1 of 3

Pattern-effectMIP

  • First proposed at virtual CFMIP 2021
  • Perform observedSST-piForcing simulations, with same SIC (3 ensembles)

​

  • Key questions:
  • How does the pattern effect estimates depends on the observed/reconstructed SST datasets applied to the AGCMs?

​

  • How well does the AGCMS simulate the TOA energy imbalance given the observed/reconstructed SSTs?
  • What are potential causes for the feedbacks to be different?
  • Particularly looking into the cloud feedbacks?
  • Can we identify potential regions which could cause the differences in the feedbacks?
  • Looking into segregating the unforced and forced pattern effects.

Join us! �contact: angshuman.modak@misu.su.se, angshuman.modak@gmail.com, thorsten.mauritsen@misu.su.se �

2 of 3

Observed/reconstructed datasets (1871-2017) to be applied as boundary condition

  1. AMIPII* (most models already have this)
  2. HadISST1*
  3. COBE-SST2*
  4. ERSSTv5*
  5. had4_krig
  6. had4sst4_krig
  7. Vaccaro_et_al_2021*

*observedSST-piForcing runs at least with these datasets

​

For now the SIC used in all these runs are based on AMIPII-SIC

Join us! �contact: angshuman.modak@misu.su.se, angshuman.modak@gmail.com, thorsten.mauritsen@misu.su.se �

Figure shows Pattern effect strength with MPI-ESM1.2-LR ranging from 0.42±0.1 to -0.01±0.1 Wm-2K-1 across the datasets

3 of 3

Models agreed to contribute

  1. MPI-ESM1-2LR
  2. IPSL-CM6A-LR
  3. MIROC6
  4. MRI-ESM2-0
  5. GFDL-AM2p1
  6. HadGEM3-GC3.1-LL
  7. NorESM
  8. CESM

​

Models with simulations (July 2022)

  1. MPI-ESM1-2LR
  2. IPSL-CM6A-LR
  3. MRI-ESM2-0
  4. MIROC6
  5. GFDL-AM2p1

Join us! �contact: angshuman.modak@misu.su.se, angshuman.modak@gmail.com, thorsten.mauritsen@misu.su.se �

Publication:

Modak, A. & Mauritsen, T.: Structural dependence on observed historical SST lowers the strength of pattern effect, in prep.