This study presents the global climate model IPSL-CM6A-LR developed at Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace (IPSL) to study natural climate variability and climate response to natural and anthropogenic forcings as part of the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). This article describes the different model components, their coupling, and the simulated climate in comparison to previous model versions. We focus here on the representation of the physical climate along with the main characteristics of the global carbon cycle. The model's climatology, as assessed from a range of metrics (related in particular to radiation, temperature, precipitation, and wind), is strongly improved in comparison to previous model versions. Although they are reduced, a number of known biases and shortcomings (e.g., double Intertropical Convergence Zone [ITCZ], frequency of midlatitude wintertime blockings, and El Niño-Southern Oscillation [ENSO] dynamics) persist. The equilibrium climate sensitivity and transient climate response have both increased from the previous climate model IPSL-CM5A-LR used in CMIP5. A large ensemble of more than 30 members for the historical period (1850-2018) and a smaller ensemble for a range of emissions scenarios (until 2100 and 2300) are also presented and discussed.Plain Language Summary Climate models are unique tools to investigate the characteristics and behavior of the climate system. While climate models and their components are developed gradually over the years, the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) has been the

This paper analyzes the ensemble of regional climate model (RCM) projections for Europe completed within the EURO-CORDEX project. Projections are available for the two greenhouse gas concentration scenarios RCP2.6 (22 members) and RCP8.5 (55 members) at 0.11°resolution from 11 RCMs driven by eight global climate models (GCMs). The RCM ensemble results are compared with the driving CMIP5 global models but also with a subset of available last generation CMIP6 projections. Maximum warming is projected by all ensembles in Northern Europe in winter, along with a maximum precipitation increase there; in summer, maximum warming occurs in the Mediterranean and Southern European regions associated with a maximum precipitation decrease. The CMIP6 ensemble shows the largest signals, both for temperature and precipitation, along with the largest inter-model spread. There is a high model consensus across the ensembles on an increase of extreme precipitation and drought frequency in the Mediterranean region. Extreme temperature indices show an increase of heat extremes and a decrease of cold extremes, with CMIP6 showing the highest values and EURO-CORDEX the finest spatial details. This data set of unprecedented size and quality will provide the basis for impact assessment and climate service activities for the European region.

The use of regional climate model (RCM)‐based projections for providing regional climate information in a research and climate service contexts is currently expanding very fast. This has been possible thanks to a considerable effort in developing comprehensive ensembles of RCM projections, especially for Europe, in the EURO‐CORDEX community (Jacob et al., 2014, 2020). As of end of 2019, EURO‐CORDEX has developed a set of 55 historical and scenario projections (RCP8.5) using 8 driving global climate models (GCMs) and 11 RCMs. This article presents the ensemble including its design. We target the analysis to better characterize the quality of the RCMs by providing an evaluation of these RCM simulations over a number of classical climate variables and extreme and impact‐oriented indices for the period 1981–2010. For the main variables, the model simulations generally agree with observations and reanalyses. However, several systematic biases are found as well, with shared responsibilities among RCMs and GCMs: Simulations are overall too cold, too wet, and too windy compared to available observations or reanalyses. Some simulations show strong systematic biases on temperature, others on precipitation or dynamical variables, but none of the models/simulations can be defined as the best or the worst on all criteria. The article aims at supporting a proper use of these simulations within a climate services context.

The implementation of boundary conditions is a key aspect of climate simulations. We describe here how the Climate Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) forcing data sets have been processed and implemented in Version 6 of the Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace (IPSL) climate model (IPSL-CM6A-LR) as used for CMIP6. Details peculiar to some of the Model Intercomparison Projects are also described. IPSL-CM6A-LR is run without interactive chemistry; thus, tropospheric and stratospheric aerosols as well as ozone have to be prescribed. We improved the aerosol interpolation procedure and highlight a new methodology to adjust the ozone vertical profile in a way that is consistent with the model dynamical state at the time step level. The corresponding instantaneous and effective radiative forcings have been estimated and are being presented where possible.Plain Language Summary Climate Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 is an international project to compare the results from climate model simulations performed according to a common protocol. Such simulations require boundary conditions (called "climate forcings"), which are fed to the models in order to represent, for example, long-lived greenhouse gases, ozone, atmospheric aerosols, or land surface properties. The same forcing data sets are used by the different modeling groups who carry out the Climate Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 simulations; however, their implementation may differ as it depends on the model structure. This article gives details of how these forcing data were implemented in the IPSL-CM6A-LR model. Some of the forcing data are common to all types all simulations, whereas others depend on the runs considered. Radiative forcings, as estimated in the model, are presented for some of the forcing mechanisms. Key Points:• We present how the CMIP6 forcing data were implemented in the IPSL-CM6A-LR climate model for the realization of the CMIP6 set of climate simulations • An improved conservative interpolation procedure for emissions is detailed and illustrated to compute tropospheric aerosols • We present a new methodology to adjust the prescribed ozone vertical profile to match the model atmospheric dynamical state around the tropopause

No abstract

The potential natural vegetation (PNV) distribution is required for several studies in environmental sciences. Most of the available databases are quite subjective or depend on vegetation models. We have built a new high-resolution world-wide PNV map using a objective statistical methodology based on multinomial logistic models. Our method appears as a fast and robust alternative in vegetation modelling, independent of any vegetation model. In comparison with other databases, our method provides a realistic PNV distribution in agreement with respect to BIOME 6000 data. Among several advantages, the use of probabilities allows us to estimate the uncertainty, bringing some confidence in the modelled PNV, or to highlight the regions needing some data to improve the PNV modelling. Despite our PNV map being highly dependent on the distribution of data points, it is easily updatable as soon as additional data are available and provides very useful additional information for further applications.

No abstract

Abstract. We quantify the agreement between permafrost distributions from PMIP2 (Paleoclimate Modeling Intercomparison Project) climate models and permafrost data. We evaluate the ability of several climate models to represent permafrost and assess the variability between their results.Studying a heterogeneous variable such as permafrost implies conducting analysis at a smaller spatial scale compared with climate models resolution. Our approach consists of applying statistical downscaling methods (SDMs) on largeor regional-scale atmospheric variables provided by climate models, leading to local-scale permafrost modelling. Among the SDMs, we first choose a transfer function approach based on Generalized Additive Models (GAMs) to produce high-resolution climatology of air temperature at the surface. Then we define permafrost distribution over Eurasia by air temperature conditions. In a first validation step on present climate (CTRL period), this method shows some limitations with non-systematic improvements in comparison with the large-scale fields.So, we develop an alternative method of statistical downscaling based on a Multinomial Logistic GAM (ML-GAM), which directly predicts the occurrence probabilities of localscale permafrost. The obtained permafrost distributions appear in a better agreement with CTRL data. In average for the nine PMIP2 models, we measure a global agreement with CTRL permafrost data that is better when using ML-GAM than when applying the GAM method with air Correspondence to: G. Levavasseur (guillaume.levavasseur@lsce.ipsl.fr) temperature conditions. In both cases, the provided local information reduces the variability between climate models results. This also confirms that a simple relationship between permafrost and the air temperature only is not always sufficient to represent local-scale permafrost.Finally, we apply each method on a very different climate, the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) time period, in order to quantify the ability of climate models to represent LGM permafrost. The prediction of the SDMs (GAM and ML-GAM) is not significantly in better agreement with LGM permafrost data than large-scale fields. At the LGM, both methods do not reduce the variability between climate models results. We show that LGM permafrost distribution from climate models strongly depends on large-scale air temperature at the surface.LGM simulations from climate models lead to larger differences with LGM data than in the CTRL period. These differences reduce the contribution of downscaling.