Show simple item record

contributor authorMeehl, Gerald A.
contributor authorBoer, George J.
contributor authorCovey, Curt
contributor authorLatif, Mojib
contributor authorStouffer, Ronald J.
date accessioned2017-06-09T14:42:33Z
date available2017-06-09T14:42:33Z
date copyright2000/02/01
date issued2000
identifier issn0003-0007
identifier otherams-24934.pdf
identifier urihttp://onlinelibrary.yabesh.ir/handle/yetl/4161661
description abstractThe Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) was established to study and intercompare climate simulations made with coupled ocean?atmosphere?cryosphere?land GCMs. There are two main phases (CMIP1 and CMIP2), which study, respectively, 1) the ability of models to simulate current climate, and 2) model simulations of climate change due to an idealized change in forcing (a 1% per year CO2 increase). Results from a number of CMIP projects were reported at the first CMIP Workshop held in Melbourne, Australia, in October 1998. Some recent advances in global coupled modeling related to CMIP were also reported. Presentations were based on preliminary unpublished results. Key outcomes from the workshop were that 1) many observed aspects of climate variability are simulated in global coupled models including the North Atlantic oscillation and its linkages to North Atlantic SSTs, El Niño?like events, and monsoon interannual variability; 2) the amplitude of both high? and low?frequency global mean surface temperature variability in many global coupled models is less than that observed, with the former due in part to simulated ENSO in the models being generally weaker than observed, and the latter likely to be at least partially due to the uncertainty in the estimates of past radiative forcing; 3) an El Niño?like pattern in the mean SST response with greater surface warming in the eastern equatorial Pacific than the western equatorial Pacific is found by a number of models in global warming climate change experiments, but other models have a more spatially uniform or even a La Niña?like, response; 4) flux adjustment, by definition, improves the simulation of mean present?day climate over oceans, does not guarantee a drift?free climate, but can produce a stable base state in some models to enable very long term (1000 yr and longer) integrations?in these models it does not appear to have a major effect on model processes or model responses to increasing CO2; and 5) recent multicentury integrations show that a stable surface climate can be attained without flux adjustment (though still with some systematic simulation errors).
publisherAmerican Meteorological Society
titleThe Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP)
typeJournal Paper
journal volume81
journal issue2
journal titleBulletin of the American Meteorological Society
identifier doi10.1175/1520-0477(2000)081<0313:TCMIPC>2.3.CO;2
journal fristpage313
journal lastpage318
treeBulletin of the American Meteorological Society:;2000:;volume( 081 ):;issue: 002
contenttypeFulltext


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record