A comparison of GCM simulations of Arctic climate

John E. Walsh, Robert George Crane

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

58 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

As the atmosphere, ocean, and sea ice components of global climate models are made increasingly interactive, systematic errors or biases in one component can adversely affect the other model components. The fidelity of the component interactions is especially important in the polar regions, where many atmospheric General Circulation Models (GCMs) project an amplified climatic response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. In comparing the Arctic performance of five atmospheric GCMs (GFDL, GISS, NCAR, OSU, and UKMO), we illustrate key differences in the fields most relevant to sea ice/ocean forcing: surface air temperature and sea level pressure (surface wind stress). While the amplitude of the seasonal cycle of simulated air temperature is generally realistic, biases of up to 5–10°C relative to observations are apparent over much of the Arctic. The simulated sea‐level pressure pattern varies widely from model to model, and in some cases is incompatible with the observed wind‐forcing of sea ice from the Arctic Basin to the North Atlantic via Fram Strait. The implications that these differences have for transports of salinity are significant.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)29-32
Number of pages4
JournalGeophysical Research Letters
Volume19
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1992

Fingerprint

climate
general circulation model
sea ice
atmospheric general circulation model
Atmospheric General Circulation Models
air temperature
simulation
oceans
ice
ocean
sea level pressure
polar region
wind stress
surface wind
straits
strait
global climate
climate models
air
greenhouses

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Geophysics
  • Earth and Planetary Sciences(all)

Cite this

@article{9fdb88b235e4435b81039fe5939b2e85,
title = "A comparison of GCM simulations of Arctic climate",
abstract = "As the atmosphere, ocean, and sea ice components of global climate models are made increasingly interactive, systematic errors or biases in one component can adversely affect the other model components. The fidelity of the component interactions is especially important in the polar regions, where many atmospheric General Circulation Models (GCMs) project an amplified climatic response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. In comparing the Arctic performance of five atmospheric GCMs (GFDL, GISS, NCAR, OSU, and UKMO), we illustrate key differences in the fields most relevant to sea ice/ocean forcing: surface air temperature and sea level pressure (surface wind stress). While the amplitude of the seasonal cycle of simulated air temperature is generally realistic, biases of up to 5–10°C relative to observations are apparent over much of the Arctic. The simulated sea‐level pressure pattern varies widely from model to model, and in some cases is incompatible with the observed wind‐forcing of sea ice from the Arctic Basin to the North Atlantic via Fram Strait. The implications that these differences have for transports of salinity are significant.",
author = "Walsh, {John E.} and Crane, {Robert George}",
year = "1992",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1029/91GL03004",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
pages = "29--32",
journal = "Geophysical Research Letters",
issn = "0094-8276",
publisher = "American Geophysical Union",
number = "1",

}

A comparison of GCM simulations of Arctic climate. / Walsh, John E.; Crane, Robert George.

In: Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 19, No. 1, 01.01.1992, p. 29-32.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - A comparison of GCM simulations of Arctic climate

AU - Walsh, John E.

AU - Crane, Robert George

PY - 1992/1/1

Y1 - 1992/1/1

N2 - As the atmosphere, ocean, and sea ice components of global climate models are made increasingly interactive, systematic errors or biases in one component can adversely affect the other model components. The fidelity of the component interactions is especially important in the polar regions, where many atmospheric General Circulation Models (GCMs) project an amplified climatic response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. In comparing the Arctic performance of five atmospheric GCMs (GFDL, GISS, NCAR, OSU, and UKMO), we illustrate key differences in the fields most relevant to sea ice/ocean forcing: surface air temperature and sea level pressure (surface wind stress). While the amplitude of the seasonal cycle of simulated air temperature is generally realistic, biases of up to 5–10°C relative to observations are apparent over much of the Arctic. The simulated sea‐level pressure pattern varies widely from model to model, and in some cases is incompatible with the observed wind‐forcing of sea ice from the Arctic Basin to the North Atlantic via Fram Strait. The implications that these differences have for transports of salinity are significant.

AB - As the atmosphere, ocean, and sea ice components of global climate models are made increasingly interactive, systematic errors or biases in one component can adversely affect the other model components. The fidelity of the component interactions is especially important in the polar regions, where many atmospheric General Circulation Models (GCMs) project an amplified climatic response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases. In comparing the Arctic performance of five atmospheric GCMs (GFDL, GISS, NCAR, OSU, and UKMO), we illustrate key differences in the fields most relevant to sea ice/ocean forcing: surface air temperature and sea level pressure (surface wind stress). While the amplitude of the seasonal cycle of simulated air temperature is generally realistic, biases of up to 5–10°C relative to observations are apparent over much of the Arctic. The simulated sea‐level pressure pattern varies widely from model to model, and in some cases is incompatible with the observed wind‐forcing of sea ice from the Arctic Basin to the North Atlantic via Fram Strait. The implications that these differences have for transports of salinity are significant.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0026440220&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0026440220&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1029/91GL03004

DO - 10.1029/91GL03004

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:0026440220

VL - 19

SP - 29

EP - 32

JO - Geophysical Research Letters

JF - Geophysical Research Letters

SN - 0094-8276

IS - 1

ER -