Network


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

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Elena Shevliakova is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Elena Shevliakova.


Journal of Climate | 2006

GFDL's CM2 global coupled climate models. Part I: Formulation and simulation characteristics

Thomas L. Delworth; Anthony J. Broccoli; Anthony Rosati; Ronald J. Stouffer; V. Balaji; John A. Beesley; William F. Cooke; Keith W. Dixon; John P. Dunne; Krista A. Dunne; Jeffrey W. Durachta; Kirsten L. Findell; Paul Ginoux; Anand Gnanadesikan; C. T. Gordon; Stephen M. Griffies; Rich Gudgel; Matthew J. Harrison; Isaac M. Held; Richard S. Hemler; Larry W. Horowitz; Stephen A. Klein; Thomas R. Knutson; Paul J. Kushner; Amy R. Langenhorst; Hyun-Chul Lee; Shian Jiann Lin; Jian Lu; Sergey Malyshev; P. C. D. Milly

Abstract The formulation and simulation characteristics of two new global coupled climate models developed at NOAAs Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) are described. The models were designed to simulate atmospheric and oceanic climate and variability from the diurnal time scale through multicentury climate change, given our computational constraints. In particular, an important goal was to use the same model for both experimental seasonal to interannual forecasting and the study of multicentury global climate change, and this goal has been achieved. Two versions of the coupled model are described, called CM2.0 and CM2.1. The versions differ primarily in the dynamical core used in the atmospheric component, along with the cloud tuning and some details of the land and ocean components. For both coupled models, the resolution of the land and atmospheric components is 2° latitude × 2.5° longitude; the atmospheric model has 24 vertical levels. The ocean resolution is 1° in latitude and longitude, wi...


Journal of Climate | 2004

The new GFDL global atmosphere and land model AM2-LM2: Evaluation with prescribed SST simulations

Jeffrey L. Anderson; V. B Alaji; Anthony J. Broccoli; William F. C Ooke; W. D Ixon; L Eo J. Donner; Krista A. Dunne; Stuart M. Freidenreich; T. G Arner; R Ichard G. Gudgel; Saac M. Held; Richard S. Hemler; L Arry W. H Orowitz; Stephen A. Klein; Thomas R. Knutson; Paul J. Kushner; Amy R. Langenhost; Ngar-Cheung Lau; Zhi Liang; Sergey Malyshev; P. C. D. Milly; Mary Jo Nath; J. Ploshay; Elena Shevliakova; Joseph J. Sirutis; Rian J. Soden; W Illiam F. S Tern; Lori A. Thompson; R. John Wilson; Andrew T. W Ittenberg

The configuration and performance of a new global atmosphere and land model for climate research developed at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) are presented. The atmosphere model, known as AM2, includes a new gridpoint dynamical core, a prognostic cloud scheme, and a multispecies aerosol climatology, as well as components from previous models used at GFDL. The land model, known as LM2, includes soil sensible and latent heat storage, groundwater storage, and stomatal resistance. The performance of the coupled model AM2‐LM2 is evaluated with a series of prescribed sea surface temperature (SST) simulations. Particular


Journal of Climate | 2011

The dynamical core, physical parameterizations, and basic simulation characteristics of the atmospheric component AM3 of the GFDL global coupled model CM3

Leo J. Donner; Bruce Wyman; Richard S. Hemler; Larry W. Horowitz; Yi Ming; Ming Zhao; Jean-Christophe Golaz; Paul Ginoux; Shian-Jiann Lin; M. Daniel Schwarzkopf; John Austin; Ghassan Alaka; William F. Cooke; Thomas L. Delworth; Stuart M. Freidenreich; Charles T. Gordon; Stephen M. Griffies; Isaac M. Held; William J. Hurlin; Stephen A. Klein; Thomas R. Knutson; Amy R. Langenhorst; Hyun-Chul Lee; Yanluan Lin; Brian I. Magi; Sergey Malyshev; P. C. D. Milly; Vaishali Naik; Mary Jo Nath; Robert Pincus

AbstractThe Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) has developed a coupled general circulation model (CM3) for the atmosphere, oceans, land, and sea ice. The goal of CM3 is to address emerging issues in climate change, including aerosol–cloud interactions, chemistry–climate interactions, and coupling between the troposphere and stratosphere. The model is also designed to serve as the physical system component of earth system models and models for decadal prediction in the near-term future—for example, through improved simulations in tropical land precipitation relative to earlier-generation GFDL models. This paper describes the dynamical core, physical parameterizations, and basic simulation characteristics of the atmospheric component (AM3) of this model. Relative to GFDL AM2, AM3 includes new treatments of deep and shallow cumulus convection, cloud droplet activation by aerosols, subgrid variability of stratiform vertical velocities for droplet activation, and atmospheric chemistry driven by emiss...


Journal of Climate | 2012

GFDL’s ESM2 Global Coupled Climate–Carbon Earth System Models. Part I: Physical Formulation and Baseline Simulation Characteristics

John P. Dunne; Jasmin G. John; Alistair J. Adcroft; Stephen M. Griffies; Robert Hallberg; Elena Shevliakova; Ronald J. Stouffer; William F. Cooke; Krista A. Dunne; Matthew J. Harrison; John P. Krasting; Sergey Malyshev; P. C. D. Milly; Peter J. Phillipps; Lori T. Sentman; Bonita L. Samuels; Michael J. Spelman; Michael Winton; Andrew T. Wittenberg; Niki Zadeh

AbstractThe authors describe carbon system formulation and simulation characteristics of two new global coupled carbon–climate Earth System Models (ESM), ESM2M and ESM2G. These models demonstrate good climate fidelity as described in part I of this study while incorporating explicit and consistent carbon dynamics. The two models differ almost exclusively in the physical ocean component; ESM2M uses the Modular Ocean Model version 4.1 with vertical pressure layers, whereas ESM2G uses generalized ocean layer dynamics with a bulk mixed layer and interior isopycnal layers. On land, both ESMs include a revised land model to simulate competitive vegetation distributions and functioning, including carbon cycling among vegetation, soil, and atmosphere. In the ocean, both models include new biogeochemical algorithms including phytoplankton functional group dynamics with flexible stoichiometry. Preindustrial simulations are spun up to give stable, realistic carbon cycle means and variability. Significant differences...


Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | 2002

Projecting the future of the U.S. carbon sink

George C. Hurtt; Steve Pacala; Paul R. Moorcroft; John P. Caspersen; Elena Shevliakova; R. A. Houghton; Berrien Moore

Atmospheric and ground-based methods agree on the presence of a carbon sink in the coterminous United States (the United States minus Alaska and Hawaii), and the primary causes for the sink recently have been identified. Projecting the future behavior of the sink is necessary for projecting future net emissions. Here we use two models, the Ecosystem Demography model and a second simpler empirically based model (Miami Land Use History), to estimate the spatio-temporal patterns of ecosystem carbon stocks and fluxes resulting from land-use changes and fire suppression from 1700 to 2100. Our results are compared with other historical reconstructions of ecosystem carbon fluxes and to a detailed carbon budget for the 1980s. Our projections indicate that the ecosystem recovery processes that are primarily responsible for the contemporary U.S. carbon sink will slow over the next century, resulting in a significant reduction of the sink. The projected rate of decrease depends strongly on scenarios of future land use and the long-term effectiveness of fire suppression.


Journal of Climate | 2013

Twenty-First-Century Compatible CO2 Emissions and Airborne Fraction Simulated by CMIP5 Earth System Models under Four Representative Concentration Pathways

Chris D. Jones; Eddy Robertson; Vivek K. Arora; Pierre Friedlingstein; Elena Shevliakova; Laurent Bopp; Victor Brovkin; Tomohiro Hajima; Etsushi Kato; Michio Kawamiya; Spencer Liddicoat; Keith Lindsay; Christian H. Reick; Caroline Roelandt; Joachim Segschneider; Jerry Tjiputra

AbstractThe carbon cycle is a crucial Earth system component affecting climate and atmospheric composition. The response of natural carbon uptake to CO2 and climate change will determine anthropogenic emissions compatible with a target CO2 pathway. For phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5), four future representative concentration pathways (RCPs) have been generated by integrated assessment models (IAMs) and used as scenarios by state-of-the-art climate models, enabling quantification of compatible carbon emissions for the four scenarios by complex, process-based models. Here, the authors present results from 15 such Earth system GCMs for future changes in land and ocean carbon storage and the implications for anthropogenic emissions. The results are consistent with the underlying scenarios but show substantial model spread. Uncertainty in land carbon uptake due to differences among models is comparable with the spread across scenarios. Model estimates of historical fossil-fuel emis...


Journal of Climate | 2007

Modeled Impact of Anthropogenic Land Cover Change on Climate

Kirsten L. Findell; Elena Shevliakova; P. C. D. Milly; Ronald J. Stouffer

Abstract Equilibrium experiments with the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory’s climate model are used to investigate the impact of anthropogenic land cover change on climate. Regions of altered land cover include large portions of Europe, India, eastern China, and the eastern United States. Smaller areas of change are present in various tropical regions. This study focuses on the impacts of biophysical changes associated with the land cover change (albedo, root and stomatal properties, roughness length), which is almost exclusively a conversion from forest to grassland in the model; the effects of irrigation or other water management practices and the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide changes associated with land cover conversion are not included in these experiments. The model suggests that observed land cover changes have little or no impact on globally averaged climatic variables (e.g., 2-m air temperature is 0.008 K warmer in a simulation with 1990 land cover compared to a simulation with poten...


Climatic Change | 2001

Elicitation of Expert Judgments of Climate Change Impacts on Forest Ecosystems

M. Granger Morgan; Louis F. Pitelka; Elena Shevliakova

Detailed interviews were conducted with 11 leading ecologists to obtainindividualqualitative and quantitative estimates of the likely impact of a2 × [CO2] climate change onminimally disturbed forest ecosystems. Results display a much richer diversityof opinion thanis apparent in qualitative consensus summaries, such as those of the IPCC.Experts attachdifferent relative importance to key factors and processes such as soilnutrients, fire, CO2fertilization, competition, and plant-pest-predator interactions. Assumptionsand uncertaintiesabout future fire regimes are particularly crucial. Despite these differences,most of the expertsbelieve that standing biomass in minimally disturbed Northern forests wouldincrease and soilcarbon would decrease. There is less agreement about impacts on carbon storagein tropicalforests. Estimates of migration rates in northern forests displayed a rangeof more than fourorders of magnitude. Estimates of extinction rates and dynamic response showsignificantvariation between experts. A series of questions about research needs foundconsensus on theimportance of expanding observational and experimental work on ecosystemprocesses and ofexpanding regional and larger-scale observational, monitoring and modelingstudies. Results ofthe type reported here can be helpful in performing sensitivity analysis inintegrated assessmentmodels, as the basis for focused discussions of the state of currentunderstanding and researchneeds, and, if repeated over time, as a quantitative measure of progress inthis and other fieldsof global change research.


Nature Climate Change | 2014

Microbe-driventurnoverosetsminer al-mediated storage of soil carbon under elevated CO 2

Benjamin N. Sulman; Richard P. Phillips; A. Christopher Oishi; Elena Shevliakova; Stephen W. Pacala

Much uncertainty in the response of soil organic carbon (SOC) to climate change relates to the relative effects of microbial priming and mineral protection. Now research indicates that although protected C provides an important constraint on microbial priming, it is not sufficient to prevent reduced SOC storage in most terrestrial areas.


Climate Dynamics | 2013

How well can CMIP5 simulate precipitation and its controlling processes over tropical South America

Lei Yin; Rong Fu; Elena Shevliakova; Robert E. Dickinson

Underestimated rainfall over Amazonia was a common problem for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3 (CMIP3) models. We investigate whether it still exists in the CMIP phase 5 (CMIP5) models and, if so, what causes these biases? Our evaluation of historical simulations shows that some models still underestimate rainfall over Amazonia. During the dry season, both convective and large-scale precipitation is underestimated in most models. GFDL-ESM2M and IPSL notably show more pentads with no rainfall. During the wet season, large-scale precipitation is still underestimated in most models. In the dry and transition seasons, models with more realistic moisture convergence and surface evapotranspiration generally have more realistic rainfall totals. In some models, overestimates of rainfall are associated with the adjacent tropical and eastern Pacific ITCZs. However, in other models, too much surface net radiation and a resultant high Bowen ratio appears to cause underestimates of rainfall. During the transition season, low pre-seasonal latent heat, high sensible flux, and a weaker influence of cold air incursions contribute to the dry bias. About half the models can capture, but overestimate, the influences of teleconnection. Based on a simple metric, HadGEM2-ES outperforms other models especially for surface conditions and atmospheric circulation. GFDL-ESM2M has the strongest dry bias presumably due to its overestimate of moisture divergence, induced by overestimated ITCZs in adjacent oceans, and reinforced by positive feedbacks between reduced cloudiness, high Bowen ratio and suppression of rainfall during the dry season, and too weak incursions of extratropical disturbances during the transition season.

Collaboration


Dive into the Elena Shevliakova's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

P. C. D. Milly

United States Geological Survey

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Steve Frolking

University of New Hampshire

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Ronald J. Stouffer

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Sergey L. Malyshev

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

John P. Krasting

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Krista A. Dunne

United States Geological Survey

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Larry W. Horowitz

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

View shared research outputs
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge