FN Archimer Export Format
PT J
TI Evaluation of CNRM Earth System Model, CNRM-ESM2-1: Role of Earth System Processes in Present-Day and Future Climate
BT 
AF SEFERIAN, Roland
   NABAT, Pierre
   MICHOU, Martine
   SAINT-MARTIN, David
   VOLDOIRE, Aurore
   COLIN, Jeanne
   DECHARME, Bertrand
   DELIRE, Christine
   BERTHET, Sarah
   CHEVALLIER, Matthieu
   SENESI, Stephane
   FRANCHISTEGUY, Laurent
   VIAL, Jessica
   MALLET, Marc
   JOETZJER, Emilie
   GEOFFROY, Olivier
   GUEREMY, Jean-Francois
   MOINE, Marie-Pierre
   MSADEK, Rym
   RIBES, Aurelien
   ROCHER, Matthias
   ROEHRIG, Romain
   SALAS-Y-MELIA, David
   SANCHEZ, Emilia
   TERRAY, Laurent
   VALCKE, Sophie
   WALDMAN, Robin
   AUMONT, Olivier
   BOPP, Laurent
   DESHAYES, Julie
   ETHE, Christian
   MADEC, Gurvan
AS 1:1;2:1;3:1;4:1;5:1;6:1;7:1;8:1;9:1;10:1;11:1;12:1;13:2;14:1;15:1;16:1;17:1;18:3;19:3;20:1;21:1;22:1;23:1;24:3;25:3;26:3;27:1;28:;29:2;30:4;31:5;32:4,6;
FF 1:;2:;3:;4:;5:;6:;7:;8:;9:;10:;11:;12:;13:;14:;15:;16:;17:;18:;19:;20:;21:;22:;23:;24:;25:;26:;27:;28:;29:;30:;31:;32:;
C1 Univ Toulouse, CNRS, CNRM, Meteo France, Toulouse, France.
   Sorbonne Univ, PSL Res Univ, Ecole Polytech, Ecole Normale Super, Paris, France.
   Univ Toulouse, CNRS, CERFACS, CECI, Toulouse, France.
   Sorbonne Univ, CNRS, IRD, LOCEAN,IPSL,MNHN, Paris, France.
   Inst Pierre Simon Laplace, Paris, France.
   Univ Grenoble Alpes, INRIA, Grenoble, France.
C2 UNIV TOULOUSE, FRANCE
   UNIV PARIS 06, FRANCE
   UNIV TOULOUSE, FRANCE
   UNIV PARIS 06, FRANCE
   IPSL, FRANCE
   UNIV GRENOBLE ALPES, FRANCE
IN DOAJ
IF 4.11
TC 294
UR https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00676/78800/81052.pdf
   https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00676/78800/81054.docx
LA English
DT Article
CR OISO - OCÉAN INDIEN SERVICE D'OBSERVATION
AB This study introduces CNRM-ESM2-1, the Earth system (ES) model of second generation developed by CNRM-CERFACS for the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). CNRM-ESM2-1 offers a higher model complexity than the Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Model CNRM-CM6-1 by adding interactive ES components such as carbon cycle, aerosols, and atmospheric chemistry. As both models share the same code, physical parameterizations, and grid resolution, they offer a fully traceable framework to investigate how far the represented ES processes impact the model performance over present-day, response to external forcing and future climate projections. Using a large variety of CMIP6 experiments, we show that represented ES processes impact more prominently the model response to external forcing than the model performance over present-day. Both models display comparable performance at replicating modern observations although the mean climate of CNRM-ESM2-1 is slightly warmer than that of CNRM-CM6-1. This difference arises from land cover-aerosol interactions where the use of different soil vegetation distributions between both models impacts the rate of dust emissions. This interaction results in a smaller aerosol burden in CNRM-ESM2-1 than in CNRM-CM6-1, leading to a different surface radiative budget and climate. Greater differences are found when comparing the model response to external forcing and future climate projections. Represented ES processes damp future warming by up to 10% in CNRM-ESM2-1 with respect to CNRM-CM6-1. The representation of land vegetation and the CO2-water-stomatal feedback between both models explain about 60% of this difference. The remainder is driven by other ES feedbacks such as the natural aerosol feedback. 
PY 2019
PD DEC
SO Journal Of Advances In Modeling Earth Systems
SN 1942-2466
PU Amer Geophysical Union
VL 11
IS 12
UT 000509163100014
BP 4182
EP 4227
DI 10.1029/2019MS001791
ID 78800
ER

EF