Articles | Volume 13, issue 5
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 2149–2167, 2020
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2149-2020
© 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...
Model experiment description paper
06 May 2020
Model experiment description paper
| 06 May 2020
Documenting numerical experiments in support of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6)
Charlotte Pascoe et al.
Related authors
No articles found.
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. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-419, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-419, 2021
Revised manuscript under review for GMD
Short summary
Short summary
A new framework for modelling the terrestrial water cycle in the land system has been implemented. It considers the water cycle as three interconnected components, bringing flexibility in the choice of the physical processes and their temporal and spatial resolutions, and fostering collaborations between land surface, hydrological, and groundwater modelling communities to address key societal questions on the future of water resources in a changing climate.
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.
Martin Juckes, Karl E. Taylor, Paul J. Durack, Bryan Lawrence, Matthew S. Mizielinski, Alison Pamment, Jean-Yves Peterschmitt, Michel Rixen, and Stéphane Sénési
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 201–224, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-201-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-201-2020, 2020
Short summary
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
G. A. Schmidt, J. D. Annan, P. J. Bartlein, B. I. Cook, E. Guilyardi, J. C. Hargreaves, S. P. Harrison, M. Kageyama, A. N. LeGrande, B. Konecky, S. Lovejoy, M. E. Mann, V. Masson-Delmotte, C. Risi, D. Thompson, A. Timmermann, L.-B. Tremblay, and P. Yiou
Clim. Past, 10, 221–250, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-10-221-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-10-221-2014, 2014
Related subject area
Climate and Earth system modeling
CondiDiag1.0: a flexible online diagnostic tool for conditional sampling and budget analysis in the E3SM atmosphere model (EAM)
An evaluation of the E3SMv1 Arctic ocean and sea-ice regionally refined model
Surface Urban Energy and Water Balance Scheme (v2020a) in vegetated areas: parameter derivation and performance evaluation using FLUXNET2015 dataset
The EC-Earth3 Earth system model for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 6
Evaluation of a quasi-steady-state approximation of the cloud droplet growth equation (QDGE) scheme for aerosol activation in global models using multiple aircraft data over both continental and marine environments
Better calibration of cloud parameterizations and subgrid effects increases the fidelity of the E3SM Atmosphere Model version 1
Landslide Susceptibility Assessment Tools v1.0.0b – Project Manager Suite: a new modular toolkit for landslide susceptibility assessment
Added value of EURO-CORDEX high-resolution downscaling over the Iberian Peninsula revisited – Part 1: Precipitation
Added value of EURO-CORDEX high-resolution downscaling over the Iberian Peninsula revisited – Part 2: Max and min temperature
Constraining a land cover map with satellite-based aboveground biomass estimates over Africa
Analysing the PMIP4-CMIP6 collection: a workflow and tool (pmip_p2fvar_analyzer v1)
Impacts of a revised surface roughness parameterization in the Community Land Model 5.1
Novel coupled permafrost–forest model (LAVESI–CryoGrid v1.0) revealing the interplay between permafrost, vegetation, and climate across eastern Siberia
The effects of ocean surface waves on global intraseasonal prediction: case studies with a coupled CFSv2.0–WW3 system
Earth system model parameter adjustment using a Green's functions approach
Effects of forcing differences and initial conditions on inter-model agreement in the VolMIP volc-pinatubo-full experiment
From emission scenarios to spatially resolved projections with a chain of computationally efficient emulators: coupling of MAGICC (v7.5.1) and MESMER (v0.8.3)
Global simulation of dissolved 231Pa and 230Th in the ocean and the sedimentary 231Pa∕230Th ratios with the ocean general circulation model COCO ver4.0
The linear feedback precipitation model (LFPM 1.0) – a simple and efficient model for orographic precipitation in the context of landform evolution modeling
Building a machine learning surrogate model for wildfire activities within a global Earth system model
Variability and extremes: statistical validation of the Alfred Wegener Institute Earth System Model (AWI-ESM)
Extreme events representation in CMCC-CM2 standard and high-resolution general circulation models
TopoCLIM: rapid topography-based downscaling of regional climate model output in complex terrain v1.1
CARDAMOM-FluxVal version 1.0: a FLUXNET-based validation system for CARDAMOM carbon and water flux estimates
Supporting hierarchical soil biogeochemical modeling: version 2 of the Biogeochemical Transport and Reaction model (BeTR-v2)
Using neural network ensembles to separate ocean biogeochemical and physical drivers of phytoplankton biogeography in Earth system models
GAN–argcPredNet v1.0: a generative adversarial model for radar echo extrapolation based on convolutional recurrent units
A circulation-based performance atlas of the CMIP5 and 6 models for regional climate studies in the Northern Hemisphere mid-to-high latitudes
An automatic lake-model application using near-real-time data forcing: development of an operational forecast workflow (COASTLINES) for Lake Erie
ShellChron 0.4.0: a new tool for constructing chronologies in accretionary carbonate archives from stable oxygen isotope profiles
Comparison of ocean heat content estimated using two eddy-resolving hindcast simulations based on OFES1 and OFES2
Enhancing the accessibility of unified modeling systems: GFDL System for High-resolution prediction on Earth-to-Local Domains (SHiELD) v2021b in a container
Minimal CMIP Emulator (MCE v1.2): a new simplified method for probabilistic climate projections
Influence of modifications (from AoB2015 to v0.5) in the Vegetation Optimality Model
C-LLAMA 1.0: a traceable model for food, agriculture, and land use
The Earth Model Column Collaboratory (EMC2) v1.1: an open-source ground-based lidar and radar instrument simulator and subcolumn generator for large-scale models
MPR 1.0: a stand-alone multiscale parameter regionalization tool for improved parameter estimation of land surface models
Description and evaluation of a secondary organic aerosol and new particle formation scheme within TM5-MP v1.2
PARASO, a circum-Antarctic fully coupled ice-sheet–ocean–sea-ice–atmosphere–land model involving f.ETISh1.7, NEMO3.6, LIM3.6, COSMO5.0 and CLM4.5
Modeling land use and land cover change: using a hindcast to estimate economic parameters in gcamland v2.0
Assessment of the Finite-VolumE Sea ice–Ocean Model (FESOM2.0) – Part 2: Partial bottom cells, embedded sea ice and vertical mixing library CVMix
Evaluation and optimisation of the I/O scalability for the next generation of Earth system models: IFS CY43R3 and XIOS 2.0 integration as a case study
Coupling the Community Land Model version 5.0 to the parallel data assimilation framework PDAF: description and applications
Convolutional conditional neural processes for local climate downscaling
Impact of increased resolution on long-standing biases in HighResMIP-PRIMAVERA climate models
Modeling reservoir surface temperatures for regional and global climate models: a multi-model study on the inflow and level variation effects
Importance of radiative transfer processes in urban climate models: a study based on the PALM 6.0 model system
ChAP 1.0: a stationary tropospheric sulfur cycle for Earth system models of intermediate complexity
Non-Hydrostatic RegCM4 (RegCM4-NH): model description and case studies over multiple domains
Assessment of the sea surface temperature diurnal cycle in CNRM-CM6-1 based on its 1D coupled configuration
Hui Wan, Kai Zhang, Philip J. Rasch, Vincent E. Larson, Xubin Zeng, Shixuan Zhang, and Ross Dixon
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 3205–3231, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3205-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3205-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes a tool embedded in a global climate model for sampling atmospheric conditions and monitoring physical processes as a numerical simulation is being carried out. The tool facilitates process-level model evaluation by allowing the users to select a wide range of quantities and processes to monitor at run time without having to do tedious ad hoc coding.
Milena Veneziani, Wieslaw Maslowski, Younjoo J. Lee, Gennaro D'Angelo, Robert Osinski, Mark R. Petersen, Wilbert Weijer, Anthony P. Craig, John D. Wolfe, Darin Comeau, and Adrian K. Turner
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 3133–3160, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3133-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3133-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We present an Earth system model (ESM) simulation, E3SM-Arctic-OSI, with a refined grid to better resolve the Arctic ocean and sea-ice system and low spatial resolution elsewhere. The configuration satisfactorily represents many aspects of the Arctic system and its interactions with the sub-Arctic, while keeping computational costs at a fraction of those necessary for global high-resolution ESMs. E3SM-Arctic can thus be an efficient tool to study Arctic processes on climate-relevant timescales.
Hamidreza Omidvar, Ting Sun, Sue Grimmond, Dave Bilesbach, Andrew Black, Jiquan Chen, Zexia Duan, Zhiqiu Gao, Hiroki Iwata, and Joseph P. McFadden
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 3041–3078, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3041-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-3041-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper extends the applicability of the SUEWS to extensive pervious areas outside cities. We derived various parameters such as leaf area index, albedo, roughness parameters and surface conductance for non-urban areas. The relation between LAI and albedo is also explored. The methods and parameters discussed can be used for both online and offline simulations. Using appropriate parameters related to non-urban areas is essential for assessing urban–rural differences.
Ralf Döscher, Mario Acosta, Andrea Alessandri, Peter Anthoni, Thomas Arsouze, Tommi Bergman, Raffaele Bernardello, Souhail Boussetta, Louis-Philippe Caron, Glenn Carver, Miguel Castrillo, Franco Catalano, Ivana Cvijanovic, Paolo Davini, Evelien Dekker, Francisco J. Doblas-Reyes, David Docquier, Pablo Echevarria, Uwe Fladrich, Ramon Fuentes-Franco, Matthias Gröger, Jost v. Hardenberg, Jenny Hieronymus, M. Pasha Karami, Jukka-Pekka Keskinen, Torben Koenigk, Risto Makkonen, François Massonnet, Martin Ménégoz, Paul A. Miller, Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Lars Nieradzik, Twan van Noije, Paul Nolan, Declan O'Donnell, Pirkka Ollinaho, Gijs van den Oord, Pablo Ortega, Oriol Tintó Prims, Arthur Ramos, Thomas Reerink, Clement Rousset, Yohan Ruprich-Robert, Philippe Le Sager, Torben Schmith, Roland Schrödner, Federico Serva, Valentina Sicardi, Marianne Sloth Madsen, Benjamin Smith, Tian Tian, Etienne Tourigny, Petteri Uotila, Martin Vancoppenolle, Shiyu Wang, David Wårlind, Ulrika Willén, Klaus Wyser, Shuting Yang, Xavier Yepes-Arbós, and Qiong Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2973–3020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2973-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2973-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth system model EC-Earth3 is documented here. Key performance metrics show physical behavior and biases well within the frame known from recent models. With improved physical and dynamic features, new ESM components, community tools, and largely improved physical performance compared to the CMIP5 version, EC-Earth3 represents a clear step forward for the only European community ESM. We demonstrate here that EC-Earth3 is suited for a range of tasks in CMIP6 and beyond.
Hengqi Wang, Yiran Peng, Knut von Salzen, Yan Yang, Wei Zhou, and Delong Zhao
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2949–2971, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2949-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2949-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The aerosol activation scheme is an important part of the general circulation model, but evaluations using observed data are mostly regional. This research introduced a numerically efficient aerosol activation scheme and evaluated it by using stratus and stratocumulus cloud data sampled during multiple aircraft campaigns in Canada, Chile, Brazil, and China. The decent performance indicates that the scheme is suitable for simulations of cloud droplet number concentrations over wide conditions.
Po-Lun Ma, Bryce E. Harrop, Vincent E. Larson, Richard B. Neale, Andrew Gettelman, Hugh Morrison, Hailong Wang, Kai Zhang, Stephen A. Klein, Mark D. Zelinka, Yuying Zhang, Yun Qian, Jin-Ho Yoon, Christopher R. Jones, Meng Huang, Sheng-Lun Tai, Balwinder Singh, Peter A. Bogenschutz, Xue Zheng, Wuyin Lin, Johannes Quaas, Hélène Chepfer, Michael A. Brunke, Xubin Zeng, Johannes Mülmenstädt, Samson Hagos, Zhibo Zhang, Hua Song, Xiaohong Liu, Michael S. Pritchard, Hui Wan, Jingyu Wang, Qi Tang, Peter M. Caldwell, Jiwen Fan, Larry K. Berg, Jerome D. Fast, Mark A. Taylor, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Shaocheng Xie, Philip J. Rasch, and L. Ruby Leung
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2881–2916, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2881-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2881-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
An alternative set of parameters for E3SM Atmospheric Model version 1 has been developed based on a tuning strategy that focuses on clouds. When clouds in every regime are improved, other aspects of the model are also improved, even though they are not the direct targets for calibration. The recalibrated model shows a lower sensitivity to anthropogenic aerosols and surface warming, suggesting potential improvements to the simulated climate in the past and future.
Jewgenij Torizin, Nick Schüßler, and Michael Fuchs
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2791–2812, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2791-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2791-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
With LSAT PM we introduce an open-source, stand-alone, easy-to-use application that supports scientific principles of openness, knowledge integrity, and replicability. Doing so, we want to share our experience in the implementation of heuristic and data-driven landslide susceptibility assessment methods such as analytic hierarchy process, weights of evidence, logistic regression, and artificial neural networks. A test dataset is available.
João António Martins Careto, Pedro Miguel Matos Soares, Rita Margarida Cardoso, Sixto Herrera, and José Manuel Gutiérrez
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2635–2652, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2635-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2635-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This work focuses on the added value of high-resolution models relative to their forcing simulations, with a recent observational gridded dataset as a reference, covering the entire Iberian Peninsula. The availability of such datasets with a spatial resolution close to that of regional climate models encouraged this study. For precipitation, most models reveal added value. The gains are even more evident for precipitation extremes, particularly at a more local scale.
João António Martins Careto, Pedro Miguel Matos Soares, Rita Margarida Cardoso, Sixto Herrera, and José Manuel Gutiérrez
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2653–2671, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2653-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2653-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This work focuses on the added value of high-resolution models relative to their forcing simulations, with an observational gridded dataset as a reference covering the Iberian Peninsula. The availability of such datasets with a spatial resolution close to that of regional models encouraged this study. For the max and min temperature, although most models reveal added value, some display losses. At more local scales, coastal sites display important gains, contrasting with the interior.
Guillaume Marie, B. Sebastiaan Luyssaert, Cecile Dardel, Thuy Le Toan, Alexandre Bouvet, Stéphane Mermoz, Ludovic Villard, Vladislav Bastrikov, and Philippe Peylin
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2599–2617, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2599-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2599-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Most Earth system models make use of vegetation maps to initialize a simulation at global scale. Satellite-based biomass map estimates for Africa were used to estimate cover fractions for the 15 land cover classes. This study successfully demonstrates that satellite-based biomass maps can be used to better constrain vegetation maps. Applying this approach at the global scale would increase confidence in assessments of present-day biomass stocks.
Anni Zhao, Chris M. Brierley, Zhiyi Jiang, Rachel Eyles, Damián Oyarzún, and Jose Gomez-Dans
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2475–2488, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2475-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2475-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We describe the way that our group have chosen to perform our recent analyses of the Palaeoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project ensemble simulations. We document the approach used to obtain and curate the simulations, process those outputs via the Climate Variability Diagnostics Package, and then continue through to compute ensemble-wide statistics and create figures. We also provide interim data from all steps, the codes used and the ability for users to perform their own analyses.
Ronny Meier, Edouard L. Davin, Gordon B. Bonan, David M. Lawrence, Xiaolong Hu, Gregory Duveiller, Catherine Prigent, and Sonia I. Seneviratne
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2365–2393, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2365-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2365-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We revise the roughness of the land surface in the CESM climate model. Guided by observational data, we increase the surface roughness of forests and decrease that of bare soil, snow, ice, and crops. These modifications alter simulated temperatures and wind speeds at and above the land surface considerably, in particular over desert regions. The revised model represents the diurnal variability of the land surface temperature better compared to satellite observations over most regions.
Stefan Kruse, Simone M. Stuenzi, Julia Boike, Moritz Langer, Josias Gloy, and Ulrike Herzschuh
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2395–2422, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2395-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2395-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We coupled established models for boreal forest (LAVESI) and permafrost dynamics (CryoGrid) in Siberia to investigate interactions of the diverse vegetation layer with permafrost soils. Our tests showed improved active layer depth estimations and newly included species growth according to their species-specific limits. We conclude that the new model system can be applied to simulate boreal forest dynamics and transitions under global warming and disturbances, expanding our knowledge.
Ruizi Shi, Fanghua Xu, Li Liu, Zheng Fan, Hao Yu, Hong Li, Xiang Li, and Yunfei Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2345–2363, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2345-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2345-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
To better understand the effects of surface waves on global intraseasonal prediction, we incorporated the WW3 model into CFSv2.0. Processes of Langmuir mixing, Stokes–Coriolis force with entrainment, air–sea fluxes modified by Stokes drift, and momentum roughness length were considered. Results from two groups of 56 d experiments show that overestimated sea surface temperature, 2 m air temperature, 10 m wind, wave height, and underestimated mixed layer from the original CFSv2.0 are improved.
Ehud Strobach, Andrea Molod, Donifan Barahona, Atanas Trayanov, Dimitris Menemenlis, and Gael Forget
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2309–2324, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2309-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2309-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Green's functions methodology offers a systematic, easy-to-implement, computationally cheap, scalable, and extendable method to tune uncertain parameters in models accounting for the dependent response of the model to a change in various parameters. Herein, we successfully show for the first time that long-term errors in earth system models can be considerably reduced using Green's functions methodology. The method can be easily applied to any model containing uncertain parameters.
Davide Zanchettin, Claudia Timmreck, Myriam Khodri, Anja Schmidt, Matthew Toohey, Manabu Abe, Slimane Bekki, Jason Cole, Shih-Wei Fang, Wuhu Feng, Gabriele Hegerl, Ben Johnson, Nicolas Lebas, Allegra N. LeGrande, Graham W. Mann, Lauren Marshall, Landon Rieger, Alan Robock, Sara Rubinetti, Kostas Tsigaridis, and Helen Weierbach
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2265–2292, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2265-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2265-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper provides metadata and first analyses of the volc-pinatubo-full experiment of CMIP6-VolMIP. Results from six Earth system models reveal significant differences in radiative flux anomalies that trace back to different implementations of volcanic forcing. Surface responses are in contrast overall consistent across models, reflecting the large spread due to internal variability. A second phase of VolMIP shall consider both aspects toward improved protocol for volc-pinatubo-full.
Lea Beusch, Zebedee Nicholls, Lukas Gudmundsson, Mathias Hauser, Malte Meinshausen, and Sonia I. Seneviratne
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2085–2103, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2085-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2085-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce the first chain of computationally efficient Earth system model (ESM) emulators to translate user-defined greenhouse gas emission pathways into regional temperature change time series accounting for all major sources of climate change projection uncertainty. By combining the global mean emulator MAGICC with the spatially resolved emulator MESMER, we can derive ESM-specific and constrained probabilistic emulations to rapidly provide targeted climate information at the local scale.
Yusuke Sasaki, Hidetaka Kobayashi, and Akira Oka
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2013–2033, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2013-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2013-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
For realistically simulating the recently observed distributions of dissolved 230Th and 231Pa in the ocean, we highlight the importance of the removal process of 231Pa and 230Th at the seafloor (bottom scavenging) and the dependence of scavenging efficiency on particle concentration. We show that consideration of these two processes can well reproduce not only the oceanic distribution of 231Pa and 230Th but also the sedimentary 231Pa/230Th ratios.
Stefan Hergarten and Jörg Robl
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 2063–2084, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2063-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-2063-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The influence of climate on landform evolution has attracted great interest over the past decades. This paper presents a simple model for simulating the influence of topography on precipitation and the decrease in precipitation over large continental areas. The approach can be included in numerical models of large-scale landform evolution and causes only a moderate increase in the numerical complexity. It opens a door to investigating feedbacks between climate and landform evolution.
Qing Zhu, Fa Li, William J. Riley, Li Xu, Lei Zhao, Kunxiaojia Yuan, Huayi Wu, Jianya Gong, and James Randerson
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 1899–1911, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1899-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1899-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Wildfire is a devastating Earth system process that burns about 500 million hectares of land each year. It wipes out vegetation including trees, shrubs, and grasses and causes large losses of economic assets. However, modeling the spatial distribution and temporal changes of wildfire activities at a global scale is challenging. This study built a machine-learning-based wildfire surrogate model within an existing Earth system model and achieved high accuracy.
Justus Contzen, Thorsten Dickhaus, and Gerrit Lohmann
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 1803–1820, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1803-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1803-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Climate models are of paramount importance to predict future climate changes. Since many severe consequences of climate change are due to extreme events, the accurate behaviour of models in terms of extremes needs to be validated thoroughly. We present a method for model validation in terms of climate extremes and an algorithm to detect regions in which extremes tend to occur at the same time. These methods are applied to data from different climate models and to observational data.
Enrico Scoccimarro, Daniele Peano, Silvio Gualdi, Alessio Bellucci, Tomas Lovato, Pier Giuseppe Fogli, and Antonio Navarra
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 1841–1854, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1841-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1841-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This study evaluated the ability of the CMCC-CM2 climate model participating to the last CMIP6 effort, in representing extreme events of precipitation and temperature at the daily and 6-hourly frequencies. The 1/4° resolution version of the atmospheric model provides better results than the version at 1° resolution for temperature extremes, at both time frequencies. For precipitation extremes, especially at the daily time frequency, the higher resolution does not improve model results.
Joel Fiddes, Kristoffer Aalstad, and Michael Lehning
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 1753–1768, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1753-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1753-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This study describes and evaluates a new downscaling scheme that addresses the need for hillslope-scale atmospheric forcing time series for modelling the local impact of regional climate change on the land surface in mountain areas. The method has a global scope and is able to generate all model forcing variables required for hydrological and land surface modelling. This is important, as impact models require high-resolution forcings such as those generated here to produce meaningful results.
Yan Yang, A. Anthony Bloom, Shuang Ma, Paul Levine, Alexander Norton, Nicholas C. Parazoo, John T. Reager, John Worden, Gregory R. Quetin, T. Luke Smallman, Mathew Williams, Liang Xu, and Sassan Saatchi
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 1789–1802, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1789-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1789-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Global carbon and water have large uncertainties that are hard to quantify in current regional and global models. Field observations provide opportunities for better calibration and validation of current modeling of carbon and water. With the unique structure of CARDAMOM, we have utilized the data assimilation capability and designed the benchmarking framework by using field observations in modeling. Results show that data assimilation improves model performance in different aspects.
Jinyun Tang, William J. Riley, and Qing Zhu
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 1619–1632, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1619-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1619-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We here describe version 2 of BeTR, a reactive transport model created to help ease the development of biogeochemical capability in Earth system models that are used for quantifying ecosystem–climate feedbacks. We then coupled BeTR-v2 to the Energy Exascale Earth System Model to quantify how different numerical couplings of plants and soils affect simulated ecosystem biogeochemistry. We found that different couplings lead to significant uncertainty that is not correctable by tuning parameters.
Christopher Holder, Anand Gnanadesikan, and Marie Aude-Pradal
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 1595–1617, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1595-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1595-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
It can be challenging to understand why Earth system models (ESMs) produce specific results because one can arrive at the same result simply by changing the values of the parameters. In our paper, we demonstrate that it is possible to use machine learning to figure out how and why particular components of an ESM (such as biology or ocean circulations) affect the output. This work could be applied to observations to improve the accuracy of the formulations used in ESMs.
Kun Zheng, Yan Liu, Jinbiao Zhang, Cong Luo, Siyu Tang, Huihua Ruan, Qiya Tan, Yunlei Yi, and Xiutao Ran
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 1467–1475, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1467-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1467-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In extrapolation methods, there is a phenomenon that causes the extrapolated image to be blurred and unrealistic. The paper proposes the GAN–argcPredNet v1.0 network model, which aims to solve this problem through GAN's ability to strengthen the characteristics of multi-modal data modeling. GAN–argcPredNet v1.0 has achieved excellent results. Our model can reduce the prediction loss in a small-scale space so that the prediction results have more detailed features.
Swen Brands
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 1375–1411, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1375-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1375-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The present study evaluates the last two global climate model generations in terms of their capability to reproduce recurrent regional atmospheric circulation patterns in the Northern Hemisphere mid-to-high latitudes under present climate conditions. These patterns are linked with many environmental variables on the local scale and thus provide an overarching concept for model verification. The results are expected to be of interest for model developers and regional climate scientists.
Shuqi Lin, Leon Boegman, Shiliang Shan, and Ryan Mulligan
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 1331–1353, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1331-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1331-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
An operational hydrodynamics forecast system, COASTLINES, using the Windows Task Scheduler, Python, and MATLAB scripts, to automate application of a 3-D model (AEM3D) in Lake Erie was developed. The system predicted storm-surge and up-/downwelling events that are important for flood water and drinking water/fishery management. This example of the successful development of an operational forecast system can be adapted to simulate aquatic systems as required for management and public safety.
Niels J. de Winter
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 1247–1267, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1247-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1247-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
ShellChron is a tool for determining the relative age of samples in carbonate (climate) archives based on the seasonal variability in temperature and salinity or precipitation recorded in stable oxygen isotope measurements. The model allows dating of fossil archives within a year, which is important for climate reconstructions on the sub-seasonal to decadal scale. In this paper, I introduce ShellChron and test it on a range of real and virtual datasets to demonstrate its use.
Fanglou Liao, Xiao Hua Wang, and Zhiqiang Liu
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 1129–1153, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1129-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1129-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The ocean heat content (OHC) estimated using two eddying hindcast simulations, OFES1 and OFES2, was compared from 1960 to 2016, with observation-based results as a reference. Marked differences were found, especially in the Atlantic Ocean. These were related to the differences in the net surface heating, heat advection, and vertical heat diffusion. These documented differences may help the community better understand and use these quasi-global high-resolution datasets for their own purposes.
Kai-Yuan Cheng, Lucas M. Harris, and Yong Qiang Sun
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 1097–1105, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1097-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1097-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents the implementation of container technology for the System for High‐resolution prediction on Earth‐to‐Local Domains (SHiELD), a unified atmospheric model that can be used as a global, a global–nest, and a regional model for weather-to-seasonal prediction. Container technology makes SHiELD cross-platform and easy to use, which opens opportunities for collaborative research and development. The performance and scalability of the containerized SHiELD are evaluated and discussed.
Junichi Tsutsui
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 951–970, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-951-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-951-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
A new simple climate model, MCE, was developed. It can emulate the basic behavior of comprehensive climate models in a minimal way with sufficient accuracy, providing a reasonable way to assess climate change mitigation scenarios in terms of consistency with long-term temperature goals. The model's simple structure is suitable for building probability distributions of key model parameters such that they reflect uncertainty ranges of multiple climate projections and observed warming trends.
Remko C. Nijzink, Jason Beringer, Lindsay B. Hutley, and Stanislaus J. Schymanski
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 883–900, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-883-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-883-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Vegetation Optimality Model (VOM) is a coupled water–vegetation model that predicts vegetation properties rather than determines them based on observations. A range of updates to previous applications of the VOM has been made for increased generality and improved comparability with conventional models. This showed that there is a large effect on the simulated water and carbon fluxes caused by the assumption of deep groundwater tables and updated soil profiles in the model.
Thomas S. Ball, Naomi E. Vaughan, Thomas W. Powell, Andrew Lovett, and Timothy M. Lenton
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 929–949, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-929-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-929-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
C-LLAMA is a simple model of the global food system operating at a country level from 2013 to 2050. The model begins with projections of diet composition and populations for each country, producing a demand for each food commodity and finally an agricultural land use in each country. The model can be used to explore the sensitivity of agricultural land use to various drivers within the food system at country, regional, and continental spatial aggregations.
Israel Silber, Robert C. Jackson, Ann M. Fridlind, Andrew S. Ackerman, Scott Collis, Johannes Verlinde, and Jiachen Ding
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 901–927, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-901-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-901-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth Model Column Collaboratory (EMC2) is an open-source ground-based (and air- or space-borne) lidar and radar simulator and subcolumn generator designed for large-scale models, in particular climate models, applicable also for high-resolution models. EMC2 emulates measurements while remaining faithful to large-scale models' physical assumptions implemented in their cloud or radiation schemes. We demonstrate the use of EMC2 to compare AWARE measurements with the NASA GISS ModelE3 and LES.
Robert Schweppe, Stephan Thober, Sebastian Müller, Matthias Kelbling, Rohini Kumar, Sabine Attinger, and Luis Samaniego
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 859–882, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-859-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-859-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The recently released multiscale parameter regionalization (MPR) tool enables
environmental modelers to efficiently use extensive datasets for model setups.
It flexibly ingests the datasets using user-defined data–parameter relationships
and rescales parameter fields to given model resolutions. Modern
land surface models especially benefit from MPR through increased transparency and
flexibility in modeling decisions. Thus, MPR empowers more sound and robust
simulations of the Earth system.
Tommi Bergman, Risto Makkonen, Roland Schrödner, Erik Swietlicki, Vaughan T. J. Phillips, Philippe Le Sager, and Twan van Noije
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 683–713, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-683-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-683-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We describe in this paper the implementation of a process-based secondary organic aerosol and new particle formation scheme within the chemistry transport model TM5-MP version 1.2. The performance of the model simulations for the year 2010 is evaluated against in situ observations, ground-based remote sensing and satellite retrievals. Overall, the simulated aerosol fields are improved, although in some areas the model shows a decline in performance.
Charles Pelletier, Thierry Fichefet, Hugues Goosse, Konstanze Haubner, Samuel Helsen, Pierre-Vincent Huot, Christoph Kittel, François Klein, Sébastien Le clec'h, Nicole P. M. van Lipzig, Sylvain Marchi, François Massonnet, Pierre Mathiot, Ehsan Moravveji, Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Pablo Ortega, Frank Pattyn, Niels Souverijns, Guillian Van Achter, Sam Vanden Broucke, Alexander Vanhulle, Deborah Verfaillie, and Lars Zipf
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 553–594, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-553-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-553-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We present PARASO, a circumpolar model for simulating the Antarctic climate. PARASO features five distinct models, each covering different Earth system subcomponents (ice sheet, atmosphere, land, sea ice, ocean). In this technical article, we describe how this tool has been developed, with a focus on the
coupling interfacesrepresenting the feedbacks between the distinct models used for contribution. PARASO is stable and ready to use but is still characterized by significant biases.
Katherine V. Calvin, Abigail Snyder, Xin Zhao, and Marshall Wise
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 429–447, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-429-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-429-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Future changes in land use and cover have important implications for agriculture, energy, water use, and climate. In this study, we demonstrate a more systematic and empirically based approach to estimating a few key parameters for an economic model of land use and land cover change, gcamland. We identify parameter combinations that best replicate historical land use in the United States.
Patrick Scholz, Dmitry Sidorenko, Sergey Danilov, Qiang Wang, Nikolay Koldunov, Dmitry Sein, and Thomas Jung
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 335–363, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-335-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-335-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Structured-mesh ocean models are still the most mature in terms of functionality due to their long development history. However, unstructured-mesh ocean models have acquired new features and caught up in their functionality. This paper continues the work by Scholz et al. (2019) of documenting the features available in FESOM2.0. It focuses on the following two aspects: (i) partial bottom cells and embedded sea ice and (ii) dealing with mixing parameterisations enabled by using the CVMix package.
Xavier Yepes-Arbós, Gijs van den Oord, Mario C. Acosta, and Glenn D. Carver
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 379–394, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-379-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-379-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Climate prediction models produce a large volume of simulated data that sometimes might not be efficiently managed. In this paper we present an approach to address this issue by reducing the computing time and storage space. As a case study, we analyse the output writing process of the ECMWF atmospheric model called IFS, and we integrate into it a data writing tool called XIOS. The results suggest that the integration between the two components achieves an adequate computational performance.
Lukas Strebel, Heye R. Bogena, Harry Vereecken, and Harrie-Jan Hendricks Franssen
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 395–411, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-395-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-395-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We present the technical coupling between a land surface model (CLM5) and the Parallel Data Assimilation Framework (PDAF). This coupling enables measurement data to update simulated model states and parameters in a statistically optimal way. We demonstrate the viability of the model framework using an application in a forested catchment where the inclusion of soil water measurements significantly improved the simulation quality.
Anna Vaughan, Will Tebbutt, J. Scott Hosking, and Richard E. Turner
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 251–268, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-251-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-251-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We develop a new method for climate downscaling, i.e. transforming low-resolution climate model output to high-resolution projections, using a deep-learning model known as a convolutional conditional neural process. This model is shown to outperform an ensemble of baseline methods for downscaling daily maximum temperature and precipitation and provides a powerful new downscaling framework for climate impact studies.
Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Louis-Philippe Caron, Saskia Loosveldt Tomas, Javier Vegas-Regidor, Oliver Gutjahr, Marie-Pierre Moine, Dian Putrasahan, Christopher D. Roberts, Malcolm J. Roberts, Retish Senan, Laurent Terray, Etienne Tourigny, and Pier Luigi Vidale
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 269–289, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-269-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-269-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Climate models do not fully reproduce observations: they show differences (biases) in regional temperature, precipitation, or cloud cover. Reducing model biases is important to increase our confidence in their ability to reproduce present and future climate changes. Model realism is set by its resolution: the finer it is, the more physical processes and interactions it can resolve. We here show that increasing resolution of up to ~ 25 km can help reduce model biases but not remove them entirely.
Manuel C. Almeida, Yurii Shevchuk, Georgiy Kirillin, Pedro M. M. Soares, Rita M. Cardoso, José P. Matos, Ricardo M. Rebelo, António C. Rodrigues, and Pedro S. Coelho
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 173–197, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-173-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-173-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we have evaluated the importance of the input of energy conveyed by river inflows into lakes and reservoirs when modeling surface water energy fluxes. Our results suggest that there is a strong correlation between water residence time and the surface water temperature prediction error and that the combined use of process-based physical models and machine-learning models will considerably improve the modeling of air–lake heat and moisture fluxes.
Mohamed H. Salim, Sebastian Schubert, Jaroslav Resler, Pavel Krč, Björn Maronga, Farah Kanani-Sühring, Matthias Sühring, and Christoph Schneider
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 145–171, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-145-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-145-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Radiative transfer processes are the main energy transport mechanism in urban areas which influence the surface energy budget and drive local convection. We show here the importance of each process to help modellers decide on how much detail they should include in their models to parameterize radiative transfer in urban areas. We showed how the flow field may change in response to these processes and the essential processes needed to assure acceptable quality of the numerical simulations.
Alexey V. Eliseev, Rustam D. Gizatullin, and Alexandr V. Timazhev
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 7725–7747, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7725-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7725-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
A stationary, computationally efficient scheme, ChAP 1.0 (Chemical and Aerosol Processes, version 1.0), is developed for the sulfur cycle in the troposphere. This scheme is designed for Earth system models of intermediate complexity (EMICs). The scheme model reasonably reproduces characteristics of the tropospheric sulfur cycle. Despite its simplicity, ChAP may be successfully used to simulate anthropogenic sulfur pollution in the atmosphere at coarse spatial scales and timescales.
Erika Coppola, Paolo Stocchi, Emanuela Pichelli, Jose Abraham Torres Alavez, Russell Glazer, Graziano Giuliani, Fabio Di Sante, Rita Nogherotto, and Filippo Giorgi
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 7705–7723, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7705-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7705-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
In this work we describe the development of a non-hydrostatic version of the regional climate model RegCM4-NH, implemented to allow simulations at convection-permitting scales of <4 km for climate applications. The new core is described, and three case studies of intense convection are carried out to illustrate the model performances. Comparison with observations is much improved with respect to with coarse grid runs. RegCM4-NH offers a promising tool for climate investigations at a local scale.
Aurore Voldoire, Romain Roehrig, Hervé Giordani, Robin Waldman, Yunyan Zhang, Shaocheng Xie, and Marie-Nöelle Bouin
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-413, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2021-413, 2021
Revised manuscript accepted for GMD
Short summary
Short summary
A single column version of the global climate model CNRM-CM6-1 has been designed to ease development and validation of the model physics at the air-sea interface in a simplified environment. This model is then used to assess the ability to represent the sea surface temperature diurnal cycle. We conclude that the sea surface temperature diurnal variability is reasonably well represented in CNRM-CM6-1 with a 1 h coupling time-step and the upper ocean model resolution of 1 m.
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
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.
Borst, W. N.: Construction of Engineering Ontologies for Knowledge
Sharing and Reuse, Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente, Centre for
Telematics and Information Technology (CTIT), Enschede, 1997. a
Cess, R. D., Potter, G. L., Blanchet, J. P., Boer, G. J., Ghan, S. J., Kiehl,
J. T., Treut, H. L., Li, Z.-X., Liang, X.-Z., Mitchell, J. F. B., Morcrette,
J.-J., Randall, D. A., Riches, M. R., Roeckner, E., Schlese, U., Slingo, A.,
Taylor, K. E., Washington, W. M., Wetherald, R. T., and Yagai, I.:
Interpretation of Cloud-Climate Feedback as Produced by 14
Atmospheric General Circulation Models, Science, 245, 513–516,
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.245.4917.513, 1989. 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.
da Cruz, S. M. S., Campos, M. L. M., and Mattoso, M.: A Foundational
Ontology to Support Scientific Experiments, in: Proceedings of the
VII International Workshop on Metadata, Ontologies and Semantic
Technology (ONTOBRAS-MOST), edited by: Malucelli, A. and Bax, M.,
Recife, Brazil, 2012. a
Edwards, P. N., Mayernik, M. S., Batcheller, A. L., Bowker, G. C., and Borgman,
C. L.: Science Friction: Data, Metadata, and Collaboration, Soc.
Stud. Sci., 41, 667 –690, https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312711413314, 2011. a
ES-DOC: ES–DOC Documentation
Search, available at: https://search.es-doc.org/ (last access: 21 March 2020), 2015. a
ES-DOC: Earth Science – Documentation, available at: https://github.com/es-doc (last access: 21 March 2020), 2016. a
ES-DOC: esdoc–docs, available at: https://github.com/ES-DOC/esdoc-docs/blob/master/cmip6/experiments/spreadsheet/experiments.xlsx
(last access: 24 March 2020), 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, d
Gates, W. L., Boyle, J. S., Covey, C., Dease, C. G., Doutriaux, C. M., Drach,
R. S., Fiorino, M., Gleckler, P. J., Hnilo, J. J., Marlais, S. M., Phillips,
T. J., Potter, G. L., Santer, B. D., Sperber, K. R., Taylor, K. E., and
Williams, D. N.: An Overview of the Results of the Atmospheric
Model Intercomparison Project (AMIP I), B. Am.
Meteorol. Soc., 80, 29–56,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1999)080<0029:AOOTRO>2.0.CO;2, 1999. 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.
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.
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.
Guilyardi, E., Balaji, V., Lawrence, B., Callaghan, S., Deluca, C., Denvil, S., Lautenschlager, M., Morgan, M., Murphy, S., and Taylor, K. E.: Documenting
Climate Models and Their Simulations, B. Am.
Meteorol. Soc., 94, 623–627, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00035.1, 2013. 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.
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
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.
Juckes, M., Taylor, K. E., Durack, P. J., Lawrence, B., Mizielinski, M. S., Pamment, A., Peterschmitt, J.-Y., Rixen, M., and Sénési, S.: The CMIP6 Data Request (DREQ, version 01.00.31), Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 201–224, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-201-2020, 2020. 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.
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.
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.
Lawrence, B.: Bnlawrence/Esdoc4scientists: Tools for Creating Publication
Ready Tables from ESDOC Content,
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2593445, 2019. a, b
Lawrence, B. N., Balaji, V., Bentley, P., Callaghan, S., DeLuca, C., Denvil, S., Devine, G., Elkington, M., Ford, R. W., Guilyardi, E., Lautenschlager, M., Morgan, M., Moine, M.-P., Murphy, S., Pascoe, C., Ramthun, H., Slavin, P., Steenman-Clark, L., Toussaint, F., Treshansky, A., and Valcke, S.: Describing Earth system simulations with the Metafor CIM, Geosci. Model Dev., 5, 1493–1500, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-1493-2012, 2012. 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.
Matthes, K., Funke, B., Andersson, M. E., Barnard, L., Beer, J., Charbonneau, P., Clilverd, M. A., Dudok de Wit, T., Haberreiter, M., Hendry, A., Jackman, C. H., Kretzschmar, M., Kruschke, T., Kunze, M., Langematz, U., Marsh, D. R., Maycock, A. C., Misios, S., Rodger, C. J., Scaife, A. A., Seppälä, A., Shangguan, M., Sinnhuber, M., Tourpali, K., Usoskin, I., van de Kamp, M., Verronen, P. T., and Versick, S.: Solar forcing for CMIP6 (v3.2), Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 2247–2302, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2247-2017, 2017. a
Mattoso, M., Werner, C., Travassos, G. H., Braganholo, V., Ogasawara, E.,
Oliveira, D. D., Cruz, S. M. S. D., Martinho, W., and Murta, L.: Towards
Supporting the Life Cycle of Large Scale Scientific Experiments,
Int. J. Business Proc. Integr. Manage., 5, 79,
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBPIM.2010.033176, 2010. a, b, c, d
Meehl, G. A., Boer, G. J., Covey, C., Latif, M., and Stouffer, R. J.:
Intercomparison Makes for a Better Climate Model, Eos, Trans. Am.
Geophys. Union, 78, 445–451, https://doi.org/10.1029/97EO00276, 1997. a
Meehl, G. A., Moss, R., Taylor, K. E., Eyring, V., Stouffer, R. J., Bony, S.,
and Stevens, B.: Climate Model Intercomparisons: Preparing for the
Next Phase, Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 95, 77–78,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2014EO090001, 2014. a
Moine, M.-P., Valcke, S., Lawrence, B. N., Pascoe, C., Ford, R. W., Alias, A., Balaji, V., Bentley, P., Devine, G., Callaghan, S. A., and Guilyardi, E.: Development and exploitation of a controlled vocabulary in support of climate modelling, Geosci. Model Dev., 7, 479–493, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-479-2014, 2014. 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.
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.
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.
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
Sausen, R., Barthel, K., and Hasselmann, K.: Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Models
with Flux Correction, Clim. Dynam., 2, 145–163,
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01053472, 1988. 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.
Soldatova, L. and King, R. D.: An Ontology of Scientific Experiments,
J. Roy. Soc., Interface/the Royal Society, 3, 795–803,
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2006.0134, 2007.
a, b
Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., and Meehl, G. A.: A Summary of the CMIP5
Experiment Design, Tech. rep., PCMI, Livermore, 2011. a
Timmreck, C., Mann, G. W., Aquila, V., Hommel, R., Lee, L. A., Schmidt, A., Brühl, C., Carn, S., Chin, M., Dhomse, S. S., Diehl, T., English, J. M., Mills, M. J., Neely, R., Sheng, J., Toohey, M., and Weisenstein, D.: The Interactive Stratospheric Aerosol Model Intercomparison Project (ISA-MIP): motivation and experimental design, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 2581–2608, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2581-2018, 2018. 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.
Vanschoren, J., Blockeel, H., Pfahringer, B., and Holmes, G.: Experiment
Databases, Mach. Learn., 87, 127–158, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-011-5277-0, 2012. 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.
Wikipedia contributors: Experiment – Wikipedia, The Free
Encyclopedia, 2018. 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.
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.
Zocholl, M., Camossi, E., Jousselme, A.-L., and Ray, C.: Ontology-Based
Design of Experiments on Big Data Solutions, in: Proceedings of
the Posters and Demos Track of the 14th International Conference
on Semantic Systems (SEMPDS), edited by: Khalili, A. and Koutraki, M., Vol. 2198, p. 4, ceur-ws.org, Vienna, Austria, 2018. a
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).
We present a methodology for documenting numerical experiments in the context of an information...