Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Benjamin M. Sanderson is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Benjamin M. Sanderson.


Journal of Climate | 2012

Climate system response to external forcings and climate change projections in CCSM4

Gerald A. Meehl; Warren M. Washington; Julie M. Arblaster; Aixue Hu; Haiyan Teng; Claudia Tebaldi; Benjamin M. Sanderson; Jean-Francois Lamarque; Andrew Conley; Warren G. Strand; James B. White

AbstractResults are presented from experiments performed with the Community Climate System Model, version 4 (CCSM4) for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5). These include multiple ensemble members of twentieth-century climate with anthropogenic and natural forcings as well as single-forcing runs, sensitivity experiments with sulfate aerosol forcing, twenty-first-century representative concentration pathway (RCP) mitigation scenarios, and extensions for those scenarios beyond 2100–2300. Equilibrium climate sensitivity of CCSM4 is 3.20°C, and the transient climate response is 1.73°C. Global surface temperatures averaged for the last 20 years of the twenty-first century compared to the 1986–2005 reference period for six-member ensembles from CCSM4 are +0.85°, +1.64°, +2.09°, and +3.53°C for RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0, and RCP8.5, respectively. The ocean meridional overturning circulation (MOC) in the Atlantic, which weakens during the twentieth century in the model, nearly recovers to early...


Journal of Climate | 2013

Climate Change Projections in CESM1(CAM5) Compared to CCSM4

Gerald A. Meehl; Warren M. Washington; Julie M. Arblaster; Aixue Hu; Haiyan Teng; Jennifer E. Kay; Andrew Gettelman; David M. Lawrence; Benjamin M. Sanderson; Warren G. Strand

AbstractFuture climate change projections for phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) are presented for the Community Earth System Model version 1 that includes the Community Atmospheric Model version 5 [CESM1(CAM5)]. These results are compared to the Community Climate System Model, version 4 (CCSM4) and include simulations using the representative concentration pathway (RCP) mitigation scenarios, and extensions for those scenarios beyond 2100 to 2300. Equilibrium climate sensitivity of CESM1(CAM5) is 4.10°C, which is higher than the CCSM4 value of 3.20°C. The transient climate response is 2.33°C, compared to the CCSM4 value of 1.73°C. Thus, even though CESM1(CAM5) includes both the direct and indirect effects of aerosols (CCSM4 had only the direct effect), the overall climate system response including forcing and feedbacks is greater in CESM1(CAM5) compared to CCSM4. The Atlantic Ocean meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) in CESM1(CAM5) weakens considerably in the twenty-first c...


Journal of Climate | 2011

A Multimodel Study of Parametric Uncertainty in Predictions of Climate Response to Rising Greenhouse Gas Concentrations

Benjamin M. Sanderson

Abstract One tool for studying uncertainties in simulations of future climate is to consider ensembles of general circulation models where parameterizations have been sampled within their physical range of plausibility. This study is about simulations from two such ensembles: a subset of the climateprediction.net ensemble using the Met Office Hadley Centre Atmosphere Model, version 3.0 and the new “CAMcube” ensemble using the Community Atmosphere Model, version 3.5. The study determines that the distribution of climate sensitivity in the two ensembles is very different: the climateprediction.net ensemble subset range is 1.7–9.9 K, while the CAMcube ensemble range is 2.2–3.2 K. On a regional level, however, both ensembles show a similarly diverse range in their mean climatology. Model radiative flux changes suggest that the major difference between the ranges of climate sensitivity in the two ensembles lies in their clear-sky longwave responses. Large clear-sky feedbacks present only in the climatepredicti...


Geophysical Research Letters | 2014

Statistical significance of climate sensitivity predictors obtained by data mining

Peter Caldwell; Christopher S. Bretherton; Mark D. Zelinka; Stephen A. Klein; Benjamin D. Santer; Benjamin M. Sanderson

Several recent efforts to estimate Earths equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) focus on identifying quantities in the current climate which are skillful predictors of ECS yet can be constrained by observations. This study automates the search for observable predictors using data from phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. The primary focus of this paper is assessing statistical significance of the resulting predictive relationships. Failure to account for dependence between models, variables, locations, and seasons is shown to yield misleading results. A new technique for testing the field significance of data-mined correlations which avoids these problems is presented. Using this new approach, all 41,741 relationships we tested were found to be explainable by chance. This leads us to conclude that data mining is best used to identify potential relationships which are then validated or discarded using physically based hypothesis testing.


Journal of Climate | 2008

Constraints on Model Response to Greenhouse Gas Forcing and the Role of Subgrid-Scale Processes

Benjamin M. Sanderson; Reto Knutti; Tolu Aina; Carl Christensen; N. E. Faull; David J. Frame; William Ingram; Claudio Piani; David A. Stainforth; Dáithí A. Stone; Myles R. Allen

A climate model emulator is developed using neural network techniques and trained with the data from the multithousand-member climateprediction.net perturbed physics GCM ensemble. The method recreates nonlinear interactions between model parameters, allowing a simulation of a much larger ensemble that explores model parameter space more fully. The emulated ensemble is used to search for models closest to observations over a wide range of equilibrium response to greenhouse gas forcing. The relative discrepancies of these models from observations could be used to provide a constraint on climate sensitivity. The use of annual mean or seasonal differences on top-of-atmosphere radiative fluxes as an observational error metric results in the most clearly defined minimum in error as a function of sensitivity, with consistent but less well-defined results when using the seasonal cycles of surface temperature or total precipitation. The model parameter changes necessary to achieve different values of climate sensitivity while minimizing discrepancy from observation are also considered and compared with previous studies. This information is used to propose more efficient parameter sampling strategies for future ensembles.


Journal of Climate | 2013

Climate Feedbacks in CCSM3 under Changing CO2 Forcing. Part II: Variation of Climate Feedbacks and Sensitivity with Forcing

Alexandra K. Jonko; Karen M. Shell; Benjamin M. Sanderson; Gokhan Danabasoglu

AbstractAre equilibrium climate sensitivity and the associated radiative feedbacks a constant property of the climate system, or do they change with forcing magnitude and base climate? Using the radiative kernel technique, feedbacks and climate sensitivity are evaluated in a fully coupled general circulation model (GCM) for three successive doublings of carbon dioxide starting from present-day concentrations. Climate sensitivity increases by 23% between the first and third CO2 doublings. Increases in the positive water vapor and cloud feedbacks are partially balanced by a decrease in the positive surface albedo feedback and an increase in the negative lapse rate feedback. Feedbacks can be decomposed into a radiative flux change and a climate variable response to temperature change. The changes in water vapor and Planck feedbacks are due largely to changes in the radiative response with climate state. Higher concentrations of greenhouse gases and higher temperatures lead to more absorption and emission of ...


Journal of Climate | 2012

Climate Feedbacks in CCSM3 under Changing CO2 Forcing. Part I: Adapting the Linear Radiative Kernel Technique to Feedback Calculations for a Broad Range of Forcings

Alexandra K. Jonko; Karen M. Shell; Benjamin M. Sanderson; Gokhan Danabasoglu

AbstractClimate feedbacks vary strongly among climate models and continue to represent a major source of uncertainty in estimates of the response of climate to anthropogenic forcings. One method to evaluate feedbacks in global climate models is the radiative kernel technique, which is well suited for model intercomparison studies because of its computational efficiency. However, the usefulness of this technique is predicated on the assumption of linearity between top-of-atmosphere (TOA) radiative fluxes and feedback variables, limiting its application to simulations of small climate perturbations, where nonlinearities can be neglected. This paper presents an extension of the utility of this linear technique to large forcings, using global climate model simulations forced with CO2 concentrations ranging from 2 to 8 times present-day values. Radiative kernels depend on the model’s radiative transfer algorithm and climate base state. For large warming, kernels based on the present-day climate significantly u...


Geophysical Research Letters | 2017

A climate model projection weighting scheme accounting for performance and interdependence

Reto Knutti; Jan Sedláček; Benjamin M. Sanderson; Ruth Lorenz; Erich M. Fischer; Veronika Eyring

Uncertainties of climate projections are routinely assessed by considering simulations from different models. Observations are used to evaluate models, yet there is a debate about whether and how to explicitly weight model projections by agreement with observations. Here we present a straightforward weighting scheme that accounts both for the large differences in model performance and for model interdependencies, and we test reliability in a perfect model setup. We provide weighted multimodel projections of Arctic sea ice and temperature as a case study to demonstrate that, for some questions at least, it is meaningless to treat all models equally. The constrained ensemble shows reduced spread and a more rapid sea ice decline than the unweighted ensemble. We argue that the growing number of models with different characteristics and considerable interdependence finally justifies abandoning strict model democracy, and we provide guidance on when and how this can be achieved robustly.


Geophysical Research Letters | 2015

Does extreme precipitation intensity depend on the emissions scenario

Angeline G. Pendergrass; Flavio Lehner; Benjamin M. Sanderson; Yangyang Xu

The rate of increase of global-mean precipitation per degree global-mean surface temperature increase differs for greenhouse gas and aerosol forcings and across emissions scenarios with differing composition of change in forcing. We investigate whether or not the rate of change of extreme precipitation also varies across the four emissions scenarios that force the CMIP5 multi-model ensemble. In most models, the rate of increase of maximum annual daily precipitation per degree global warming in the multi-model ensemble is statistically indistinguishable across the four scenarios, whether this extreme precipitation is calculated globally, over all land, or over extra-tropical land. These results indicate that, in contrast to mean precipitation, extreme precipitation depends on the total amount of warming and does not depend on emissions scenario in most models.


Climatic Change | 2018

A new ensemble of GCM simulations to assess avoided impacts in a climate mitigation scenario

Benjamin M. Sanderson; Keith W. Oleson; Warren G. Strand; Flavio Lehner; Brian C. O’Neill

There is growing evidence that the role internal variability plays in our confidence in future climate projections has been under-appreciated in past assessments of model projections for the coming decades. In light of this, a 15 member ensemble has been produced to complement the existing 30 member “Large Ensemble” conducted with the Community Earth System Model (CESM). In contrast to the Large Ensemble, which explored the variability in RCP8.5, our new ensemble uses the moderate mitigation scenario represented by RCP4.5. By comparing outputs from these two ensembles, we assess at what point in the future the climates conditioned on the two scenarios will begin to significantly diverge. We find in general that while internal variability is a significant component of uncertainty for periods before 2050, there is evidence of a significantly increased risk of extreme warm events in some regions as early as 2030 in RCP8.5 relative to RCP4.5. Furthermore, the period 2061-2080 sees largely separate joint distributions of annual mean temperature and precipitation in most regions for the two ensembles. Hence, in the CESM’s representation of the Earth System for the latter portion of the 21st century, the range of climatic states which might be expected in the RCP8.5 scenario is significantly and detectably further removed from today’s climate state than the RCP4.5 scenario even in the presence of internal variability.

Collaboration


Dive into the Benjamin M. Sanderson's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Flavio Lehner

National Center for Atmospheric Research

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Claudia Tebaldi

National Center for Atmospheric Research

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Angeline G. Pendergrass

National Center for Atmospheric Research

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Brian C. O'Neill

National Center for Atmospheric Research

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Jean-Francois Lamarque

National Center for Atmospheric Research

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Gerald A. Meehl

National Center for Atmospheric Research

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Michael F. Wehner

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Warren G. Strand

National Center for Atmospheric Research

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Yangyang Xu

National Center for Atmospheric Research

View shared research outputs
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge