Articles | Volume 13, issue 1
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 201–224, 2020
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-201-2020
© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Special issue: Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) Experimental...
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 201–224, 2020
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-201-2020
© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Development and technical paper 28 Jan 2020
Development and technical paper | 28 Jan 2020
The CMIP6 Data Request (DREQ, version 01.00.31)
Martin Juckes et al.
Related authors
Ruth Petrie, Sébastien Denvil, Sasha Ames, Guillaume Levavasseur, Sandro Fiore, Chris Allen, Fabrizio Antonio, Katharina Berger, Pierre-Antoine Bretonnière, Luca Cinquini, Eli Dart, Prashanth Dwarakanath, Kelsey Druken, Ben Evans, Laurent Franchistéguy, Sébastien Gardoll, Eric Gerbier, Mark Greenslade, David Hassell, Alan Iwi, Martin Juckes, Stephan Kindermann, Lukasz Lacinski, Maria Mirto, Atef Ben Nasser, Paola Nassisi, Eric Nienhouse, Sergey Nikonov, Alessandra Nuzzo, Clare Richards, Syazwan Ridzwan, Michel Rixen, Kim Serradell, Kate Snow, Ag Stephens, Martina Stockhause, Hans Vahlenkamp, and Rick Wagner
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 629–644, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-629-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-629-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes the infrastructure that is used to distribute Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) data around the world for analysis by the climate research community. It is expected that there will be ~20 PB (petabytes) of data available for analysis. The operations team performed a series of preparation "data challenges" to ensure all components of the infrastructure were operational for when the data became available for timely data distribution and subsequent analysis.
Venkatramani Balaji, Karl E. Taylor, Martin Juckes, Bryan N. Lawrence, Paul J. Durack, Michael Lautenschlager, Chris Blanton, Luca Cinquini, Sébastien Denvil, Mark Elkington, Francesca Guglielmo, Eric Guilyardi, David Hassell, Slava Kharin, Stefan Kindermann, Sergey Nikonov, Aparna Radhakrishnan, Martina Stockhause, Tobias Weigel, and Dean Williams
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 3659–3680, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3659-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-3659-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
We present recommendations for the global data infrastructure needed to support CMIP scientific design and its future growth and evolution. We follow a dataset-centric design less prone to systemic failure. Scientific publication in the digital age is evolving to make data a primary scientific output, alongside articles. We design toward that future scientific data ecosystem, informed by the need for reproducibility, data provenance, future data technologies, and measures of costs and benefits.
Veronika Eyring, Mattia Righi, Axel Lauer, Martin Evaldsson, Sabrina Wenzel, Colin Jones, Alessandro Anav, Oliver Andrews, Irene Cionni, Edouard L. Davin, Clara Deser, Carsten Ehbrecht, Pierre Friedlingstein, Peter Gleckler, Klaus-Dirk Gottschaldt, Stefan Hagemann, Martin Juckes, Stephan Kindermann, John Krasting, Dominik Kunert, Richard Levine, Alexander Loew, Jarmo Mäkelä, Gill Martin, Erik Mason, Adam S. Phillips, Simon Read, Catherine Rio, Romain Roehrig, Daniel Senftleben, Andreas Sterl, Lambertus H. van Ulft, Jeremy Walton, Shiyu Wang, and Keith D. Williams
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1747–1802, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1747-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1747-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
A community diagnostics and performance metrics tool for the evaluation of Earth system models (ESMs) in CMIP has been developed that allows for routine comparison of single or multiple models, either against predecessor versions or against observations.
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.
Trevor J. McDougall, Paul M. Barker, Ryan M. Holmes, Rich Pawlowicz, Stephen M. Griffies, and Paul J. Durack
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-426, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-426, 2021
Revised manuscript under review for GMD
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 the model was EOS-80 or TEOS-10.
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
Building indoor model in PALM-4U: indoor climate, energy demand, and the interaction between buildings and the urban microclimate
Improvement of modeling plant responses to low soil moisture in JULESvn4.9 and evaluation against flux tower measurements
Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 – diagnostics for extreme events, regional and impact evaluation, and analysis of Earth system models in CMIP
Reproducing complex simulations of economic impacts of climate change with lower-cost emulators
An improved multivariable integrated evaluation method and tool (MVIETool) v1.0 for multimodel intercomparison
Physically regularized machine learning emulators of aerosol activation
FaIRv2.0.0: a generalized impulse response model for climate uncertainty and future scenario exploration
BCC-CSM2-HR: a high-resolution version of the Beijing Climate Center Climate System Model
A Schwarz iterative method to evaluate ocean–atmosphere coupling schemes: implementation and diagnostics in IPSL-CM6-SW-VLR
Unstructured global to coastal wave modeling for the Energy Exascale Earth System Model using WAVEWATCH III version 6.07
TransEBM v. 1.0: description, tuning, and validation of a transient model of the Earth's energy balance in two dimensions
SimCloud version 1.0: a simple diagnostic cloud scheme for idealized climate models
Sensitivity of precipitation and temperature over the Mount Kenya area to physics parameterization options in a high-resolution model simulation performed with WRFV3.8.1
The GPU version of LASG/IAP Climate System Ocean Model version 3 (LICOM3) under the heterogeneous-compute interface for portability (HIP) framework and its large-scale application
Developing a common, flexible and efficient framework for weakly coupled ensemble data assimilation based on C-Coupler2.0
JULES-CN: a coupled terrestrial carbon–nitrogen scheme (JULES vn5.1)
Ensemble prediction using a new dataset of ECMWF initial states – OpenEnsemble 1.0
Global evaluation of the nutrient-enabled version of the land surface model ORCHIDEE-CNP v1.2 (r5986)
Quantifying and attributing time step sensitivities in present-day climate simulations conducted with EAMv1
A process-based evaluation of the Intermediate Complexity Atmospheric Research Model (ICAR) 1.0.1
Performance of the Adriatic Sea and Coast (AdriSC) climate component – a COAWST V3.3-based coupled atmosphere-ocean modelling suite: atmospheric part
Effects of coupling a stochastic convective parameterization with the Zhang–McFarlane scheme on precipitation simulation in the DOE E3SMv1.0 atmosphere model
Sensitivity of surface solar radiation to aerosol–radiation and aerosol–cloud interactions over Europe in WRFv3.6.1 climatic runs with fully interactive aerosols
Evaluation of regional climate models ALARO-0 and REMO2015 at 0.22° resolution over the CORDEX Central Asia domain
Using the anomaly forcing Community Land Model (CLM 4.5) for crop yield projections
PMIP4 experiments using MIROC-ES2L Earth system model
Simulating the mid-Holocene, last interglacial and mid-Pliocene climate with EC-Earth3-LR
Understanding the development of systematic errors in the Asian summer monsoon
ICON in Climate Limited-area Mode (ICON release version 2.6.1): a new regional climate model
CM2Mc-LPJmL v1.0: Biophysical coupling of a process-based dynamic vegetation model with managed land to a general circulation model
The SMHI Large Ensemble (SMHI-LENS) with EC-Earth3
Climate model-informed deep learning of global soil moisture distribution
Evaluation of polar stratospheric clouds in the global chemistry–climate model SOCOLv3.1 by comparison with CALIPSO spaceborne lidar measurements
Lossy compression of Earth system model data based on a hierarchical tensor with Adaptive-HGFDR (v1.0)
Methane chemistry in a nutshell – the new submodels CH4 (v1.0) and TRSYNC (v1.0) in MESSy (v2.54.0)
Coordinating an operational data distribution network for CMIP6 data
Implementation of sequential cropping into JULESvn5.2 land-surface model
Development of four-dimensional variational assimilation system based on the GRAPES–CUACE adjoint model (GRAPES–CUACE-4D-Var V1.0) and its application in emission inversion
HIRM v1.0: a hybrid impulse response model for climate modeling and uncertainty analyses
CLIMADA v1.4.1: towards a globally consistent adaptation options appraisal tool
FORTE 2.0: a fast, parallel and flexible coupled climate model
Optimization of the sulfate aerosol hygroscopicity parameter in WRF-Chem
Updated European hydraulic pedotransfer functions with communicated uncertainties in the predicted variables (euptfv2)
Spin-up characteristics with three types of initial fields and the restart effects on forecast accuracy in the GRAPES global forecast system
GTS v1.0: a macrophysics scheme for climate models based on a probability density function
Calibration of temperature-dependent ocean microbial processes in the cGENIE.muffin (v0.9.13) Earth system model
A Permafrost Implementation in the Simple Carbon-Climate Model Hector
The ENEA-REG system (v1.0), a multi-component regional earth system model. Sensitivity to different atmospheric component over Med-CORDEX region
Description and evaluation of aerosol in UKESM1 and HadGEM3-GC3.1 CMIP6 historical simulations
DiRong1.0: a distributed implementation for improving routing network generation in model coupling
Jens Pfafferott, Sascha Rißmann, Matthias Sühring, Farah Kanani-Sühring, and Björn Maronga
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3511–3519, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3511-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3511-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The building model is integrated via an urban surface model into the urban climate model.
There is a strong interaction between the built environment and the urban climate.
According to the building energy concept, the energy demand results in a waste heat; this is directly transferred to the urban environment.
The impact of buildings on the urban climate is defined by different physical building parameters with different technical facilities for ventilation, heating and cooling.
Anna B. Harper, Karina E. Williams, Patrick C. McGuire, Maria Carolina Duran Rojas, Debbie Hemming, Anne Verhoef, Chris Huntingford, Lucy Rowland, Toby Marthews, Cleiton Breder Eller, Camilla Mathison, Rodolfo L. B. Nobrega, Nicola Gedney, Pier Luigi Vidale, Fred Otu-Larbi, Divya Pandey, Sebastien Garrigues, Azin Wright, Darren Slevin, Martin G. De Kauwe, Eleanor Blyth, Jonas Ardö, Andrew Black, Damien Bonal, Nina Buchmann, Benoit Burban, Kathrin Fuchs, Agnès de Grandcourt, Ivan Mammarella, Lutz Merbold, Leonardo Montagnani, Yann Nouvellon, Natalia Restrepo-Coupe, and Georg Wohlfahrt
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3269–3294, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3269-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3269-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluated 10 representations of soil moisture stress in the JULES land surface model against site observations of GPP and latent heat flux. Increasing the soil depth and plant access to deep soil moisture improved many aspects of the simulations, and we recommend these settings in future work using JULES. In addition, using soil matric potential presents the opportunity to include parameters specific to plant functional type to further improve modeled fluxes.
Katja Weigel, Lisa Bock, Bettina K. Gier, Axel Lauer, Mattia Righi, Manuel Schlund, Kemisola Adeniyi, Bouwe Andela, Enrico Arnone, Peter Berg, Louis-Philippe Caron, Irene Cionni, Susanna Corti, Niels Drost, Alasdair Hunter, Llorenç Lledó, Christian Wilhelm Mohr, Aytaç Paçal, Núria Pérez-Zanón, Valeriu Predoi, Marit Sandstad, Jana Sillmann, Andreas Sterl, Javier Vegas-Regidor, Jost von Hardenberg, and Veronika Eyring
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3159–3184, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3159-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3159-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This work presents new diagnostics for the Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 on the hydrological cycle, extreme events, impact assessment, regional evaluations, and ensemble member selection. The ESMValTool v2.0 diagnostics are developed by a large community of scientists aiming to facilitate the evaluation and comparison of Earth system models (ESMs) with a focus on the ESMs participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP).
Jun'ya Takakura, Shinichiro Fujimori, Kiyoshi Takahashi, Naota Hanasaki, Tomoko Hasegawa, Yukiko Hirabayashi, Yasushi Honda, Toshichika Iizumi, Chan Park, Makoto Tamura, and Yasuaki Hijioka
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3121–3140, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3121-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3121-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
To simplify calculating economic impacts of climate change, statistical methods called emulators are developed and evaluated. There are trade-offs between model complexity and emulation performance. Aggregated economic impacts can be approximated by relatively simple emulators, but complex emulators are necessary to accommodate finer-scale economic impacts.
Meng-Zhuo Zhang, Zhongfeng Xu, Ying Han, and Weidong Guo
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3079–3094, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3079-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3079-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The Multivariable Integrated Evaluation Tool (MVIETool) is a simple-to-use and straightforward tool designed for evaluation and intercomparison of climate models in terms of vector fields or multiple fields. The tool incorporates some new improvements in vector field evaluation (VFE) and multivariable integrated evaluation (MVIE) methods, which are introduced in this paper.
Sam J. Silva, Po-Lun Ma, Joseph C. Hardin, and Daniel Rothenberg
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3067–3077, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3067-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3067-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The activation of aerosol into cloud droplets is an important but uncertain process in the Earth system. The physical and chemical interactions that govern this process are too computationally expensive to explicitly resolve in modern Earth system models. Here, we demonstrate how hybrid machine learning approaches can provide a potential path forward, enabling the representation of the more detailed physics and chemistry at a reduced computational cost while still retaining physical information.
Nicholas J. Leach, Stuart Jenkins, Zebedee Nicholls, Christopher J. Smith, John Lynch, Michelle Cain, Tristram Walsh, Bill Wu, Junichi Tsutsui, and Myles R. Allen
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 3007–3036, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3007-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-3007-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents an update of the FaIR simple climate model, which can estimate the impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions on the global climate. This update aims to significantly increase the structural simplicity of the model, making it more understandable and transparent. This simplicity allows it to be implemented in a wide range of environments, including Excel. We suggest that it could be used widely in academia, corporate research, and education.
Tongwen Wu, Rucong Yu, Yixiong Lu, Weihua Jie, Yongjie Fang, Jie Zhang, Li Zhang, Xiaoge Xin, Laurent Li, Zaizhi Wang, Yiming Liu, Fang Zhang, Fanghua Wu, Min Chu, Jianglong Li, Weiping Li, Yanwu Zhang, Xueli Shi, Wenyan Zhou, Junchen Yao, Xiangwen Liu, He Zhao, Jinghui Yan, Min Wei, Wei Xue, Anning Huang, Yaocun Zhang, Yu Zhang, Qi Shu, and Aixue Hu
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2977–3006, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2977-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2977-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents the high-resolution version of the Beijing Climate Center (BCC) Climate System Model, BCC-CSM2-HR, and describes its climate simulation performance including the atmospheric temperature and wind; precipitation; and the tropical climate phenomena such as TC, MJO, QBO, and ENSO. BCC-CSM2-HR is our model version contributing to the HighResMIP. We focused on its updates and differential characteristics from its predecessor, the medium-resolution version BCC-CSM2-MR.
Olivier Marti, Sébastien Nguyen, Pascale Braconnot, Sophie Valcke, Florian Lemarié, and Eric Blayo
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2959–2975, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2959-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2959-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
State-of-the-art Earth system models, like the ones used in CMIP6, suffer from temporal inconsistencies at the ocean–atmosphere interface. In this study, a mathematically consistent iterative Schwarz method is used as a reference. Its tremendous computational cost makes it unusable for production runs, but it allows us to evaluate the error made when using legacy coupling schemes. The impact on the climate at longer timescales of days to decades is not evaluated.
Steven R. Brus, Phillip J. Wolfram, Luke P. Van Roekel, and Jessica D. Meixner
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2917–2938, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2917-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2917-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Wind-generated waves are an important process in the global climate system. They mediate many interactions between the ocean, atmosphere, and sea ice. Models which describe these waves are computationally expensive and have often been excluded from coupled Earth system models. To address this, we have developed a capability for the WAVEWATCH III model which allows model resolution to be varied globally across the coastal open ocean. This allows for improved accuracy at reduced computing time.
Elisa Ziegler and Kira Rehfeld
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2843–2866, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2843-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2843-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Past climate changes are the only record of how the climate responds to changes in conditions on Earth, but simulations with complex climate models are challenging. We extended a simple climate model such that it simulates the development of temperatures over time. In the model, changes in carbon dioxide and ice distribution affect the simulated temperatures the most. The model is very efficient and can therefore be used to examine past climate changes happening over long periods of time.
Qun Liu, Matthew Collins, Penelope Maher, Stephen I. Thomson, and Geoffrey K. Vallis
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2801–2826, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2801-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2801-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Clouds play an vital role in Earth's energy budget, and even a small change in cloud fields can have a large impact on the climate system. They also bring lots of uncertainties to climate models. Here we implement a simple diagnostic cloud scheme in order to reproduce the general radiative properties of clouds. The scheme can capture some key features of the cloud fraction and cloud radiative properties and thus provide a useful tool to explore unsolved problems relating to clouds.
Martina Messmer, Santos J. González-Rojí, Christoph C. Raible, and Thomas F. Stocker
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2691–2711, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2691-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2691-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Sensitivity experiments with the WRF model are run to find an optimal parameterization setup for precipitation around Mount Kenya at a scale that resolves convection (1 km). Precipitation is compared against many weather stations and gridded observational data sets. Both the temporal correlation of precipitation sums and pattern correlations show that fewer nests lead to a more constrained simulation with higher correlation. The Grell–Freitas cumulus scheme obtains the most accurate results.
Pengfei Wang, Jinrong Jiang, Pengfei Lin, Mengrong Ding, Junlin Wei, Feng Zhang, Lian Zhao, Yiwen Li, Zipeng Yu, Weipeng Zheng, Yongqiang Yu, Xuebin Chi, and Hailong Liu
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2781–2799, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2781-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2781-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Global ocean general circulation models are a fundamental tool for oceanography research, ocean forecast, and climate change research. The increasing resolution will greatly improve simulations of the models, but it also demands much more computing resources. In this study, we have ported an ocean general circulation model to a heterogeneous computing system and have developed a 3–5 km model version. A 14-year integration has been conducted and the preliminary results have been evaluated.
Chao Sun, Li Liu, Ruizhe Li, Xinzhu Yu, Hao Yu, Biao Zhao, Guansuo Wang, Juanjuan Liu, Fangli Qiao, and Bin Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2635–2657, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2635-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2635-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Data assimilation (DA) provides better initial states of model runs by combining observations and models. This work focuses on the technical challenges in developing a coupled ensemble-based DA system and proposes a new DA framework DAFCC1 based on C-Coupler2. DAFCC1 enables users to conveniently integrate a DA method into a model with automatic and efficient data exchanges. A sample DA system that combines GSI/EnKF and FIO-AOW demonstrates the effectiveness of DAFCC1.
Andrew J. Wiltshire, Eleanor J. Burke, Sarah E. Chadburn, Chris D. Jones, Peter M. Cox, Taraka Davies-Barnard, Pierre Friedlingstein, Anna B. Harper, Spencer Liddicoat, Stephen Sitch, and Sönke Zaehle
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2161–2186, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2161-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2161-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Limited nitrogen availbility can restrict the growth of plants and their ability to assimilate carbon. It is important to include the impact of this process on the global land carbon cycle. This paper presents a model of the coupled land carbon and nitrogen cycle, which is included within the UK Earth System model to improve projections of climate change and impacts on ecosystems.
Pirkka Ollinaho, Glenn D. Carver, Simon T. K. Lang, Lauri Tuppi, Madeleine Ekblom, and Heikki Järvinen
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 2143–2160, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2143-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-2143-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
OpenEnsemble 1.0 is a novel dataset that aims to open ensemble or probabilistic weather forecasting research up to the academic community. The dataset contains atmospheric states that are required for running model forecasts of atmospheric evolution. Our capacity to observe the atmosphere is limited; thus, a single reconstruction of the atmospheric state contains some errors. Our dataset provides sets of 50 slightly different atmospheric states so that these errors can be taken into account.
Yan Sun, Daniel S. Goll, Jinfeng Chang, Philippe Ciais, Betrand Guenet, Julian Helfenstein, Yuanyuan Huang, Ronny Lauerwald, Fabienne Maignan, Victoria Naipal, Yilong Wang, Hui Yang, and Haicheng Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1987–2010, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1987-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1987-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluated the performance of the nutrient-enabled version of the land surface model ORCHIDEE-CNP v1.2 against remote sensing, ground-based measurement networks and ecological databases. The simulated carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus fluxes among different spatial scales are generally in good agreement with data-driven estimates. However, the recent carbon sink in the Northern Hemisphere is substantially underestimated. Potential causes and model development priorities are discussed.
Hui Wan, Shixuan Zhang, Philip J. Rasch, Vincent E. Larson, Xubin Zeng, and Huiping Yan
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1921–1948, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1921-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1921-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Numerical models used in weather and climate research and prediction unavoidably contain numerical errors resulting from temporal discretization, and the impact of such errors can be substantial. Complex process interactions often make it difficult to pinpoint the exact sources of such errors. This study uses a series of sensitivity experiments to identify components in a global atmosphere model that are responsible for time step sensitivities in various cloud regimes.
Johannes Horak, Marlis Hofer, Ethan Gutmann, Alexander Gohm, and Mathias W. Rotach
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1657–1680, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1657-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1657-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This process-based evaluation of the atmospheric model ICAR is conducted to derive recommendations to increase the likelihood of its results being correct for the right reasons. We conclude that a different diagnosis of the atmospheric background state is necessary, as well as a model top at an elevation of at least 10 km. Alternative boundary conditions at the top were not found to be effective in reducing this model top elevation. The results have wide implications for future ICAR studies.
Cléa Denamiel, Petra Pranić, Damir Ivanković, Iva Tojčić, and Ivica Vilibić
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-3, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-3, 2021
Revised manuscript accepted for GMD
Short summary
Short summary
The atmospheric results of the Adriatic Sea and Coast (AdriSC) climate simulation (1987–2017) are evaluated against available observational datasets in the Adriatic region. Generally, the AdriSC model performs better than the regional climate models with 4 time coarser resolutions, except for the summer temperatures which are systematically underestimated. High-resolution climate models may thus provide new insights about the local impacts of global warming in the Adriatic Sea.
Yong Wang, Guang J. Zhang, Shaocheng Xie, Wuyin Lin, George C. Craig, Qi Tang, and Hsi-Yen Ma
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1575–1593, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1575-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1575-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
A stochastic deep convection parameterization is implemented into the US Department of Energy Energy Exascale Earth System Model Atmosphere Model version 1 (EAMv1). Compared to the default model, the well-known problem of
too much light rain and too little heavy rainis largely alleviated over the tropics with the stochastic scheme. Results from this study provide important insights into the model performance of EAMv1 when stochasticity is included in the deep convective parameterization.
Sonia Jerez, Laura Palacios-Peña, Claudia Gutiérrez, Pedro Jiménez-Guerrero, Jose María López-Romero, Enrique Pravia-Sarabia, and Juan Pedro Montávez
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1533–1551, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1533-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1533-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This research explores the role of aerosols when modeling surface solar radiation at regional scales (over Europe). A set of model experiments was performed with and without dynamical modeling of atmospheric aerosols and their direct and indirect effects on radiation. Results showed significant differences in the simulated solar radiation, mainly driven by the aerosol impact on cloudiness, which calls for caution when interpreting model experiments that do not include aerosols.
Sara Top, Lola Kotova, Lesley De Cruz, Svetlana Aniskevich, Leonid Bobylev, Rozemien De Troch, Natalia Gnatiuk, Anne Gobin, Rafiq Hamdi, Arne Kriegsmann, Armelle Reca Remedio, Abdulla Sakalli, Hans Van De Vyver, Bert Van Schaeybroeck, Viesturs Zandersons, Philippe De Maeyer, Piet Termonia, and Steven Caluwaerts
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1267–1293, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1267-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1267-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Detailed climate data are needed to assess the impact of climate change on human and natural systems. The performance of two high-resolution regional climate models, ALARO-0 and REMO2015, was investigated over central Asia, a vulnerable region where detailed climate information is scarce. In certain subregions the produced climate data are suitable for impact studies, but bias adjustment is required for subregions where significant biases have been identified.
Yaqiong Lu and Xianyu Yang
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1253–1265, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1253-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1253-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Crop growth in land surface models normally requires high-temporal-resolution climate data, but such high-temporal-resolution climate data are not provided by many climate model simulations due to expensive storage, which limits modeling choices if there is an interest in a particular climate simulation that only saved monthly outputs. Our work provides an alternative way to use the monthly climate for crop yield projections. Such an approach could be easily adopted by other crop models.
Rumi Ohgaito, Akitomo Yamamoto, Tomohiro Hajima, Ryouta O'ishi, Manabu Abe, Hiroaki Tatebe, Ayako Abe-Ouchi, and Michio Kawamiya
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1195–1217, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1195-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1195-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Using the MIROC-ES2L Earth system model, selected time periods of the past were simulated. The ability to simulate the past is also an evaluation of the performance of the model in projecting global warming. Simulations for 21 000, 6000, and 127 000 years ago, and a simulation for 1000 years starting in 850 CE were simulated. The results showed that the model can generally describe past climate change.
Qiong Zhang, Ellen Berntell, Josefine Axelsson, Jie Chen, Zixuan Han, Wesley de Nooijer, Zhengyao Lu, Qiang Li, Qiang Zhang, Klaus Wyser, and Shuting Yang
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1147–1169, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1147-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1147-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Paleoclimate modelling has long been regarded as a strong out-of-sample test bed of the climate models that are used for the projection of future climate changes. Here, we document the model experimental setups for the three past warm periods with EC-Earth3-LR and present the results on the large-scale features. The simulations demonstrate good performance of the model in capturing the climate response under different climate forcings.
Gill M. Martin, Richard C. Levine, José M. Rodriguez, and Michael Vellinga
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 1007–1035, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1007-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-1007-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Our study highlights a number of different techniques that can be employed to investigate the sources of model error. We demonstrate how this methodology can be used to identify the regions and model components responsible for the development of long-standing errors in the Asian summer monsoon. Once these are known, further work can be done to explore the local processes contributing to this behaviour and their sensitivity to changes in physical parameterisations and/or model resolution.
Trang Van Pham, Christian Steger, Burkhardt Rockel, Klaus Keuler, Ingo Kirchner, Mariano Mertens, Daniel Rieger, Günther Zängl, and Barbara Früh
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 985–1005, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-985-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-985-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
A new regional climate model was prepared based on a weather forecast model. Slow processes of the climate system such as ocean state development and greenhouse gas emissions were implemented. A model infrastructure and evaluation tools were also prepared to facilitate long-term simulations and model evalution. The first ICON-CLM results were close to observations and comparable to those from COSMO-CLM, the recommended model being used at the Deutscher Wetterdienst and CLM Community.
Markus Drüke, Werner von Bloh, Stefan Petri, Boris Sakschewski, Sibyll Schaphoff, Matthias Forkel, Willem Huiskamp, Georg Feulner, and Kirsten Thonicke
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-436, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-436, 2021
Revised manuscript accepted for GMD
Short summary
Short summary
In this study we couple the well established and comprehensively validated state-of-the-art Dynamic Global Vegetation Model LPJmL5 to the coupled climate model CM2Mc (CM2Mc-LPJmL v.1.0). Several improvements to LPJmL5 were implemented to allow a fully functional biophysical coupling.The new climate model is able to capture important biosphere processes, including fire, mortality, permafrost, hydrological cycling, and the the impacts of managed land (crop growth and irrigation).
Klaus Wyser, Torben Koenigk, Uwe Fladrich, Ramon Fuentes-Franco, Mehdi Pasha Karami, and Tim Kruschke
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-428, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-428, 2021
Revised manuscript accepted for GMD
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes the large ensemble done by SMHI with the EC-Earth3 climate model. The ensemble comprises 50 realisations of the historical experiment and four different future projections for CMIP6. We describe the creation of the initial states for the large ensemble and the reduced set of output variables. A first look at the results illustrates the changes in the climate during this century and puts them in relation to the uncertainty from the model's internal variability.
Klaus Klingmüller and Jos Lelieveld
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-434, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-434, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Soil moisture is of great importance for weather and climate. We present a machine learning model that produces accurate predictions of satellite-observed surface soil moisture, based on meteorological data from a climate model. It can be used as soil moisture parametrisation in climate models and to produce comprehensive global soil moisture datasets. Moreover, it may motivate similar applications of machine learning in climate science.
Michael Steiner, Beiping Luo, Thomas Peter, Michael C. Pitts, and Andrea Stenke
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 935–959, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-935-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-935-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluate polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) as simulated by the chemistry–climate model (CCM) SOCOLv3.1 in comparison with measurements by the CALIPSO satellite. A cold bias results in an overestimated PSC area and mountain-wave ice is underestimated, but we find overall good temporal and spatial agreement of PSC occurrence and composition. This work confirms previous studies indicating that simplified PSC schemes may also achieve good approximations of the fundamental properties of PSCs.
Zhaoyuan Yu, Dongshuang Li, Zhengfang Zhang, Wen Luo, Yuan Liu, Zengjie Wang, and Linwang Yuan
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 875–887, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-875-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-875-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Few lossy compression methods consider both the global and local multidimensional coupling correlations, which could lead to information loss in data compression. Here we develop an adaptive lossy compression method, Adaptive-HGFDR, to capture both the global and local variation of multidimensional coupling correlations and improve approximation accuracy. The method can achieve good compression performances for most flux variables with significant spatiotemporal heterogeneity.
Franziska Winterstein and Patrick Jöckel
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 661–674, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-661-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-661-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Atmospheric methane is currently a hot topic in climate research. This is partly due to its chemically active nature. We introduce a simplified approach to simulate methane in climate models to enable large sensitivity studies by reducing computational cost but including the crucial feedback of methane on stratospheric water vapour. We further provide options to simulate the isotopic content of methane and to generate output for an inverse optimization technique for emission estimation.
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.
Camilla Mathison, Andrew J. Challinor, Chetan Deva, Pete Falloon, Sébastien Garrigues, Sophie Moulin, Karina Williams, and Andy Wiltshire
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 437–471, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-437-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-437-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Sequential cropping (also known as multiple or double cropping) is a common cropping system, particularly in tropical regions. Typically, land surface models only simulate a single crop per year. To understand how sequential crops influence surface fluxes, we implement sequential cropping in JULES to simulate all the crops grown within a year at a given location in a seamless way. We demonstrate the method using a site in Avignon, four locations in India and a regional run for two Indian states.
Chao Wang, Xingqin An, Qing Hou, Zhaobin Sun, Yanjun Li, and Jiangtao Li
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 337–350, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-337-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-337-2021, 2021
Kalyn Dorheim, Steven J. Smith, and Ben Bond-Lamberty
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 365–375, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-365-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-365-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Simple climate models are frequently used in research and decision-making communities because of their tractability and low computational cost. Simple climate models are diverse, including highly idealized and process-based models. Here we present a hybrid approach that combines the strength of two types of simple climate models in a flexible framework. This hybrid approach has provided insights into the climate system and opens an avenue for investigating radiative forcing uncertainties.
David N. Bresch and Gabriela Aznar-Siguan
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 351–363, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-351-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-351-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Climate change is a fact and adaptation a necessity. The Economics of Climate Adaptation methodology provides a framework to integrate risk and reward perspectives of different stakeholders, underpinned by the CLIMADA impact modelling platform. This extended version of CLIMADA enables risk assessment and options appraisal in a modular form and occasionally bespoke fashion yet with high reusability of functionalities to foster usage in interdisciplinary studies and international collaboration.
Adam T. Blaker, Manoj Joshi, Bablu Sinha, David P. Stevens, Robin S. Smith, and Joël J.-M. Hirschi
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 275–293, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-275-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-275-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
FORTE 2.0 is a flexible coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation model that can be run on modest hardware. We present two 2000-year simulations which show that FORTE 2.0 is capable of producing a stable climate. Earlier versions of FORTE were used for a wide range of studies, ranging from aquaplanet configurations to investigating the cold European winters of 2009–2010. This paper introduces the updated model for which the code and configuration are now publicly available.
Ah-Hyun Kim, Seong Soo Yum, Dong Yeong Chang, and Minsu Park
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 259–273, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-259-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-259-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
A new method to estimate the sulfate aerosol hygroscopicity parameter (κSO4) is suggested that can consider κSO4 for two different sulfate species instead of prescribing a single κSO4 value, as in most previous studies. The new method simulates more realistic cloud droplet concentrations and, thus, a more realistic cloud albedo effect than the original method. The new method is simple and readily applicable to modeling studies investigating sulfate aerosols’ effect in aerosol–cloud interactions.
Brigitta Szabó, Melanie Weynants, and Tobias K. D. Weber
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 151–175, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-151-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-151-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents updated European prediction algorithms (euptf2) to compute soil hydraulic parameters from easily available soil properties. The new algorithms lead to significantly better predictions and provide a built-in prediction uncertainty computation. The influence of predictor variables on predicted soil hydraulic properties is explored and practical guidance on how to use the derived PTFs is provided. A website and an R package facilitate easy application of the updated predictions.
Zhanshan Ma, Chuanfeng Zhao, Jiandong Gong, Jin Zhang, Zhe Li, Jian Sun, Yongzhu Liu, Jiong Chen, and Qingu Jiang
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 205–221, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-205-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-205-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The spin-up in GRAPES_GFS, under different initial fields, goes through a dramatic adjustment in the first half-hour of integration and slow dynamic and thermal adjustments afterwards. It lasts for at least 6 h, with model adjustment gradually completed from lower to upper layers in the model. Thus, the forecast results, at least in the first 6 h, should be avoided when used. In addition, the spin-up process should repeat when the model simulation is interrupted.
Chein-Jung Shiu, Yi-Chi Wang, Huang-Hsiung Hsu, Wei-Ting Chen, Hua-Lu Pan, Ruiyu Sun, Yi-Hsuan Chen, and Cheng-An Chen
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 177–204, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-177-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-177-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
A cloud macrophysics scheme utilizing grid-mean hydrometeor information is developed and evaluated for climate models. The GFS–TaiESM–Sundqvist (GTS) scheme can simulate variations of cloud fraction associated with relative humidity (RH) in a more consistent way than the default scheme of CAM5.3. Through better cloud–RH distributions, the GTS scheme helps to better represent cloud fraction, cloud radiative forcing, and thermodynamic-related climatic fields in climate simulations.
Katherine A. Crichton, Jamie D. Wilson, Andy Ridgwell, and Paul N. Pearson
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 125–149, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-125-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-125-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Temperature is a controller of metabolic processes and therefore also a controller of the ocean's biological carbon pump (BCP). We calibrate a temperature-dependent version of the BCP in the cGENIE Earth system model. Since the pre-industrial period, warming has intensified near-surface nutrient recycling, supporting production and largely offsetting stratification-induced surface nutrient limitation. But at the same time less carbon that sinks out of the surface then reaches the deep ocean.
Dawn L. Woodard, Alexey N. Shiklomanov, Ben Kravitz, Corinne Hartin, and Ben Bond-Lamberty
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-377, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-377, 2021
Revised manuscript accepted for GMD
Short summary
Short summary
We have added a representation of the permafrost carbon feedback to the simple, open-source global carbon-climate model Hector and calibrated the results to be consistent with historical data and Earth system model (ESM) projections. Our results closely match previous work, estimating around 110 Pg C emitted from permafrost this century. This capability will be useful to explore uncertainties in this feedback and for coupling with integrated assessment models for policy and economic analysis.
Alessandro Anav, Adriana Carillo, Massimiliano Palma, Maria Vittoria Struglia, Ufuk Utku Turuncoglu, and Gianmaria Sannino
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-248, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-248, 2021
Revised manuscript accepted for GMD
Short summary
Short summary
The Mediterranean basin is a complex region, characterized by the presence of pronounced topography and a complex land-sea distribution including a considerable number of islands and straits; these features generate strong local atmosphere–sea interactions.
Regional Earth System models have been developed and used to study both present and future Mediterranean climate system. The main aims of this paper are to present and evaluate the newly developed regional Earth system model ENEA-REG.
Jane P. Mulcahy, Colin Johnson, Colin G. Jones, Adam C. Povey, Catherine E. Scott, Alistair Sellar, Steven T. Turnock, Matthew T. Woodhouse, Nathan Luke Abraham, Martin B. Andrews, Nicolas Bellouin, Jo Browse, Ken S. Carslaw, Mohit Dalvi, Gerd A. Folberth, Matthew Glover, Daniel P. Grosvenor, Catherine Hardacre, Richard Hill, Ben Johnson, Andy Jones, Zak Kipling, Graham Mann, James Mollard, Fiona M. O'Connor, Julien Palmiéri, Carly Reddington, Steven T. Rumbold, Mark Richardson, Nick A. J. Schutgens, Philip Stier, Marc Stringer, Yongming Tang, Jeremy Walton, Stephanie Woodward, and Andrew Yool
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 6383–6423, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-6383-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-6383-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Aerosols are an important component of the Earth system. Here, we comprehensively document and evaluate the aerosol schemes as implemented in the physical and Earth system models, HadGEM3-GC3.1 and UKESM1. This study provides a useful characterisation of the aerosol climatology in both models, facilitating the understanding of the numerous aerosol–climate interaction studies that will be conducted for CMIP6 and beyond.
Hao Yu, Li Liu, Chao Sun, Ruizhe Li, Xinzhu Yu, Cheng Zhang, Zhiyuan Zhang, and Bin Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 6253–6263, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-6253-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-6253-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Routing network generation is a major step for initializing the data transfer functionality for model coupling. The distributed implementation for routing network generation (DiRong1.0) proposed in this paper can significantly improve the global implementation of routing network generation used in some existing coupling software, because it does not introduce any gather–broadcast communications and achieves much lower complexity in terms of time, memory, and communication.
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...
