Articles | Volume 13, issue 1
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.
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
| 28 Jan 2020
The CMIP6 Data Request (DREQ, version 01.00.31)
Science and Technology Facilities Council, Oxfordshire, Didcot, UK
National Centre of Atmospheric Science, Leeds, UK
Karl E. Taylor
PCMDI, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA
Paul J. Durack
PCMDI, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA, USA
Bryan Lawrence
National Centre of Atmospheric Science, Leeds, UK
Departments of Meteorology and Computer Science, University of Reading, Reading, UK
Matthew S. Mizielinski
Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, EX1 3PB, UK
Alison Pamment
Science and Technology Facilities Council, Oxfordshire, Didcot, UK
National Centre of Atmospheric Science, Leeds, UK
Jean-Yves Peterschmitt
Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, LSCE/IPSL, CEA-CNRS-UVSQ, Université Paris-Saclay, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France
Michel Rixen
World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
Stéphane Sénési
Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques (CNRM), Université de Toulouse, Météo-France, CNRS, Toulouse, France
Related authors
Colin Gareth Jones, Fanny Adloff, Ben Booth, Peter Cox, Veronika Eyring, Pierre Friedlingstein, Katja Frieler, Helene Hewitt, Hazel Jeffery, Sylvie Joussaume, Torben Koenigk, Bryan N. Lawrence, Eleanor O'Rourke, Malcolm Roberts, Benjamin Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Samuel Somot, Pier-Luigi Vidale, Detlef van Vuuren, Mario Acosta, Mats Bentsen, Raffaele Bernardello, Richard Betts, Ed Blockley, Julien Boé, Tom Bracegirdle, Pascale Braconnot, Victor Brovkin, Carlo Buontempo, Francisco J. Doblas-Reyes, Markus G. Donat, Italo Epicoco, Pete Falloon, Sandro Fiore, Thomas Froelicher, Neven Fuckar, Matthew Gidden, Helge Goessling, Rune Grand Graversen, Silvio Gualdi, Jose Manuel Gutiérrez, Tatiana Ilyina, Daniela Jacob, Chris Jones, Martin Juckes, Elizabeth Kendon, Erik Kjellström, Reto Knutti, Jason A. Lowe, Matthew Mizielinski, Paola Nassisi, Michael Obersteiner, Pierre Regnier, Romain Roehrig, David Salas y Melia, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Michael Schulz, Enrico Scoccimarro, Laurent Terray, Hannes Thiemann, Richard Wood, Shuting Yang, and Sönke Zaehle
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-453, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-453, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a number of priority areas for the international climate research community to address over the coming ~6 years (i.e. to 2030). Advances in these areas will increase our understanding of past and future Earth system change, including the societal and environmental impacts of this change, as well as deliver significantly improved scientific support to international climate policy, such as the 7th IPCC Assessment Report and the UNFCCC Global Stocktake under the Paris Climate Agreement.
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.
Jiwoo Lee, Peter J. Gleckler, Min-Seop Ahn, Ana Ordonez, Paul A. Ullrich, Kenneth R. Sperber, Karl E. Taylor, Yann Y. Planton, Eric Guilyardi, Paul Durack, Celine Bonfils, Mark D. Zelinka, Li-Wei Chao, Bo Dong, Charles Doutriaux, Chengzhu Zhang, Tom Vo, Jason Boutte, Michael F. Wehner, Angeline G. Pendergrass, Daehyun Kim, Zeyu Xue, Andrew T. Wittenberg, and John Krasting
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3919–3948, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3919-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3919-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce an open-source software, the PCMDI Metrics Package (PMP), developed for a comprehensive comparison of Earth system models (ESMs) with real-world observations. Using diverse metrics evaluating climatology, variability, and extremes simulated in thousands of simulations from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), PMP aids in benchmarking model improvements across generations. PMP also enables efficient tracking of performance evolutions during ESM developments.
Bjorn Stevens, Stefan Adami, Tariq Ali, Hartwig Anzt, Zafer Aslan, Sabine Attinger, Jaana Bäck, Johanna Baehr, Peter Bauer, Natacha Bernier, Bob Bishop, Hendryk Bockelmann, Sandrine Bony, Guy Brasseur, David N. Bresch, Sean Breyer, Gilbert Brunet, Pier Luigi Buttigieg, Junji Cao, Christelle Castet, Yafang Cheng, Ayantika Dey Choudhury, Deborah Coen, Susanne Crewell, Atish Dabholkar, Qing Dai, Francisco Doblas-Reyes, Dale Durran, Ayoub El Gaidi, Charlie Ewen, Eleftheria Exarchou, Veronika Eyring, Florencia Falkinhoff, David Farrell, Piers M. Forster, Ariane Frassoni, Claudia Frauen, Oliver Fuhrer, Shahzad Gani, Edwin Gerber, Debra Goldfarb, Jens Grieger, Nicolas Gruber, Wilco Hazeleger, Rolf Herken, Chris Hewitt, Torsten Hoefler, Huang-Hsiung Hsu, Daniela Jacob, Alexandra Jahn, Christian Jakob, Thomas Jung, Christopher Kadow, In-Sik Kang, Sarah Kang, Karthik Kashinath, Katharina Kleinen-von Königslöw, Daniel Klocke, Uta Kloenne, Milan Klöwer, Chihiro Kodama, Stefan Kollet, Tobias Kölling, Jenni Kontkanen, Steve Kopp, Michal Koran, Markku Kulmala, Hanna Lappalainen, Fakhria Latifi, Bryan Lawrence, June Yi Lee, Quentin Lejeun, Christian Lessig, Chao Li, Thomas Lippert, Jürg Luterbacher, Pekka Manninen, Jochem Marotzke, Satoshi Matsouoka, Charlotte Merchant, Peter Messmer, Gero Michel, Kristel Michielsen, Tomoki Miyakawa, Jens Müller, Ramsha Munir, Sandeep Narayanasetti, Ousmane Ndiaye, Carlos Nobre, Achim Oberg, Riko Oki, Tuba Özkan-Haller, Tim Palmer, Stan Posey, Andreas Prein, Odessa Primus, Mike Pritchard, Julie Pullen, Dian Putrasahan, Johannes Quaas, Krishnan Raghavan, Venkatachalam Ramaswamy, Markus Rapp, Florian Rauser, Markus Reichstein, Aromar Revi, Sonakshi Saluja, Masaki Satoh, Vera Schemann, Sebastian Schemm, Christina Schnadt Poberaj, Thomas Schulthess, Cath Senior, Jagadish Shukla, Manmeet Singh, Julia Slingo, Adam Sobel, Silvina Solman, Jenna Spitzer, Philip Stier, Thomas Stocker, Sarah Strock, Hang Su, Petteri Taalas, John Taylor, Susann Tegtmeier, Georg Teutsch, Adrian Tompkins, Uwe Ulbrich, Pier-Luigi Vidale, Chien-Ming Wu, Hao Xu, Najibullah Zaki, Laure Zanna, Tianjun Zhou, and Florian Ziemen
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 2113–2122, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-2113-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-2113-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
To manage Earth in the Anthropocene, new tools, new institutions, and new forms of international cooperation will be required. Earth Virtualization Engines is proposed as an international federation of centers of excellence to empower all people to respond to the immense and urgent challenges posed by climate change.
Mario C. Acosta, Sergi Palomas, Stella V. Paronuzzi Ticco, Gladys Utrera, Joachim Biercamp, Pierre-Antoine Bretonniere, Reinhard Budich, Miguel Castrillo, Arnaud Caubel, Francisco Doblas-Reyes, Italo Epicoco, Uwe Fladrich, Sylvie Joussaume, Alok Kumar Gupta, Bryan Lawrence, Philippe Le Sager, Grenville Lister, Marie-Pierre Moine, Jean-Christophe Rioual, Sophie Valcke, Niki Zadeh, and Venkatramani Balaji
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3081–3098, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3081-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3081-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We present a collection of performance metrics gathered during the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6), a worldwide initiative to study climate change. We analyse the metrics that resulted from collaboration efforts among many partners and models and describe our findings to demonstrate the utility of our study for the scientific community. The research contributes to understanding climate modelling performance on the current high-performance computing (HPC) architectures.
Colin Gareth Jones, Fanny Adloff, Ben Booth, Peter Cox, Veronika Eyring, Pierre Friedlingstein, Katja Frieler, Helene Hewitt, Hazel Jeffery, Sylvie Joussaume, Torben Koenigk, Bryan N. Lawrence, Eleanor O'Rourke, Malcolm Roberts, Benjamin Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Samuel Somot, Pier-Luigi Vidale, Detlef van Vuuren, Mario Acosta, Mats Bentsen, Raffaele Bernardello, Richard Betts, Ed Blockley, Julien Boé, Tom Bracegirdle, Pascale Braconnot, Victor Brovkin, Carlo Buontempo, Francisco J. Doblas-Reyes, Markus G. Donat, Italo Epicoco, Pete Falloon, Sandro Fiore, Thomas Froelicher, Neven Fuckar, Matthew Gidden, Helge Goessling, Rune Grand Graversen, Silvio Gualdi, Jose Manuel Gutiérrez, Tatiana Ilyina, Daniela Jacob, Chris Jones, Martin Juckes, Elizabeth Kendon, Erik Kjellström, Reto Knutti, Jason A. Lowe, Matthew Mizielinski, Paola Nassisi, Michael Obersteiner, Pierre Regnier, Romain Roehrig, David Salas y Melia, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Michael Schulz, Enrico Scoccimarro, Laurent Terray, Hannes Thiemann, Richard Wood, Shuting Yang, and Sönke Zaehle
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-453, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-453, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a number of priority areas for the international climate research community to address over the coming ~6 years (i.e. to 2030). Advances in these areas will increase our understanding of past and future Earth system change, including the societal and environmental impacts of this change, as well as deliver significantly improved scientific support to international climate policy, such as the 7th IPCC Assessment Report and the UNFCCC Global Stocktake under the Paris Climate Agreement.
Karl E. Taylor
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 415–430, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-415-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-415-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Remapping gridded data in a way that preserves the conservative properties of the climate system can be essential in coupling model components and for accurate assessment of the system’s energy and mass constituents. Remapping packages capable of handling a wide variety of grids can, for some common grids, calculate remapping weights that are somewhat inaccurate. Correcting for these errors, guidelines are provided to ensure conservation when the weights are used in practice.
Jon Seddon, Ag Stephens, Matthew S. Mizielinski, Pier Luigi Vidale, and Malcolm J. Roberts
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 6689–6700, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6689-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6689-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The PRIMAVERA project aimed to develop a new generation of advanced global climate models. The large volume of data generated was uploaded to a central analysis facility (CAF) and was analysed by 100 PRIMAVERA scientists there. We describe how the PRIMAVERA project used the CAF's facilities to enable users to analyse this large dataset. We believe that similar, multi-institute, big-data projects could also use a CAF to efficiently share, organise and analyse large volumes of data.
Mark D. Zelinka, Christopher J. Smith, Yi Qin, and Karl E. Taylor
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 8879–8898, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-8879-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-8879-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The primary uncertainty in how strongly Earth's climate has been perturbed by human activities comes from the unknown radiative impact of aerosol changes. Accurately quantifying these forcings – and their sub-components – in climate models is crucial for understanding the past and future simulated climate. In this study we describe biases in previously published estimates of aerosol radiative forcing in climate models and provide corrected estimates along with code for users to compute them.
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
Implementing detailed nucleation predictions in the Earth system model EC-Earth3.3.4: sulfuric acid–ammonia nucleation
Modeling biochar effects on soil organic carbon on croplands in a microbial decomposition model (MIMICS-BC_v1.0)
Hector V3.2.0: functionality and performance of a reduced-complexity climate model
Evaluation of CMIP6 model simulations of PM2.5 and its components over China
Assessment of a tiling energy budget approach in a land surface model, ORCHIDEE-MICT (r8205)
Multivariate adjustment of drizzle bias using machine learning in European climate projections
Development and evaluation of the interactive Model for Air Pollution and Land Ecosystems (iMAPLE) version 1.0
A perspective on the next generation of Earth system model scenarios: towards representative emission pathways (REPs)
Parallel SnowModel (v1.0): a parallel implementation of a distributed snow-evolution modeling system (SnowModel)
LB-SCAM: a learning-based method for efficient large-scale sensitivity analysis and tuning of the Single Column Atmosphere Model (SCAM)
Quantifying the impact of SST feedback frequency on Madden–Julian oscillation simulations
Systematic and objective evaluation of Earth system models: PCMDI Metrics Package (PMP) version 3
A revised model of global silicate weathering considering the influence of vegetation cover on erosion rate
A radiative–convective model computing precipitation with the maximum entropy production hypothesis
Leveraging regional mesh refinement to simulate future climate projections for California using the Simplified Convection-Permitting E3SM Atmosphere Model Version 0
Machine learning parameterization of the multi-scale Kain–Fritsch (MSKF) convection scheme and stable simulation coupled in the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model using WRF–ML v1.0
Impacts of spatial heterogeneity of anthropogenic aerosol emissions in a regionally refined global aerosol–climate model
cfr (v2024.1.26): a Python package for climate field reconstruction
NEWTS1.0: Numerical model of coastal Erosion by Waves and Transgressive Scarps
Evaluation of isoprene emissions from the coupled model SURFEX–MEGANv2.1
A comprehensive Earth system model (AWI-ESM2.1) with interactive icebergs: effects on surface and deep-ocean characteristics
The regional climate–chemistry–ecology coupling model RegCM-Chem (v4.6)–YIBs (v1.0): development and application
An overview of cloud–radiation denial experiments for the Energy Exascale Earth System Model version 1
The computational and energy cost of simulation and storage for climate science: lessons from CMIP6
Subgrid-scale variability of cloud ice in the ICON-AES 1.3.00
INFERNO-peat v1.0.0: a representation of northern high-latitude peat fires in the JULES-INFERNO global fire model
The 4DEnVar-based weakly coupled land data assimilation system for E3SM version 2
Continental-scale bias-corrected climate and hydrological projections for Australia
G6-1.5K-SAI: a new Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) experiment integrating recent advances in solar radiation modification studies
Modeling the effects of tropospheric ozone on the growth and yield of global staple crops with DSSAT v4.8.0
A one-dimensional urban flow model with an eddy-diffusivity mass-flux (EDMF) scheme and refined turbulent transport (MLUCM v3.0)
DCMIP2016: the tropical cyclone test case
Interactions between atmospheric composition and climate change – progress in understanding and future opportunities from AerChemMIP, PDRMIP, and RFMIP
CD-type discretization for sea ice dynamics in FESOM version 2
Dynamic MJO forecasts using an ensemble subseasonal-to-seasonal forecast system of IAP-CAS model
CSDMS Data Components: data–model integration tools for Earth surface processes modeling
A generic algorithm to automatically classify urban fabric according to the local climate zone system: implementation in GeoClimate 0.0.1 and application to French cities
Modelling water isotopologues (1H2H16O, 1H217O) in the coupled numerical climate model iLOVECLIM (version 1.1.5)
Localized injections of interactive volcanic aerosols and their climate impacts in a simple general circulation model
Accurate assessment of land–atmosphere coupling in climate models requires high-frequency data output
Towards variance-conserving reconstructions of climate indices with Gaussian process regression in an embedding space
A diatom extension to the cGEnIE Earth system model – EcoGEnIE 1.1
Carbon isotopes in the marine biogeochemistry model FESOM2.1-REcoM3
Flux coupling approach on an exchange grid for the IOW Earth System Model (version 1.04.00) of the Baltic Sea region
Using EUREC4A/ATOMIC field campaign data to improve trade wind regimes in the Community Atmosphere Model
New model ensemble reveals how forcing uncertainty and model structure alter climate simulated across CMIP generations of the Community Earth System Model
Quantifying wildfire drivers and predictability in boreal peatlands using a two-step error-correcting machine learning framework in TeFire v1.0
Benchmarking GOCART-2G in the Goddard Earth Observing System (GEOS)
Energy-conserving physics for nonhydrostatic dynamics in mass coordinate models
Evaluation and optimisation of the soil carbon turnover routine in the MONICA model (version 3.3.1)
Carl Svenhag, Moa K. Sporre, Tinja Olenius, Daniel Yazgi, Sara M. Blichner, Lars P. Nieradzik, and Pontus Roldin
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4923–4942, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4923-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4923-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Our research shows the importance of modeling new particle formation (NPF) and growth of particles in the atmosphere on a global scale, as they influence the outcomes of clouds and our climate. With the global model EC-Earth3 we show that using a new method for NPF modeling, which includes new detailed processes with NH3 and H2SO4, significantly impacts the number of particles in the air and clouds and changes the radiation balance of the same magnitude as anthropogenic greenhouse emissions.
Mengjie Han, Qing Zhao, Xili Wang, Ying-Ping Wang, Philippe Ciais, Haicheng Zhang, Daniel S. Goll, Lei Zhu, Zhe Zhao, Zhixuan Guo, Chen Wang, Wei Zhuang, Fengchang Wu, and Wei Li
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4871–4890, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4871-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4871-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The impact of biochar (BC) on soil organic carbon (SOC) dynamics is not represented in most land carbon models used for assessing land-based climate change mitigation. Our study develops a BC model that incorporates our current understanding of BC effects on SOC based on a soil carbon model (MIMICS). The BC model can reproduce the SOC changes after adding BC, providing a useful tool to couple dynamic land models to evaluate the effectiveness of BC application for CO2 removal from the atmosphere.
Kalyn Dorheim, Skylar Gering, Robert Gieseke, Corinne Hartin, Leeya Pressburger, Alexey N. Shiklomanov, Steven J. Smith, Claudia Tebaldi, Dawn L. Woodard, and Ben Bond-Lamberty
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4855–4869, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4855-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4855-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Hector is an easy-to-use, global climate–carbon cycle model. With its quick run time, Hector can provide climate information from a run in a fraction of a second. Hector models on a global and annual basis. Here, we present an updated version of the model, Hector V3. In this paper, we document Hector’s new features. Hector V3 is capable of reproducing historical observations, and its future temperature projections are consistent with those of more complex models.
Fangxuan Ren, Jintai Lin, Chenghao Xu, Jamiu A. Adeniran, Jingxu Wang, Randall V. Martin, Aaron van Donkelaar, Melanie S. Hammer, Larry W. Horowitz, Steven T. Turnock, Naga Oshima, Jie Zhang, Susanne Bauer, Kostas Tsigaridis, Øyvind Seland, Pierre Nabat, David Neubauer, Gary Strand, Twan van Noije, Philippe Le Sager, and Toshihiko Takemura
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4821–4836, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4821-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4821-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluate the performance of 14 CMIP6 ESMs in simulating total PM2.5 and its 5 components over China during 2000–2014. PM2.5 and its components are underestimated in almost all models, except that black carbon (BC) and sulfate are overestimated in two models, respectively. The underestimation is the largest for organic carbon (OC) and the smallest for BC. Models reproduce the observed spatial pattern for OC, sulfate, nitrate and ammonium well, yet the agreement is poorer for BC.
Yi Xi, Chunjing Qiu, Yuan Zhang, Dan Zhu, Shushi Peng, Gustaf Hugelius, Jinfeng Chang, Elodie Salmon, and Philippe Ciais
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4727–4754, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4727-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4727-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The ORCHIDEE-MICT model can simulate the carbon cycle and hydrology at a sub-grid scale but energy budgets only at a grid scale. This paper assessed the implementation of a multi-tiling energy budget approach in ORCHIDEE-MICT and found warmer surface and soil temperatures, higher soil moisture, and more soil organic carbon across the Northern Hemisphere compared with the original version.
Georgia Lazoglou, Theo Economou, Christina Anagnostopoulou, George Zittis, Anna Tzyrkalli, Pantelis Georgiades, and Jos Lelieveld
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4689–4703, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4689-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4689-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study focuses on the important issue of the drizzle bias effect in regional climate models, described by an over-prediction of the number of rainy days while underestimating associated precipitation amounts. For this purpose, two distinct methodologies are applied and rigorously evaluated. These results are encouraging for using the multivariate machine learning method random forest to increase the accuracy of climate models concerning the projection of the number of wet days.
Xu Yue, Hao Zhou, Chenguang Tian, Yimian Ma, Yihan Hu, Cheng Gong, Hui Zheng, and Hong Liao
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4621–4642, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4621-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4621-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We develop the interactive Model for Air Pollution and Land Ecosystems (iMAPLE). The model considers the full coupling between carbon and water cycles, dynamic fire emissions, wetland methane emissions, biogenic volatile organic compound emissions, and trait-based ozone vegetation damage. Evaluations show that iMAPLE is a useful tool for the study of the interactions among climate, chemistry, and ecosystems.
Malte Meinshausen, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Kathleen Beyer, Greg Bodeker, Olivier Boucher, Josep G. Canadell, John S. Daniel, Aïda Diongue-Niang, Fatima Driouech, Erich Fischer, Piers Forster, Michael Grose, Gerrit Hansen, Zeke Hausfather, Tatiana Ilyina, Jarmo S. Kikstra, Joyce Kimutai, Andrew D. King, June-Yi Lee, Chris Lennard, Tabea Lissner, Alexander Nauels, Glen P. Peters, Anna Pirani, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Hans Pörtner, Joeri Rogelj, Maisa Rojas, Joyashree Roy, Bjørn H. Samset, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Sonia Seneviratne, Christopher J. Smith, Sophie Szopa, Adelle Thomas, Diana Urge-Vorsatz, Guus J. M. Velders, Tokuta Yokohata, Tilo Ziehn, and Zebedee Nicholls
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4533–4559, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4533-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4533-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The scientific community is considering new scenarios to succeed RCPs and SSPs for the next generation of Earth system model runs to project future climate change. To contribute to that effort, we reflect on relevant policy and scientific research questions and suggest categories for representative emission pathways. These categories are tailored to the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal, high-risk outcomes in the absence of further climate policy and worlds “that could have been”.
Ross Mower, Ethan D. Gutmann, Glen E. Liston, Jessica Lundquist, and Soren Rasmussen
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4135–4154, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4135-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4135-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Higher-resolution model simulations are better at capturing winter snowpack changes across space and time. However, increasing resolution also increases the computational requirements. This work provides an overview of changes made to a distributed snow-evolution modeling system (SnowModel) to allow it to leverage high-performance computing resources. Continental simulations that were previously estimated to take 120 d can now be performed in 5 h.
Jiaxu Guo, Juepeng Zheng, Yidan Xu, Haohuan Fu, Wei Xue, Lanning Wang, Lin Gan, Ping Gao, Wubing Wan, Xianwei Wu, Zhitao Zhang, Liang Hu, Gaochao Xu, and Xilong Che
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3975–3992, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3975-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3975-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
To enhance the efficiency of experiments using SCAM, we train a learning-based surrogate model to facilitate large-scale sensitivity analysis and tuning of combinations of multiple parameters. Employing a hybrid method, we investigate the joint sensitivity of multi-parameter combinations across typical cases, identifying the most sensitive three-parameter combination out of 11. Subsequently, we conduct a tuning process aimed at reducing output errors in these cases.
Yung-Yao Lan, Huang-Hsiung Hsu, and Wan-Ling Tseng
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3897–3918, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3897-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3897-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study uses the CAM5–SIT coupled model to investigate the effects of SST feedback frequency on the MJO simulations with intervals at 30 min, 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 30 d. The simulations become increasingly unrealistic as the frequency of the SST feedback decreases. Our results suggest that more spontaneous air--sea interaction (e.g., ocean response within 3 d in this study) with high vertical resolution in the ocean model is key to the realistic simulation of the MJO.
Jiwoo Lee, Peter J. Gleckler, Min-Seop Ahn, Ana Ordonez, Paul A. Ullrich, Kenneth R. Sperber, Karl E. Taylor, Yann Y. Planton, Eric Guilyardi, Paul Durack, Celine Bonfils, Mark D. Zelinka, Li-Wei Chao, Bo Dong, Charles Doutriaux, Chengzhu Zhang, Tom Vo, Jason Boutte, Michael F. Wehner, Angeline G. Pendergrass, Daehyun Kim, Zeyu Xue, Andrew T. Wittenberg, and John Krasting
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3919–3948, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3919-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3919-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce an open-source software, the PCMDI Metrics Package (PMP), developed for a comprehensive comparison of Earth system models (ESMs) with real-world observations. Using diverse metrics evaluating climatology, variability, and extremes simulated in thousands of simulations from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP), PMP aids in benchmarking model improvements across generations. PMP also enables efficient tracking of performance evolutions during ESM developments.
Haoyue Zuo, Yonggang Liu, Gaojun Li, Zhifang Xu, Liang Zhao, Zhengtang Guo, and Yongyun Hu
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3949–3974, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3949-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3949-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Compared to the silicate weathering fluxes measured at large river basins, the current models tend to systematically overestimate the fluxes over the tropical region, which leads to an overestimation of the global total weathering flux. The most possible cause of such bias is found to be the overestimation of tropical surface erosion, which indicates that the tropical vegetation likely slows down physical erosion significantly. We propose a way of taking this effect into account in models.
Quentin Pikeroen, Didier Paillard, and Karine Watrin
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3801–3814, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3801-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3801-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
All accurate climate models use equations with poorly defined parameters, where knobs for the parameters are turned to fit the observations. This process is called tuning. In this article, we use another paradigm. We use a thermodynamic hypothesis, the maximum entropy production, to compute temperatures, energy fluxes, and precipitation, where tuning is impossible. For now, the 1D vertical model is used for a tropical atmosphere. The correct order of magnitude of precipitation is computed.
Jishi Zhang, Peter Bogenschutz, Qi Tang, Philip Cameron-smith, and Chengzhu Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3687–3731, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3687-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3687-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We developed a regionally refined climate model that allows resolved convection and performed a 20-year projection to the end of the century. The model has a resolution of 3.25 km in California, which allows us to predict climate with unprecedented accuracy, and a resolution of 100 km for the rest of the globe to achieve efficient, self-consistent simulations. The model produces superior results in reproducing climate patterns over California that typical modern climate models cannot resolve.
Xiaohui Zhong, Xing Yu, and Hao Li
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3667–3685, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3667-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3667-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
In order to forecast localized warm-sector rainfall in the south China region, numerical weather prediction models are being run with finer grid spacing. The conventional convection parameterization (CP) performs poorly in the gray zone, necessitating the development of a scale-aware scheme. We propose a machine learning (ML) model to replace the scale-aware CP scheme. Evaluation against the original CP scheme has shown that the ML-based CP scheme can provide accurate and reliable predictions.
Taufiq Hassan, Kai Zhang, Jianfeng Li, Balwinder Singh, Shixuan Zhang, Hailong Wang, and Po-Lun Ma
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3507–3532, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3507-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3507-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Anthropogenic aerosol emissions are an essential part of global aerosol models. Significant errors can exist from the loss of emission heterogeneity. We introduced an emission treatment that significantly improved aerosol emission heterogeneity in high-resolution model simulations, with improvements in simulated aerosol surface concentrations. The emission treatment will provide a more accurate representation of aerosol emissions and their effects on climate.
Feng Zhu, Julien Emile-Geay, Gregory J. Hakim, Dominique Guillot, Deborah Khider, Robert Tardif, and Walter A. Perkins
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3409–3431, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3409-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3409-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate field reconstruction encompasses methods that estimate the evolution of climate in space and time based on natural archives. It is useful to investigate climate variations and validate climate models, but its implementation and use can be difficult for non-experts. This paper introduces a user-friendly Python package called cfr to make these methods more accessible, thanks to the computational and visualization tools that facilitate efficient and reproducible research on past climates.
Rose V. Palermo, J. Taylor Perron, Jason M. Soderblom, Samuel P. D. Birch, Alexander G. Hayes, and Andrew D. Ashton
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3433–3445, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3433-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3433-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Models of rocky coastal erosion help us understand the controls on coastal morphology and evolution. In this paper, we present a simplified model of coastline erosion driven by either uniform erosion where coastline erosion is constant or wave-driven erosion where coastline erosion is a function of the wave power. This model can be used to evaluate how coastline changes reflect climate, sea-level history, material properties, and the relative influence of different erosional processes.
Safae Oumami, Joaquim Arteta, Vincent Guidard, Pierre Tulet, and Paul David Hamer
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3385–3408, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3385-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3385-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper, we coupled the SURFEX and MEGAN models. The aim of this coupling is to improve the estimation of biogenic fluxes by using the SURFEX canopy environment model. The coupled model results were validated and several sensitivity tests were performed. The coupled-model total annual isoprene flux is 442 Tg; this value is within the range of other isoprene estimates reported. The ultimate aim of this coupling is to predict the impact of climate change on biogenic emissions.
Lars Ackermann, Thomas Rackow, Kai Himstedt, Paul Gierz, Gregor Knorr, and Gerrit Lohmann
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3279–3301, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3279-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3279-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We present long-term simulations with interactive icebergs in the Southern Ocean. By melting, icebergs reduce the temperature and salinity of the surrounding ocean. In our simulations, we find that this cooling effect of iceberg melting is not limited to the surface ocean but also reaches the deep ocean and propagates northward into all ocean basins. Additionally, the formation of deep-water masses in the Southern Ocean is enhanced.
Nanhong Xie, Tijian Wang, Xiaodong Xie, Xu Yue, Filippo Giorgi, Qian Zhang, Danyang Ma, Rong Song, Beiyao Xu, Shu Li, Bingliang Zhuang, Mengmeng Li, Min Xie, Natalya Andreeva Kilifarska, Georgi Gadzhev, and Reneta Dimitrova
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3259–3277, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3259-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3259-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
For the first time, we coupled a regional climate chemistry model, RegCM-Chem, with a dynamic vegetation model, YIBs, to create a regional climate–chemistry–ecology model, RegCM-Chem–YIBs. We applied it to simulate climatic, chemical, and ecological parameters in East Asia and fully validated it on a variety of observational data. Results show that RegCM-Chem–YIBs model is a valuable tool for studying the terrestrial carbon cycle, atmospheric chemistry, and climate change on a regional scale.
Bryce E. Harrop, Jian Lu, L. Ruby Leung, William K. M. Lau, Kyu-Myong Kim, Brian Medeiros, Brian J. Soden, Gabriel A. Vecchi, Bosong Zhang, and Balwinder Singh
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3111–3135, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3111-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3111-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Seven new experimental setups designed to interfere with cloud radiative heating have been added to the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM). These experiments include both those that test the mean impact of cloud radiative heating and those examining its covariance with circulations. This paper documents the code changes and steps needed to run these experiments. Results corroborate prior findings for how cloud radiative heating impacts circulations and rainfall patterns.
Mario C. Acosta, Sergi Palomas, Stella V. Paronuzzi Ticco, Gladys Utrera, Joachim Biercamp, Pierre-Antoine Bretonniere, Reinhard Budich, Miguel Castrillo, Arnaud Caubel, Francisco Doblas-Reyes, Italo Epicoco, Uwe Fladrich, Sylvie Joussaume, Alok Kumar Gupta, Bryan Lawrence, Philippe Le Sager, Grenville Lister, Marie-Pierre Moine, Jean-Christophe Rioual, Sophie Valcke, Niki Zadeh, and Venkatramani Balaji
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3081–3098, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3081-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3081-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We present a collection of performance metrics gathered during the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6), a worldwide initiative to study climate change. We analyse the metrics that resulted from collaboration efforts among many partners and models and describe our findings to demonstrate the utility of our study for the scientific community. The research contributes to understanding climate modelling performance on the current high-performance computing (HPC) architectures.
Sabine Doktorowski, Jan Kretzschmar, Johannes Quaas, Marc Salzmann, and Odran Sourdeval
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3099–3110, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3099-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3099-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Especially over the midlatitudes, precipitation is mainly formed via the ice phase. In this study we focus on the initial snow formation process in the ICON-AES, the aggregation process. We use a stochastical approach for the aggregation parameterization and investigate the influence in the ICON-AES. Therefore, a distribution function of cloud ice is created, which is evaluated with satellite data. The new approach leads to cloud ice loss and an improvement in the process rate bias.
Katie R. Blackford, Matthew Kasoar, Chantelle Burton, Eleanor Burke, Iain Colin Prentice, and Apostolos Voulgarakis
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3063–3079, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3063-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3063-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Peatlands are globally important stores of carbon which are being increasingly threatened by wildfires with knock-on effects on the climate system. Here we introduce a novel peat fire parameterization in the northern high latitudes to the INFERNO global fire model. Representing peat fires increases annual burnt area across the high latitudes, alongside improvements in how we capture year-to-year variation in burning and emissions.
Pengfei Shi, L. Ruby Leung, Bin Wang, Kai Zhang, Samson M. Hagos, and Shixuan Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 3025–3040, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3025-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-3025-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Improving climate predictions have profound socio-economic impacts. This study introduces a new weakly coupled land data assimilation (WCLDA) system for a coupled climate model. We demonstrate improved simulation of soil moisture and temperature in many global regions and throughout the soil layers. Furthermore, significant improvements are also found in reproducing the time evolution of the 2012 US Midwest drought. The WCLDA system provides the groundwork for future predictability studies.
Justin Peter, Elisabeth Vogel, Wendy Sharples, Ulrike Bende-Michl, Louise Wilson, Pandora Hope, Andrew Dowdy, Greg Kociuba, Sri Srikanthan, Vi Co Duong, Jake Roussis, Vjekoslav Matic, Zaved Khan, Alison Oke, Margot Turner, Stuart Baron-Hay, Fiona Johnson, Raj Mehrotra, Ashish Sharma, Marcus Thatcher, Ali Azarvinand, Steven Thomas, Ghyslaine Boschat, Chantal Donnelly, and Robert Argent
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2755–2781, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2755-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2755-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We detail the production of datasets and communication to end users of high-resolution projections of rainfall, runoff, and soil moisture for the entire Australian continent. This is important as previous projections for Australia were for small regions and used differing techniques for their projections, making comparisons difficult across Australia's varied climate zones. The data will be beneficial for research purposes and to aid adaptation to climate change.
Daniele Visioni, Alan Robock, Jim Haywood, Matthew Henry, Simone Tilmes, Douglas G. MacMartin, Ben Kravitz, Sarah J. Doherty, John Moore, Chris Lennard, Shingo Watanabe, Helene Muri, Ulrike Niemeier, Olivier Boucher, Abu Syed, Temitope S. Egbebiyi, Roland Séférian, and Ilaria Quaglia
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2583–2596, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2583-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2583-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes a new experimental protocol for the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). In it, we describe the details of a new simulation of sunlight reflection using the stratospheric aerosols that climate models are supposed to run, and we explain the reasons behind each choice we made when defining the protocol.
Jose Rafael Guarin, Jonas Jägermeyr, Elizabeth A. Ainsworth, Fabio A. A. Oliveira, Senthold Asseng, Kenneth Boote, Joshua Elliott, Lisa Emberson, Ian Foster, Gerrit Hoogenboom, David Kelly, Alex C. Ruane, and Katrina Sharps
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2547–2567, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2547-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2547-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The effects of ozone (O3) stress on crop photosynthesis and leaf senescence were added to maize, rice, soybean, and wheat crop models. The modified models reproduced growth and yields under different O3 levels measured in field experiments and reported in the literature. The combined interactions between O3 and additional stresses were reproduced with the new models. These updated crop models can be used to simulate impacts of O3 stress under future climate change and air pollution scenarios.
Jiachen Lu, Negin Nazarian, Melissa Anne Hart, E. Scott Krayenhoff, and Alberto Martilli
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2525–2545, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2525-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2525-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study enhances urban canopy models by refining key assumptions. Simulations for various urban scenarios indicate discrepancies in turbulent transport efficiency for flow properties. We propose two modifications that involve characterizing diffusion coefficients for momentum and turbulent kinetic energy separately and introducing a physics-based
mass-fluxterm. These adjustments enhance the model's performance, offering more reliable temperature and surface flux estimates.
Justin L. Willson, Kevin A. Reed, Christiane Jablonowski, James Kent, Peter H. Lauritzen, Ramachandran Nair, Mark A. Taylor, Paul A. Ullrich, Colin M. Zarzycki, David M. Hall, Don Dazlich, Ross Heikes, Celal Konor, David Randall, Thomas Dubos, Yann Meurdesoif, Xi Chen, Lucas Harris, Christian Kühnlein, Vivian Lee, Abdessamad Qaddouri, Claude Girard, Marco Giorgetta, Daniel Reinert, Hiroaki Miura, Tomoki Ohno, and Ryuji Yoshida
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2493–2507, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2493-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2493-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Accurate simulation of tropical cyclones (TCs) is essential to understanding their behavior in a changing climate. One way this is accomplished is through model intercomparison projects, where results from multiple climate models are analyzed to provide benchmark solutions for the wider climate modeling community. This study describes and analyzes the previously developed TC test case for nine climate models in an intercomparison project, providing solutions that aid in model development.
Stephanie Fiedler, Vaishali Naik, Fiona M. O'Connor, Christopher J. Smith, Paul Griffiths, Ryan J. Kramer, Toshihiko Takemura, Robert J. Allen, Ulas Im, Matthew Kasoar, Angshuman Modak, Steven Turnock, Apostolos Voulgarakis, Duncan Watson-Parris, Daniel M. Westervelt, Laura J. Wilcox, Alcide Zhao, William J. Collins, Michael Schulz, Gunnar Myhre, and Piers M. Forster
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2387–2417, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2387-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2387-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate scientists want to better understand modern climate change. Thus, climate model experiments are performed and compared. The results of climate model experiments differ, as assessed in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report. This article gives insights into the challenges and outlines opportunities for further improving the understanding of climate change. It is based on views of a group of experts in atmospheric composition–climate interactions.
Sergey Danilov, Carolin Mehlmann, Dmitry Sidorenko, and Qiang Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2287–2297, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2287-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2287-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Sea ice models are a necessary component of climate models. At very high resolution they are capable of simulating linear kinematic features, such as leads, which are important for better prediction of heat exchanges between the ocean and atmosphere. Two new discretizations are described which improve the sea ice component of the Finite volumE Sea ice–Ocean Model (FESOM version 2) by allowing simulations of finer scales.
Yangke Liu, Qing Bao, Bian He, Xiaofei Wu, Jing Yang, Yimin Liu, Guoxiong Wu, Tao Zhu, Siyuan Zhou, Yao Tang, Ankang Qu, Yalan Fan, Anling Liu, Dandan Chen, Zhaoming Luo, Xing Hu, and Tongwen Wu
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This article gives an overview introduction of the IAP-CAS S2S (sub-seasonal to seasonal) ensemble forecasting system and MJO forecast evaluation of the system. Compared to other S2S models, the IAP-CAS model has its advantages but also exhibits some biases, including underdispersive ensemble, overestimated amplitude and faster propagation speed when forecasting MJO. We also provide the explanation towards these biases and prospects for further improvement of this system in the future.
Tian Gan, Gregory E. Tucker, Eric W. H. Hutton, Mark D. Piper, Irina Overeem, Albert J. Kettner, Benjamin Campforts, Julia M. Moriarty, Brianna Undzis, Ethan Pierce, and Lynn McCready
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2165–2185, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2165-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2165-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study presents the design, implementation, and application of the CSDMS Data Components. The case studies demonstrate that the Data Components provide a consistent way to access heterogeneous datasets from multiple sources, and to seamlessly integrate them with various models for Earth surface process modeling. The Data Components support the creation of open data–model integration workflows to improve the research transparency and reproducibility.
Jérémy Bernard, Erwan Bocher, Matthieu Gousseff, François Leconte, and Elisabeth Le Saux Wiederhold
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2077–2116, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2077-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2077-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Geographical features may have a considerable effect on local climate. The local climate zone (LCZ) system proposed by Stewart and Oke (2012) is seen as a standard approach for classifying any zone according to a set of geographic indicators. While many methods already exist to map the LCZ, only a few tools are openly and freely available. We present the algorithm implemented in GeoClimate software to identify the LCZ of any place in the world using OpenStreetMap data.
Thomas Extier, Thibaut Caley, and Didier M. Roche
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2117–2139, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2117-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2117-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Stable water isotopes are used to infer changes in the hydrological cycle for different time periods in climatic archive and climate models. We present the implementation of the δ2H and δ17O water isotopes in the coupled climate model iLOVECLIM and calculate the d- and 17O-excess. Results of a simulation under preindustrial conditions show that the model correctly reproduces the water isotope distribution in the atmosphere and ocean in comparison to data and other global circulation models.
Joseph P. Hollowed, Christiane Jablonowski, Hunter Y. Brown, Benjamin R. Hillman, Diana L. Bull, and Joseph L. Hart
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-335, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-335, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Large volcanic eruptions deposit material into the upper-atmosphere, which is capable of altering temperature and wind patterns of the Earth's atmosphere for years following. This research describes a new method of simulating these effects in an idealized, efficient atmospheric model. A volcanic eruption of sulfur dioxide is described with a simplified set of physical rules, which eventually cools the planetary surface. This model has been designed as a testbed for climate attribution studies.
Kirsten L. Findell, Zun Yin, Eunkyo Seo, Paul A. Dirmeyer, Nathan P. Arnold, Nathaniel Chaney, Megan D. Fowler, Meng Huang, David M. Lawrence, Po-Lun Ma, and Joseph A. Santanello Jr.
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1869–1883, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1869-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1869-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We outline a request for sub-daily data to accurately capture the process-level connections between land states, surface fluxes, and the boundary layer response. This high-frequency model output will allow for more direct comparison with observational field campaigns on process-relevant timescales, enable demonstration of inter-model spread in land–atmosphere coupling processes, and aid in targeted identification of sources of deficiencies and opportunities for improvement of the models.
Marlene Klockmann, Udo von Toussaint, and Eduardo Zorita
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1765–1787, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1765-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1765-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Reconstructions of climate variability before the observational period rely on climate proxies and sophisticated statistical models to link the proxy information and climate variability. Existing models tend to underestimate the true magnitude of variability, especially if the proxies contain non-climatic noise. We present and test a promising new framework for climate-index reconstructions, based on Gaussian processes, which reconstructs robust variability estimates from noisy and sparse data.
Aaron A. Naidoo-Bagwell, Fanny M. Monteiro, Katharine R. Hendry, Scott Burgan, Jamie D. Wilson, Ben A. Ward, Andy Ridgwell, and Daniel J. Conley
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1729–1748, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1729-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1729-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
As an extension to the EcoGEnIE 1.0 Earth system model that features a diverse plankton community, EcoGEnIE 1.1 includes siliceous plankton diatoms and also considers their impact on biogeochemical cycles. With updates to existing nutrient cycles and the introduction of the silicon cycle, we see improved model performance relative to observational data. Through a more functionally diverse plankton community, the new model enables more comprehensive future study of ocean ecology.
Martin Butzin, Ying Ye, Christoph Völker, Özgür Gürses, Judith Hauck, and Peter Köhler
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1709–1727, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1709-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1709-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper we describe the implementation of the carbon isotopes 13C and 14C into the marine biogeochemistry model FESOM2.1-REcoM3 and present results of long-term test simulations. Our model results are largely consistent with marine carbon isotope reconstructions for the pre-anthropogenic period, but also exhibit some discrepancies.
Sven Karsten, Hagen Radtke, Matthias Gröger, Ha T. M. Ho-Hagemann, Hossein Mashayekh, Thomas Neumann, and H. E. Markus Meier
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1689–1708, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1689-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1689-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes the development of a regional Earth System Model for the Baltic Sea region. In contrast to conventional coupling approaches, the presented model includes a flux calculator operating on a common exchange grid. This approach automatically ensures a locally consistent treatment of fluxes and simplifies the exchange of model components. The presented model can be used for various scientific questions, such as studies of natural variability and ocean–atmosphere interactions.
Skyler Graap and Colin M. Zarzycki
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1627–1650, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1627-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1627-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
A key target for improving climate models is how low, bright clouds are predicted over tropical oceans, since they have important consequences for the Earth's energy budget. A climate model has been updated to improve the physical realism of the treatment of how momentum is moved up and down in the atmosphere. By comparing this updated model to real-world observations from balloon launches, it can be shown to more accurately depict atmospheric structure in trade-wind areas close to the Equator.
Marika M. Holland, Cecile Hannay, John Fasullo, Alexandra Jahn, Jennifer E. Kay, Michael Mills, Isla R. Simpson, William Wieder, Peter Lawrence, Erik Kluzek, and David Bailey
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1585–1602, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1585-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1585-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate evolves in response to changing forcings, as prescribed in simulations. Models and forcings are updated over time to reflect new understanding. This makes it difficult to attribute simulation differences to either model or forcing changes. Here we present new simulations which enable the separation of model structure and forcing influence between two widely used simulation sets. Results indicate a strong influence of aerosol emission uncertainty on historical climate.
Rongyun Tang, Mingzhou Jin, Jiafu Mao, Daniel M. Ricciuto, Anping Chen, and Yulong Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1525–1542, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1525-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1525-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Carbon-rich boreal peatlands are at risk of burning. The reproducibility and predictability of rare peatland fire events are investigated by constructing a two-step error-correcting machine learning framework to tackle such complex systems. Fire occurrence and impacts are highly predictable with our approach. Factor-controlling simulations revealed that temperature, moisture, and freeze–thaw cycles control boreal peatland fires, indicating thermal impacts on causing peat fires.
Allison B. Collow, Peter R. Colarco, Arlindo M. da Silva, Virginie Buchard, Huisheng Bian, Mian Chin, Sampa Das, Ravi Govindaraju, Dongchul Kim, and Valentina Aquila
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1443–1468, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1443-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1443-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The GOCART aerosol module within the Goddard Earth Observing System recently underwent a major refactoring and update to the representation of physical processes. Code changes that were included in GOCART Second Generation (GOCART-2G) are documented, and we establish a benchmark simulation that is to be used for future development of the system. The 4-year benchmark simulation was evaluated using in situ and spaceborne measurements to develop a baseline and prioritize future development.
Oksana Guba, Mark A. Taylor, Peter A. Bosler, Christopher Eldred, and Peter H. Lauritzen
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1429–1442, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1429-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1429-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We want to reduce errors in the moist energy budget in numerical atmospheric models. We study a few common assumptions and mechanisms that are used for the moist physics. Some mechanisms are more consistent with the underlying equations. Separately, we study how assumptions about models' thermodynamics affect the modeled energy of precipitation. We also explain how to conserve energy in the moist physics for nonhydrostatic models.
Konstantin Aiteew, Jarno Rouhiainen, Claas Nendel, and René Dechow
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1349–1385, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1349-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1349-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study evaluated the biogeochemical model MONICA and its performance in simulating soil organic carbon changes. MONICA can reproduce plant growth, carbon and nitrogen dynamics, soil water and temperature. The model results were compared with five established carbon turnover models. With the exception of certain sites, adequate reproduction of soil organic carbon stock change rates was achieved. The MONICA model was capable of performing similar to or even better than the other models.
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...
