-
Regional impacts poorly constrained by climate sensitivity
Authors:
Ranjini Swaminathan,
Jacob Schewe,
Jeremy Walton,
Klaus Zimmermann,
Colin Jones,
Richard A. Betts,
Chantelle Burton,
Chris D. Jones,
Matthias Mengel,
Christopher P. O. Reyer,
Andrew G. Turner,
Katja Weigel
Abstract:
Climate risk assessments must account for a wide range of possible futures, so scientists often use simulations made by numerous global climate models to explore potential changes in regional climates and their impacts. Some of the latest-generation models have high effective climate sensitivities or EffCS. It has been argued these so-called hot models are unrealistic and should therefore be exclu…
▽ More
Climate risk assessments must account for a wide range of possible futures, so scientists often use simulations made by numerous global climate models to explore potential changes in regional climates and their impacts. Some of the latest-generation models have high effective climate sensitivities or EffCS. It has been argued these so-called hot models are unrealistic and should therefore be excluded from analyses of climate change impacts. Whether this would improve regional impact assessments, or make them worse, is unclear. Here we show there is no universal relationship between EffCS and projected changes in a number of important climatic drivers of regional impacts. Analysing heavy rainfall events, meteorological drought, and fire weather in different regions, we find little or no significant correlation with EffCS for most regions and climatic drivers. Even when a correlation is found, internal variability and processes unrelated to EffCS have similar effects on projected changes in the climatic drivers as EffCS. Model selection based solely on EffCS appears to be unjustified and may neglect realistic impacts, leading to an underestimation of climate risks.
△ Less
Submitted 18 April, 2024;
originally announced April 2024.
-
Representation of the Terrestrial Carbon Cycle in CMIP6
Authors:
Bettina K. Gier,
Manuel Schlund,
Pierre Friedlingstein,
Chris D. Jones,
Colin Jones,
Sönke Zaehle,
Veronika Eyring
Abstract:
Improvements in the representation of the land carbon cycle in Earth system models participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) include interactive treatment of both the carbon and nitrogen cycles, improved photosynthesis, and soil hydrology. To assess the impact of these model developments on aspects of the global carbon cycle, the Earth System Model Evaluation Tool…
▽ More
Improvements in the representation of the land carbon cycle in Earth system models participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) include interactive treatment of both the carbon and nitrogen cycles, improved photosynthesis, and soil hydrology. To assess the impact of these model developments on aspects of the global carbon cycle, the Earth System Model Evaluation Tool is expanded to compare CO2 concentration and emission-driven historical simulations from CMIP5 and CMIP6 to observational data sets. Overestimations of photosynthesis (GPP) in CMIP5 were largely resolved in CMIP6 for participating models with an interactive nitrogen cycle, but remaining for models without one. This points to the importance of including nutrient limitation. Simulating the leaf area index (LAI) remains challenging with a large model spread in both CMIP5 and CMIP6. In ESMs, global mean land carbon uptake (NBP) is well reproduced in the CMIP5 and CMIP6 multi-model means. However, this is the result of an underestimation of NBP in the northern hemisphere, which is compensated by an overestimation in the southern hemisphere and the tropics. Overall, a slight improvement in the simulation of land carbon cycle parameters is found in CMIP6 compared to CMIP5, but with many biases remaining, further improvements of models in particular for LAI and NBP is required. Emission-driven simulations perform just as well as concentration driven models despite the added process-realism. Due to this we recommend ESMs in future CMIP phases to perform emission-driven simulations as the standard so that climate-carbon cycle feedbacks are fully active. The inclusion of nitrogen limitation led to a large improvement in photosynthesis compared to models not including this process, suggesting the need to view the nitrogen cycle as a necessary part of all future carbon cycle models.
△ Less
Submitted 8 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
-
Evolution of HEP Processing Frameworks
Authors:
Christopher D. Jones,
Kyle Knoepfel,
Paolo Calafiura,
Charles Leggett,
Vakhtang Tsulaia
Abstract:
HEP data-processing software must support the disparate physics needs of many experiments. For both collider and neutrino environments, HEP experiments typically use data-processing frameworks to manage the computational complexities of their large-scale data processing needs. Data-processing frameworks are being faced with new challenges this decade. The computing landscape has changed from the p…
▽ More
HEP data-processing software must support the disparate physics needs of many experiments. For both collider and neutrino environments, HEP experiments typically use data-processing frameworks to manage the computational complexities of their large-scale data processing needs. Data-processing frameworks are being faced with new challenges this decade. The computing landscape has changed from the past three decades of homogeneous single-core x86 batch jobs running on grid sites. Frameworks must now work on a heterogeneous mixture of different platforms: multi-core machines, different CPU architectures, and computational accelerators; and different computing sites: grid, cloud, and high-performance computing. We describe these challenges in more detail and how frameworks may confront them. Given their historic success, frameworks will continue to be critical software systems that enable HEP experiments to meet their computing needs. Frameworks have weathered computing revolutions in the past; they will do so again with support from the HEP community
△ Less
Submitted 16 March, 2022;
originally announced March 2022.
-
Explorations of the viability of ARM and Xeon Phi for physics processing
Authors:
David Abdurachmanov,
Kapil Arya,
Josh Bendavid,
Tommaso Boccali,
Gene Cooperman,
Andrea Dotti,
Peter Elmer,
Giulio Eulisse,
Francesco Giacomini,
Christopher D. Jones,
Matteo Manzali,
Shahzad Muzaffar
Abstract:
We report on our investigations into the viability of the ARM processor and the Intel Xeon Phi co-processor for scientific computing. We describe our experience porting software to these processors and running benchmarks using real physics applications to explore the potential of these processors for production physics processing.
We report on our investigations into the viability of the ARM processor and the Intel Xeon Phi co-processor for scientific computing. We describe our experience porting software to these processors and running benchmarks using real physics applications to explore the potential of these processors for production physics processing.
△ Less
Submitted 21 January, 2014; v1 submitted 5 November, 2013;
originally announced November 2013.
