Articles | Volume 13, issue 3
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1165-2020
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1165-2020
Development and technical paper
 | 
12 Mar 2020
Development and technical paper |  | 12 Mar 2020

Replicability of the EC-Earth3 Earth system model under a change in computing environment

François Massonnet, Martin Ménégoz, Mario Acosta, Xavier Yepes-Arbós, Eleftheria Exarchou, and Francisco J. Doblas-Reyes

Related authors

Impact of ocean vertical-mixing parameterization on Arctic sea ice and upper-ocean properties using the NEMO-SI3 model
Sofia Allende, Anne Marie Treguier, Camille Lique, Clément de Boyer Montégut, François Massonnet, Thierry Fichefet, and Antoine Barthélemy
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7445–7466, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7445-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7445-2024, 2024
Short summary
Ensemble design for seasonal climate predictions: Studying extreme Arctic sea ice lows with a rare event algorithm
Jerome Sauer, Francesco Ragone, François Massonnet, and Giuseppe Zappa
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3082,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3082, 2024
Short summary
The role of atmospheric conditions in the Antarctic sea ice extent summer minima
Bianca Mezzina, Hugues Goosse, François Klein, Antoine Barthélemy, and François Massonnet
The Cryosphere, 18, 3825–3839, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-3825-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-3825-2024, 2024
Short summary
Seasonality and scenario dependence of rapid Arctic sea ice loss events in CMIP6 simulations
Annelies Sticker, François Massonnet, Thierry Fichefet, Patricia DeRepentigny, Alexandra Jahn, David Docquier, Christopher Wyburn-Powell, Daphne Quint, Erica Shivers, and Makayla Ortiz
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1873,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1873, 2024
Short summary
Consistent but more intense atmospheric circulation response to Arctic sea ice loss in CMIP6 experiments compared to PAMIP experiments
Steve Delhaye, Rym Msadek, Thierry Fichefet, François Massonnet, and Laurent Terray
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1748,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1748, 2023
Preprint archived
Short summary

Related subject area

Climate and Earth system modeling
Presentation, calibration and testing of the DCESS II Earth system model of intermediate complexity (version 1.0)
Esteban Fernández Villanueva and Gary Shaffer
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2161–2192, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2161-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2161-2025, 2025
Short summary
Synthesizing global carbon–nitrogen coupling effects – the MAGICC coupled carbon–nitrogen cycle model v1.0
Gang Tang, Zebedee Nicholls, Alexander Norton, Sönke Zaehle, and Malte Meinshausen
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2193–2230, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2193-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2193-2025, 2025
Short summary
Historical trends and controlling factors of isoprene emissions in CMIP6 Earth system models
Ngoc Thi Nhu Do, Kengo Sudo, Akihiko Ito, Louisa K. Emmons, Vaishali Naik, Kostas Tsigaridis, Øyvind Seland, Gerd A. Folberth, and Douglas I. Kelley
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2079–2109, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2079-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2079-2025, 2025
Short summary
Investigating carbon and nitrogen conservation in reported CMIP6 Earth system model data
Gang Tang, Zebedee Nicholls, Chris Jones, Thomas Gasser, Alexander Norton, Tilo Ziehn, Alejandro Romero-Prieto, and Malte Meinshausen
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2111–2136, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2111-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2111-2025, 2025
Short summary
From weather data to river runoff: using spatiotemporal convolutional networks for discharge forecasting
Florian Börgel, Sven Karsten, Karoline Rummel, and Ulf Gräwe
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2005–2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2005-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2005-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Acosta, M., Yepes, X., Massonnet, F., and Menegoz, M.: Reproducibility of an Earth System Model under a change in computing environment: Test Case, https://doi.org/10.23728/b2share.1931aca743f74dcb859de6f37dfad281, 2019. a
Añel, J. A.: The importance of reviewing the code, Commun. ACM, 5, 40, https://doi.org/10.1145/1941487.1941502, 2011. a
Añel, J. A.: Comment on “Most computational hydrology is not reproducible, so is it really science?” by Christopher Hutton et al., Water Resour. Res., 53, 2572–2574, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016wr020190, 2017. a
Baker, A. H., Hammerling, D. M., Levy, M. N., Xu, H., Dennis, J. M., Eaton, B. E., Edwards, J., Hannay, C., Mickelson, S. A., Neale, R. B., Nychka, D., Shollenberger, J., Tribbia, J., Vertenstein, M., and Williamson, D.: A new ensemble-based consistency test for the Community Earth System Model (pyCECT v1.0), Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 2829–2840, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-2829-2015, 2015. a, b, c, d, e
Balsamo, G., Beljaars, A., Scipal, K., Viterbo, P., van den Hurk, B., Hirschi, M., and Betts, A. K.: A revised hydrology for the ECMWF model: Verification from field site to terrestrial water storage and impact in the Integrated Forecast System, J. Hydrometeorol., 10, 623–643, 2009. a
Download
Short summary
Earth system models (ESMs) are one of the cornerstones of modern climate science. They are usually run on high-performance computers (HPCs). Whether the choice of HPC can affect the model results is a question of importance for optimizing the design of scientific studies. Here, we introduce a protocol for testing the replicability of the EC-Earth3 ESM across different HPCs. We find the simulation results to be replicable only if specific precautions are taken at the compilation stage.
Share