Articles | Volume 10, issue 9
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-3207-2017
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-3207-2017
Review and perspective paper
 | 
01 Sep 2017
Review and perspective paper |  | 01 Sep 2017

Practice and philosophy of climate model tuning across six US modeling centers

Gavin A. Schmidt, David Bader, Leo J. Donner, Gregory S. Elsaesser, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Cecile Hannay, Andrea Molod, Richard B. Neale, and Suranjana Saha

Related authors

Datasets and protocols for including anomalous freshwater from melting ice sheets in climate simulations
Gavin A. Schmidt, Kenneth D. Mankoff, Jonathan L. Bamber, Dustin Carroll, David M. Chandler, Violaine Coulon, Benjamin J. Davison, Matthew H. England, Paul R. Holland, Nicolas C. Jourdain, Qian Li, Juliana M. Marson, Pierre Mathiot, Clive R. McMahon, Twila A. Moon, Ruth Mottram, Sophie Nowicki, Anne Olivé Abelló, Andrew G. Pauling, Thomas Rackow, and Damien Ringeisen
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1940,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1940, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Exploring the ENSO modulation of the QBO periods with GISS E2.2 models
Tiehan Zhou, Kevin J. DallaSanta, Clara Orbe, David H. Rind, Jeffrey A. Jonas, Larissa Nazarenko, Gavin A. Schmidt, and Gary Russell
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 509–532, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-509-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-509-2024, 2024
Short summary
Multi-variate factorisation of numerical simulations
Daniel J. Lunt, Deepak Chandan, Alan M. Haywood, George M. Lunt, Jonathan C. Rougier, Ulrich Salzmann, Gavin A. Schmidt, and Paul J. Valdes
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 4307–4317, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4307-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4307-2021, 2021
Short summary
The impact of increasing stratospheric radiative damping on the quasi-biennial oscillation period
Tiehan Zhou, Kevin DallaSanta, Larissa Nazarenko, Gavin A. Schmidt, and Zhonghai Jin
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 7395–7407, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-7395-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-7395-2021, 2021
Short summary
ESD Reviews: Model dependence in multi-model climate ensembles: weighting, sub-selection and out-of-sample testing
Gab Abramowitz, Nadja Herger, Ethan Gutmann, Dorit Hammerling, Reto Knutti, Martin Leduc, Ruth Lorenz, Robert Pincus, and Gavin A. Schmidt
Earth Syst. Dynam., 10, 91–105, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-91-2019,https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-91-2019, 2019
Short summary

Related subject area

Climate and Earth system modeling
FLAME 1.0: a novel approach for modelling burned area in the Brazilian biomes using the maximum entropy concept
Maria Lucia Ferreira Barbosa, Douglas I. Kelley, Chantelle A. Burton, Igor J. M. Ferreira, Renata Moura da Veiga, Anna Bradley, Paulo Guilherme Molin, and Liana O. Anderson
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3533–3557, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3533-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3533-2025, 2025
Short summary
SURFER v3.0: a fast model with ice sheet tipping points and carbon cycle feedbacks for short- and long-term climate scenarios
Victor Couplet, Marina Martínez Montero, and Michel Crucifix
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3081–3129, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3081-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3081-2025, 2025
Short summary
NMH-CS 3.0: a C# programming language and Windows-system-based ecohydrological model derived from Noah-MP
Yong-He Liu and Zong-Liang Yang
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3157–3174, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3157-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3157-2025, 2025
Short summary
A method for quantifying uncertainty in spatially interpolated meteorological data with application to daily maximum air temperature
Conor T. Doherty, Weile Wang, Hirofumi Hashimoto, and Ian G. Brosnan
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3003–3016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3003-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3003-2025, 2025
Short summary
Baseline Climate Variables for Earth System Modelling
Martin Juckes, Karl E. Taylor, Fabrizio Antonio, David Brayshaw, Carlo Buontempo, Jian Cao, Paul J. Durack, Michio Kawamiya, Hyungjun Kim, Tomas Lovato, Chloe Mackallah, Matthew Mizielinski, Alessandra Nuzzo, Martina Stockhause, Daniele Visioni, Jeremy Walton, Briony Turner, Eleanor O'Rourke, and Beth Dingley
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2639–2663, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2639-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2639-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Alexander, M. and Dunkerton, T.: A spectral parameterization of mean-flow forcing due to breaking gravity waves, J. Atmos. Sci., 56, 4167–4182, 1999.
Allan, R. P., Liu, C., Loeb, N. G., Palmer, M. D., Roberts, M., Smith, D., and Vidale, P.-L.: Changes in global net radiative imbalance 1985–2012, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 5588–5597, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014gl060962, 2014.
Annan, J. D. and Hargreaves, J. C.: On the meaning of independence in climate science, Earth Syst. Dynam., 8, 211–224, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-211-2017, 2017.
Benedict, J., Maloney, E., Sobel, A., Frierson, D., and Donner, L.: Tropical intraseasonal variability in Version 3 of the GFDL atmosphere model, J. Climate, 26, 426–449, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00103.1, 2013.
Short summary
The development of coupled ocean atmosphere climate models is a complex process that inevitably includes multiple calibration steps (sometimes called tuning). Tuning uses degrees of freedom allowed by uncertainties in model approximations to modify parameters to make the simulation better align with some selected observed target(s). We describe how these tuning targets, parameters, and philosophy vary across six US modeling centers in order to increase the transparency of the practice.
Share