Articles | Volume 11, issue 3
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1133–1160, 2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1133-2018
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1133–1160, 2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1133-2018
Model experiment description paper
29 Mar 2018
Model experiment description paper | 29 Mar 2018

The Carbon Dioxide Removal Model Intercomparison Project (CDRMIP): rationale and experimental protocol for CMIP6

David P. Keller et al.

Related authors

FOCI-MOPS v1 – integration of marine biogeochemistry within the Flexible Ocean and Climate Infrastructure version 1 (FOCI 1) Earth system model
Chia-Te Chien, Jonathan V. Durgadoo, Dana Ehlert, Ivy Frenger, David P. Keller, Wolfgang Koeve, Iris Kriest, Angela Landolfi, Lavinia Patara, Sebastian Wahl, and Andreas Oschlies
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5987–6024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5987-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5987-2022, 2022
Short summary
Carbon Dioxide Removal via Macroalgae Open-ocean Mariculture and Sinking: An Earth System Modeling Study
Jiajun Wu, David P. Keller, and Andreas Oschlies
Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2021-104,https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2021-104, 2022
Revised manuscript under review for ESD
Short summary
Explicit silicate cycling in the Kiel Marine Biogeochemistry Model version 3 (KMBM3) embedded in the UVic ESCM version 2.9
Karin Kvale, David P. Keller, Wolfgang Koeve, Katrin J. Meissner, Christopher J. Somes, Wanxuan Yao, and Andreas Oschlies
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 7255–7285, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7255-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7255-2021, 2021
Short summary
Riverine nitrogen supply to the global ocean and its limited impact on global marine primary production: a feedback study using an Earth system model
Miriam Tivig, David P. Keller, and Andreas Oschlies
Biogeosciences, 18, 5327–5350, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-5327-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-5327-2021, 2021
Short summary
Evaluation of the University of Victoria Earth System Climate Model version 2.10 (UVic ESCM 2.10)
Nadine Mengis, David P. Keller, Andrew H. MacDougall, Michael Eby, Nesha Wright, Katrin J. Meissner, Andreas Oschlies, Andreas Schmittner, Alexander J. MacIsaac, H. Damon Matthews, and Kirsten Zickfeld
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4183–4204, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4183-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4183-2020, 2020
Short summary

Related subject area

Climate and Earth system modeling
Implementation and evaluation of the GEOS-Chem chemistry module version 13.1.2 within the Community Earth System Model v2.1
Thibaud M. Fritz, Sebastian D. Eastham, Louisa K. Emmons, Haipeng Lin, Elizabeth W. Lundgren, Steve Goldhaber, Steven R. H. Barrett, and Daniel J. Jacob
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 8669–8704, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8669-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8669-2022, 2022
Short summary
Assessment of JSBACHv4.30 as a land component of ICON-ESM-V1 in comparison to its predecessor JSBACHv3.2 of MPI-ESM1.2
Rainer Schneck, Veronika Gayler, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Thomas Raddatz, Christian H. Reick, and Reiner Schnur
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 8581–8611, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8581-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8581-2022, 2022
Short summary
Global biomass burning fuel consumption and emissions at 500 m spatial resolution based on the Global Fire Emissions Database (GFED)
Dave van Wees, Guido R. van der Werf, James T. Randerson, Brendan M. Rogers, Yang Chen, Sander Veraverbeke, Louis Giglio, and Douglas C. Morton
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 8411–8437, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8411-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8411-2022, 2022
Short summary
Impact of increased resolution on the representation of the Canary upwelling system in climate models
Adama Sylla, Emilia Sanchez Gomez, Juliette Mignot, and Jorge López-Parages
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 8245–8267, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8245-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8245-2022, 2022
Short summary
Assessing Responses and Impacts of Solar climate intervention on the Earth system with stratospheric aerosol injection (ARISE-SAI): protocol and initial results from the first simulations
Jadwiga H. Richter, Daniele Visioni, Douglas G. MacMartin, David A. Bailey, Nan Rosenbloom, Brian Dobbins, Walker R. Lee, Mari Tye, and Jean-Francois Lamarque
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 8221–8243, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8221-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8221-2022, 2022
Short summary

Cited articles

Allen, M. R., Frame, D. J., Huntingford, C., Jones, C. D., Lowe, J. A., Meinshausen, M., and Meinshausen, N.: Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne, Nature, 458, 1163–1166, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08019, 2009.
Armour, K. C., Eisenman, I., Blanchard-Wrigglesworth, E., McCusker, K. E., and Bitz, C. M.: The reversibility of sea ice loss in a state-of-the-art climate model, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, 1–5, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL048739, 2011.
Arora, V. K. and Boer, G. J.: Terrestrial ecosystems response to future changes in climate and atmospheric CO2 concentration, Biogeosciences, 11, 4157–4171, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-11-4157-2014, 2014.
Betts, R. A.: Offset of the potential carbon sink from boreal forestation by decreases in surface albedo, Nature, 409, 187–190, 2000.
Download
Short summary
There is little consensus on the impacts and efficacy of proposed carbon dioxide removal (CDR) methods as a potential means of mitigating climate change. To address this need, the Carbon Dioxide Removal Model Intercomparison Project (or CDR-MIP) has been initiated. This project brings together models of the Earth system in a common framework to explore the potential, impacts, and challenges of CDR. Here, we describe the first set of CDR-MIP experiments.