Articles | Volume 13, issue 1
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 201–224, 2020
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-201-2020
© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Special issue: Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) Experimental...
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 201–224, 2020
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-201-2020
© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Development and technical paper
28 Jan 2020
Development and technical paper
| 28 Jan 2020
The CMIP6 Data Request (DREQ, version 01.00.31)
Martin Juckes et al.
Related authors
Ruth Petrie, Sébastien Denvil, Sasha Ames, Guillaume Levavasseur, Sandro Fiore, Chris Allen, Fabrizio Antonio, Katharina Berger, Pierre-Antoine Bretonnière, Luca Cinquini, Eli Dart, Prashanth Dwarakanath, Kelsey Druken, Ben Evans, Laurent Franchistéguy, Sébastien Gardoll, Eric Gerbier, Mark Greenslade, David Hassell, Alan Iwi, Martin Juckes, Stephan Kindermann, Lukasz Lacinski, Maria Mirto, Atef Ben Nasser, Paola Nassisi, Eric Nienhouse, Sergey Nikonov, Alessandra Nuzzo, Clare Richards, Syazwan Ridzwan, Michel Rixen, Kim Serradell, Kate Snow, Ag Stephens, Martina Stockhause, Hans Vahlenkamp, and Rick Wagner
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 629–644, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-629-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-629-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes the infrastructure that is used to distribute Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) data around the world for analysis by the climate research community. It is expected that there will be ~20 PB (petabytes) of data available for analysis. The operations team performed a series of preparation "data challenges" to ensure all components of the infrastructure were operational for when the data became available for timely data distribution and subsequent analysis.
Venkatramani Balaji, Karl E. Taylor, Martin Juckes, Bryan N. Lawrence, Paul J. Durack, Michael Lautenschlager, Chris Blanton, Luca Cinquini, Sébastien Denvil, Mark Elkington, Francesca Guglielmo, Eric Guilyardi, David Hassell, Slava Kharin, Stefan Kindermann, Sergey Nikonov, Aparna Radhakrishnan, Martina Stockhause, Tobias Weigel, and Dean Williams
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 3659–3680, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3659-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3659-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
We present recommendations for the global data infrastructure needed to support CMIP scientific design and its future growth and evolution. We follow a dataset-centric design less prone to systemic failure. Scientific publication in the digital age is evolving to make data a primary scientific output, alongside articles. We design toward that future scientific data ecosystem, informed by the need for reproducibility, data provenance, future data technologies, and measures of costs and benefits.
Veronika Eyring, Mattia Righi, Axel Lauer, Martin Evaldsson, Sabrina Wenzel, Colin Jones, Alessandro Anav, Oliver Andrews, Irene Cionni, Edouard L. Davin, Clara Deser, Carsten Ehbrecht, Pierre Friedlingstein, Peter Gleckler, Klaus-Dirk Gottschaldt, Stefan Hagemann, Martin Juckes, Stephan Kindermann, John Krasting, Dominik Kunert, Richard Levine, Alexander Loew, Jarmo Mäkelä, Gill Martin, Erik Mason, Adam S. Phillips, Simon Read, Catherine Rio, Romain Roehrig, Daniel Senftleben, Andreas Sterl, Lambertus H. van Ulft, Jeremy Walton, Shiyu Wang, and Keith D. Williams
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1747–1802, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1747-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1747-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
A community diagnostics and performance metrics tool for the evaluation of Earth system models (ESMs) in CMIP has been developed that allows for routine comparison of single or multiple models, either against predecessor versions or against observations.
Thibault Hallouin, Richard J. Ellis, Douglas B. Clark, Simon J. Dadson, Andrew G. Hughes, Bryan N. Lawrence, Grenville M. S. Lister, and Jan Polcher
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 9177–9196, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-9177-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-9177-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
A new framework for modelling the water cycle in the land system has been implemented. It considers the hydrological cycle as three interconnected components, bringing flexibility in the choice of the physical processes and their spatio-temporal resolutions. It is designed to foster collaborations between land surface, hydrological, and groundwater modelling communities to develop the next-generation of land system models for integration in Earth system models.
Trevor J. McDougall, Paul M. Barker, Ryan M. Holmes, Rich Pawlowicz, Stephen M. Griffies, and Paul J. Durack
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 6445–6466, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6445-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6445-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We show that the way that the air–sea heat flux is treated in ocean models means that the model's temperature variable should be interpreted as being Conservative Temperature, irrespective of whether the equation of state used in an ocean model is EOS-80 or TEOS-10.
Pascale Braconnot, Samuel Albani, Yves Balkanski, Anne Cozic, Masa Kageyama, Adriana Sima, Olivier Marti, and Jean-Yves Peterschmitt
Clim. Past, 17, 1091–1117, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-17-1091-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-17-1091-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We investigate how mid-Holocene dust reduction affects the Earth’s energetics from a suite of climate simulations. Our analyses confirm the peculiar role of the dust radiative effect over bright surfaces such as African deserts. We highlight a strong dependence on the dust pattern. The relative dust forcing between West Africa and the Middle East impacts the relative response of Indian and African monsoons and between the western tropical Atlantic and the Atlantic meridional circulation.
Ruth Petrie, Sébastien Denvil, Sasha Ames, Guillaume Levavasseur, Sandro Fiore, Chris Allen, Fabrizio Antonio, Katharina Berger, Pierre-Antoine Bretonnière, Luca Cinquini, Eli Dart, Prashanth Dwarakanath, Kelsey Druken, Ben Evans, Laurent Franchistéguy, Sébastien Gardoll, Eric Gerbier, Mark Greenslade, David Hassell, Alan Iwi, Martin Juckes, Stephan Kindermann, Lukasz Lacinski, Maria Mirto, Atef Ben Nasser, Paola Nassisi, Eric Nienhouse, Sergey Nikonov, Alessandra Nuzzo, Clare Richards, Syazwan Ridzwan, Michel Rixen, Kim Serradell, Kate Snow, Ag Stephens, Martina Stockhause, Hans Vahlenkamp, and Rick Wagner
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 629–644, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-629-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-629-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes the infrastructure that is used to distribute Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) data around the world for analysis by the climate research community. It is expected that there will be ~20 PB (petabytes) of data available for analysis. The operations team performed a series of preparation "data challenges" to ensure all components of the infrastructure were operational for when the data became available for timely data distribution and subsequent analysis.
Landon A. Rieger, Jason N. S. Cole, John C. Fyfe, Stephen Po-Chedley, Philip J. Cameron-Smith, Paul J. Durack, Nathan P. Gillett, and Qi Tang
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4831–4843, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4831-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4831-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Recently, the stratospheric aerosol forcing dataset used as an input to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 was updated. This work explores the impact of those changes on the modelled historical climates in the CanESM5 and EAMv1 models. Temperature differences in the stratosphere shortly after the Pinatubo eruption are found to be significant, but surface temperatures and precipitation do not show a significant change.
Chris M. Brierley, Anni Zhao, Sandy P. Harrison, Pascale Braconnot, Charles J. R. Williams, David J. R. Thornalley, Xiaoxu Shi, Jean-Yves Peterschmitt, Rumi Ohgaito, Darrell S. Kaufman, Masa Kageyama, Julia C. Hargreaves, Michael P. Erb, Julien Emile-Geay, Roberta D'Agostino, Deepak Chandan, Matthieu Carré, Partrick J. Bartlein, Weipeng Zheng, Zhongshi Zhang, Qiong Zhang, Hu Yang, Evgeny M. Volodin, Robert A. Tomas, Cody Routson, W. Richard Peltier, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Polina A. Morozova, Nicholas P. McKay, Gerrit Lohmann, Allegra N. Legrande, Chuncheng Guo, Jian Cao, Esther Brady, James D. Annan, and Ayako Abe-Ouchi
Clim. Past, 16, 1847–1872, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-16-1847-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-16-1847-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
This paper provides an initial exploration and comparison to climate reconstructions of the new climate model simulations of the mid-Holocene (6000 years ago). These use state-of-the-art models developed for CMIP6 and apply the same experimental set-up. The models capture several key aspects of the climate, but some persistent issues remain.
Duane Waliser, Peter J. Gleckler, Robert Ferraro, Karl E. Taylor, Sasha Ames, James Biard, Michael G. Bosilovich, Otis Brown, Helene Chepfer, Luca Cinquini, Paul J. Durack, Veronika Eyring, Pierre-Philippe Mathieu, Tsengdar Lee, Simon Pinnock, Gerald L. Potter, Michel Rixen, Roger Saunders, Jörg Schulz, Jean-Noël Thépaut, and Matthias Tuma
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 2945–2958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2945-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2945-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
This paper provides an update to an international research activity whose objective is to facilitate access to satellite and other types of regional and global datasets for evaluating global models used to produce 21st century climate projections.
Lise Missiaen, Nathaelle Bouttes, Didier M. Roche, Jean-Claude Dutay, Aurélien Quiquet, Claire Waelbroeck, Sylvain Pichat, and Jean-Yves Peterschmitt
Clim. Past, 16, 867–883, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-16-867-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-16-867-2020, 2020
Charlotte Pascoe, Bryan N. Lawrence, Eric Guilyardi, Martin Juckes, and Karl E. Taylor
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 2149–2167, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2149-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2149-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We present a methodology for documenting numerical experiments in the context of an information sharing ecosystem which allows the weather, climate, and earth system modelling community to accurately document and share information about their modelling workflow. We describe how through iteration with a range of stakeholders, we rationalized multiple sources of information and improved the clarity of experimental definitions for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6).
Venkatramani Balaji, Karl E. Taylor, Martin Juckes, Bryan N. Lawrence, Paul J. Durack, Michael Lautenschlager, Chris Blanton, Luca Cinquini, Sébastien Denvil, Mark Elkington, Francesca Guglielmo, Eric Guilyardi, David Hassell, Slava Kharin, Stefan Kindermann, Sergey Nikonov, Aparna Radhakrishnan, Martina Stockhause, Tobias Weigel, and Dean Williams
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 3659–3680, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3659-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3659-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
We present recommendations for the global data infrastructure needed to support CMIP scientific design and its future growth and evolution. We follow a dataset-centric design less prone to systemic failure. Scientific publication in the digital age is evolving to make data a primary scientific output, alongside articles. We design toward that future scientific data ecosystem, informed by the need for reproducibility, data provenance, future data technologies, and measures of costs and benefits.
Reinhard Schiemann, Pier Luigi Vidale, Len C. Shaffrey, Stephanie J. Johnson, Malcolm J. Roberts, Marie-Estelle Demory, Matthew S. Mizielinski, and Jane Strachan
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 3933–3950, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-3933-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-3933-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
A new generation of global climate models with resolutions between 50 and 10 km is becoming available. Here, we assess how well one such model simulates European precipitation. We find clear improvements in the mean precipitation pattern, and importantly also for extreme daily precipitation over 30 major European river basins. Despite remaining limitations, new high-resolution global models hold great promise for improved climate predictions of European precipitation at impact-relevant scales.
Bryan N. Lawrence, Michael Rezny, Reinhard Budich, Peter Bauer, Jörg Behrens, Mick Carter, Willem Deconinck, Rupert Ford, Christopher Maynard, Steven Mullerworth, Carlos Osuna, Andrew Porter, Kim Serradell, Sophie Valcke, Nils Wedi, and Simon Wilson
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1799–1821, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1799-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1799-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Weather and climate models consist of complex software evolving in response to both scientific requirements and changing computing hardware. After years of relatively stable hardware, more diversity is arriving. It is possible that this hardware diversity and the pace of change may lead to an inability for modelling groups to manage their software development. This
chasmbetween aspiration and reality may need to be bridged by large community efforts rather than traditional
in-houseefforts.
Masa Kageyama, Pascale Braconnot, Sandy P. Harrison, Alan M. Haywood, Johann H. Jungclaus, Bette L. Otto-Bliesner, Jean-Yves Peterschmitt, Ayako Abe-Ouchi, Samuel Albani, Patrick J. Bartlein, Chris Brierley, Michel Crucifix, Aisling Dolan, Laura Fernandez-Donado, Hubertus Fischer, Peter O. Hopcroft, Ruza F. Ivanovic, Fabrice Lambert, Daniel J. Lunt, Natalie M. Mahowald, W. Richard Peltier, Steven J. Phipps, Didier M. Roche, Gavin A. Schmidt, Lev Tarasov, Paul J. Valdes, Qiong Zhang, and Tianjun Zhou
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1033–1057, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1033-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1033-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
The Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project (PMIP) takes advantage of the existence of past climate states radically different from the recent past to test climate models used for climate projections and to better understand these climates. This paper describes the PMIP contribution to CMIP6 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, 6th phase) and possible analyses based on PMIP results, as well as on other CMIP6 projects.
David Hassell, Jonathan Gregory, Jon Blower, Bryan N. Lawrence, and Karl E. Taylor
Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 4619–4646, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4619-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4619-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
We present a formal data model for version 1.6 of the CF (Climate and Forecast) metadata conventions that provide a description of the physical meaning of geoscientific data and their spatial and temporal properties. We describe the CF conventions and how they lead to our CF data model, and compare it other data models for storing data and metadata. We present cf-python version 2.1: a software implementation of the CF data model capable of manipulating any CF-compliant dataset.
Bette L. Otto-Bliesner, Pascale Braconnot, Sandy P. Harrison, Daniel J. Lunt, Ayako Abe-Ouchi, Samuel Albani, Patrick J. Bartlein, Emilie Capron, Anders E. Carlson, Andrea Dutton, Hubertus Fischer, Heiko Goelzer, Aline Govin, Alan Haywood, Fortunat Joos, Allegra N. LeGrande, William H. Lipscomb, Gerrit Lohmann, Natalie Mahowald, Christoph Nehrbass-Ahles, Francesco S. R. Pausata, Jean-Yves Peterschmitt, Steven J. Phipps, Hans Renssen, and Qiong Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 3979–4003, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-3979-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-3979-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
The PMIP4 and CMIP6 mid-Holocene and Last Interglacial simulations provide an opportunity to examine the impact of two different changes in insolation forcing on climate at times when other forcings were relatively similar to present. This will allow exploration of the role of feedbacks relevant to future projections. Evaluating these simulations using paleoenvironmental data will provide direct out-of-sample tests of the reliability of state-of-the-art models to simulate climate changes.
Masa Kageyama, Samuel Albani, Pascale Braconnot, Sandy P. Harrison, Peter O. Hopcroft, Ruza F. Ivanovic, Fabrice Lambert, Olivier Marti, W. Richard Peltier, Jean-Yves Peterschmitt, Didier M. Roche, Lev Tarasov, Xu Zhang, Esther C. Brady, Alan M. Haywood, Allegra N. LeGrande, Daniel J. Lunt, Natalie M. Mahowald, Uwe Mikolajewicz, Kerim H. Nisancioglu, Bette L. Otto-Bliesner, Hans Renssen, Robert A. Tomas, Qiong Zhang, Ayako Abe-Ouchi, Patrick J. Bartlein, Jian Cao, Qiang Li, Gerrit Lohmann, Rumi Ohgaito, Xiaoxu Shi, Evgeny Volodin, Kohei Yoshida, Xiao Zhang, and Weipeng Zheng
Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 4035–4055, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4035-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4035-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM, 21000 years ago) is an interval when global ice volume was at a maximum, eustatic sea level close to a minimum, greenhouse gas concentrations were lower, atmospheric aerosol loadings were higher than today, and vegetation and land-surface characteristics were different from today. This paper describes the implementation of the LGM numerical experiment for the PMIP4-CMIP6 modelling intercomparison projects and the associated sensitivity experiments.
Venkatramani Balaji, Eric Maisonnave, Niki Zadeh, Bryan N. Lawrence, Joachim Biercamp, Uwe Fladrich, Giovanni Aloisio, Rusty Benson, Arnaud Caubel, Jeffrey Durachta, Marie-Alice Foujols, Grenville Lister, Silvia Mocavero, Seth Underwood, and Garrett Wright
Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 19–34, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-19-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-19-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
Climate models are among the most computationally expensive scientific applications in the world. We present a set of measures of computational performance that can be used to compare models that are independent of underlying hardware and the model formulation. They are easy to collect and reflect performance actually achieved in practice. We are preparing a systematic effort to collect these metrics for the world's climate models during CMIP6, the next Climate Model Intercomparison Project.
Reindert J. Haarsma, Malcolm J. Roberts, Pier Luigi Vidale, Catherine A. Senior, Alessio Bellucci, Qing Bao, Ping Chang, Susanna Corti, Neven S. Fučkar, Virginie Guemas, Jost von Hardenberg, Wilco Hazeleger, Chihiro Kodama, Torben Koenigk, L. Ruby Leung, Jian Lu, Jing-Jia Luo, Jiafu Mao, Matthew S. Mizielinski, Ryo Mizuta, Paulo Nobre, Masaki Satoh, Enrico Scoccimarro, Tido Semmler, Justin Small, and Jin-Song von Storch
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 4185–4208, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-4185-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-4185-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
Recent progress in computing power has enabled climate models to simulate more processes in detail and on a smaller scale. Here we present a common protocol for these high-resolution runs that will foster the analysis and understanding of the impact of model resolution on the simulated climate. These runs will also serve as a more reliable source for assessing climate risks that are associated with small-scale weather phenomena such as tropical cyclones.
William J. Gutowski Jr., Filippo Giorgi, Bertrand Timbal, Anne Frigon, Daniela Jacob, Hyun-Suk Kang, Krishnan Raghavan, Boram Lee, Christopher Lennard, Grigory Nikulin, Eleanor O'Rourke, Michel Rixen, Silvina Solman, Tannecia Stephenson, and Fredolin Tangang
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 4087–4095, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-4087-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-4087-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
The Coordinated Regional Downscaling Experiment (CORDEX) is a diagnostic MIP in CMIP6. CORDEX builds on a foundation of previous downscaling intercomparison projects to provide a common framework for downscaling activities around the world. The CORDEX Regional Challenges provide a focus for downscaling research and a basis for making use of CMIP6 global output to produce downscaled projected changes in regional climates, and assess sources of uncertainties in the projections.
Svenja Bartsch, Bertrand Guenet, Christophe Boissard, Juliette Lathière, Jean-Yves Peterschmitt, Annemiek Stegehuis, Ilja-M. Reiter, Thierry Gauquelin, Virginie Baldy, and Catherine Fernandez
Biogeosciences Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2016-491, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2016-491, 2016
Revised manuscript not accepted
Short summary
Short summary
Mediterranean ecosystems are significant carbon sinks but the carbon dynamic in such ecosystem is still not fully understood. An improved understanding of the drivers of the carbon fixation by plants is needed to better predict how such ecosystems will respond to climate change. We showed that annual precipitation was not a significant driver of annual carbon fixation by plants.
Veronika Eyring, Peter J. Gleckler, Christoph Heinze, Ronald J. Stouffer, Karl E. Taylor, V. Balaji, Eric Guilyardi, Sylvie Joussaume, Stephan Kindermann, Bryan N. Lawrence, Gerald A. Meehl, Mattia Righi, and Dean N. Williams
Earth Syst. Dynam., 7, 813–830, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-813-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-813-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
We argue that the CMIP community has reached a critical juncture at which many baseline aspects of model evaluation need to be performed much more efficiently to enable a systematic and rapid performance assessment of the large number of models participating in CMIP, and we announce our intention to implement such a system for CMIP6. At the same time, continuous scientific research is required to develop innovative metrics and diagnostics that help narrowing the spread in climate projections.
George J. Boer, Douglas M. Smith, Christophe Cassou, Francisco Doblas-Reyes, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Ben Kirtman, Yochanan Kushnir, Masahide Kimoto, Gerald A. Meehl, Rym Msadek, Wolfgang A. Mueller, Karl E. Taylor, Francis Zwiers, Michel Rixen, Yohan Ruprich-Robert, and Rosie Eade
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3751–3777, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3751-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3751-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
The Decadal Climate Prediction Project (DCPP) investigates our ability to skilfully predict climate variations from a year to a decade ahead by means of a series of retrospective forecasts. Quasi-real-time forecasts are also produced for potential users. In addition, the DCPP investigates how perturbations such as volcanoes affect forecasts and, more broadly, what new information can be learned about the mechanisms governing climate variations by means of case studies of past climate behaviour.
Bette L. Otto-Bliesner, Pascale Braconnot, Sandy P. Harrison, Daniel J. Lunt, Ayako Abe-Ouchi, Samuel Albani, Patrick J. Bartlein, Emilie Capron, Anders E. Carlson, Andrea Dutton, Hubertus Fischer, Heiko Goelzer, Aline Govin, Alan Haywood, Fortunat Joos, Allegra N. Legrande, William H. Lipscomb, Gerrit Lohmann, Natalie Mahowald, Christoph Nehrbass-Ahles, Jean-Yves Peterschmidt, Francesco S.-R. Pausata, Steven Phipps, and Hans Renssen
Clim. Past Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2016-106, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2016-106, 2016
Preprint retracted
Helene T. Hewitt, Malcolm J. Roberts, Pat Hyder, Tim Graham, Jamie Rae, Stephen E. Belcher, Romain Bourdallé-Badie, Dan Copsey, Andrew Coward, Catherine Guiavarch, Chris Harris, Richard Hill, Joël J.-M. Hirschi, Gurvan Madec, Matthew S. Mizielinski, Erica Neininger, Adrian L. New, Jean-Christophe Rioual, Bablu Sinha, David Storkey, Ann Shelly, Livia Thorpe, and Richard A. Wood
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3655–3670, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3655-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3655-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
We examine the impact in a coupled model of increasing atmosphere and ocean horizontal resolution and the frequency of coupling between the atmosphere and ocean. We demonstrate that increasing the ocean resolution from 1/4 degree to 1/12 degree has a major impact on ocean circulation and global heat transports. The results add to the body of evidence suggesting that ocean resolution is an important consideration when developing coupled models for weather and climate applications.
Stephen M. Griffies, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Paul J. Durack, Alistair J. Adcroft, V. Balaji, Claus W. Böning, Eric P. Chassignet, Enrique Curchitser, Julie Deshayes, Helge Drange, Baylor Fox-Kemper, Peter J. Gleckler, Jonathan M. Gregory, Helmuth Haak, Robert W. Hallberg, Patrick Heimbach, Helene T. Hewitt, David M. Holland, Tatiana Ilyina, Johann H. Jungclaus, Yoshiki Komuro, John P. Krasting, William G. Large, Simon J. Marsland, Simona Masina, Trevor J. McDougall, A. J. George Nurser, James C. Orr, Anna Pirani, Fangli Qiao, Ronald J. Stouffer, Karl E. Taylor, Anne Marie Treguier, Hiroyuki Tsujino, Petteri Uotila, Maria Valdivieso, Qiang Wang, Michael Winton, and Stephen G. Yeager
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3231–3296, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3231-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3231-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
The Ocean Model Intercomparison Project (OMIP) aims to provide a framework for evaluating, understanding, and improving the ocean and sea-ice components of global climate and earth system models contributing to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). This document defines OMIP and details a protocol both for simulating global ocean/sea-ice models and for analysing their output.
Duncan Watson-Parris, Nick Schutgens, Nicholas Cook, Zak Kipling, Philip Kershaw, Edward Gryspeerdt, Bryan Lawrence, and Philip Stier
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3093–3110, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3093-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3093-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper we describe CIS, a new command line tool for the easy visualization, analysis and comparison of a wide variety of gridded and ungridded data sets used in Earth sciences. Users can now use a single tool to not only view plots of satellite, aircraft, station or model data, but also bring them onto the same spatio-temporal sampling. This allows robust, quantitative comparisons to be made easily. CIS is an open-source project and welcomes input from the community.
Veronika Eyring, Sandrine Bony, Gerald A. Meehl, Catherine A. Senior, Bjorn Stevens, Ronald J. Stouffer, and Karl E. Taylor
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1937–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
The objective of CMIP is to better understand past, present, and future climate change in a multi-model context. CMIP's increasing importance and scope is a tremendous success story, but the need to address an ever-expanding range of scientific questions arising from more and more research communities has made it necessary to revise the organization of CMIP. In response to these challenges, we have adopted a more federated structure for the sixth phase of CMIP (i.e. CMIP6) and subsequent phases.
Veronika Eyring, Mattia Righi, Axel Lauer, Martin Evaldsson, Sabrina Wenzel, Colin Jones, Alessandro Anav, Oliver Andrews, Irene Cionni, Edouard L. Davin, Clara Deser, Carsten Ehbrecht, Pierre Friedlingstein, Peter Gleckler, Klaus-Dirk Gottschaldt, Stefan Hagemann, Martin Juckes, Stephan Kindermann, John Krasting, Dominik Kunert, Richard Levine, Alexander Loew, Jarmo Mäkelä, Gill Martin, Erik Mason, Adam S. Phillips, Simon Read, Catherine Rio, Romain Roehrig, Daniel Senftleben, Andreas Sterl, Lambertus H. van Ulft, Jeremy Walton, Shiyu Wang, and Keith D. Williams
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1747–1802, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1747-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1747-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
A community diagnostics and performance metrics tool for the evaluation of Earth system models (ESMs) in CMIP has been developed that allows for routine comparison of single or multiple models, either against predecessor versions or against observations.
Roland Séférian, Christine Delire, Bertrand Decharme, Aurore Voldoire, David Salas y Melia, Matthieu Chevallier, David Saint-Martin, Olivier Aumont, Jean-Christophe Calvet, Dominique Carrer, Hervé Douville, Laurent Franchistéguy, Emilie Joetzjer, and Séphane Sénési
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1423–1453, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1423-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1423-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents the first IPCC-class Earth system model developed at Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques (CNRM-ESM1). We detail how the various carbon reservoirs were initialized and analyze the behavior of the carbon cycle and its prominent physical drivers, comparing model results to the most up-to-date climate and carbon cycle dataset over the latest decades.
A. Abe-Ouchi, F. Saito, M. Kageyama, P. Braconnot, S. P. Harrison, K. Lambeck, B. L. Otto-Bliesner, W. R. Peltier, L. Tarasov, J.-Y. Peterschmitt, and K. Takahashi
Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 3621–3637, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3621-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3621-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
We describe the creation of boundary conditions related to the presence of ice sheets, including ice-sheet extent and height, ice-shelf extent, and the distribution and altitude of ice-free land, at the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), for use in LGM experiments conducted as part of the Coupled Modelling Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) and Palaeoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project (PMIP3). The difference in the ice sheet boundary conditions as well as the climate response to them are discussed.
A. Cauquoin, A. Landais, G. M. Raisbeck, J. Jouzel, L. Bazin, M. Kageyama, J.-Y. Peterschmitt, M. Werner, E. Bard, and ASTER Team
Clim. Past, 11, 355–367, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-11-355-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-11-355-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
We present a new 10Be record at EDC between 269 and 355ka. Our 10Be-based accumulation rate is in good agreement with the one associated with the EDC3 timescale except for the warm MIS 9.3 optimum. This suggests that temperature reconstruction from water isotopes may be underestimated by 2.4K for the difference between the MIS 9.3 and present day. The CMIP5-PMIP3 models do not quantitatively reproduce changes in precipitation vs. temperature increase during glacial–interglacial transitions.
M. S. Mizielinski, M. J. Roberts, P. L. Vidale, R. Schiemann, M.-E. Demory, J. Strachan, T. Edwards, A. Stephens, B. N. Lawrence, M. Pritchard, P. Chiu, A. Iwi, J. Churchill, C. del Cano Novales, J. Kettleborough, W. Roseblade, P. Selwood, M. Foster, M. Glover, and A. Malcolm
Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 1629–1640, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-1629-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-1629-2014, 2014
M.-P. Moine, S. Valcke, B. N. Lawrence, C. Pascoe, R. W. Ford, A. Alias, V. Balaji, P. Bentley, G. Devine, S. A. Callaghan, and E. Guilyardi
Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 479–493, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-479-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-479-2014, 2014
P. Huszar, H. Teyssèdre, M. Michou, A. Voldoire, D. J. L. Olivié, D. Saint-Martin, D. Cariolle, S. Senesi, D. Salas Y Melia, A. Alias, F. Karcher, P. Ricaud, and T. Halenka
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 10027–10048, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-10027-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-13-10027-2013, 2013
Related subject area
Climate and Earth system modeling
WRF–ML v1.0: a bridge between WRF v4.3 and machine learning parameterizations and its application to atmospheric radiative transfer
The Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change (CMCC) decadal prediction system
Climate impacts of parameterizing subgrid variation and partitioning of land surface heat fluxes to the atmosphere with the NCAR CESM1.2
Accelerated photosynthesis routine in LPJmL4
Improving scalability of Earth system models through coarse-grained component concurrency – a case study with the ICON v2.6.5 modelling system
Temperature forecasting by deep learning methods
Pathfinder v1.0.1: a Bayesian-inferred simple carbon–climate model to explore climate change scenarios
Inclusion of a cold hardening scheme to represent frost tolerance is essential to model realistic plant hydraulics in the Arctic–boreal zone in CLM5.0-FATES-Hydro
Implementation and evaluation of the GEOS-Chem chemistry module version 13.1.2 within the Community Earth System Model v2.1
Assessment of JSBACHv4.30 as a land component of ICON-ESM-V1 in comparison to its predecessor JSBACHv3.2 of MPI-ESM1.2
Global biomass burning fuel consumption and emissions at 500 m spatial resolution based on the Global Fire Emissions Database (GFED)
Impact of increased resolution on the representation of the Canary upwelling system in climate models
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
Introducing the VIIRS-based Fire Emission Inventory version 0 (VFEIv0)
Impact of physical parameterizations on wind simulation with WRF V3.9.1.1 under stable conditions at planetary boundary layer gray-zone resolution: a case study over the coastal regions of North China
Advancing precipitation prediction using a new-generation storm-resolving model framework – SIMA-MPAS (V1.0): a case study over the western United States
SURFER v2.0: a flexible and simple model linking anthropogenic CO2 emissions and solar radiation modification to ocean acidification and sea level rise
A new bootstrap technique to quantify uncertainty in estimates of ground surface temperature and ground heat flux histories from geothermal data
Modeling the topographic influence on aboveground biomass using a coupled model of hillslope hydrology and ecosystem dynamics
Impacts of the ice-particle size distribution shape parameter on climate simulations with the Community Atmosphere Model Version 6 (CAM6)
A modeling framework to understand historical and projected ocean climate change in large coupled ensembles
TriCCo v1.1.0 – a cubulation-based method for computing connected components on triangular grids
Estimation of missing building height in OpenStreetMap data: a French case study using GeoClimate 0.0.1
The Moist Quasi-Geostrophic Coupled Model: MQ-GCM 2.0
Cell tracking of convective rainfall: sensitivity of climate-change signal to tracking algorithm and cell definition (Cell-TAO v1.0)
Transport parameterization of the Polar SWIFT model (version 2)
Analog data assimilation for the selection of suitable general circulation models
Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis for probabilistic weather and climate-risk modelling: an implementation in CLIMADA v.3.1.0
Grid refinement in ICON v2.6.4
Classification of tropical cyclone containing images using a convolutional neural network: performance and sensitivity to the learning dataset
The ICON-A model for direct QBO simulations on GPUs (version icon-cscs:baf28a514)
Evaluation of Native Earth System Model Output with ESMValTool v2.6.0
Further improvement and evaluation of nudging in the E3SM Atmosphere Model version 1 (EAMv1): simulations of the mean climate, weather events, and anthropogenic aerosol effects
HORAYZON v1.2: an efficient and flexible ray-tracing algorithm to compute horizon and sky view factor
LPJ-GUESS/LSMv1.0: a next-generation land surface model with high ecological realism
Downscaling multi-model climate projection ensembles with deep learning (DeepESD): contribution to CORDEX EUR-44
Intercomparison of four algorithms for detecting tropical cyclones using ERA5
Inland lake temperature initialization via coupled cycling with atmospheric data assimilation
wavetrisk-2.1: an adaptive dynamical core for ocean modelling
Representing surface heterogeneity in land–atmosphere coupling in E3SMv1 single-column model over ARM SGP during summertime
AWI-CM3 coupled climate model: description and evaluation experiments for a prototype post-CMIP6 model
The Seasonal-to-Multiyear Large Ensemble (SMYLE) prediction system using the Community Earth System Model version 2
Combining Regional Mesh Refinement With Vertically Enhanced Physics to Target Marine Stratocumulus Biases
Comparison and evaluation of updates to WRF-Chem (v3.9) biogenic emissions using MEGAN
Checkerboard patterns in E3SMv2 and E3SM-MMFv2
AttentionFire_v1.0: interpretable machine learning fire model for burned area predictions over tropics
MIdASv0.2.1 – MultI-scale bias AdjuStment
Assessing methods for representing soil heterogeneity through a flexible approach within the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES) at version 3.4.1
FOCI-MOPS v1 – integration of marine biogeochemistry within the Flexible Ocean and Climate Infrastructure version 1 (FOCI 1) Earth system model
Assessment of the Paris urban heat island in ERA5 and offline SURFEX-TEB (v8.1) simulations using the METEOSAT land surface temperature product
Xiaohui Zhong, Zhijian Ma, Yichen Yao, Lifei Xu, Yuan Wu, and Zhibin Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 199–209, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-199-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-199-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
More and more researchers use deep learning models to replace physics-based parameterizations to accelerate weather simulations. However, embedding the ML models within the weather models is difficult as they are implemented in different languages. This work proposes a coupling framework to allow ML-based parameterizations to be coupled with the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model. We also demonstrate using the coupler to couple the ML-based radiation schemes with the WRF model.
Dario Nicolì, Alessio Bellucci, Paolo Ruggieri, Panos J. Athanasiadis, Stefano Materia, Daniele Peano, Giusy Fedele, Riccardo Hénin, and Silvio Gualdi
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 179–197, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-179-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-179-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Decadal climate predictions, obtained by constraining the initial condition of a dynamical model through a truthful estimate of the observed climate state, provide an accurate assessment of the near-term climate and are useful for informing decision-makers on future climate-related risks. The predictive skill for key variables is assessed from the operational decadal prediction system compared with non-initialized historical simulations so as to quantify the added value of initialization.
Ming Yin, Yilun Han, Yong Wang, Wenqi Sun, Jianbo Deng, Daoming Wei, Ying Kong, and Bin Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 135–156, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-135-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-135-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
All global climate models (GCMs) use the grid-averaged surface heat fluxes to drive the atmosphere, and thus their horizontal variations within the grid cell are averaged out. In this regard, a novel scheme considering the variation and partitioning of the surface heat fluxes within the grid cell is developed. The scheme reduces the long-standing rainfall biases on the southern and eastern margins of the Tibetan Plateau. The performance of key variables at the global scale is also evaluated.
Jenny Niebsch, Werner von Bloh, Kirsten Thonicke, and Ronny Ramlau
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 17–33, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-17-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-17-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The impacts of climate change require strategies for climate adaptation. Dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) are used to study the effects of multiple processes in the biosphere under climate change. There is a demand for a better computational performance of the models. In this paper, the photosynthesis model in the Lund–Potsdam–Jena managed Land DGVM (4.0.002) was examined. We found a better numerical solution of a nonlinear equation. A significant run time reduction was possible.
Leonidas Linardakis, Irene Stemmler, Moritz Hanke, Lennart Ramme, Fatemeh Chegini, Tatiana Ilyina, and Peter Korn
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 9157–9176, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-9157-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-9157-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In Earth system modelling, we are facing the challenge of making efficient use of very large machines, with millions of cores. To meet this challenge we will need to employ multi-level and multi-dimensional parallelism. Component concurrency, being a function parallel technique, offers an additional dimension to the traditional data-parallel approaches. In this paper we examine the behaviour of component concurrency and identify the conditions for its optimal application.
Bing Gong, Michael Langguth, Yan Ji, Amirpasha Mozaffari, Scarlet Stadtler, Karim Mache, and Martin G. Schultz
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 8931–8956, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8931-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8931-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Inspired by the success of deep learning in various domains, we test the applicability of video prediction methods by generative adversarial network (GAN)-based deep learning to predict the 2 m temperature over Europe. Our video prediction models have skill in predicting the diurnal cycle of 2 m temperature up to 12 h ahead. Complemented by probing the relevance of several model parameters, this study confirms the potential of deep learning in meteorological forecasting applications.
Thomas Bossy, Thomas Gasser, and Philippe Ciais
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 8831–8868, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8831-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8831-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We developed a new simple climate model designed to fill a perceived gap within the existing simple climate models by fulfilling three key requirements: calibration using Bayesian inference, the possibility of coupling with integrated assessment models, and the capacity to explore climate scenarios compatible with limiting climate impacts. Here, we describe the model and its calibration using the latest data from complex CMIP6 models and the IPCC AR6, and we assess its performance.
Marius S. A. Lambert, Hui Tang, Kjetil S. Aas, Frode Stordal, Rosie A. Fisher, Yilin Fang, Junyan Ding, and Frans-Jan W. Parmentier
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 8809–8829, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8809-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8809-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we implement a hardening mortality scheme into CTSM5.0-FATES-Hydro and evaluate how it impacts plant hydraulics and vegetation growth. Our work shows that the hydraulic modifications prescribed by the hardening scheme are necessary to model realistic vegetation growth in cold climates, in contrast to the default model that simulates almost nonexistent and declining vegetation due to abnormally large water loss through the roots.
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
Short summary
We bring the state-of-the-science chemistry module GEOS-Chem into the Community Earth System Model (CESM). We show that some known differences between results from GEOS-Chem and CESM's CAM-chem chemistry module may be due to the configuration of model meteorology rather than inherent differences in the model chemistry. This is a significant step towards a truly modular Earth system model and allows two strong but currently separate research communities to benefit from each other's advances.
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
Short summary
The versions of ICON-A and ICON-Land/JSBACHv4 used for this study constitute the first milestone in the development of the new ICON Earth System Model ICON-ESM. JSBACHv4 is the successor of JSBACHv3, and most of the parameterizations of JSBACHv4 are re-implementations from JSBACHv3. We assess and compare the performance of JSBACHv4 and JSBACHv3. Overall, the JSBACHv4 results are as good as JSBACHv3, but both models reveal the same main shortcomings, e.g. the depiction of the leaf area index.
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
Short summary
We present a global fire emission model based on the GFED model framework with a spatial resolution of 500 m. The higher resolution allowed for a more detailed representation of spatial heterogeneity in fuels and emissions. Specific modules were developed to model, for example, emissions from fire-related forest loss and belowground burning. Results from the 500 m model were compared to GFED4s, showing that global emissions were relatively similar but that spatial differences were substantial.
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
Short summary
Increasing model resolution depends on the subdomain of the Canary upwelling considered. In the Iberian Peninsula, the high-resolution (HR) models do not seem to better simulate the upwelling indices, while in Morocco to the Senegalese coast, the HR models show a clear improvement. Thus increasing the resolution of a global climate model does not necessarily have to be the only way to better represent the climate system. There is still much work to be done in terms of physical parameterizations.
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
Short summary
Solar climate intervention using stratospheric aerosol injection is a proposed method of reducing global mean temperatures to reduce the worst consequences of climate change. We present a new modeling protocol aimed at simulating a plausible deployment of stratospheric aerosol injection and reproducibility of simulations using other Earth system models: Assessing Responses and Impacts of Solar climate intervention on the Earth system with stratospheric aerosol injection (ARISE-SAI).
Gonzalo A. Ferrada, Meng Zhou, Jun Wang, Alexei Lyapustin, Yujie Wang, Saulo R. Freitas, and Gregory R. Carmichael
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 8085–8109, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8085-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8085-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The smoke from fires is composed of different compounds that interact with the atmosphere and can create poor air-quality episodes. Here, we present a new fire inventory based on satellite observations from the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS). We named this inventory the VIIRS-based Fire Emission Inventory (VFEI). Advantages of VFEI are its high resolution (~500 m) and that it provides information for many species. VFEI is publicly available and has provided data since 2012.
Entao Yu, Rui Bai, Xia Chen, and Lifang Shao
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 8111–8134, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8111-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8111-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
A large number of simulations are conducted to investigate how different physical parameterization schemes impact surface wind simulations under stable weather conditions over the coastal regions of North China using the Weather Research and Forecasting model with a horizontal grid spacing of 0.5 km. Results indicate that the simulated wind speed is most sensitive to the planetary boundary layer schemes, followed by short-wave/long-wave radiation schemes and microphysics schemes.
Xingying Huang, Andrew Gettelman, William C. Skamarock, Peter Hjort Lauritzen, Miles Curry, Adam Herrington, John T. Truesdale, and Michael Duda
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 8135–8151, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8135-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8135-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We focus on the recent development of a state-of-the-art storm-resolving global climate model and investigate how this next-generation model performs for precipitation prediction over the western USA. Results show realistic representations of precipitation with significantly enhanced snowpack over complex terrains. The model evaluation advances the unified modeling of large-scale forcing constraints and realistic fine-scale features to advance multi-scale climate predictions and changes.
Marina Martínez Montero, Michel Crucifix, Victor Couplet, Nuria Brede, and Nicola Botta
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 8059–8084, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8059-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8059-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We present SURFER, a lightweight model that links CO2 emissions and geoengineering to ocean acidification and sea level rise from glaciers, ocean thermal expansion and Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. The ice sheet module adequately describes the tipping points of both Greenland and Antarctica. SURFER is understandable, fast, accurate up to several thousands of years, capable of emulating results obtained by state of the art models and well suited for policy analyses.
Francisco José Cuesta-Valero, Hugo Beltrami, Stephan Gruber, Almudena García-García, and J. Fidel González-Rouco
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 7913–7932, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7913-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7913-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Inversions of subsurface temperature profiles provide past long-term estimates of ground surface temperature histories and ground heat flux histories at timescales of decades to millennia. Theses estimates complement high-frequency proxy temperature reconstructions and are the basis for studying continental heat storage. We develop and release a new bootstrap method to derive meaningful confidence intervals for the average surface temperature and heat flux histories from any number of profiles.
Yilin Fang, L. Ruby Leung, Charles D. Koven, Gautam Bisht, Matteo Detto, Yanyan Cheng, Nate McDowell, Helene Muller-Landau, S. Joseph Wright, and Jeffrey Q. Chambers
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 7879–7901, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7879-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7879-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We develop a model that integrates an Earth system model with a three-dimensional hydrology model to explicitly resolve hillslope topography and water flow underneath the land surface to understand how local-scale hydrologic processes modulate vegetation along water availability gradients. Our coupled model can be used to improve the understanding of the diverse impact of local heterogeneity and water flux on nutrient availability and plant communities.
Wentao Zhang, Xiangjun Shi, and Chunsong Lu
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 7751–7766, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7751-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7751-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The two-moment bulk cloud microphysics scheme used in CAM6 was modified to consider the impacts of the ice-crystal size distribution shape parameter (μi). After that, how the μi impacts cloud microphysical processes and then climate simulations is clearly illustrated by offline tests and CAM6 model experiments. Our results and findings are useful for the further development of μi-related parameterizations.
Yona Silvy, Clément Rousset, Eric Guilyardi, Jean-Baptiste Sallée, Juliette Mignot, Christian Ethé, and Gurvan Madec
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 7683–7713, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7683-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7683-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
A modeling framework is introduced to understand and decompose the mechanisms causing the ocean temperature, salinity and circulation to change since the pre-industrial period and into 21st century scenarios of global warming. This framework aims to look at the response to changes in the winds and in heat and freshwater exchanges at the ocean interface in global climate models, throughout the 1850–2100 period, to unravel their individual effects on the changing physical structure of the ocean.
Aiko Voigt, Petra Schwer, Noam von Rotberg, and Nicole Knopf
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 7489–7504, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7489-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7489-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In climate science, it is helpful to identify coherent objects, for example, those formed by clouds. However, many models now use unstructured grids, which makes it harder to identify coherent objects. We present a new method that solves this problem by moving model data from an unstructured triangular grid to a structured cubical grid. We implement the method in an open-source Python package and show that the method is ready to be applied to climate model data.
Jérémy Bernard, Erwan Bocher, Elisabeth Le Saux Wiederhold, François Leconte, and Valéry Masson
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 7505–7532, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7505-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7505-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
OpenStreetMap is a collaborative project aimed at creaing a free dataset containing topographical information. Since these data are available worldwide, they can be used as standard data for geoscience studies. However, most buildings miss the height information that constitutes key data for numerous fields (urban climate, noise propagation, air pollution). In this work, the building height is estimated using statistical modeling using indicators that characterize the building's environment.
Sergey Kravtsov, Ilijana Mastilovic, Andrew McC. Hogg, William K. Dewar, and Jeffrey R. Blundell
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 7449–7469, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7449-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7449-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Climate is a complex system whose behavior is shaped by multitudes of processes operating on widely different spatial scales and timescales. In hierarchical modeling, one goes back and forth between highly idealized process models and state-of-the-art models coupling the entire range of climate subsystems to identify specific phenomena and understand their dynamics. The present contribution highlights an intermediate climate model focussing on midlatitude ocean–atmosphere interactions.
Edmund P. Meredith, Uwe Ulbrich, and Henning W. Rust
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-202, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-202, 2022
Revised manuscript accepted for GMD
Short summary
Short summary
Cell tracking algorithms allow the properties of a convective cell to be studied across its lifetime and, in particular, how these respond to climate change. We investigated whether the design of the algorithm can affect the magnitude of the climate-change signal. The algorithm’s criteria for identifying a cell were found to have a strong impact on the warming response. The sensitivity of the warming response to different algorithm settings and cell types should thus be fully explored.
Ingo Wohltmann, Daniel Kreyling, and Ralph Lehmann
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 7243–7255, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7243-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7243-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The study evaluates the performance of the Data Assimilation Research Testbed (DART), equipped with the recently added forward operator Radiative Transfer for TOVS (RTTOV), in assimilating FY-4A visible images into the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model. The ability of the WRF-DART/RTTOV system to improve the forecasting skills for a tropical storm over East Asia and the Western Pacific is demonstrated in an Observing System Simulation Experiment framework.
Juan Ruiz, Pierre Ailliot, Thi Tuyet Trang Chau, Pierre Le Bras, Valérie Monbet, Florian Sévellec, and Pierre Tandeo
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 7203–7220, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7203-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7203-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We present a new approach to validate numerical simulations of the current climate. The method can take advantage of existing climate simulations produced by different centers combining an analog forecasting approach with data assimilation to quantify how well a particular model reproduces a sequence of observed values. The method can be applied with different observations types and is implemented locally in space and time significantly reducing the associated computational cost.
Chahan M. Kropf, Alessio Ciullo, Laura Otth, Simona Meiler, Arun Rana, Emanuel Schmid, Jamie W. McCaughey, and David N. Bresch
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 7177–7201, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7177-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7177-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Mathematical models are approximations, and modellers need to understand and ideally quantify the arising uncertainties. Here, we describe and showcase the first, simple-to-use, uncertainty and sensitivity analysis module of the open-source and open-access climate-risk modelling platform CLIMADA. This may help to enhance transparency and intercomparison of studies among climate-risk modellers, help focus future research, and lead to better-informed decisions on climate adaptation.
Günther Zängl, Daniel Reinert, and Florian Prill
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 7153–7176, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7153-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7153-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This article describes the implementation of grid refinement in the ICOsahedral Nonhydrostatic (ICON) model, which has been jointly developed at several German institutions and constitutes a unified modeling system for global and regional numerical weather prediction and climate applications. The grid refinement allows using a higher resolution in regional domains and transferring the information back to the global domain by means of a feedback mechanism.
Sébastien Gardoll and Olivier Boucher
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 7051–7073, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7051-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-7051-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Tropical cyclones (TCs) are one of the most devastating natural disasters, which justifies monitoring and prediction in the context of a changing climate. In this study, we have adapted and tested a convolutional neural network (CNN) for the classification of reanalysis outputs (ERA5 and MERRA-2 labeled by HURDAT2) according to the presence or absence of TCs. We tested the impact of interpolation and of "mixing and matching" the training and test sets on the performance of the CNN.
Marco A. Giorgetta, William Sawyer, Xavier Lapillonne, Panagiotis Adamidis, Dmitry Alexeev, Valentin Clément, Remo Dietlicher, Jan Frederik Engels, Monika Esch, Henning Franke, Claudia Frauen, Walter M. Hannah, Benjamin R. Hillman, Luis Kornblueh, Philippe Marti, Matthew R. Norman, Robert Pincus, Sebastian Rast, Daniel Reinert, Reiner Schnur, Uwe Schulzweida, and Bjorn Stevens
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6985–7016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6985-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6985-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This work presents a first version of the ICON atmosphere model that works not only on CPUs, but also on GPUs. This GPU-enabled ICON version is benchmarked on two GPU machines and a CPU machine. While the weak scaling is very good on CPUs and GPUs, the strong scaling is poor on GPUs. But the high performance of GPU machines allowed for first simulations of a short period of the quasi-biennial oscillation at very high resolution with explicit convection and gravity wave forcing.
Manuel Schlund, Birgit Hassler, Axel Lauer, Bouwe Andela, Patrick Jöckel, Rémi Kazeroni, Saskia Loosveldt Tomas, Brian Medeiros, Valeriu Predoi, Stéphane Sénési, Jérôme Servonnat, Tobias Stacke, Javier Vegas-Regidor, Klaus Zimmermann, and Veronika Eyring
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-205, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-205, 2022
Revised manuscript accepted for GMD
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) is a community diagnostics and performance metrics tool for routine evaluation of Earth system models. Originally, ESMValTool has been designed to process reformatted output provided by large model intercomparison projects like the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). Here, we describe a new extension of ESMValTool that allows reading and processing native climate model output, i.e., data that has not been reformatted before.
Shixuan Zhang, Kai Zhang, Hui Wan, and Jian Sun
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6787–6816, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6787-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6787-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates the nudging implementation in the EAMv1 model. We find that (1) revising the sequence of calculations and using higher-frequency constraining data to improve the performance of a simulation nudged to EAMv1’s own meteorology, (2) using the relocated nudging tendency and 3-hourly ERA5 reanalysis to obtain a better agreement between nudged simulations and observations, and (3) using wind-only nudging are recommended for the estimates of global mean aerosol effects.
Christian R. Steger, Benjamin Steger, and Christoph Schär
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6817–6840, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6817-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6817-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Terrain horizon and sky view factor are crucial quantities for many geoscientific applications; e.g. they are used to account for effects of terrain on surface radiation in climate and land surface models. Because typical terrain horizon algorithms are inefficient for high-resolution (< 30 m) elevation data, we developed a new algorithm based on a ray-tracing library. A comparison with two conventional methods revealed both its high performance and its accuracy for complex terrain.
David Martín Belda, Peter Anthoni, David Wårlind, Stefan Olin, Guy Schurgers, Jing Tang, Benjamin Smith, and Almut Arneth
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6709–6745, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6709-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6709-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We present a number of augmentations to the ecosystem model LPJ-GUESS, which will allow us to use it in studies of the interactions between the land biosphere and the climate. The new module enables calculation of fluxes of energy and water into the atmosphere that are consistent with the modelled vegetation processes. The modelled fluxes are in fair agreement with observations across 21 sites from the FLUXNET network.
Jorge Baño-Medina, Rodrigo Manzanas, Ezequiel Cimadevilla, Jesús Fernández, Jose González-Abad, Antonio S. Cofiño, and José Manuel Gutiérrez
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6747–6758, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6747-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6747-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Deep neural networks are used to produce downscaled regional climate change projections over Europe for temperature and precipitation for the first time. The resulting dataset, DeepESD, is analyzed against state-of-the-art downscaling methodologies, reproducing more accurately the observed climate in the historical period and showing plausible future climate change signals with low computational requirements.
Stella Bourdin, Sébastien Fromang, William Dulac, Julien Cattiaux, and Fabrice Chauvin
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6759–6786, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6759-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6759-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
When studying tropical cyclones in a large dataset, one needs objective and automatic procedures to detect their specific pattern. Applying four different such algorithms to a reconstruction of the climate, we show that the choice of the algorithm is crucial to the climatology obtained. Mainly, the algorithms differ in their sensitivity to weak storms so that they provide different frequencies and durations. We review the different options to consider for the choice of the tracking methodology.
Stanley G. Benjamin, Tatiana G. Smirnova, Eric P. James, Eric J. Anderson, Ayumi Fujisaki-Manome, John G. W. Kelley, Greg E. Mann, Andrew D. Gronewold, Philip Chu, and Sean G. T. Kelley
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6659–6676, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6659-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6659-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Application of 1-D lake models coupled within earth-system prediction models will improve accuracy but requires accurate initialization of lake temperatures. Here, we describe a lake initialization method by cycling within a weather prediction model to constrain lake temperature evolution. We compared these lake temperature values with other estimates and found much reduced errors (down to 1-2 K). The lake cycling initialization is now applied to two operational US NOAA weather models.
Nicholas K.-R. Kevlahan and Florian Lemarié
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6521–6539, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6521-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6521-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
WAVETRISK-2.1 is an innovative climate model for the world's oceans. It uses state-of-the-art techniques to change the model's resolution locally, from O(100 km) to O(5 km), as the ocean changes. This dynamic adaptivity makes optimal use of available supercomputer resources, and allows two-dimensional global scales and three-dimensional submesoscales to be captured in the same simulation. WAVETRISK-2.1 is designed to be coupled its companion global atmosphere model, WAVETRISK-1.x.
Meng Huang, Po-Lun Ma, Nathaniel W. Chaney, Dalei Hao, Gautam Bisht, Megan D. Fowler, Vincent E. Larson, and L. Ruby Leung
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6371–6384, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6371-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6371-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The land surface in one grid cell may be diverse in character. This study uses an explicit way to account for that subgrid diversity in a state-of-the-art Earth system model (ESM) and explores its implications for the overlying atmosphere. We find that the shallow clouds are increased significantly with the land surface diversity. Our work highlights the importance of accurately representing the land surface and its interaction with the atmosphere in next-generation ESMs.
Jan Streffing, Dmitry Sidorenko, Tido Semmler, Lorenzo Zampieri, Patrick Scholz, Miguel Andrés-Martínez, Nikolay Koldunov, Thomas Rackow, Joakim Kjellsson, Helge Goessling, Marylou Athanase, Qiang Wang, Jan Hegewald, Dmitry V. Sein, Longjiang Mu, Uwe Fladrich, Dirk Barbi, Paul Gierz, Sergey Danilov, Stephan Juricke, Gerrit Lohmann, and Thomas Jung
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6399–6427, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6399-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6399-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We developed a new atmosphere–ocean coupled climate model, AWI-CM3. Our model is significantly more computationally efficient than its predecessors AWI-CM1 and AWI-CM2. We show that the model, although cheaper to run, provides results of similar quality when modeling the historic period from 1850 to 2014. We identify the remaining weaknesses to outline future work. Finally we preview an improved simulation where the reduction in computational cost has to be invested in higher model resolution.
Stephen G. Yeager, Nan Rosenbloom, Anne A. Glanville, Xian Wu, Isla Simpson, Hui Li, Maria J. Molina, Kristen Krumhardt, Samuel Mogen, Keith Lindsay, Danica Lombardozzi, Will Wieder, Who M. Kim, Jadwiga H. Richter, Matthew Long, Gokhan Danabasoglu, David Bailey, Marika Holland, Nicole Lovenduski, Warren G. Strand, and Teagan King
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6451–6493, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6451-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6451-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth system changes over a range of time and space scales, and some of these changes are predictable in advance. Short-term weather forecasts are most familiar, but recent work has shown that it is possible to generate useful predictions several seasons or even a decade in advance. This study focuses on predictions over intermediate timescales (up to 24 months in advance) and shows that there is promising potential to forecast a variety of changes in the natural environment.
Peter A. Bogenschutz, Hsiang-He Lee, Qi Tang, and Takanobu Yamaguchi
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-175, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-175, 2022
Revised manuscript accepted for GMD
Short summary
Short summary
Models that are used to simulated and predict climate often have trouble representing specific cloud types, such as stratocumulus, that are particularly thin in the vertical direction. It has been found that increasing the model resolution can help improve this problem. In this paper we develop a novel framework that increases the horizontal and vertical resolution only for areas of the globe that contain stratocumulus, hence reducing model run-time while providing better results.
Mauro Morichetti, Sasha Madronich, Giorgio Passerini, Umberto Rizza, Enrico Mancinelli, Simone Virgili, and Mary Barth
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6311–6339, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6311-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6311-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In the present study, we explore the effect of making simple changes to the existing WRF-Chem MEGAN v2.04 emissions to provide MEGAN updates that can be used independently of the land surface model chosen. The changes made to the MEGAN algorithm implemented in WRF-Chem were the following: (i) update of the emission activity factors, (ii) update of emission factor values for each plant functional type (PFT), and (iii) the assignment of the emission factor by PFT to isoprene.
Walter Hannah, Kyle Pressel, Mikhail Ovchinnikov, and Gregory Elsaesser
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6243–6257, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6243-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6243-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
An unphysical checkerboard signal is identified in two configurations of the atmospheric component of E3SM. The signal is very persistent and visible after averaging years of data. The signal is very difficult to study because it is often mixed with realistic weather. A method is presented to detect checkerboard patterns and compare the model with satellite observations. The causes of the signal are identified, and a solution for one configuration is discussed.
Fa Li, Qing Zhu, William Riley, Lei Zhao, Li Xu, Kunxiaojia Yuan, Min Chen, Huayi Wu, Zhipeng Gui, Jianya Gong, and James Randerson
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-195, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-195, 2022
Preprint under review for GMD
Short summary
Short summary
In this work, we developed an interpretable machine learning model to predict sub-seasonal and near future wildfire burned area over African and South American regions. We found strong time-lagged controls (up to 6–8 month) from local climate wetness on burned areas. A skillful use of such time-lagged controls in machine learning model result in high accurate predictions of wildfire burned area, also will help develop relevant early warming and management system for tropical wildfire.
Peter Berg, Thomas Bosshard, Wei Yang, and Klaus Zimmermann
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 6165–6180, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6165-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-6165-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
When performing impact analyses with climate models, one is often confronted with the issue that the models have significant bias. Commonly, the modelled climatological temperature deviates from the observed climate by a few degrees or it rains excessively in the model. MIdAS employs a novel statistical model to translate the model climatology toward that observed using novel methodologies and modern tools. The coding platform allows opportunities to develop methods for high-resolution models.
Heather Suzanne Rumbold, Richard J. J. Gilham, and Martin John Best
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-139, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2022-139, 2022
Preprint under review for GMD
Short summary
Short summary
The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES) uses a tiled representation of land cover but can only model a single dominant soil type within a grid box, hence there is no representation of sub-grid soil heterogeneity. This paper evaluates a new surface-soil tiling scheme in JULES and demonstrates the impacts of the scheme using several soil tiling approaches. Results show that soil tiling has an impact on the water and energy exchanges due to the way vegetation accesses the soil moisture.
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
Short summary
We present the implementation and evaluation of a marine biogeochemical model, Model of Oceanic Pelagic Stoichiometry (MOPS) in the Flexible Ocean and Climate Infrastructure (FOCI) climate model. FOCI-MOPS enables the simulation of marine biological processes, the marine carbon, nitrogen and oxygen cycles, and air–sea gas exchange of CO2 and O2. As shown by our evaluation, FOCI-MOPS shows an overall adequate performance that makes it an appropriate tool for Earth climate system simulations.
Miguel Nogueira, Alexandra Hurduc, Sofia Ermida, Daniela C. A. Lima, Pedro M. M. Soares, Frederico Johannsen, and Emanuel Dutra
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5949–5965, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5949-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5949-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluated the quality of the ERA5 reanalysis representation of the urban heat island (UHI) over the city of Paris and performed a set of offline runs using the SURFEX land surface model. They were compared with observations (satellite and in situ). The SURFEX-TEB runs showed the best performance in representing the UHI, reducing its bias significantly. We demonstrate the ability of the SURFEX-TEB framework to simulate urban climate, which is crucial for studying climate change in cities.
Cited articles
Balaji, V., Taylor, K. E., Juckes, M., Lawrence, B. N., Durack, P. J., Lautenschlager, M., Blanton, C., Cinquini, L., Denvil, S., Elkington, M., Guglielmo, F., Guilyardi, E., Hassell, D., Kharin, S., Kindermann, S., Nikonov, S., Radhakrishnan, A., Stockhause, M., Weigel, T., and Williams, D.: Requirements for a global data infrastructure in support of CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 3659–3680, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3659-2018, 2018. a, b
Boer, G. J., Smith, D. M., Cassou, C., Doblas-Reyes, F., Danabasoglu, G., Kirtman, B., Kushnir, Y., Kimoto, M., Meehl, G. A., Msadek, R., Mueller, W. A., Taylor, K. E., Zwiers, F., Rixen, M., Ruprich-Robert, Y., and Eade, R.: The Decadal Climate Prediction Project (DCPP) contribution to CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3751–3777, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3751-2016, 2016. a
Bray, T., Paoli, J. P., Sperberg-McQueen, C., Maler, E., and Yergeau, F.:
Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0, Tech. rep., W3C, available at: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/ (last access: 16 January 2020), 2008. a
Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM): International System of
Units (SI) brochure, 8th edn., , available at:
https://www.bipm.org/en/publications/si-brochure/download.html (last access: 16 January 2020), 2014. a
Coghlan, N. and Stufft, D.: PEP 440 – Version Identification and Dependency
Specification, Tech. rep., Python Software Foundation, python Enhancement
Proposal (PEP) 440, available at: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0440 (last access: 16 January 2020), 2013. a
Collins, W. J., Lamarque, J.-F., Schulz, M., Boucher, O., Eyring, V., Hegglin, M. I., Maycock, A., Myhre, G., Prather, M., Shindell, D., and Smith, S. J.: AerChemMIP: quantifying the effects of chemistry and aerosols in CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 585–607, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-585-2017, 2017. a
Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1937–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, 2016. a, b, c
Gao, S., Sperberg-McQueen, C. M., Thompson, H. S., Mendelsohn, N., Beech, D.,
and Maloney, M.: W3C XML Schema Definition Language (XSD) 1.1 Part 1:
Structures, World Wide Web Consortium, Working Draft
WD-xmlschema11-1-20080620, 2008. a
Gates, W. L.: AMIP: The Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 73, 1962–1970, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1992)073<1962:ATAMIP>2.0.CO;2, 1992. a
Gerber, E. P. and Manzini, E.: The Dynamics and Variability Model Intercomparison Project (DynVarMIP) for CMIP6: assessing the stratosphere–troposphere system, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3413–3425, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3413-2016, 2016. a
Gillett, N. P., Shiogama, H., Funke, B., Hegerl, G., Knutti, R., Matthes, K., Santer, B. D., Stone, D., and Tebaldi, C.: The Detection and Attribution Model Intercomparison Project (DAMIP v1.0) contribution to CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3685–3697, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3685-2016, 2016. a
Gregory, J. M., Bouttes, N., Griffies, S. M., Haak, H., Hurlin, W. J., Jungclaus, J., Kelley, M., Lee, W. G., Marshall, J., Romanou, A., Saenko, O. A., Stammer, D., and Winton, M.: The Flux-Anomaly-Forced Model Intercomparison Project (FAFMIP) contribution to CMIP6: investigation of sea-level and ocean climate change in response to CO2 forcing, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3993–4017, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3993-2016, 2016. a
Griffies, S. M., Danabasoglu, G., Durack, P. J., Adcroft, A. J., Balaji, V., Böning, C. W., Chassignet, E. P., Curchitser, E., Deshayes, J., Drange, H., Fox-Kemper, B., Gleckler, P. J., Gregory, J. M., Haak, H., Hallberg, R. W., Heimbach, P., Hewitt, H. T., Holland, D. M., Ilyina, T., Jungclaus, J. H., Komuro, Y., Krasting, J. P., Large, W. G., Marsland, S. J., Masina, S., McDougall, T. J., Nurser, A. J. G., Orr, J. C., Pirani, A., Qiao, F., Stouffer, R. J., Taylor, K. E., Treguier, A. M., Tsujino, H., Uotila, P., Valdivieso, M., Wang, Q., Winton, M., and Yeager, S. G.: OMIP contribution to CMIP6: experimental and diagnostic protocol for the physical component of the Ocean Model Intercomparison Project, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3231–3296, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3231-2016, 2016. a
Gutowski Jr., W. J., Giorgi, F., Timbal, B., Frigon, A., Jacob, D., Kang, H.-S., Raghavan, K., Lee, B., Lennard, C., Nikulin, G., O'Rourke, E., Rixen, M., Solman, S., Stephenson, T., and Tangang, F.: WCRP COordinated Regional Downscaling EXperiment (CORDEX): a diagnostic MIP for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 4087–4095, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-4087-2016, 2016. a
Haarsma, R. J., Roberts, M. J., Vidale, P. L., Senior, C. A., Bellucci, A., Bao, Q., Chang, P., Corti, S., Fučkar, N. S., Guemas, V., von Hardenberg, J., Hazeleger, W., Kodama, C., Koenigk, T., Leung, L. R., Lu, J., Luo, J.-J., Mao, J., Mizielinski, M. S., Mizuta, R., Nobre, P., Satoh, M., Scoccimarro, E., Semmler, T., Small, J., and von Storch, J.-S.: High Resolution Model Intercomparison Project (HighResMIP v1.0) for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 4185–4208, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-4185-2016, 2016. a
Hassell, D., Gregory, J., Blower, J., Lawrence, B. N., and Taylor, K. E.: A data model of the Climate and Forecast metadata conventions (CF-1.6) with a software implementation (cf-python v2.1), Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 4619–4646, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4619-2017, 2017. a, b
Hayhoe, K., Edmonds, J., Kopp, R., LeGrande, A., Sanderson, B., Wehner, M., and Wuebbles, D.: Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I, chap. Climate models, scenarios, and projections, U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA,
133–160, 2017. a
IPCC: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, New York, NY, USA, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324, 2013. a
Jones, C. D., Arora, V., Friedlingstein, P., Bopp, L., Brovkin, V., Dunne, J., Graven, H., Hoffman, F., Ilyina, T., John, J. G., Jung, M., Kawamiya, M., Koven, C., Pongratz, J., Raddatz, T., Randerson, J. T., and Zaehle, S.: C4MIP – The Coupled Climate–Carbon Cycle Model Intercomparison Project: experimental protocol for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 2853–2880, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2853-2016, 2016. a
Juckes, M.: Data Request XML format, Tech. rep., Science and Technologies
Facilities Council, version 01.00.29, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2452799,
2018a. a, b
Juckes, M.: Style Guide for Variable Titles in CMIP6, Tech. rep., Science and
Technologies Facilities Council, version 01.00.29, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2480853, 2018b. a
Juckes, M.: Data Request Review 2018: Summary of Outcomes, Tech. rep., Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2548757, 2019a. a, b
Juckes, M.: CMIP6 Data Request 01.00.31 (Version 01.00.31), Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3361640, 2019b. a
Kageyama, M., Braconnot, P., Harrison, S. P., Haywood, A. M., Jungclaus, J. H., Otto-Bliesner, B. L., Peterschmitt, J.-Y., Abe-Ouchi, A., Albani, S., Bartlein, P. J., Brierley, C., Crucifix, M., Dolan, A., Fernandez-Donado, L., Fischer, H., Hopcroft, P. O., Ivanovic, R. F., Lambert, F., Lunt, D. J., Mahowald, N. M., Peltier, W. R., Phipps, S. J., Roche, D. M., Schmidt, G. A., Tarasov, L., Valdes, P. J., Zhang, Q., and Zhou, T.: The PMIP4 contribution to CMIP6 – Part 1: Overview and over-arching analysis plan, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1033–1057, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1033-2018, 2018. a
Keller, D. P., Lenton, A., Scott, V., Vaughan, N. E., Bauer, N., Ji, D., Jones, C. D., Kravitz, B., Muri, H., and Zickfeld, K.: The Carbon Dioxide Removal Model Intercomparison Project (CDRMIP): rationale and experimental protocol for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1133–1160, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1133-2018, 2018. a
Kravitz, B., Robock, A., Tilmes, S., Boucher, O., English, J. M., Irvine, P. J., Jones, A., Lawrence, M. G., MacCracken, M., Muri, H., Moore, J. C., Niemeier, U., Phipps, S. J., Sillmann, J., Storelvmo, T., Wang, H., and Watanabe, S.: The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (GeoMIP6): simulation design and preliminary results, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 3379–3392, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3379-2015, 2015. a
Lawrence, D. M., Hurtt, G. C., Arneth, A., Brovkin, V., Calvin, K. V., Jones, A. D., Jones, C. D., Lawrence, P. J., de Noblet-Ducoudré, N., Pongratz, J., Seneviratne, S. I., and Shevliakova, E.: The Land Use Model Intercomparison Project (LUMIP) contribution to CMIP6: rationale and experimental design, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 2973–2998, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2973-2016, 2016. a
Meehl, G., Moss, R., Taylor, K., Eyring, V., Bony, S., Stouffer, R., and
Stevens, B.: Climate model intercomparisons: preparing for the next phase,
EOS T. Am. Geophys. Un., 95, 77–78,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2014EO090001, 2014. a
Nadeau, D., Doutriaux, C., and Taylor, K.: Climate Model Output Rewriter (CMOR version 3.3), Tech. rep., Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
available at: https://cmor.llnl.gov/pdf/mydoc.pdf (last access: 16 January 2020), 2018. a
Notz, D., Jahn, A., Holland, M., Hunke, E., Massonnet, F., Stroeve, J., Tremblay, B., and Vancoppenolle, M.: The CMIP6 Sea-Ice Model Intercomparison Project (SIMIP): understanding sea ice through climate-model simulations, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3427–3446, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3427-2016, 2016. a
Nowicki, S. M. J., Payne, A., Larour, E., Seroussi, H., Goelzer, H., Lipscomb, W., Gregory, J., Abe-Ouchi, A., and Shepherd, A.: Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison Project (ISMIP6) contribution to CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 4521–4545, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-4521-2016, 2016. a
O'Neill, B. C., Tebaldi, C., van Vuuren, D. P., Eyring, V., Friedlingstein, P., Hurtt, G., Knutti, R., Kriegler, E., Lamarque, J.-F., Lowe, J., Meehl, G. A., Moss, R., Riahi, K., and Sanderson, B. M.: The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3461–3482, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3461-2016, 2016. a
Orr, J. C., Najjar, R. G., Aumont, O., Bopp, L., Bullister, J. L., Danabasoglu, G., Doney, S. C., Dunne, J. P., Dutay, J.-C., Graven, H., Griffies, S. M., John, J. G., Joos, F., Levin, I., Lindsay, K., Matear, R. J., McKinley, G. A., Mouchet, A., Oschlies, A., Romanou, A., Schlitzer, R., Tagliabue, A., Tanhua, T., and Yool, A.: Biogeochemical protocols and diagnostics for the CMIP6 Ocean Model Intercomparison Project (OMIP), Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 2169–2199, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2169-2017, 2017. a
Pascoe, C., Lawrence, B. N., Guilyardi, E., Juckes, M., and Taylor, K. E.: Designing and Documenting Experiments in CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2019-98, in review, 2019. a, b
Pincus, R., Forster, P. M., and Stevens, B.: The Radiative Forcing Model Intercomparison Project (RFMIP): experimental protocol for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3447–3460, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3447-2016, 2016. a
Rockström, J., Schellnhuber, H. J., Hoskins, B., Ramanathan, V., Schlosser,
P., Brasseur, G. P., Gaffney, O., Nobre, C., Meinshausen, M., Rogelj, J., and
Lucht, W.: The world's biggest gamble, Earths Future, 4, 465–470,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000392, 2016. a
Ruane, A. C., Teichmann, C., Arnell, N. W., Carter, T. R., Ebi, K. L., Frieler, K., Goodess, C. M., Hewitson, B., Horton, R., Kovats, R. S., Lotze, H. K., Mearns, L. O., Navarra, A., Ojima, D. S., Riahi, K., Rosenzweig, C., Themessl, M., and Vincent, K.: The Vulnerability, Impacts, Adaptation and Climate Services Advisory Board (VIACS AB v1.0) contribution to CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3493–3515, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3493-2016, 2016. a
Ruosteenoja, K., Jylhä, K., Räisänen, J., and Mäkelä, A.: Surface air
relative humidities spuriously exceeding 100 % in CMIP5 model output and
their impact on future projections, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 122, 9557–9568, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017JD026909, 2017. a
Smith, D. M., Screen, J. A., Deser, C., Cohen, J., Fyfe, J. C., García-Serrano, J., Jung, T., Kattsov, V., Matei, D., Msadek, R., Peings, Y., Sigmond, M., Ukita, J., Yoon, J.-H., and Zhang, X.: The Polar Amplification Model Intercomparison Project (PAMIP) contribution to CMIP6: investigating the causes and consequences of polar amplification, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 1139–1164, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1139-2019, 2019.
a
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., and Meehl, G. A.: An Overview of CMIP5 and the Experiment Design, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93,
485–498, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1, 2011. a
van den Hurk, B., Kim, H., Krinner, G., Seneviratne, S. I., Derksen, C., Oki, T., Douville, H., Colin, J., Ducharne, A., Cheruy, F., Viovy, N., Puma, M. J., Wada, Y., Li, W., Jia, B., Alessandri, A., Lawrence, D. M., Weedon, G. P., Ellis, R., Hagemann, S., Mao, J., Flanner, M. G., Zampieri, M., Materia, S., Law, R. M., and Sheffield, J.: LS3MIP (v1.0) contribution to CMIP6: the Land Surface, Snow and Soil moisture Model Intercomparison Project – aims, setup and expected outcome, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 2809–2832, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2809-2016, 2016. a
WCRP: International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project, world Climate
Research Programme, available at:
https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/describe/overview.html (last access: 16 January 2020), 1982. a
Webb, M. J., Andrews, T., Bodas-Salcedo, A., Bony, S., Bretherton, C. S., Chadwick, R., Chepfer, H., Douville, H., Good, P., Kay, J. E., Klein, S. A., Marchand, R., Medeiros, B., Siebesma, A. P., Skinner, C. B., Stevens, B., Tselioudis, G., Tsushima, Y., and Watanabe, M.: The Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) contribution to CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 359–384, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-359-2017, 2017. a
WGCM Infrastructure Panel: CMIP6 Position Papers, available at: https://www.earthsystemcog.org/projects/wip/position_papers (last access: 16 January 2020),
2019. a
Williams, D. N., Lautenschlager, M., Balaji, V., Cinquini, L., DeLuca, C.,
Denvil, S., Duffy, D., Evans, B., Ferraro, R., Juckes, M., and Trenham, C.:
Strategie roadmap for the earth system grid federation, in: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big
Data), 2182–2190, https://doi.org/10.1109/BigData.2015.7364005, 2015. a
Zanchettin, D., Khodri, M., Timmreck, C., Toohey, M., Schmidt, A., Gerber, E. P., Hegerl, G., Robock, A., Pausata, F. S. R., Ball, W. T., Bauer, S. E., Bekki, S., Dhomse, S. S., LeGrande, A. N., Mann, G. W., Marshall, L., Mills, M., Marchand, M., Niemeier, U., Poulain, V., Rozanov, E., Rubino, A., Stenke, A., Tsigaridis, K., and Tummon, F.: The Model Intercomparison Project on the climatic response to Volcanic forcing (VolMIP): experimental design and forcing input data for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 2701–2719, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2701-2016, 2016. a
Zhou, T., Turner, A. G., Kinter, J. L., Wang, B., Qian, Y., Chen, X., Wu, B., Wang, B., Liu, B., Zou, L., and He, B.: GMMIP (v1.0) contribution to CMIP6: Global Monsoons Model Inter-comparison Project, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 3589–3604, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3589-2016, 2016. a
Short summary
The data request of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) defines all the quantities
from CMIP6 simulations that should be archived. The building blocks and structure of the CMIP6 Data Request, which has been constructed to meet these challenges, are described in this paper.
The data request of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) defines all the...
