity in ice
Assume a constant salinity of 0.6 per mil.
6. brine rejection treatment
Sublimation increases ocean salinity, as the salt is assumed to blow into leads, and white ice formation reduces it to account for the salt added in converting snow to ice.
7. treatment of the North Pole "singularity" (filtering, pole rotation, artificial island?)
artificial island and Fourier filtering North of 74.5oN.
MOSES I land surface scheme see Cox P., R. Betts, C Bunton, R. Essery, P. R. R. Rowntree, J. Smith, 1999, The impact of new land surface physics on the GCM simulation of climate and climate sensitivity, Clim. Dyn 15 : 183-203
1. resolution (tiling?), number of layers for heat and water
One tile. 4 layers for heat and water
2. treatment of frozen soil and permafrost
Diagnostic treatment of frozen water fraction (subsurface temperature updated using a discretised from of the heat diffusion equation)
3. treatment of surface runoff and river routing scheme
Instantaneous routing of overflow water (surface and sub-surface drainage) to corresponding river mouth.
4. treatment of snow cover on land
is assumed to be uniformily distributed and the evaporative demand is met by any
lying snow first
5. description of water storage model and drainage
Water fluxes determined by Darcy law closed by Clapp and Hornberger relations. Excess water is drained
6. surface albedo scheme
all-band surface albedo. Prescribed snow-free albedo. Snow surface albedo is assumed to vary from its snow-free value to its deep-snow (temperature dependent) value at large snow depth. See Cox et al. (1999) Appendix C.
7. vegetation treatment (canopy?)
canopy conductance calculated on the basis of an diagnostic treatment of net primary producvity. Represents the bulk effect of stomatal openings on plan leaves and the gain of carbon dioxide through photosynthesis.
8. list of prognostic variables
canopy water, lying snow, total soil moisture and temperature on 4 layers
9. ice sheet characteristics (How are snow cover, ice melting, ice accumulation, ice dynamics handled? How are the heat and water fluxes handled when the ice sheet is melting?)
ice sheets are prescribed and static. See E4 for handling accumulating snow.
1. frequency of coupling
1-day
2. Are heat and water conserved by coupling scheme?
Yes
3. list of variables passed between components:
a. atmosphere – ocean : atmosphere to ocean : wind-stress, penetrative solar radiation, non-penetrative net heat flux, precipitation minus evaporation, river outflow, snowfall, sublimation and sea ice top and bottom melting; ocean to atmosphere : surface circulation, ice concentration, ice depth, snow depth and ice, and sea surface temperature.
b. atmosphere – land : fluxes (heat, moisture, momentum), surface and air temperature, humidity, snow fraction
c. land – ocean
d. sea ice – ocean : heat fluxes, top and bottom ice melt, temperature, snow and ice fraction and thickness
e. sea ice – atmosphere
4. Flux adjustment? (heat?, water?, momentum?, annual?, monthly?).
NO, but freshwater imbalance due to snow accumulating over ice sheets returned to ocean by an appropriate water flux over the areas of the adjacent oceans where icebergs occur. The largest local value of the iceberg term are about 0.15 mm.day-1, i.e., 5 % of the P-E term in the North Atlantic, and up to 20 % near the coast around Antarctica.
PIcntrl
1. If initialized from a control run, which month/year.
2. For control runs, describe spin-up procedure.
Initialised directly from the Levitus observed ocean state (Levitus and Boyer 1994; Levitus 1995)
Run 1. is after 300 years spin-up
Run 2 is after 150 years spin-up
TSI : 1365 W/m2 (constant)
CO2 : 289.6 ppmv; CH4 = 790.2 ppbv ; N2O = 285.1 ppbv
No natural emissions of sulfur aerosols in control run.
------------------------------------------------------------------
1%to2x
run 1 is parallel to PIcntrl, run 2
run 2 is parallel to PIcntrl, run 1
CO2 increased by 1% compound to doubling, then stabilised
------------------------------------------------------------------
20C3M
First year of Run 1 (labeled 1859) corresponds to year 1 of PIcntrl, run 1
First year of Run 2 (labeled 1859) corresponds to year 151 of PIcntrl, run 1
anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing (as specified in the IPCC 1995 report, to give IS92a-like forcing variations, see Table 1a in Johns et al., 2003); + sulphate aerosol direct + indirect forcing (via calibrated delta-albedo; see Johns et al, 2003 Appendix 1A); sulphur chemistry without natural DMS & 3D SO2 background emissions, (ie. anthropogenic SO2 emissions surface and high level only, taken from a personal communication with Steve Smith and Nakicenovic et al 2000.). Tropospheric/stratospheric ozone (reconstruction for the period 1858 – 1970).
------------------------------------------------------------------
Commit
Branches on year Dec1999 of 20C3M, run 2
all forcings kept constant from the beginning of the run (perpetual annual cycle of ozone)
------------------------------------------------------------------
SRESA2
Branches on year Dec1999 of 20C3M, run 1
GHG : See table 1a in Johns et al., 2003. Sulfur emissions according to SRES A2 scenario (Steve Smith personal communication). See Table 2 in Johns et al., 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------
SRESB2
Branches on year Dec1999 of 20C3M, run 1
GHG : See table 1a in Johns et al., 2003. Sulfur emissions according to SRES B2 scenario (Steve Smith personal communication). See Table 2 in Johns et al., 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------
SRESA1B
Branches on year Dec1999 of 20C3M, run 2
As SRESB2, but the CO2 concentrations were obtained from the 'Bern' model values in IPCC TAR annex II.2. CH4, N2O and the HFCs are also from the TAR appendix. The CFCs are the same as in B1. For HCFC22 we used the average of offline STOCHEM calculations for B1 and A1FI.