scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Bertrand Decharme

Bio: Bertrand Decharme is an academic researcher from University of Toulouse. The author has contributed to research in topics: Climate model & Evapotranspiration. The author has an hindex of 46, co-authored 112 publications receiving 6559 citations. Previous affiliations of Bertrand Decharme include Centre national de la recherche scientifique.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A new version of the general circulation model CNRM-CM has been developed jointly by CNRMs-GAME (Centre National de Recherches Meteorologiques-Groupe d'etudes de l’Atmosphere Meteorologique) and Cerfacs as discussed by the authors in order to contribute to phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5).
Abstract: A new version of the general circulation model CNRM-CM has been developed jointly by CNRM-GAME (Centre National de Recherches Meteorologiques—Groupe d’etudes de l’Atmosphere Meteorologique) and Cerfacs (Centre Europeen de Recherche et de Formation Avancee) in order to contribute to phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). The purpose of the study is to describe its main features and to provide a preliminary assessment of its mean climatology. CNRM-CM5.1 includes the atmospheric model ARPEGE-Climat (v5.2), the ocean model NEMO (v3.2), the land surface scheme ISBA and the sea ice model GELATO (v5) coupled through the OASIS (v3) system. The main improvements since CMIP3 are the following. Horizontal resolution has been increased both in the atmosphere (from 2.8° to 1.4°) and in the ocean (from 2° to 1°). The dynamical core of the atmospheric component has been revised. A new radiation scheme has been introduced and the treatments of tropospheric and stratospheric aerosols have been improved. Particular care has been devoted to ensure mass/water conservation in the atmospheric component. The land surface scheme ISBA has been externalised from the atmospheric model through the SURFEX platform and includes new developments such as a parameterization of sub-grid hydrology, a new freezing scheme and a new bulk parameterisation for ocean surface fluxes. The ocean model is based on the state-of-the-art version of NEMO, which has greatly progressed since the OPA8.0 version used in the CMIP3 version of CNRM-CM. Finally, the coupling between the different components through OASIS has also received a particular attention to avoid energy loss and spurious drifts. These developments generally lead to a more realistic representation of the mean recent climate and to a reduction of drifts in a preindustrial integration. The large-scale dynamics is generally improved both in the atmosphere and in the ocean, and the bias in mean surface temperature is clearly reduced. However, some flaws remain such as significant precipitation and radiative biases in many regions, or a pronounced drift in three dimensional salinity.

1,193 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: SURFEX as mentioned in this paper is an externalized land and ocean surface platform that describes the surface fluxes and the evolution of four types of surfaces: nature, town, inland water and ocean.
Abstract: . SURFEX is a new externalized land and ocean surface platform that describes the surface fluxes and the evolution of four types of surfaces: nature, town, inland water and ocean. It is mostly based on pre-existing, well-validated scientific models that are continuously improved. The motivation for the building of SURFEX is to use strictly identical scientific models in a high range of applications in order to mutualise the research and development efforts. SURFEX can be run in offline mode (0-D or 2-D runs) or in coupled mode (from mesoscale models to numerical weather prediction and climate models). An assimilation mode is included for numerical weather prediction and monitoring. In addition to momentum, heat and water fluxes, SURFEX is able to simulate fluxes of carbon dioxide, chemical species, continental aerosols, sea salt and snow particles. The main principles of the organisation of the surface are described first. Then, a survey is made of the scientific module (including the coupling strategy). Finally, the main applications of the code are summarised. The validation work undertaken shows that replacing the pre-existing surface models by SURFEX in these applications is usually associated with improved skill, as the numerous scientific developments contained in this community code are used to good advantage.

573 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors describe the main characteristics of CNRM-CM6-1, the fully coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation model of sixth generation jointly developed by Centre National de Recherches Meteorologiques (CNRM) and Cerfacs for the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6 (CMIP6).
Abstract: This paper describes the main characteristics of CNRM-CM6-1, the fully coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation model of sixth generation jointly developed by Centre National de Recherches Meteorologiques (CNRM) and Cerfacs for the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6 (CMIP6). The paper provides a description of each component of CNRM-CM6-1, including the coupling method and the new online output software. We emphasize where model's components have been updated with respect to the former model version, CNRM-CM5.1. In particular, we highlight major improvements in the representation of atmospheric and land processes. A particular attention has also been devoted to mass and energy conservation in the simulated climate system to limit long-term drifts. The climate simulated by CNRM-CM6-1 is then evaluated using CMIP6 historical and Diagnostic, Evaluation and Characterization of Klima (DECK) experiments in comparison with CMIP5 CNRM-CM5.1 equivalent experiments. Overall, the mean surface biases are of similar magnitude but with different spatial patterns. Deep ocean biases are generally reduced, whereas sea ice is too thin in the Arctic. Although the simulated climate variability remains roughly consistent with CNRM-CM5.1, its sensitivity to rising CO 2 has increased: the equilibrium climate sensitivity is 4.9 K, which is now close to the upper bound of the range estimated from CMIP5 models.

441 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the Earth system (ES) model of second generation developed by CNRM-CERFACS for the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) was compared to the Atmosphere Ocean General Circulation Model (AOCM) by adding interactive ES components such as carbon cycle, aerosols, and atmospheric chemistry.
Abstract: This study introduces CNRM‐ESM2‐1, the Earth system (ES) model of second generation developed by CNRM‐CERFACS for the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). CNRM‐ESM2‐1 offers a higher model complexity than the Atmosphere‐Ocean General Circulation Model CNRM‐CM6‐1 by adding interactive ES components such as carbon cycle, aerosols, and atmospheric chemistry. As both models share the same code, physical parameterizations, and grid resolution, they offer a fully traceable framework to investigate how far the represented ES processes impact the model performance over present‐day, response to external forcing and future climate projections. Using a large variety of CMIP6 experiments, we show that represented ES processes impact more prominently the model response to external forcing than the model performance over present‐day. Both models display comparable performance at replicating modern observations although the mean climate of CNRM‐ESM2‐1 is slightly warmer than that of CNRM‐CM6‐1. This difference arises from land cover‐aerosol interactions where the use of different soil vegetation distributions between both models impacts the rate of dust emissions. This interaction results in a smaller aerosol burden in CNRM‐ESM2‐1 than in CNRM‐CM6‐1, leading to a different surface radiative budget and climate. Greater differences are found when comparing the model response to external forcing and future climate projections. Represented ES processes damp future warming by up to 10% in CNRM‐ESM2‐1 with respect to CNRM‐CM6‐1. The representation of land vegetation and the CO2‐water‐stomatal feedback between both models explain about 60% of this difference. The remainder is driven by other ES feedbacks such as the natural aerosol feedback.

290 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors find that when correcting for interannual variability, the past decade's slowdown of the global mean sea level disappears, leading to a similar rate of sea-levelrise(of 3.3 0.4mmyr 1 ) during the first and second decade of the altimetry era.
Abstract: atesinterannualnatural variability in sea level from the longer-term change probably related to anthropogenic global warming. The most prominent signature in the global mean sea level interannual variability is caused by El Nino‐Southern Oscillation, through its impact on the global water cycle 13‐16 . We find that when correcting for interannual variability, the past decade’s slowdown of the global mean sea level disappears, leading to a similar rate of sea-levelrise(of3.3 0.4mmyr 1 )duringthefirstandsecond decade of the altimetry era. Our results confirm the need for quantifying and further removing from the climate records the short-term natural climate variability if one wants to extract the global warming signal 10 . Precisely estimating present-day sea-level rise caused by anthropogenic global warming is a major issue that allows assessment of the process-based models developed for projecting future sea level 1 . Sea-level rise is indeed one of the most threatening consequences of ongoing global warming, in particular for lowlying coastal areas that are expected to become more vulnerable to flooding and land loss. As these areas often have dense populations, important infrastructures and high-value agricultural and biodiverseland,significantimpactssuchasincreasinglycostlyflooding or loss of freshwater supply are expected, posing a risk to stability and security 17,18 . However, sea level also responds to natural climate variability, producing noise in the record that hampers detection of the global warming signal. Trends of the satellite altimetry-based global mean sea level (GMSL) are computed over two periods: the period 19942002

290 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal Article
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a document, redatto, voted and pubblicato by the Ipcc -Comitato intergovernativo sui cambiamenti climatici - illustra la sintesi delle ricerche svolte su questo tema rilevante.
Abstract: Cause, conseguenze e strategie di mitigazione Proponiamo il primo di una serie di articoli in cui affronteremo l’attuale problema dei mutamenti climatici. Presentiamo il documento redatto, votato e pubblicato dall’Ipcc - Comitato intergovernativo sui cambiamenti climatici - che illustra la sintesi delle ricerche svolte su questo tema rilevante.

4,187 citations

01 Jan 1989
TL;DR: In this article, a two-dimensional version of the Pennsylvania State University mesoscale model has been applied to Winter Monsoon Experiment data in order to simulate the diurnally occurring convection observed over the South China Sea.
Abstract: Abstract A two-dimensional version of the Pennsylvania State University mesoscale model has been applied to Winter Monsoon Experiment data in order to simulate the diurnally occurring convection observed over the South China Sea. The domain includes a representation of part of Borneo as well as the sea so that the model can simulate the initiation of convection. Also included in the model are parameterizations of mesoscale ice phase and moisture processes and longwave and shortwave radiation with a diurnal cycle. This allows use of the model to test the relative importance of various heating mechanisms to the stratiform cloud deck, which typically occupies several hundred kilometers of the domain. Frank and Cohen's cumulus parameterization scheme is employed to represent vital unresolved vertical transports in the convective area. The major conclusions are: Ice phase processes are important in determining the level of maximum large-scale heating and vertical motion because there is a strong anvil componen...

3,813 citations

Book Chapter
01 Jan 2013
TL;DR: The authors assesses long-term projections of climate change for the end of the 21st century and beyond, where the forced signal depends on the scenario and is typically larger than the internal variability of the climate system.
Abstract: This chapter assesses long-term projections of climate change for the end of the 21st century and beyond, where the forced signal depends on the scenario and is typically larger than the internal variability of the climate system. Changes are expressed with respect to a baseline period of 1986-2005, unless otherwise stated.

2,253 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors identify ten contrasting perspectives that shape the vulnerability debate but have not been discussed collectively and present a set of global vulnerability drivers that are known with high confidence: (1) droughts eventually occur everywhere; (2) warming produces hotter Droughts; (3) atmospheric moisture demand increases nonlinearly with temperature during drought; (4) mortality can occur faster in hotter Drought, consistent with fundamental physiology; (5) shorter Drought can become lethal under warming, increasing the frequency of lethal Drought; and (6) mortality happens rapidly
Abstract: Patterns, mechanisms, projections, and consequences of tree mortality and associated broad-scale forest die-off due to drought accompanied by warmer temperatures—“hotter drought”, an emerging characteristic of the Anthropocene—are the focus of rapidly expanding literature. Despite recent observational, experimental, and modeling studies suggesting increased vulnerability of trees to hotter drought and associated pests and pathogens, substantial debate remains among research, management and policy-making communities regarding future tree mortality risks. We summarize key mortality-relevant findings, differentiating between those implying lesser versus greater levels of vulnerability. Evidence suggesting lesser vulnerability includes forest benefits of elevated [CO2] and increased water-use efficiency; observed and modeled increases in forest growth and canopy greening; widespread increases in woody-plant biomass, density, and extent; compensatory physiological, morphological, and genetic mechanisms; dampening ecological feedbacks; and potential mitigation by forest management. In contrast, recent studies document more rapid mortality under hotter drought due to negative tree physiological responses and accelerated biotic attacks. Additional evidence suggesting greater vulnerability includes rising background mortality rates; projected increases in drought frequency, intensity, and duration; limitations of vegetation models such as inadequately represented mortality processes; warming feedbacks from die-off; and wildfire synergies. Grouping these findings we identify ten contrasting perspectives that shape the vulnerability debate but have not been discussed collectively. We also present a set of global vulnerability drivers that are known with high confidence: (1) droughts eventually occur everywhere; (2) warming produces hotter droughts; (3) atmospheric moisture demand increases nonlinearly with temperature during drought; (4) mortality can occur faster in hotter drought, consistent with fundamental physiology; (5) shorter droughts occur more frequently than longer droughts and can become lethal under warming, increasing the frequency of lethal drought nonlinearly; and (6) mortality happens rapidly relative to growth intervals needed for forest recovery. These high-confidence drivers, in concert with research supporting greater vulnerability perspectives, support an overall viewpoint of greater forest vulnerability globally. We surmise that mortality vulnerability is being discounted in part due to difficulties in predicting threshold responses to extreme climate events. Given the profound ecological and societal implications of underestimating global vulnerability to hotter drought, we highlight urgent challenges for research, management, and policy-making communities.

1,786 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Pierre Friedlingstein1, Pierre Friedlingstein2, Michael O'Sullivan2, Matthew W. Jones3, Robbie M. Andrew, Judith Hauck, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters4, Wouter Peters5, Julia Pongratz6, Julia Pongratz7, Stephen Sitch1, Corinne Le Quéré3, Josep G. Canadell8, Philippe Ciais9, Robert B. Jackson10, Simone R. Alin11, Luiz E. O. C. Aragão1, Luiz E. O. C. Aragão12, Almut Arneth, Vivek K. Arora, Nicholas R. Bates13, Nicholas R. Bates14, Meike Becker, Alice Benoit-Cattin, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp15, Selma Bultan7, Naveen Chandra16, Naveen Chandra17, Frédéric Chevallier9, Louise Chini18, Wiley Evans, Liesbeth Florentie5, Piers M. Forster19, Thomas Gasser20, Marion Gehlen9, Dennis Gilfillan, Thanos Gkritzalis21, Luke Gregor22, Nicolas Gruber22, Ian Harris23, Kerstin Hartung24, Kerstin Hartung7, Vanessa Haverd8, Richard A. Houghton25, Tatiana Ilyina6, Atul K. Jain26, Emilie Joetzjer27, Koji Kadono28, Etsushi Kato, Vassilis Kitidis29, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Peter Landschützer6, Nathalie Lefèvre30, Andrew Lenton31, Sebastian Lienert32, Zhu Liu33, Danica Lombardozzi34, Gregg Marland35, Nicolas Metzl30, David R. Munro36, David R. Munro11, Julia E. M. S. Nabel6, S. Nakaoka16, Yosuke Niwa16, Kevin D. O'Brien37, Kevin D. O'Brien11, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Denis Pierrot38, Benjamin Poulter, Laure Resplandy39, Eddy Robertson40, Christian Rödenbeck6, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian27, Ingunn Skjelvan, Adam J. P. Smith3, Adrienne J. Sutton11, Toste Tanhua41, Pieter P. Tans11, Hanqin Tian42, Bronte Tilbrook43, Bronte Tilbrook31, Guido R. van der Werf44, N. Vuichard9, Anthony P. Walker45, Rik Wanninkhof38, Andrew J. Watson1, David R. Willis23, Andy Wiltshire40, Wenping Yuan46, Xu Yue47, Sönke Zaehle6 
University of Exeter1, École Normale Supérieure2, Norwich Research Park3, University of Groningen4, Wageningen University and Research Centre5, Max Planck Society6, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich7, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation8, Université Paris-Saclay9, Stanford University10, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration11, National Institute for Space Research12, Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences13, University of Southampton14, PSL Research University15, National Institute for Environmental Studies16, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology17, University of Maryland, College Park18, University of Leeds19, International Institute of Minnesota20, Flanders Marine Institute21, ETH Zurich22, University of East Anglia23, German Aerospace Center24, Woods Hole Research Center25, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign26, University of Toulouse27, Japan Meteorological Agency28, Plymouth Marine Laboratory29, University of Paris30, Hobart Corporation31, Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research32, Tsinghua University33, National Center for Atmospheric Research34, Appalachian State University35, University of Colorado Boulder36, University of Washington37, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory38, Princeton University39, Met Office40, Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences41, Auburn University42, University of Tasmania43, VU University Amsterdam44, Oak Ridge National Laboratory45, Sun Yat-sen University46, Nanjing University47
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors describe and synthesize data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties, including emissions from land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models.
Abstract: Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in a changing climate – the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe and synthesize data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFOS) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land-use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land-use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade available (2010–2019), EFOS was 9.6 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 excluding the cement carbonation sink (9.4 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when the cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 1.6 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1. For the same decade, GATM was 5.1 ± 0.02 GtC yr−1 (2.4 ± 0.01 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN 2.5 ± 0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.4 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of −0.1 GtC yr−1 indicating a near balance between estimated sources and sinks over the last decade. For the year 2019 alone, the growth in EFOS was only about 0.1 % with fossil emissions increasing to 9.9 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 excluding the cement carbonation sink (9.7 ± 0.5 GtC yr−1 when cement carbonation sink is included), and ELUC was 1.8 ± 0.7 GtC yr−1, for total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 11.5 ± 0.9 GtC yr−1 (42.2 ± 3.3 GtCO2). Also for 2019, GATM was 5.4 ± 0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.5 ± 0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 2.6 ± 0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.1 ± 1.2 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 409.85 ± 0.1 ppm averaged over 2019. Preliminary data for 2020, accounting for the COVID-19-induced changes in emissions, suggest a decrease in EFOS relative to 2019 of about −7 % (median estimate) based on individual estimates from four studies of −6 %, −7 %, −7 % (−3 % to −11 %), and −13 %. Overall, the mean and trend in the components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2019, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. Comparison of estimates from diverse approaches and observations shows (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land-use change emissions over the last decade, (2) a persistent low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent discrepancy between the different methods for the ocean sink outside the tropics, particularly in the Southern Ocean. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Friedlingstein et al., 2019; Le Quere et al., 2018b, a, 2016, 2015b, a, 2014, 2013). The data presented in this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2020 (Friedlingstein et al., 2020).

1,764 citations