Comparison between CMIP6 and CMIP5 models in simulating historical spatiotemporal variations in radiation budgets at the top of atmosphere and the surface

doi:10.12006/j.issn.1673-1719.2021.261

Abstract

Abstract:

Based on Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) Dataset Edition 4.1, historical spatiotemporal variations in radiation budgets at the top of atmosphere (TOA) and the Earth surface were compared between Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) and phase 6 (CMIP6). Regions with high inter-model variability were identified in two CMIPs. The results show that ensemble means of radiation components, except surface upward longwave radiation in CMIP6 are in better agreement with CERES EBAF 4.1. Except downward longwave radiation at the surface, lower inter-model spread for other radiation components are found in CMIP6. Overestimation in global mean surface downward shortwave is reduced by 1.9 W/m², and underestimation in global mean downward longwave radiation is reduced by 3.3 W/m², in CMIP6. Spatially, larger deviations are found in TOA reflected shortwave and outgoing longwave radiation, as well as surface downward shortwave radiation around the North Pole in CMIP6 compared to CMIP5. Worse simulation is also found in CMIP6 for surface downward longwave radiation around 60° latitudes. In other regions, CMIP6 radiation components agree better with CERES EBAF 4.1 than CMIP5. Regions with relative large inter-model variability for surface downward shortwave and downward longwave radiation shrink from CMIP5 to CMIP6. However, regions with extreme large inter-model variability still keep almost the same for the two components in two CMIPs. Two CMIPs are similar in spatial distribution with large inter-model variability for surface net radiation. Tibet Plateau, equatorial Pacific, tropical rainforest, Arabian Peninsula and Antarctic coasts are important regions with extreme large inter-model variability for simulating radiation budgets at the TOA and the surface by Earth System Models.

Key words: Earth System Model, Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), Radiation budget, Top of atmosphere (TOA), Earth surface, Inter-model variability

WAN Zi-Wen, WANG Wei, LYU Heng, QIU Pei-Yu, LI Yu-Zhu, LU Yang. Comparison between CMIP6 and CMIP5 models in simulating historical spatiotemporal variations in radiation budgets at the top of atmosphere and the surface[J]. Climate Change Research, 2022, 18(4): 468-481.

Figures/Tables 8

Table 1 Basic information of 37 CMIP5 models

Table 2 Basic information of 36 CMIP6 models

Fig. 1 Interannual variations in radiation budgets at the top of atmosphere and the surface for CMIP5 from 1850 to 2005, CMIP6 from 1850 to 2014 and CERES from 2001 to 2018. (Blue and red shading areas represent the one standard derivation among Earth System Models in CMIP5 and CMIP6, respectively)

Table 3 Statistics of radiation budgets at the top of atmosphere and the surface for CMIP5 / CMIP6 / CERES from 2001 to 2005

Fig. 2 Geographical distribution of radiation budgets at the top of atmosphere and the surface from CERES and zonal means from CERES, CMIP5 and CMIP6 for the period 2001-2005

Fig. 3 Geographical distribution and zonal mean of CMIP5, CMIP6 radiation budgets deviation relative to CERES observation at the top of atmosphere and the surface for the period 2001-2005

Fig. 4 Geographical distribution of regions with large inter-model variability in radiation budgets at the top of atmosphere and the surface from CMIP5 models and CMIP6 models for the period 2001-2005

Table 4 Area of regions with large inter-model variability for radiation budgets at the top of atmosphere and the surface from CMIP5 models and CMIP6 models

References 37

[1]	Stephens G L, Li J, Wild M, et al. An update on Earth’s energy balance in light of the latest global observations[J]. Nature Geoscience, 2012, 5 (10): 691-696. DOI: 10.1038/ngeo1580 doi: 10.1038/ngeo1580 URL
[2]	Wild M. The global energy balance as represented in CMIP6 climate models[J]. Climate Dynamics, 2020, 55 (16): 553-577. DOI: 10.1007/s00382-020-05282-7 doi: 10.1007/s00382-020-05282-7 URL
[3]	Wild M, Folini D, Hakuba M Z, et al. The energy balance over land and oceans: an assessment based on direct observations and CMIP5 climate models[J]. Climate Dynamics, 2015, 44 (11-12): 3393-3429. DOI: 10.1007/s00382-014-2430-z doi: 10.1007/s00382-014-2430-z URL
[4]	Loeb N, Natividad M S, Su W Y, et al. CERES Top-of-Atmosphere Earth radiation budget climate data record: accounting for in-orbit changes in instrument calibration[J]. Remote Sensing, 2016, 8 (182): 1-14. DOI: 10.3390/rs8030182 doi: 10.3390/rs8030182 URL
[5]	Allen M R, Ingram J W. Constraints on future changes in climate and the hydrologic cycle[J]. Nature: International Weekly Journal of Science, 2002, 419 (6903): 228-232. DOI: 10.1038/nature01092 doi: 10.1038/nature01092
[6]	DeAngelis A M, Qu X, Zelinka M D, et al. An observational radiative constraint on hydrologic cycle intensification[J]. Nature, 2015, 528 (7581): 249-253. DOI: 10.1038/nature15770 doi: 10.1038/nature15770 URL
[7]	Lee X. Fundamentals of boundary-layer meteorology[M]. Gewerbestrasse: Springer International Publishing, 2018: 22-24
[8]	Wang W, Chakraborty T C, Xiao W, et al. Ocean surface energy balance allows a constraint on the sensitivity of precipitation to global warming[J]. Nature Communications, 2021, 12 (2115): 1-9. DOI: 10.1038/S41467-021-22406-7 doi: 10.1038/S41467-021-22406-7 URL
[9]	Wild M. Short-wave and long-wave surface radiation budgets in GCMs: a review based on the IPCC-AR4/CMIP3 models[J]. Dynamic Meteorology and Oceanography, 2008, 60 (5): 932-945. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0870.2008.00342. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0870.2008.00342
[10]	周天军, 陈梓明, 邹立维, 等. 中国地球气候系统模式的发展及其模拟和预估[J]. 气象学报, 2020, 78 (3): 332-350. DOI: 10.11676/qxxb2020.029. doi: 10.11676/qxxb2020.029
	Zhou T J, Chen Z M, Zou L W, et al. Development of climate and Earth System Models in China[J]. Acta Meteorologica Sinica, 2020, 78 (3): 332-350. DOI: 10.11676/qxxb2020.029 (in Chinese) doi: 10.11676/qxxb2020.029
[11]	周天军, 邹立维, 陈晓龙. 第六次国际耦合模式比较计划(CMIP6) 评述[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2019, 15 (5): 445-456. DOI: 10.12006/.issn.1673-1719.2019.193. doi: 10.12006/.issn.1673-1719.2019.193
	Zhou T J, Zou L W, Chen X L. Commentary on the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6)[J]. Climate Change Research, 2019, 15 (5): 445-456. DOI: 10.12006/.issn.1673-1719.2019.193 (in Chinese) doi: 10.12006/.issn.1673-1719.2019.193
[12]	赵宗慈, 罗勇, 黄建斌. 从检验CMIP5气候模式看CMIP6地球系统模式的发展[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2018, 14 (6): 643-648. DOI: 10.12006/.issn.1673-1719.2018.036. doi: 10.12006/.issn.1673-1719.2018.036
	Zhao Z C, Luo Y, Huang J B. The detection of the CMIP5 climate model to see the development of CMIP6 Earth System Models[J]. Climate Change Research, 2018, 14 (6): 643-648. DOI: 10.12006/.issn.1673-1719.2018.036 (in Chinese) doi: 10.12006/.issn.1673-1719.2018.036
[13]	Wild M, Folini D, Schaer C, et al. The global energy balance from a surface perspective[J]. Climate Dynamics, 2013, 40 (11-12): 3107-3134. DOI: 10.1007/s00382-012-1569-8 doi: 10.1007/s00382-012-1569-8 URL
[14]	Taylor K E, Stouffer R J, Meehl G A. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design[J]. Bulletin of The American Meteorological Society, 2012, 93 (4): 485-498. DOI: 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1 doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1 URL
[15]	Veronika E, Sandrine B, Meehl G A, et al. Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization[J]. Geoscientific Model Development, 2016, 9 (5): 1937-1958. DOI: 10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016 doi: 10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016 URL
[16]	Thornhill G, Collins W, Olivié D, et al. Climate-driven chemistry and aerosol feedbacks in CMIP6 Earth System Models[J]. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2021, 21 (2): 1105-1126. DOI: 10.5194/acp-21-1105-2021 doi: 10.5194/acp-21-1105-2021
[17]	Wild M. Validation of general circulation model radiative fluxes using surface observations[J]. Journal of Climate, 1995, 8 (5): 1309-1324. DOI: 10.1175/1520-0442(1995)0082.0.CO;2 doi: 10.1175/1520-0442(1995)0082.0.CO;2 URL
[18]	Wild M, Long C N, Ohmura A. Evaluation of clear-sky solar fluxes in GCMs participating in AMIP and IPCC-AR4 from a surface perspective[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 2006, 111 (D1): 1-15. DOI: 10.1029/2005JD006118 doi: 10.1029/2005JD006118
[19]	赵宗慈, 罗勇, 黄建斌. 评估43个CMIP5模式模拟全球能量平衡能力[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2015 (3): 227-230. DOI: 10.3969/.issn.1673-1719.2015.03.010. doi: 10.3969/.issn.1673-1719.2015.03.010
	Zhao Z C, Luo Y, Huang J B. Assessment of global energy balance as simulated by 43 CMIP5 climate models[J]. Climate Change Reasearch, 2015 (3): 227-230. DOI: 10.3969/.issn.1673-1719.2015.03.010 (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/.issn.1673-1719.2015.03.010
[20]	Wild M, Hakuba M Z, Folini D, et al. The cloud-free global energy balance and inferred cloud radiative effects: an assessment based on direct observations and climate models[J]. Climate Dynamics, 2018, 52 (7-8): 4787-4812. DOI: 10.1007/s00382-018-4413-y doi: 10.1007/s00382-018-4413-y URL
[21]	Wild M, Folini D, Henschel F, et al. Projections of long-term changes in solar radiation based on CMIP5 climate models and their influence on energy yields of photovoltaic systems[J]. Solar Energy, 2015, 116 (6): 12-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.solener.2015.03.039 doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2015.03.039 URL
[22]	Wild M, Ohmura A, Gilgen H, et al. Evaluation of downward longwave radiation in General Circulation Models[J]. Journal of Climate, 2001, 14 (15): 3227-3239. DOI: 10.1175/1520-0442(2001)0142.0.CO;2 doi: 10.1175/1520-0442(2001)0142.0.CO;2 URL
[23]	Loeb N G, Doelling D R, Wang H, et al. Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) top-of-atmosphere (TOA) edition-4.0 data product[J]. Journal of Climate, 2017 (1): 895-918. DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0208.1 doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0208.1
[24]	Trenberth K E, Fasullo J T, Kiehl J. Earth’s global energy budget[J]. Bulletin of The American Meteorological Society, 2009, 90 (3): 311-323. DOI: 10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1 doi: 10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1 URL
[25]	Loeb N G, Wielicki B A, Doelling D R, et al. Toward optimal closure of the Earth’s Top-of-Atmosphere radiation budget[J]. Journal of Climate, 2009, 22 (3): 748-766. DOI: 10.1175/2008JCLI2637.1 doi: 10.1175/2008JCLI2637.1 URL
[26]	Von Schuckmann K, Palmer M D, Trenberth K E, et al. An imperative to monitor Earth’s energy imbalance[J]. Nature Climate Change, 2016, 6: 138-144. DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2876 doi: 10.1038/nclimate2876 URL
[27]	Kato S, Rose F G, Rutan D A, et al. Surface irradiances of edition 4.0 Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) data product[J]. Journal of Climate, 2018, 31 (11): 4501-4527. DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0523.1 doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0523.1 URL
[28]	Li J, Sun Z, Liu Y, et al. Top-of-Atmosphere radiation budget and cloud radiative effects over the Tibetan Plateau and adjacent monsoon regions from CMIP6 simulations[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 2021, 126 (9): 1-26. DOI: 10.1002/essoar.10505197.1 doi: 10.1002/essoar.10505197.1
[29]	Zhang X T, Liang S L, Wild M, et al. Analysis of surface incident shortwave radiation from four satellite products[J]. Remote Sensing of Environment, 2015 (165): 186-202. DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2015.05.015 doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2015.05.015
[30]	Gui S, Liang S, Li L. Evaluation of satellite-estimated surface longwave radiation using ground-based observations[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 2010, 115 (D18): 1-16. DOI: 10.1029/2009JD013635 doi: 10.1029/2009JD013635
[31]	黄禄丰, 朱再春, 黄萌田, 等. 基于CMIP6模式优化集合平均预估21世纪全球陆地生态系统总初级生产力变化[J]. 气候变化研究进展, 2021, 17 (5): 514-524. DOI: 10.12006/j.issn.1673-1719.2020.221. doi: 10.12006/j.issn.1673-1719.2020.221
	Huang L F, Zhu Z C, Huang M T, et al. Projection of gross primary productivity change of global terrestrial ecosystem in the 21st century based on optimal ensemble averaging of CMIP6 models[J]. Climate Change Research, 2021, 17 (5): 514-524. DOI: 10.12006/j.issn.1673-1719.2020.221 (in Chinese) doi: 10.12006/j.issn.1673-1719.2020.221
[32]	Fläschner D, Mauritsen T, Stevens B. Understanding the intermodel spread in global-mean hydrological sensitivity[J]. Journal of Climate, 2016, 29 (2): 801-817. DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0351.1 doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0351.1 URL
[33]	Jung M, Reichstein M, Margolis H A, et al. Global patterns of land-atmosphere fluxes of carbon dioxide, latent heat, and sensible heat derived from eddy covariance, satellite, and meteorological observations[J]. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 2011, 116 (G3): 1-16. DOI: 10.1029/2010JG001566 doi: 10.1029/2010JG001566
[34]	Zhou C, Zelinka M D, Dessler A E, et al. The relationship between interannual and long-term cloud feedbacks[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 2015, 42 (23): 10463-10469. DOI: 10.1002/2015GL066698 doi: 10.1002/2015GL066698
[35]	Zhou L J, Zhang M H, Bao Q, et al. On the incident solar radiation in CMIP5 models[J]. Geophysical Research Letters, 2015, 42 (6): 1930-1935. DOI: 10.1002/2015GL063239 doi: 10.1002/2015GL063239 URL
[36]	Dolinar E K, Dong X, Xi B, et al. Evaluation of CMIP5 simulated clouds and TOA radiation budgets using NASA satellite observations[J]. Climate Dynamics, 2015, 44 (7-8): 2229-2247 doi: 10.1007/s00382-014-2158-9 URL
[37]	Schwarz M, Folini D, Yang S, et al. Changes in atmospheric shortwave absorption as important driver of dimming and brightening[J]. Nature Geoscience, 2020, 13: 110-115. DOI: 10.1038/s41561-019-0528-y doi: 10.1038/s41561-019-0528-y URL