Evaluation of CMIP6 DECK Experiments With CNRM‐CM6‐1

A. Voldoire; D. Saint‐Martin; S. Senesi; B. Decharme; A. Alias; M. Chevallier; J. Colin; J.‐F. Guérémy; M. Michou; M.‐P. Moine; P. Nabat; R. Roehrig; D. Salas y Mélia; R. Séférian; S. Valcke; I. Beau; S. Belamari; S. Berthet; C. Cassou; J. Cattiaux; J. Deshayes; H. Douville; C. Ethe; L. Franchistéguy; O. Geoffroy; C. Levy; G. Madec; Y. Meurdesoif; R. Msadek; A. Ribes; E. Sanchez‐Gomez; L. Terray; R. Waldman

doi:10.1029/2019ms001683

journal article Open Access Jul 01, 2019

Evaluation of CMIP6 DECK Experiments With CNRM‐CM6‐1

A. Voldoire

D. Saint‐Martin S. Senesi B. Decharme A. Alias M. Chevallier

J. Colin J.‐F. Guérémy M. Michou M.‐P. Moine P. Nabat R. Roehrig

D. Salas y Mélia R. Séférian S. Valcke I. Beau

S. Belamari S. Berthet

C. Cassou J. Cattiaux

J. Deshayes H. Douville C. Ethe L. Franchistéguy O. Geoffroy C. Levy G. Madec Y. Meurdesoif R. Msadek A. Ribes E. Sanchez‐Gomez L. Terray

R. Waldman

Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems Vol. 11 No. 7 pp. 2177-2213 · American Geophysical Union (AGU)

View at Publisher Save 10.1029/2019ms001683

Abstract

AbstractThis paper describes the main characteristics of CNRM‐CM6‐1, the fully coupled atmosphere‐ocean general circulation model of sixth generation jointly developed by Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques (CNRM) and Cerfacs for the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6 (CMIP6). The paper provides a description of each component of CNRM‐CM6‐1, including the coupling method and the new online output software. We emphasize where model's components have been updated with respect to the former model version, CNRM‐CM5.1. In particular, we highlight major improvements in the representation of atmospheric and land processes. A particular attention has also been devoted to mass and energy conservation in the simulated climate system to limit long‐term drifts. The climate simulated by CNRM‐CM6‐1 is then evaluated using CMIP6 historical and Diagnostic, Evaluation and Characterization of Klima (DECK) experiments in comparison with CMIP5 CNRM‐CM5.1 equivalent experiments. Overall, the mean surface biases are of similar magnitude but with different spatial patterns. Deep ocean biases are generally reduced, whereas sea ice is too thin in the Arctic. Although the simulated climate variability remains roughly consistent with CNRM‐CM5.1, its sensitivity to rising CO2 has increased: the equilibrium climate sensitivity is 4.9 K, which is now close to the upper bound of the range estimated from CMIP5 models.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

157

[1]

The Version-2 Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) Monthly Precipitation Analysis (1979–Present)

Robert F. Adler, George J. Huffman, Alfred Chang et al.

Journal of Hydrometeorology 10.1175/1525-7541(2003)004<1147:tvgpcp>2.0.co;2

[2]

10.1073/pnas.0605064103

[3]

10.1007/s10236-009-0180-y

[4]

10.5194/hess-21-589-2017

[5]

10.1175/1520-0493(2002)130<0423:acqmsl>2.0.co;2

[6]

10.5194/acp-5-2603-2005

[7]

10.5194/gmd-9-3751-2016

[8]

10.1175/1520-0493(1989)117<1872:pooiti>2.0.co;2

[9]

10.1016/j.ocemod.2009.01.004

[10]

10.1111/j.1600-0870.2010.00484.x

[11]

10.1175/1520-0493(2004)132<0864:anpfsc>2.0.co;2

[12]

10.1029/2018ms001461

[13]

BrodzikMJ ArmstrongR(2013)Northern Hemisphere EASE‐Grid 2.0 weekly snow cover and sea ice extent version 4. Boulder Colorado USA. NASA Natl Snow Ice Data Cent Distrib Act Arch Cent

[14]

10.1175/jcli-d-16-0741.1

[15]

10.5194/acp-7-2183-2007

[16]

10.1007/s40641-017-0061-2

[17]

10.1175/bams-d-16-0286.1

[18]

10.1127/0941-2948/2008/0272

[19]

10.1002/grl.50643

[20]

10.1007/s00382-013-1731-y

[21]

10.1175/jcli-d-12-00612.1

[22]

10.1029/2012gl053650

[23]

10.1175/jpo-d-15-0046.1

[24]

10.5194/gmd-10-3297-2017

[25]

10.1002/qj.49712656202

[26]

10.1016/j.ocemod.2013.10.005

[27]

Mixed layer depth over the global ocean: An examination of profile data and a profile‐based climatology

Clément de Boyer Montégut, Gurvan Madec, Albert S. Fischer et al.

Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans 10.1029/2004jc002378

[28]

10.1016/j.ocemod.2019.03.010

[29]

10.1175/jpo-d-14-0259.1

[30]

10.1175/2010jhm1212.1

[31]

10.5194/tc-10-853-2016

[32]

10.1029/2018ms001545

[33]

10.1175/bams-d-13-00043.1

[34]

10.1007/bf00208992

[35]

10.1029/2012gl053387

[36]

10.1175/jcli-d-16-0844.1

[37]

10.1002/2017ms000947

[38]

10.1002/2016gl070319

[39]

Climate change projections using the IPSL-CM5 Earth System Model: from CMIP3 to CMIP5

J.-L. Dufresne, M.-A. Foujols, S. Denvil et al.

Climate Dynamics 10.1007/s00382-012-1636-1

[40]

10.5194/os-5-203-2009

[41]

10.1002/jgrd.50316

[42]

Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization

Veronika Eyring, Sandrine Bony, Gerald A. Meehl et al.

Geoscientific Model Development 10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016

[43]

10.1029/2007jd008470

[44]

10.5194/gmd-6-563-2013

[45]

FettererF KnowlesK MeierW M.Savoie andA. K.Windnagel(2017)Sea ice index version 3.0. In: NSIDC.https://nsidc.org/data/G02135/versions/3. Accessed 19 Dec 2018

[46]

Flato G. (2013)

[47]

Fouquart Y. "Computations of solar heating of the Earth's atmosphere—A new parameterization" Beitrage zur Phys der Atmosphare (1980)

[48]

10.1016/j.ocemod.2010.09.002

[49]

10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016<0696:lsohaf>2.0.co;2

[50]

10.1175/1520-0485(1990)020<0150:imiocm>2.0.co;2

Showing 50 of 157 references

Cited By

770

Hydrodynamic Changes in the Gulf of California Under Different Climate Change Scenarios: 2015–2100

Metzli Romero-Robles, David Alberto Salas-de-León · 2026

Climate

Assessment of the Applicability of CMIP6 Global Climate Models for Predicting Climate Change and Natural Hazard Frequency in the Magadan Oblast

A. N. Shikhov, A. A. Zemlianskova · 2026

Russian Meteorology and Hydrology

Limitations and Potential in Subseasonal Prediction of Antarctic Sea Ice Thickness for Thin Ice Regimes

Yifan Wang, Hao Luo · 2026

Journal of Geophysical Research: At...

Opposing Trends in Wintertime Convective Initiation Environments of East China Driven by Anthropogenic Aerosols and Greenhouse Gases

Xinyan Li, Fan Wang · 2026

Journal of Geophysical Research: At...

An assessment of Antarctic sea-ice thickness in CMIP6 simulations with comparison to the satellite-based observations and reanalyses

Shreya Trivedi, Will Hobbs · 2025

The Cryosphere

Contextualizing GCM Biases in Low‐Cloud Coverage: The Role of Large‐Scale Conditions

Hamish Lewis, Gilles Bellon · 2025

Geophysical Research Letters

The winter North Atlantic Oscillation downstream teleconnection: insights from large-ensemble climate model simulations

Sing Lau, Kunhui Ye · 2025

Environmental Research Letters

A global high-resolution CMIP6 ensemble of wave climate simulations and projections using a coastal multigrid: Configuration and performance evaluation

Rajesh Kumar, Gil Lemos · 2025

Ocean Modelling

Evaluation of optimal normalization techniques in multi-criteria decision-making to rank CMIP6 climate models

Gaurav Patel, Subhasish Das · 2025

Theoretical and Applied Climatology

Impact of climate change on cultural heritage buildings in hot-humid regions: Case study of Zhongde Palace, China

Haochen Qiu, Jiahao Zhang · 2025

Building and Environment

Modeling snowpack dynamics and surface energy budget in boreal and subarctic peatlands and forests

Jari-Pekka Nousu, Matthieu Lafaysse · 2024

The Cryosphere

The weakening AMOC under extreme climate change

Gaurav Madan, Ada Gjermundsen · 2023

Climate Dynamics

The Climate Response to the Mt. Pinatubo Eruption Does Not Constrain Climate Sensitivity

Andrew G. Pauling, Cecilia M. Bitz · 2023

Geophysical Research Letters

Underpredicted ENSO Teleconnections in Seasonal Forecasts

N. C. Williams, A. A. Scaife · 2023

Geophysical Research Letters

Predicted impacts of climate change on wild and commercial berry habitats will have food security, conservation and agricultural implications

Kaede Hirabayashi, Susan J. Murch · 2022

Science of The Total Environment

Investigating Parametric Dependence of Climate Feedbacks in the Atmospheric Component of CNRM‐CM6‐1

S. Peatier, B. M. Sanderson · 2022

Geophysical Research Letters

Water vapor and lapse rate feedbacks in the climate system

Robert Colman, Brian J. Soden · 2021

Reviews of Modern Physics

Future surface temperatures over Europe according to CMIP6 climate projections: an analysis with original and bias-corrected data

D Carvalho, S Cardoso Pereira · 2021

Climatic Change

Greater Greenland Ice Sheet contribution to global sea level rise in CMIP6

Stefan Höfer, Charlotte Lang · 2020

Nature Communications

Projections of Precipitation and Temperature over the South Asian Countries in CMIP6

Mansour Almazroui, Sajjad Saeed · 2020

Earth Systems and Environment

Metrics

770

Citations

157

References

Details

Published: Jul 01, 2019
Vol/Issue: 11(7)
Pages: 2177-2213
License: View

Authors

A

A. Voldoire

CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Météo‐France, CNRS Toulouse France

D

D. Saint‐Martin

CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Météo‐France, CNRS Toulouse France

S

S. Senesi

CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Météo‐France, CNRS Toulouse France

B

B. Decharme

CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Météo‐France, CNRS Toulouse France

A

A. Alias

CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Météo‐France, CNRS Toulouse France

M

M. Chevallier

CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Météo‐France, CNRS Toulouse France

J

J. Colin

CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Météo‐France, CNRS Toulouse France

J

J.‐F. Guérémy

CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Météo‐France, CNRS Toulouse France

M

M. Michou

CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Météo‐France, CNRS Toulouse France

M

M.‐P. Moine

CECI, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, CERFACS Toulouse France

P

P. Nabat

CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Météo‐France, CNRS Toulouse France

R

R. Roehrig

CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Météo‐France, CNRS Toulouse France

D

D. Salas y Mélia

CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Météo‐France, CNRS Toulouse France

R

R. Séférian

CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Météo‐France, CNRS Toulouse France

S

S. Valcke

CECI, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, CERFACS Toulouse France

I

I. Beau

CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Météo‐France, CNRS Toulouse France

S

S. Belamari

CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Météo‐France, CNRS Toulouse France

S

S. Berthet

CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Météo‐France, CNRS Toulouse France

C

C. Cassou

CECI, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, CERFACS Toulouse France

J

J. Cattiaux

CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Météo‐France, CNRS Toulouse France

J

J. Deshayes

LOCEAN‐IPSL, Sorbonne Université‐CNRS‐IRD‐MNHN Paris France

H

H. Douville

CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Météo‐France, CNRS Toulouse France

C

C. Ethe

Institut Pierre et Simon Laplace Paris France

L

L. Franchistéguy

CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Météo‐France, CNRS Toulouse France

O

O. Geoffroy

CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Météo‐France, CNRS Toulouse France

C

C. Levy

LOCEAN‐IPSL, Sorbonne Université‐CNRS‐IRD‐MNHN Paris France

G

G. Madec

LOCEAN‐IPSL, Sorbonne Université‐CNRS‐IRD‐MNHN Paris France; INRIA, Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, LJK Grenoble France

Y

Y. Meurdesoif

IPSL/Laboratoire de Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, CEA‐CNRS Gif‐sur‐Yvette France

R

R. Msadek

CECI, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, CERFACS Toulouse France

A

A. Ribes

CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Météo‐France, CNRS Toulouse France

E

E. Sanchez‐Gomez

CECI, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, CERFACS Toulouse France

L

L. Terray

CECI, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, CERFACS Toulouse France

R

R. Waldman

CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Météo‐France, CNRS Toulouse France

Funding

Agence Nationale de la Recherche Award: ANR‐13‐MONU‐0008‐02

Cite This Article

A. Voldoire, D. Saint‐Martin, S. Senesi, et al. (2019). Evaluation of CMIP6 DECK Experiments With CNRM‐CM6‐1. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 11(7), 2177-2213. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019ms001683

Evaluation of CMIP6 DECK Experiments With CNRM‐CM6‐1

You May Also Like