Articles | Volume 14, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-437-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-437-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Development and technical paper
| 
25 Jan 2021
Development and technical paper |
| 25 Jan 2021
| 25 Jan 2021
Implementation of sequential cropping into JULESvn5.2 land-surface model
Camilla Mathison
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, UK
School of Earth and Environment, Institute for Climate and Atmospheric Science, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Andrew J. Challinor
School of Earth and Environment, Institute for Climate and Atmospheric Science, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Chetan Deva
School of Earth and Environment, Institute for Climate and Atmospheric Science, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Pete Falloon
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, UK
Sébastien Garrigues
European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, Reading, UK
Environnement Méditerranéen et Modélisation des AgroHydrosystèmes (EMMAH), INRAE, Avignon Université, 228 route de l'Aérodrome Domaine Saint Paul–Site Agroparc, Avignon, France
Sophie Moulin
Environnement Méditerranéen et Modélisation des AgroHydrosystèmes (EMMAH), INRAE, Avignon Université, 228 route de l'Aérodrome Domaine Saint Paul–Site Agroparc, Avignon, France
Karina Williams
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, UK
Global Systems Institute, University of Exeter, Laver Building, North Park Road, Exeter, UK
Andy Wiltshire
Met Office Hadley Centre, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, UK
Global Systems Institute, University of Exeter, Laver Building, North Park Road, Exeter, UK
Related authors
Inika Taylor, Douglas I. Kelley, Camilla Mathison, Karina E. Williams, Andrew J. Hartley, Richard A. Betts, and Chantelle Burton
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-720, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-720, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Climate change is reshaping fire seasons worldwide and, in many places, increasing fire weather risk. We use climate model simulations to project future changes in fire danger at different levels of global warming, focusing on Australia, Brazil, and the USA. Keeping warming below 2 °C significantly limits the increase in fire risk, but even at 1.5 °C, fire seasons lengthen, with more extreme conditions. However, low-fire weather periods remain, offering critical windows for fire management.
Camilla Mathison, Eleanor J. Burke, Gregory Munday, Chris D. Jones, Chris J. Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Andy J. Wiltshire, Chris Huntingford, Eszter Kovacs, Laila K. Gohar, Rebecca M. Varney, and Douglas McNeall
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1785–1808, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present PRIME (Probabilistic Regional Impacts from Model patterns and Emissions), which is designed to take new emissions scenarios and rapidly provide regional impact information. PRIME allows large ensembles to be run on multi-centennial timescales, including the analysis of many important variables for impact assessments. Our evaluation shows that PRIME reproduces the climate response for known scenarios, providing confidence in using PRIME for novel scenarios.
Detlef van Vuuren, Brian O'Neill, Claudia Tebaldi, Louise Chini, Pierre Friedlingstein, Tomoko Hasegawa, Keywan Riahi, Benjamin Sanderson, Bala Govindasamy, Nico Bauer, Veronika Eyring, Cheikh Fall, Katja Frieler, Matthew Gidden, Laila Gohar, Andrew Jones, Andrew King, Reto Knutti, Elmar Kriegler, Peter Lawrence, Chris Lennard, Jason Lowe, Camila Mathison, Shahbaz Mehmood, Luciana Prado, Qiang Zhang, Steven Rose, Alexander Ruane, Carl-Friederich Schleussner, Roland Seferian, Jana Sillmann, Chris Smith, Anna Sörensson, Swapna Panickal, Kaoru Tachiiri, Naomi Vaughan, Saritha Vishwanathan, Tokuta Yokohata, and Tilo Ziehn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3765, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3765, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a set of six plausible 21st century emission scenarios, and their multi-century extensions, that will be used by the international community of climate modeling centers to produce the next generation of climate projections. These projections will support climate, impact and mitigation researchers, provide information to practitioners to address future risks from climate change, and contribute to policymakers’ considerations of the trade-offs among various levels of mitigation.
Chris Smith, Donald P. Cummins, Hege-Beate Fredriksen, Zebedee Nicholls, Malte Meinshausen, Myles Allen, Stuart Jenkins, Nicholas Leach, Camilla Mathison, and Antti-Ilari Partanen
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8569–8592, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8569-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8569-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate projections are only useful if the underlying models that produce them are well calibrated and can reproduce observed climate change. We formalise a software package that calibrates the open-source FaIR simple climate model to full-complexity Earth system models. Observations, including historical warming, and assessments of key climate variables such as that of climate sensitivity are used to constrain the model output.
Camilla Mathison, Eleanor Burke, Andrew J. Hartley, Douglas I. Kelley, Chantelle Burton, Eddy Robertson, Nicola Gedney, Karina Williams, Andy Wiltshire, Richard J. Ellis, Alistair A. Sellar, and Chris D. Jones
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4249–4264, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4249-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4249-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes and evaluates a new modelling methodology to quantify the impacts of climate change on water, biomes and the carbon cycle. We have created a new configuration and set-up for the JULES-ES land surface model, driven by bias-corrected historical and future climate model output provided by the Inter-Sectoral Impacts Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP). This allows us to compare projections of the impacts of climate change across multiple impact models and multiple sectors.
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.
Karina E. Williams, Anna B. Harper, Chris Huntingford, Lina M. Mercado, Camilla T. Mathison, Pete D. Falloon, Peter M. Cox, and Joon Kim
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 3207–3240, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-3207-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-3207-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
Data from the First ISLSCP Field Experiment, 1987–1989, is used to assess how well the JULES land-surface model simulates water stress in tallgrass prairie vegetation. We find that JULES simulates a decrease in key carbon and water cycle variables during the dry period, as expected, but that it does not capture the shape of the diurnal cycle on these days. These results will be used to inform future model development as part of wider evaluation efforts.
Camilla Mathison, Chetan Deva, Pete Falloon, and Andrew J. Challinor
Earth Syst. Dynam., 9, 563–592, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-563-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-563-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Sowing and harvest dates are a significant source of uncertainty within crop models. South Asia is one region with a large uncertainty. We aim to provide more accurate sowing and harvest dates than currently available and that are relevant for climate impact assessments. This method reproduces the present day sowing and harvest dates for most parts of India and when applied to two future periods provides a useful way of modelling potential growing season adaptations to changes in future climate.
Michael B. Butts, Carlo Buontempo, Jens K. Lørup, Karina Williams, Camilla Mathison, Oluf Z. Jessen, Niels D. Riegels, Paul Glennie, Carol McSweeney, Mark Wilson, Richard Jones, and Abdulkarim H. Seid
Proc. IAHS, 374, 3–7, https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-374-3-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-374-3-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
The Nile Basin is one of the most important shared basins in Africa. Managing it's water resources, now and in the future, must not only address different water uses but also the trade-off between developments upstream and water use downstream, often between different countries. This paper presents a methodology, to support climate adaptation on a regional scale, for assessing climate change impacts and adaptation potential for floods, droughts and water scarcity within this basin.
C. Mathison, A. J. Wiltshire, P. Falloon, and A. J. Challinor
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 4783–4810, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-4783-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-4783-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
South Asia is a highly variable region where there is concern over water and food security. The simulations presented suggest an increasing trend in water resources, in some cases almost doubling by the end of the century although this is masked by the large annual variability of river flows for this region. Future peak river flows still occur during the monsoon period, with a tendency for reduced frequency of lowest flows and increased magnitude of highest flows across the selected locations.
Konstantin Gregor, Benjamin F. Meyer, Tillmann Gaida, Victor Justo Vasquez, Karina Bett-Williams, Matthew Forrest, João P. Darela-Filho, Sam Rabin, Marcos Longo, Joe R. Melton, Johan Nord, Peter Anthoni, Vladislav Bastrikov, Thomas Colligan, Christine Delire, Michael C. Dietze, George Hurtt, Akihiko Ito, Lasse T. Keetz, Jürgen Knauer, Johannes Köster, Tzu-Shun Lin, Lei Ma, Marie Minvielle, Stefan Olin, Sebastian Ostberg, Hao Shi, Reiner Schnur, Urs Schönenberger, Qing Sun, Peter E. Thornton, and Anja Rammig
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1733, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1733, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
Geoscientific models are crucial for understanding Earth’s processes. However, they sometimes do not adhere to highest software quality standards, and scientific results are often hard to reproduce due to the complexity of the workflows. Here we gather the expertise of 20 modeling groups and software engineers to define best practices for making geoscientific models maintainable, usable, and reproducible. We conclude with an open-source example serving as a reference for modeling communities.
Martin Richard Willett, Melissa Brooks, Andrew Bushell, Paul Earnshaw, Samantha Smith, Lorenzo Tomassini, Martin Best, Ian Boutle, Jennifer Brooke, John M. Edwards, Kalli Furtado, Catherine Hardacre, Andrew J. Hartley, Alan Hewitt, Ben Johnson, Adrian Lock, Andy Malcolm, Jane Mulcahy, Eike Müller, Heather Rumbold, Gabriel G. Rooney, Alistair Sellar, Masashi Ujiie, Annelize van Niekerk, Andy Wiltshire, and Michael Whitall
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1829, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1829, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
Global Atmosphere (GA) configurations of the Unified Model (UM) and Global Land (GL) configurations of JULES are developed for use in any global atmospheric modelling application. We describe a recent iteration of these configurations, GA8GL9, which includes improvements to the represenation of convection and other physical processes. GA8GL9 is used for operational weather prediction in the UK and forms the basis for the next GA and GL configuration.
Inika Taylor, Douglas I. Kelley, Camilla Mathison, Karina E. Williams, Andrew J. Hartley, Richard A. Betts, and Chantelle Burton
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-720, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-720, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Climate change is reshaping fire seasons worldwide and, in many places, increasing fire weather risk. We use climate model simulations to project future changes in fire danger at different levels of global warming, focusing on Australia, Brazil, and the USA. Keeping warming below 2 °C significantly limits the increase in fire risk, but even at 1.5 °C, fire seasons lengthen, with more extreme conditions. However, low-fire weather periods remain, offering critical windows for fire management.
Camilla Mathison, Eleanor J. Burke, Gregory Munday, Chris D. Jones, Chris J. Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Andy J. Wiltshire, Chris Huntingford, Eszter Kovacs, Laila K. Gohar, Rebecca M. Varney, and Douglas McNeall
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1785–1808, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present PRIME (Probabilistic Regional Impacts from Model patterns and Emissions), which is designed to take new emissions scenarios and rapidly provide regional impact information. PRIME allows large ensembles to be run on multi-centennial timescales, including the analysis of many important variables for impact assessments. Our evaluation shows that PRIME reproduces the climate response for known scenarios, providing confidence in using PRIME for novel scenarios.
Beiyao Xu, Steven Dobbie, Huiyi Yang, Lianxin Yang, Yu Jiang, Andrew Challinor, Karina Williams, Yunxia Wang, and Tijian Wang
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4077, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4077, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Ozone (O3) pollution harms rice production and threatens food security. To understand these impacts, we calibrated a crop model using unique data from experiments where rice was grown in open fields under controlled O3 exposure (free air). This is the first time such data has been used to improve a model’s ability to predict how rice responds to O3 pollution. Our work provides a more accurate tool to study O3’s effects and guide strategies to protect agriculture.
Detlef van Vuuren, Brian O'Neill, Claudia Tebaldi, Louise Chini, Pierre Friedlingstein, Tomoko Hasegawa, Keywan Riahi, Benjamin Sanderson, Bala Govindasamy, Nico Bauer, Veronika Eyring, Cheikh Fall, Katja Frieler, Matthew Gidden, Laila Gohar, Andrew Jones, Andrew King, Reto Knutti, Elmar Kriegler, Peter Lawrence, Chris Lennard, Jason Lowe, Camila Mathison, Shahbaz Mehmood, Luciana Prado, Qiang Zhang, Steven Rose, Alexander Ruane, Carl-Friederich Schleussner, Roland Seferian, Jana Sillmann, Chris Smith, Anna Sörensson, Swapna Panickal, Kaoru Tachiiri, Naomi Vaughan, Saritha Vishwanathan, Tokuta Yokohata, and Tilo Ziehn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3765, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3765, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a set of six plausible 21st century emission scenarios, and their multi-century extensions, that will be used by the international community of climate modeling centers to produce the next generation of climate projections. These projections will support climate, impact and mitigation researchers, provide information to practitioners to address future risks from climate change, and contribute to policymakers’ considerations of the trade-offs among various levels of mitigation.
Daniele Peano, Deborah Hemming, Christine Delire, Yuanchao Fan, Hanna Lee, Stefano Materia, Julia E. M .S. Nabel, Taejin Park, David Wårlind, Andy Wiltshire, and Sönke Zaehle
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4114, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4114, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Earth System Models are the principal tools for scientists to study past, present, and future climate changes. This work investigates the ability of a set of them to represent the observed changes in vegetation, which are vital to estimating the impact of future climate mitigation and adaptation strategies. This study highlights the main limitations in correctly representing vegetation variability. These tools still need further development to improve our understanding of future changes.
Chris Smith, Donald P. Cummins, Hege-Beate Fredriksen, Zebedee Nicholls, Malte Meinshausen, Myles Allen, Stuart Jenkins, Nicholas Leach, Camilla Mathison, and Antti-Ilari Partanen
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8569–8592, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8569-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8569-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate projections are only useful if the underlying models that produce them are well calibrated and can reproduce observed climate change. We formalise a software package that calibrates the open-source FaIR simple climate model to full-complexity Earth system models. Observations, including historical warming, and assessments of key climate variables such as that of climate sensitivity are used to constrain the model output.
Colin G. Jones, Fanny Adloff, Ben B. B. Booth, Peter M. Cox, Veronika Eyring, Pierre Friedlingstein, Katja Frieler, Helene T. Hewitt, Hazel A. Jeffery, Sylvie Joussaume, Torben Koenigk, Bryan N. Lawrence, Eleanor O'Rourke, Malcolm J. Roberts, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Roland Séférian, Samuel Somot, Pier Luigi Vidale, Detlef van Vuuren, Mario Acosta, Mats Bentsen, Raffaele Bernardello, Richard Betts, Ed Blockley, Julien Boé, Tom Bracegirdle, Pascale Braconnot, Victor Brovkin, Carlo Buontempo, Francisco Doblas-Reyes, Markus Donat, Italo Epicoco, Pete Falloon, Sandro Fiore, Thomas Frölicher, Neven S. Fučkar, Matthew J. Gidden, Helge F. Goessling, Rune Grand Graversen, Silvio Gualdi, José M. Gutiérrez, Tatiana Ilyina, Daniela Jacob, Chris D. Jones, Martin Juckes, Elizabeth Kendon, Erik Kjellström, Reto Knutti, Jason Lowe, Matthew Mizielinski, Paola Nassisi, Michael Obersteiner, Pierre Regnier, Romain Roehrig, David Salas y Mélia, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Michael Schulz, Enrico Scoccimarro, Laurent Terray, Hannes Thiemann, Richard A. Wood, Shuting Yang, and Sönke Zaehle
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1319–1351, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1319-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1319-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We propose a number of priority areas for the international climate research community to address over the coming decade. Advances in these areas will both increase our understanding of past and future Earth system change, including the societal and environmental impacts of this change, and deliver significantly improved scientific support to international climate policy, such as future IPCC assessments and the UNFCCC Global Stocktake.
Henk Eskes, Athanasios Tsikerdekis, Melanie Ades, Mihai Alexe, Anna Carlin Benedictow, Yasmine Bennouna, Lewis Blake, Idir Bouarar, Simon Chabrillat, Richard Engelen, Quentin Errera, Johannes Flemming, Sebastien Garrigues, Jan Griesfeller, Vincent Huijnen, Luka Ilić, Antje Inness, John Kapsomenakis, Zak Kipling, Bavo Langerock, Augustin Mortier, Mark Parrington, Isabelle Pison, Mikko Pitkänen, Samuel Remy, Andreas Richter, Anja Schoenhardt, Michael Schulz, Valerie Thouret, Thorsten Warneke, Christos Zerefos, and Vincent-Henri Peuch
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 9475–9514, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-9475-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-9475-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) provides global analyses and forecasts of aerosols and trace gases in the atmosphere. On 27 June 2023 a major upgrade, Cy48R1, became operational. Comparisons with in situ, surface remote sensing, aircraft, and balloon and satellite observations show that the new CAMS system is a significant improvement. The results quantify the skill of CAMS to forecast impactful events, such as wildfires, dust storms and air pollution peaks.
Douglas McNeall, Eddy Robertson, and Andy Wiltshire
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1059–1089, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1059-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1059-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We can run simulations of the land surface and carbon cycle, using computer models to help us understand and predict climate change and its impacts. These simulations are not perfect reproductions of the real land surface, and that can make them less effective tools. We use new statistical and computational techniques to help us understand how different our models are from the real land surface, how to make them more realistic, and how well we can simulate past and future climate.
Sebastien Garrigues, Melanie Ades, Samuel Remy, Johannes Flemming, Zak Kipling, Istvan Laszlo, Mark Parrington, Antje Inness, Roberto Ribas, Luke Jones, Richard Engelen, and Vincent-Henri Peuch
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 10473–10487, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-10473-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-10473-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
The Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) provides global monitoring of aerosols using the ECMWF forecast model constrained by the assimilation of satellite aerosol optical depth (AOD). This work aims at evaluating the assimilation of the NOAA VIIRS AOD product in the ECMWF model. It shows that the introduction of VIIRS in the CAMS data assimilation system enhances the accuracy of the aerosol analysis, particularly over Europe and desert and maritime sites.
Rebecca M. Varney, Sarah E. Chadburn, Eleanor J. Burke, Simon Jones, Andy J. Wiltshire, and Peter M. Cox
Biogeosciences, 20, 3767–3790, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-3767-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-3767-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This study evaluates soil carbon projections during the 21st century in CMIP6 Earth system models. In general, we find a reduced spread of changes in global soil carbon in CMIP6 compared to the previous CMIP5 generation. The reduced CMIP6 spread arises from an emergent relationship between soil carbon changes due to change in plant productivity and soil carbon changes due to changes in turnover time. We show that this relationship is consistent with false priming under transient climate change.
Camilla Mathison, Eleanor Burke, Andrew J. Hartley, Douglas I. Kelley, Chantelle Burton, Eddy Robertson, Nicola Gedney, Karina Williams, Andy Wiltshire, Richard J. Ellis, Alistair A. Sellar, and Chris D. Jones
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4249–4264, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4249-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4249-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes and evaluates a new modelling methodology to quantify the impacts of climate change on water, biomes and the carbon cycle. We have created a new configuration and set-up for the JULES-ES land surface model, driven by bias-corrected historical and future climate model output provided by the Inter-Sectoral Impacts Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP). This allows us to compare projections of the impacts of climate change across multiple impact models and multiple sectors.
Anna Agustí-Panareda, Jérôme Barré, Sébastien Massart, Antje Inness, Ilse Aben, Melanie Ades, Bianca C. Baier, Gianpaolo Balsamo, Tobias Borsdorff, Nicolas Bousserez, Souhail Boussetta, Michael Buchwitz, Luca Cantarello, Cyril Crevoisier, Richard Engelen, Henk Eskes, Johannes Flemming, Sébastien Garrigues, Otto Hasekamp, Vincent Huijnen, Luke Jones, Zak Kipling, Bavo Langerock, Joe McNorton, Nicolas Meilhac, Stefan Noël, Mark Parrington, Vincent-Henri Peuch, Michel Ramonet, Miha Razinger, Maximilian Reuter, Roberto Ribas, Martin Suttie, Colm Sweeney, Jérôme Tarniewicz, and Lianghai Wu
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 3829–3859, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-3829-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-3829-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We present a global dataset of atmospheric CO2 and CH4, the two most important human-made greenhouse gases, which covers almost 2 decades (2003–2020). It is produced by combining satellite data of CO2 and CH4 with a weather and air composition prediction model, and it has been carefully evaluated against independent observations to ensure validity and point out deficiencies to the user. This dataset can be used for scientific studies in the field of climate change and the global carbon cycle.
Sebastien Garrigues, Samuel Remy, Julien Chimot, Melanie Ades, Antje Inness, Johannes Flemming, Zak Kipling, Istvan Laszlo, Angela Benedetti, Roberto Ribas, Soheila Jafariserajehlou, Bertrand Fougnie, Shobha Kondragunta, Richard Engelen, Vincent-Henri Peuch, Mark Parrington, Nicolas Bousserez, Margarita Vazquez Navarro, and Anna Agusti-Panareda
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 14657–14692, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-14657-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-14657-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) provides global monitoring of aerosols using the ECMWF forecast model constrained by the assimilation of satellite aerosol optical depth (AOD). This work aims at evaluating two new satellite AODs to enhance the CAMS aerosol global forecast. It highlights the spatial and temporal differences between the satellite AOD products at the model spatial resolution, which is essential information to design multi-satellite AOD data assimilation schemes.
Stephanie Woodward, Alistair A. Sellar, Yongming Tang, Marc Stringer, Andrew Yool, Eddy Robertson, and Andy Wiltshire
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 14503–14528, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-14503-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-14503-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We describe the dust scheme in the UKESM1 Earth system model and show generally good agreement with observations. Comparing with the closely related HadGEM3-GC3.1 model, we show that dust differences are not only due to inter-model differences but also to the dust size distribution. Under climate change, HadGEM3-GC3.1 dust hardly changes, but UKESM1 dust decreases because that model includes the vegetation response which, in our models, has a bigger impact on dust than climate change itself.
Mahdi André Nakhavali, Lina M. Mercado, Iain P. Hartley, Stephen Sitch, Fernanda V. Cunha, Raffaello di Ponzio, Laynara F. Lugli, Carlos A. Quesada, Kelly M. Andersen, Sarah E. Chadburn, Andy J. Wiltshire, Douglas B. Clark, Gyovanni Ribeiro, Lara Siebert, Anna C. M. Moraes, Jéssica Schmeisk Rosa, Rafael Assis, and José L. Camargo
Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 5241–5269, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5241-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5241-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
In tropical ecosystems, the availability of rock-derived elements such as P can be very low. Thus, without a representation of P cycling, tropical forest responses to rising atmospheric CO2 conditions in areas such as Amazonia remain highly uncertain. We introduced P dynamics and its interactions with the N and P cycles into the JULES model. Our results highlight the potential for high P limitation and therefore lower CO2 fertilization capacity in the Amazon forest with low-fertility soils.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Matthew W. Jones, Michael O'Sullivan, Robbie M. Andrew, Dorothee C. E. Bakker, Judith Hauck, Corinne Le Quéré, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Stephen Sitch, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Rob B. Jackson, Simone R. Alin, Peter Anthoni, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Nicolas Bellouin, Laurent Bopp, Thi Tuyet Trang Chau, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Margot Cronin, Kim I. Currie, Bertrand Decharme, Laique M. Djeutchouang, Xinyu Dou, Wiley Evans, Richard A. Feely, Liang Feng, Thomas Gasser, Dennis Gilfillan, Thanos Gkritzalis, Giacomo Grassi, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Özgür Gürses, Ian Harris, Richard A. Houghton, George C. Hurtt, Yosuke Iida, Tatiana Ilyina, Ingrid T. Luijkx, Atul Jain, Steve D. Jones, Etsushi Kato, Daniel Kennedy, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jürgen Knauer, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Arne Körtzinger, Peter Landschützer, Siv K. Lauvset, Nathalie Lefèvre, Sebastian Lienert, Junjie Liu, Gregg Marland, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, David R. Munro, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Tsuneo Ono, Denis Pierrot, Benjamin Poulter, Gregor Rehder, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Thais M. Rosan, Jörg Schwinger, Clemens Schwingshackl, Roland Séférian, Adrienne J. Sutton, Colm Sweeney, Toste Tanhua, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Francesco Tubiello, Guido R. van der Werf, Nicolas Vuichard, Chisato Wada, Rik Wanninkhof, Andrew J. Watson, David Willis, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Wenping Yuan, Chao Yue, Xu Yue, Sönke Zaehle, and Jiye Zeng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 14, 1917–2005, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1917-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-1917-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2021 describes the data sets and methodology used to quantify the emissions of carbon dioxide and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land, and ocean. These living data are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
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.
Wolfgang A. Obermeier, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Tammas Loughran, Kerstin Hartung, Ana Bastos, Felix Havermann, Peter Anthoni, Almut Arneth, Daniel S. Goll, Sebastian Lienert, Danica Lombardozzi, Sebastiaan Luyssaert, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, Benjamin Poulter, Stephen Sitch, Michael O. Sullivan, Hanqin Tian, Anthony P. Walker, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Soenke Zaehle, and Julia Pongratz
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 635–670, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-635-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-635-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We provide the first spatio-temporally explicit comparison of different model-derived fluxes from land use and land cover changes (fLULCCs) by using the TRENDY v8 dynamic global vegetation models used in the 2019 global carbon budget. We find huge regional fLULCC differences resulting from environmental assumptions, simulated periods, and the timing of land use and land cover changes, and we argue for a method consistent across time and space and for carefully choosing the accounting period.
Zichong Chen, Junjie Liu, Daven K. Henze, Deborah N. Huntzinger, Kelley C. Wells, Stephen Sitch, Pierre Friedlingstein, Emilie Joetzjer, Vladislav Bastrikov, Daniel S. Goll, Vanessa Haverd, Atul K. Jain, Etsushi Kato, Sebastian Lienert, Danica L. Lombardozzi, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Benjamin Poulter, Hanqin Tian, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Sönke Zaehle, and Scot M. Miller
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 6663–6680, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6663-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6663-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2) satellite observes atmospheric CO2 globally. We use a multiple regression and inverse model to quantify the relationships between OCO-2 and environmental drivers within individual years for 2015–2018 and within seven global biomes. Our results point to limitations of current space-based observations for inferring environmental relationships but also indicate the potential to inform key relationships that are very uncertain in process-based models.
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.
Daniele Peano, Deborah Hemming, Stefano Materia, Christine Delire, Yuanchao Fan, Emilie Joetzjer, Hanna Lee, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Taejin Park, Philippe Peylin, David Wårlind, Andy Wiltshire, and Sönke Zaehle
Biogeosciences, 18, 2405–2428, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-2405-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-2405-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Global climate models are the scientist’s tools used for studying past, present, and future climate conditions. This work examines the ability of a group of our tools in reproducing and capturing the right timing and length of the season when plants show their green leaves. This season, indeed, is fundamental for CO2 exchanges between land, atmosphere, and climate. This work shows that discrepancies compared to observations remain, demanding further polishing of these tools.
Fiona M. O'Connor, N. Luke Abraham, Mohit Dalvi, Gerd A. Folberth, Paul T. Griffiths, Catherine Hardacre, Ben T. Johnson, Ron Kahana, James Keeble, Byeonghyeon Kim, Olaf Morgenstern, Jane P. Mulcahy, Mark Richardson, Eddy Robertson, Jeongbyn Seo, Sungbo Shim, João C. Teixeira, Steven T. Turnock, Jonny Williams, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Stephanie Woodward, and Guang Zeng
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 1211–1243, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1211-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-1211-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
This paper calculates how changes in emissions and/or concentrations of different atmospheric constituents since the pre-industrial era have altered the Earth's energy budget at the present day using a metric called effective radiative forcing. The impact of land use change is also assessed. We find that individual contributions do not add linearly, and different Earth system interactions can affect the magnitude of the calculated effective radiative forcing.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Michael O'Sullivan, Matthew W. Jones, Robbie M. Andrew, Judith Hauck, Are Olsen, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Stephen Sitch, Corinne Le Quéré, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Simone Alin, Luiz E. O. C. Aragão, Almut Arneth, Vivek Arora, Nicholas R. Bates, Meike Becker, Alice Benoit-Cattin, Henry C. Bittig, Laurent Bopp, Selma Bultan, Naveen Chandra, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Wiley Evans, Liesbeth Florentie, Piers M. Forster, Thomas Gasser, Marion Gehlen, Dennis Gilfillan, Thanos Gkritzalis, Luke Gregor, Nicolas Gruber, Ian Harris, Kerstin Hartung, Vanessa Haverd, Richard A. Houghton, Tatiana Ilyina, Atul K. Jain, Emilie Joetzjer, Koji Kadono, Etsushi Kato, Vassilis Kitidis, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Peter Landschützer, Nathalie Lefèvre, Andrew Lenton, Sebastian Lienert, Zhu Liu, Danica Lombardozzi, Gregg Marland, Nicolas Metzl, David R. Munro, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Yosuke Niwa, Kevin O'Brien, Tsuneo Ono, Paul I. Palmer, Denis Pierrot, Benjamin Poulter, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Ingunn Skjelvan, Adam J. P. Smith, Adrienne J. Sutton, Toste Tanhua, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Guido van der Werf, Nicolas Vuichard, Anthony P. Walker, Rik Wanninkhof, Andrew J. Watson, David Willis, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Wenping Yuan, Xu Yue, and Sönke Zaehle
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 3269–3340, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2020 describes the data sets and methodology used to quantify the emissions of carbon dioxide and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land, and ocean. These living data are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Felix Leung, Karina Williams, Stephen Sitch, Amos P. K. Tai, Andy Wiltshire, Jemma Gornall, Elizabeth A. Ainsworth, Timothy Arkebauer, and David Scoby
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 6201–6213, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-6201-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-6201-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Ground-level ozone (O3) is detrimental to plant productivity and crop yield. Currently, the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES) includes a representation of crops (JULES-crop). The parameters for O3 damage in soybean in JULES-crop were calibrated against photosynthesis measurements from the Soybean Free Air Concentration Enrichment (SoyFACE). The result shows good performance for yield, and it helps contribute to understanding of the impacts of climate and air pollution on food security.
Taraka Davies-Barnard, Johannes Meyerholt, Sönke Zaehle, Pierre Friedlingstein, Victor Brovkin, Yuanchao Fan, Rosie A. Fisher, Chris D. Jones, Hanna Lee, Daniele Peano, Benjamin Smith, David Wårlind, and Andy J. Wiltshire
Biogeosciences, 17, 5129–5148, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-5129-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-5129-2020, 2020
Arthur P. K. Argles, Jonathan R. Moore, Chris Huntingford, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Anna B. Harper, Chris D. Jones, and Peter M. Cox
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4067–4089, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4067-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4067-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The Robust Ecosystem Demography (RED) model simulates cohorts of vegetation through mass classes. RED establishes a framework for representing demographic changes through competition, growth, and mortality across the size distribution of a forest. The steady state of the model can be solved analytically, enabling initialization. When driven by mean growth rates from a land-surface model, RED is able to fit the observed global vegetation map, giving a map of implicit mortality rates.
James A. Franke, Christoph Müller, Joshua Elliott, Alex C. Ruane, Jonas Jägermeyr, Abigail Snyder, Marie Dury, Pete D. Falloon, Christian Folberth, Louis François, Tobias Hank, R. Cesar Izaurralde, Ingrid Jacquemin, Curtis Jones, Michelle Li, Wenfeng Liu, Stefan Olin, Meridel Phillips, Thomas A. M. Pugh, Ashwan Reddy, Karina Williams, Ziwei Wang, Florian Zabel, and Elisabeth J. Moyer
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3995–4018, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3995-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3995-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Improving our understanding of the impacts of climate change on crop yields will be critical for global food security in the next century. The models often used to study the how climate change may impact agriculture are complex and costly to run. In this work, we describe a set of global crop model emulators (simplified models) developed under the Agricultural Model Intercomparison Project. Crop model emulators make agricultural simulations more accessible to policy or decision makers.
Vivek K. Arora, Anna Katavouta, Richard G. Williams, Chris D. Jones, Victor Brovkin, Pierre Friedlingstein, Jörg Schwinger, Laurent Bopp, Olivier Boucher, Patricia Cadule, Matthew A. Chamberlain, James R. Christian, Christine Delire, Rosie A. Fisher, Tomohiro Hajima, Tatiana Ilyina, Emilie Joetzjer, Michio Kawamiya, Charles D. Koven, John P. Krasting, Rachel M. Law, David M. Lawrence, Andrew Lenton, Keith Lindsay, Julia Pongratz, Thomas Raddatz, Roland Séférian, Kaoru Tachiiri, Jerry F. Tjiputra, Andy Wiltshire, Tongwen Wu, and Tilo Ziehn
Biogeosciences, 17, 4173–4222, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-4173-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-4173-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Since the preindustrial period, land and ocean have taken up about half of the carbon emitted into the atmosphere by humans. Comparison of different earth system models with the carbon cycle allows us to assess how carbon uptake by land and ocean differs among models. This yields an estimate of uncertainty in our understanding of how land and ocean respond to increasing atmospheric CO2. This paper summarizes results from two such model intercomparison projects that use an idealized scenario.
Christopher J. Smith, Ryan J. Kramer, Gunnar Myhre, Kari Alterskjær, William Collins, Adriana Sima, Olivier Boucher, Jean-Louis Dufresne, Pierre Nabat, Martine Michou, Seiji Yukimoto, Jason Cole, David Paynter, Hideo Shiogama, Fiona M. O'Connor, Eddy Robertson, Andy Wiltshire, Timothy Andrews, Cécile Hannay, Ron Miller, Larissa Nazarenko, Alf Kirkevåg, Dirk Olivié, Stephanie Fiedler, Anna Lewinschal, Chloe Mackallah, Martin Dix, Robert Pincus, and Piers M. Forster
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 9591–9618, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-9591-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-9591-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The spread in effective radiative forcing for both CO2 and aerosols is narrower in the latest CMIP6 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project) generation than in CMIP5. For the case of CO2 it is likely that model radiation parameterisations have improved. Tropospheric and stratospheric radiative adjustments to the forcing behave differently for different forcing agents, and there is still significant diversity in how clouds respond to forcings, particularly for total anthropogenic forcing.
Ghizlane Aouade, Lionel Jarlan, Jamal Ezzahar, Salah Er-Raki, Adrien Napoly, Abdelfattah Benkaddour, Said Khabba, Gilles Boulet, Sébastien Garrigues, Abdelghani Chehbouni, and Aaron Boone
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 3789–3814, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-3789-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-3789-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Our objective is to question the representation of the energy budget in surface–vegetation–atmosphere transfer models for the prediction of the convective fluxes in crops with complex structures (row) and under transient hydric regimes due to irrigation. The main result is that a coupled multiple energy balance approach is necessary to properly predict surface exchanges for these complex crops. It also points out the need for other similar studies on various crops with different sparsity levels.
Simon Jones, Lucy Rowland, Peter Cox, Deborah Hemming, Andy Wiltshire, Karina Williams, Nicholas C. Parazoo, Junjie Liu, Antonio C. L. da Costa, Patrick Meir, Maurizio Mencuccini, and Anna B. Harper
Biogeosciences, 17, 3589–3612, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-3589-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-3589-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Non-structural carbohydrates (NSCs) are an important set of molecules that help plants to grow and respire when photosynthesis is restricted by extreme climate events. In this paper we present a simple model of NSC storage and assess the effect that it has on simulations of vegetation at the ecosystem scale. Our model has the potential to significantly change predictions of plant behaviour in global vegetation models, which would have large implications for predictions of the future climate.
Andrew H. MacDougall, Thomas L. Frölicher, Chris D. Jones, Joeri Rogelj, H. Damon Matthews, Kirsten Zickfeld, Vivek K. Arora, Noah J. Barrett, Victor Brovkin, Friedrich A. Burger, Micheal Eby, Alexey V. Eliseev, Tomohiro Hajima, Philip B. Holden, Aurich Jeltsch-Thömmes, Charles Koven, Nadine Mengis, Laurie Menviel, Martine Michou, Igor I. Mokhov, Akira Oka, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Gary Shaffer, Andrei Sokolov, Kaoru Tachiiri, Jerry Tjiputra, Andrew Wiltshire, and Tilo Ziehn
Biogeosciences, 17, 2987–3016, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-2987-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-2987-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The Zero Emissions Commitment (ZEC) is the change in global temperature expected to occur following the complete cessation of CO2 emissions. Here we use 18 climate models to assess the value of ZEC. For our experiment we find that ZEC 50 years after emissions cease is between −0.36 to +0.29 °C. The most likely value of ZEC is assessed to be close to zero. However, substantial continued warming for decades or centuries following cessation of CO2 emission cannot be ruled out.
Doug McNeall, Jonny Williams, Richard Betts, Ben Booth, Peter Challenor, Peter Good, and Andy Wiltshire
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 2487–2509, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2487-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2487-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
In the climate model FAMOUS, matching the modelled Amazon rainforest to observations required different land surface parameter settings than for other forests. It was unclear if this discrepancy was due to a bias in the modelled climate or an error in the land surface component of the model. Correcting the climate of the model with a statistical model corrects the simulation of the Amazon forest, suggesting that the land surface component of the model is not the source of the discrepancy.
James A. Franke, Christoph Müller, Joshua Elliott, Alex C. Ruane, Jonas Jägermeyr, Juraj Balkovic, Philippe Ciais, Marie Dury, Pete D. Falloon, Christian Folberth, Louis François, Tobias Hank, Munir Hoffmann, R. Cesar Izaurralde, Ingrid Jacquemin, Curtis Jones, Nikolay Khabarov, Marian Koch, Michelle Li, Wenfeng Liu, Stefan Olin, Meridel Phillips, Thomas A. M. Pugh, Ashwan Reddy, Xuhui Wang, Karina Williams, Florian Zabel, and Elisabeth J. Moyer
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 2315–2336, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2315-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2315-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
Concerns about food security under climate change motivate efforts to better understand future changes in crop yields. Crop models, which represent plant biology, are necessary tools for this purpose since they allow representing future climate, farmer choices, and new agricultural geographies. The Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) Phase 2 experiment, under the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP), is designed to evaluate and improve crop models.
Andrew J. Wiltshire, Maria Carolina Duran Rojas, John M. Edwards, Nicola Gedney, Anna B. Harper, Andrew J. Hartley, Margaret A. Hendry, Eddy Robertson, and Kerry Smout-Day
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 483–505, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-483-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-483-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We present the Global Land (GL) configuration of the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES). JULES-GL7 can be used to simulate the exchange of heat, water and momentum over land and is therefore applicable for helping understand past and future changes, and forms the land component of the HadGEM3-GC3.1 climate model. The configuration is freely available subject to licence restrictions.
Ewan Pinnington, Tristan Quaife, Amos Lawless, Karina Williams, Tim Arkebauer, and Dave Scoby
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 55–69, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-55-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-55-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We present LAVENDAR, a mathematical method for combining observations with models of the terrestrial environment. Here we use it to improve estimates of crop growth in the UK Met Office land surface model. However, the method is model agnostic, requires no modification to the underlying code and can be applied to any part of the model. In the example application we improve estimates of maize yield by 74 % by assimilating observations of leaf area, crop height and photosynthesis.
Pierre Friedlingstein, Matthew W. Jones, Michael O'Sullivan, Robbie M. Andrew, Judith Hauck, Glen P. Peters, Wouter Peters, Julia Pongratz, Stephen Sitch, Corinne Le Quéré, Dorothee C. E. Bakker, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Peter Anthoni, Leticia Barbero, Ana Bastos, Vladislav Bastrikov, Meike Becker, Laurent Bopp, Erik Buitenhuis, Naveen Chandra, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Kim I. Currie, Richard A. Feely, Marion Gehlen, Dennis Gilfillan, Thanos Gkritzalis, Daniel S. Goll, Nicolas Gruber, Sören Gutekunst, Ian Harris, Vanessa Haverd, Richard A. Houghton, George Hurtt, Tatiana Ilyina, Atul K. Jain, Emilie Joetzjer, Jed O. Kaplan, Etsushi Kato, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Peter Landschützer, Siv K. Lauvset, Nathalie Lefèvre, Andrew Lenton, Sebastian Lienert, Danica Lombardozzi, Gregg Marland, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, Nicolas Metzl, David R. Munro, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Shin-Ichiro Nakaoka, Craig Neill, Abdirahman M. Omar, Tsuneo Ono, Anna Peregon, Denis Pierrot, Benjamin Poulter, Gregor Rehder, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Christian Rödenbeck, Roland Séférian, Jörg Schwinger, Naomi Smith, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Francesco N. Tubiello, Guido R. van der Werf, Andrew J. Wiltshire, and Sönke Zaehle
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 11, 1783–1838, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-1783-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-11-1783-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2019 describes the data sets and methodology used to quantify the emissions of carbon dioxide and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land, and ocean. These living data are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Karina E. Williams, Anna B. Harper, Chris Huntingford, Lina M. Mercado, Camilla T. Mathison, Pete D. Falloon, Peter M. Cox, and Joon Kim
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 3207–3240, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-3207-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-3207-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
Data from the First ISLSCP Field Experiment, 1987–1989, is used to assess how well the JULES land-surface model simulates water stress in tallgrass prairie vegetation. We find that JULES simulates a decrease in key carbon and water cycle variables during the dry period, as expected, but that it does not capture the shape of the diurnal cycle on these days. These results will be used to inform future model development as part of wider evaluation efforts.
Sarah Shannon, Robin Smith, Andy Wiltshire, Tony Payne, Matthias Huss, Richard Betts, John Caesar, Aris Koutroulis, Darren Jones, and Stephan Harrison
The Cryosphere, 13, 325–350, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-325-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-325-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
We present global glacier volume projections for the end of this century, under a range of high-end climate change scenarios, defined as exceeding 2 °C global average warming. The ice loss contribution to sea level rise for all glaciers excluding those on the peripheral of the Antarctic ice sheet is 215.2 ± 21.3 mm. Such large ice losses will have consequences for sea level rise and for water supply in glacier-fed river systems.
Chantelle Burton, Richard Betts, Manoel Cardoso, Ted R. Feldpausch, Anna Harper, Chris D. Jones, Douglas I. Kelley, Eddy Robertson, and Andy Wiltshire
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 179–193, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-179-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-179-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
Fire and land-use change are important disturbances within the Earth system, and their inclusion in models is critical to enable the correct simulation of vegetation cover. Here we describe developments to the land surface model JULES to represent explicit land-use change and fire and to assess the effects of each process on present day vegetation compared to observations. Using historical land-use data and the fire model INFERNO, overall model results are improved by the developments.
Corinne Le Quéré, Robbie M. Andrew, Pierre Friedlingstein, Stephen Sitch, Judith Hauck, Julia Pongratz, Penelope A. Pickers, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Glen P. Peters, Josep G. Canadell, Almut Arneth, Vivek K. Arora, Leticia Barbero, Ana Bastos, Laurent Bopp, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Philippe Ciais, Scott C. Doney, Thanos Gkritzalis, Daniel S. Goll, Ian Harris, Vanessa Haverd, Forrest M. Hoffman, Mario Hoppema, Richard A. Houghton, George Hurtt, Tatiana Ilyina, Atul K. Jain, Truls Johannessen, Chris D. Jones, Etsushi Kato, Ralph F. Keeling, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Peter Landschützer, Nathalie Lefèvre, Sebastian Lienert, Zhu Liu, Danica Lombardozzi, Nicolas Metzl, David R. Munro, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Shin-ichiro Nakaoka, Craig Neill, Are Olsen, Tsueno Ono, Prabir Patra, Anna Peregon, Wouter Peters, Philippe Peylin, Benjamin Pfeil, Denis Pierrot, Benjamin Poulter, Gregor Rehder, Laure Resplandy, Eddy Robertson, Matthias Rocher, Christian Rödenbeck, Ute Schuster, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Ingunn Skjelvan, Tobias Steinhoff, Adrienne Sutton, Pieter P. Tans, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Francesco N. Tubiello, Ingrid T. van der Laan-Luijkx, Guido R. van der Werf, Nicolas Viovy, Anthony P. Walker, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Rebecca Wright, Sönke Zaehle, and Bo Zheng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 2141–2194, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-2141-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-2141-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2018 describes the data sets and methodology used to quantify the emissions of carbon dioxide and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land, and ocean. These living data are updated every year to provide the highest transparency and traceability in the reporting of CO2, the key driver of climate change.
Jun Wang, Ning Zeng, Meirong Wang, Fei Jiang, Jingming Chen, Pierre Friedlingstein, Atul K. Jain, Ziqiang Jiang, Weimin Ju, Sebastian Lienert, Julia Nabel, Stephen Sitch, Nicolas Viovy, Hengmao Wang, and Andrew J. Wiltshire
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 10333–10345, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-10333-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-10333-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Based on the Mauna Loa CO2 records and TRENDY multi-model historical simulations, we investigate the different impacts of EP and CP El Niños on interannual carbon cycle variability. Composite analysis indicates that the evolutions of CO2 growth rate anomalies have three clear differences in terms of precursors (negative and neutral), amplitudes (strong and weak), and durations of peak (Dec–Apr and Oct–Jan) during EP and CP El Niños, respectively. We further discuss their terrestrial mechanisms.
Anna B. Harper, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Peter M. Cox, Pierre Friedlingstein, Chris D. Jones, Lina M. Mercado, Stephen Sitch, Karina Williams, and Carolina Duran-Rojas
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 2857–2873, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2857-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2857-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Dynamic global vegetation models are used for studying historical and future changes to vegetation and the terrestrial carbon cycle. JULES is a DGVM that represents the land surface in the UK Earth System Model. We compared simulated gross and net primary productivity of vegetation, vegetation distribution, and aspects of the transient carbon cycle to observational datasets. JULES was able to accurately reproduce many aspects of the terrestrial carbon cycle with the recent improvements.
Gregory Duveiller, Giovanni Forzieri, Eddy Robertson, Wei Li, Goran Georgievski, Peter Lawrence, Andy Wiltshire, Philippe Ciais, Julia Pongratz, Stephen Sitch, Almut Arneth, and Alessandro Cescatti
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 1265–1279, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-1265-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-1265-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Changing the vegetation cover of the Earth's surface can alter the local energy balance, which can result in a local warming or cooling depending on the specific vegetation transition, its timing and location, as well as on the background climate. While models can theoretically simulate these effects, their skill is not well documented across space and time. Here we provide a dedicated framework to evaluate such models against measurements derived from satellite observations.
Dagmawi Asfaw, Emily Black, Matthew Brown, Kathryn Jane Nicklin, Frederick Otu-Larbi, Ewan Pinnington, Andrew Challinor, Ross Maidment, and Tristan Quaife
Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 2353–2371, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2353-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2353-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
TAMSAT-ALERT is a framework for combining observational and forecast information into continually updated assessments of the likelihood of user-defined adverse events like low cumulative rainfall or lower than average crop yield. It is easy to use and flexible to accommodate any impact model that uses meteorological data. The results show that it can be used to monitor the meteorological impact on yield within a growing season and to test the value of routinely issued seasonal forecasts.
Camilla Mathison, Chetan Deva, Pete Falloon, and Andrew J. Challinor
Earth Syst. Dynam., 9, 563–592, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-563-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-563-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Sowing and harvest dates are a significant source of uncertainty within crop models. South Asia is one region with a large uncertainty. We aim to provide more accurate sowing and harvest dates than currently available and that are relevant for climate impact assessments. This method reproduces the present day sowing and harvest dates for most parts of India and when applied to two future periods provides a useful way of modelling potential growing season adaptations to changes in future climate.
Stephan Harrison, Jeffrey S. Kargel, Christian Huggel, John Reynolds, Dan H. Shugar, Richard A. Betts, Adam Emmer, Neil Glasser, Umesh K. Haritashya, Jan Klimeš, Liam Reinhardt, Yvonne Schaub, Andy Wiltshire, Dhananjay Regmi, and Vít Vilímek
The Cryosphere, 12, 1195–1209, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-1195-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-1195-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
Most mountain glaciers have receded throughout the last century in response to global climate change. This recession produces a range of natural hazards including glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs). We have produced the first global inventory of GLOFs associated with the failure of moraine dams and show, counterintuitively, that these have reduced in frequency over recent decades. In this paper we explore the reasons for this pattern.
Corinne Le Quéré, Robbie M. Andrew, Pierre Friedlingstein, Stephen Sitch, Julia Pongratz, Andrew C. Manning, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Glen P. Peters, Josep G. Canadell, Robert B. Jackson, Thomas A. Boden, Pieter P. Tans, Oliver D. Andrews, Vivek K. Arora, Dorothee C. E. Bakker, Leticia Barbero, Meike Becker, Richard A. Betts, Laurent Bopp, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Philippe Ciais, Catherine E. Cosca, Jessica Cross, Kim Currie, Thomas Gasser, Ian Harris, Judith Hauck, Vanessa Haverd, Richard A. Houghton, Christopher W. Hunt, George Hurtt, Tatiana Ilyina, Atul K. Jain, Etsushi Kato, Markus Kautz, Ralph F. Keeling, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Arne Körtzinger, Peter Landschützer, Nathalie Lefèvre, Andrew Lenton, Sebastian Lienert, Ivan Lima, Danica Lombardozzi, Nicolas Metzl, Frank Millero, Pedro M. S. Monteiro, David R. Munro, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Shin-ichiro Nakaoka, Yukihiro Nojiri, X. Antonio Padin, Anna Peregon, Benjamin Pfeil, Denis Pierrot, Benjamin Poulter, Gregor Rehder, Janet Reimer, Christian Rödenbeck, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Ingunn Skjelvan, Benjamin D. Stocker, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Francesco N. Tubiello, Ingrid T. van der Laan-Luijkx, Guido R. van der Werf, Steven van Heuven, Nicolas Viovy, Nicolas Vuichard, Anthony P. Walker, Andrew J. Watson, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Sönke Zaehle, and Dan Zhu
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 10, 405–448, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-405-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-405-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2017 describes data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. It is the 12th annual update and the 6th published in this journal.
Jean-François Exbrayat, A. Anthony Bloom, Pete Falloon, Akihiko Ito, T. Luke Smallman, and Mathew Williams
Earth Syst. Dynam., 9, 153–165, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-153-2018, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-153-2018, 2018
Short summary
Short summary
We use global observations of current terrestrial net primary productivity (NPP) to constrain the uncertainty in large ensemble 21st century projections of NPP under a "business as usual" scenario using a skill-based multi-model averaging technique. Our results show that this procedure helps greatly reduce the uncertainty in global projections of NPP. We also identify regions where uncertainties in models and observations remain too large to confidently conclude a sign of the change of NPP.
Mary C. Ockenden, Wlodek Tych, Keith J. Beven, Adrian L. Collins, Robert Evans, Peter D. Falloon, Kirsty J. Forber, Kevin M. Hiscock, Michael J. Hollaway, Ron Kahana, Christopher J. A. Macleod, Martha L. Villamizar, Catherine Wearing, Paul J. A. Withers, Jian G. Zhou, Clare McW. H. Benskin, Sean Burke, Richard J. Cooper, Jim E. Freer, and Philip M. Haygarth
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 6425–6444, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-6425-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-6425-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
This paper describes simple models of phosphorus load which are identified for three catchments in the UK. The models use new hourly observations of phosphorus load, which capture the dynamics of phosphorus transfer in small catchments that are often missed by models with a longer time step. Unlike more complex, process-based models, very few parameters are required, leading to low parameter uncertainty. Interpretation of the dominant phosphorus transfer modes is made based solely on the data.
Wei Li, Philippe Ciais, Shushi Peng, Chao Yue, Yilong Wang, Martin Thurner, Sassan S. Saatchi, Almut Arneth, Valerio Avitabile, Nuno Carvalhais, Anna B. Harper, Etsushi Kato, Charles Koven, Yi Y. Liu, Julia E.M.S. Nabel, Yude Pan, Julia Pongratz, Benjamin Poulter, Thomas A. M. Pugh, Maurizio Santoro, Stephen Sitch, Benjamin D. Stocker, Nicolas Viovy, Andy Wiltshire, Rasoul Yousefpour, and Sönke Zaehle
Biogeosciences, 14, 5053–5067, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-5053-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-5053-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
We used several observation-based biomass datasets to constrain the historical land-use change carbon emissions simulated by models. Compared to the range of the original modeled emissions (from 94 to 273 Pg C), the observationally constrained global cumulative emission estimate is 155 ± 50 Pg C (1σ Gaussian error) from 1901 to 2012. Our approach can also be applied to evaluate the LULCC impact of land-based climate mitigation policies.
Marielle Saunois, Philippe Bousquet, Ben Poulter, Anna Peregon, Philippe Ciais, Josep G. Canadell, Edward J. Dlugokencky, Giuseppe Etiope, David Bastviken, Sander Houweling, Greet Janssens-Maenhout, Francesco N. Tubiello, Simona Castaldi, Robert B. Jackson, Mihai Alexe, Vivek K. Arora, David J. Beerling, Peter Bergamaschi, Donald R. Blake, Gordon Brailsford, Lori Bruhwiler, Cyril Crevoisier, Patrick Crill, Kristofer Covey, Christian Frankenberg, Nicola Gedney, Lena Höglund-Isaksson, Misa Ishizawa, Akihiko Ito, Fortunat Joos, Heon-Sook Kim, Thomas Kleinen, Paul Krummel, Jean-François Lamarque, Ray Langenfelds, Robin Locatelli, Toshinobu Machida, Shamil Maksyutov, Joe R. Melton, Isamu Morino, Vaishali Naik, Simon O'Doherty, Frans-Jan W. Parmentier, Prabir K. Patra, Changhui Peng, Shushi Peng, Glen P. Peters, Isabelle Pison, Ronald Prinn, Michel Ramonet, William J. Riley, Makoto Saito, Monia Santini, Ronny Schroeder, Isobel J. Simpson, Renato Spahni, Atsushi Takizawa, Brett F. Thornton, Hanqin Tian, Yasunori Tohjima, Nicolas Viovy, Apostolos Voulgarakis, Ray Weiss, David J. Wilton, Andy Wiltshire, Doug Worthy, Debra Wunch, Xiyan Xu, Yukio Yoshida, Bowen Zhang, Zhen Zhang, and Qiuan Zhu
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 11135–11161, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-11135-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-17-11135-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
Following the Global Methane Budget 2000–2012 published in Saunois et al. (2016), we use the same dataset of bottom-up and top-down approaches to discuss the variations in methane emissions over the period 2000–2012. The changes in emissions are discussed both in terms of trends and quasi-decadal changes. The ensemble gathered here allows us to synthesise the robust changes in terms of regional and sectorial contributions to the increasing methane emissions.
Karina Williams, Jemma Gornall, Anna Harper, Andy Wiltshire, Debbie Hemming, Tristan Quaife, Tim Arkebauer, and David Scoby
Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1291–1320, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1291-2017, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1291-2017, 2017
Short summary
Short summary
This study looks in detail at how well the crop model within the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), a community land-surface model, is able to simulate irrigated maize in Nebraska. We use the results to point to future priorities for model development and describe how our methodology can be adapted to set up model runs for other sites and crop varieties.
Marielle Saunois, Philippe Bousquet, Ben Poulter, Anna Peregon, Philippe Ciais, Josep G. Canadell, Edward J. Dlugokencky, Giuseppe Etiope, David Bastviken, Sander Houweling, Greet Janssens-Maenhout, Francesco N. Tubiello, Simona Castaldi, Robert B. Jackson, Mihai Alexe, Vivek K. Arora, David J. Beerling, Peter Bergamaschi, Donald R. Blake, Gordon Brailsford, Victor Brovkin, Lori Bruhwiler, Cyril Crevoisier, Patrick Crill, Kristofer Covey, Charles Curry, Christian Frankenberg, Nicola Gedney, Lena Höglund-Isaksson, Misa Ishizawa, Akihiko Ito, Fortunat Joos, Heon-Sook Kim, Thomas Kleinen, Paul Krummel, Jean-François Lamarque, Ray Langenfelds, Robin Locatelli, Toshinobu Machida, Shamil Maksyutov, Kyle C. McDonald, Julia Marshall, Joe R. Melton, Isamu Morino, Vaishali Naik, Simon O'Doherty, Frans-Jan W. Parmentier, Prabir K. Patra, Changhui Peng, Shushi Peng, Glen P. Peters, Isabelle Pison, Catherine Prigent, Ronald Prinn, Michel Ramonet, William J. Riley, Makoto Saito, Monia Santini, Ronny Schroeder, Isobel J. Simpson, Renato Spahni, Paul Steele, Atsushi Takizawa, Brett F. Thornton, Hanqin Tian, Yasunori Tohjima, Nicolas Viovy, Apostolos Voulgarakis, Michiel van Weele, Guido R. van der Werf, Ray Weiss, Christine Wiedinmyer, David J. Wilton, Andy Wiltshire, Doug Worthy, Debra Wunch, Xiyan Xu, Yukio Yoshida, Bowen Zhang, Zhen Zhang, and Qiuan Zhu
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 8, 697–751, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-8-697-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-8-697-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
An accurate assessment of the methane budget is important to understand the atmospheric methane concentrations and trends and to provide realistic pathways for climate change mitigation. The various and diffuse sources of methane as well and its oxidation by a very short lifetime radical challenge this assessment. We quantify the methane sources and sinks as well as their uncertainties based on both bottom-up and top-down approaches provided by a broad international scientific community.
Doug McNeall, Jonny Williams, Ben Booth, Richard Betts, Peter Challenor, Andy Wiltshire, and David Sexton
Earth Syst. Dynam., 7, 917–935, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-917-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-917-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
We compare simulated with observed forests to constrain uncertain input parameters of the land surface component of a climate model.
We find that the model is unlikely to be able to simulate the Amazon and other major forests simultaneously at any one parameter set, suggesting a bias in the model's representation of the Amazon.
We find we cannot constrain parameters individually, but we can rule out large areas of joint parameter space.
Corinne Le Quéré, Robbie M. Andrew, Josep G. Canadell, Stephen Sitch, Jan Ivar Korsbakken, Glen P. Peters, Andrew C. Manning, Thomas A. Boden, Pieter P. Tans, Richard A. Houghton, Ralph F. Keeling, Simone Alin, Oliver D. Andrews, Peter Anthoni, Leticia Barbero, Laurent Bopp, Frédéric Chevallier, Louise P. Chini, Philippe Ciais, Kim Currie, Christine Delire, Scott C. Doney, Pierre Friedlingstein, Thanos Gkritzalis, Ian Harris, Judith Hauck, Vanessa Haverd, Mario Hoppema, Kees Klein Goldewijk, Atul K. Jain, Etsushi Kato, Arne Körtzinger, Peter Landschützer, Nathalie Lefèvre, Andrew Lenton, Sebastian Lienert, Danica Lombardozzi, Joe R. Melton, Nicolas Metzl, Frank Millero, Pedro M. S. Monteiro, David R. Munro, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Shin-ichiro Nakaoka, Kevin O'Brien, Are Olsen, Abdirahman M. Omar, Tsuneo Ono, Denis Pierrot, Benjamin Poulter, Christian Rödenbeck, Joe Salisbury, Ute Schuster, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Séférian, Ingunn Skjelvan, Benjamin D. Stocker, Adrienne J. Sutton, Taro Takahashi, Hanqin Tian, Bronte Tilbrook, Ingrid T. van der Laan-Luijkx, Guido R. van der Werf, Nicolas Viovy, Anthony P. Walker, Andrew J. Wiltshire, and Sönke Zaehle
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 8, 605–649, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-8-605-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-8-605-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Carbon Budget 2016 is the 11th annual update of emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and their partitioning among the atmosphere, land, and ocean. This data synthesis brings together measurements, statistical information, and analyses of model results in order to provide an assessment of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties for years 1959 to 2015, with a projection for year 2016.
Michael B. Butts, Carlo Buontempo, Jens K. Lørup, Karina Williams, Camilla Mathison, Oluf Z. Jessen, Niels D. Riegels, Paul Glennie, Carol McSweeney, Mark Wilson, Richard Jones, and Abdulkarim H. Seid
Proc. IAHS, 374, 3–7, https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-374-3-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/piahs-374-3-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
The Nile Basin is one of the most important shared basins in Africa. Managing it's water resources, now and in the future, must not only address different water uses but also the trade-off between developments upstream and water use downstream, often between different countries. This paper presents a methodology, to support climate adaptation on a regional scale, for assessing climate change impacts and adaptation potential for floods, droughts and water scarcity within this basin.
Fang Zhao, Ning Zeng, Ghassem Asrar, Pierre Friedlingstein, Akihiko Ito, Atul Jain, Eugenia Kalnay, Etsushi Kato, Charles D. Koven, Ben Poulter, Rashid Rafique, Stephen Sitch, Shijie Shu, Beni Stocker, Nicolas Viovy, Andy Wiltshire, and Sonke Zaehle
Biogeosciences, 13, 5121–5137, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-5121-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-5121-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
The increasing seasonality of atmospheric CO2 is strongly linked with enhanced land vegetation activities in the last 5 decades, for which the importance of increasing CO2, climate and land use/cover change was evaluated in single model studies (Zeng et al., 2014; Forkel et al., 2016). Here we examine the relative importance of these factors in multiple models. Our results highlight models can show similar results in some benchmarks with different underlying regional dynamics.
Anna B. Harper, Peter M. Cox, Pierre Friedlingstein, Andy J. Wiltshire, Chris D. Jones, Stephen Sitch, Lina M. Mercado, Margriet Groenendijk, Eddy Robertson, Jens Kattge, Gerhard Bönisch, Owen K. Atkin, Michael Bahn, Johannes Cornelissen, Ülo Niinemets, Vladimir Onipchenko, Josep Peñuelas, Lourens Poorter, Peter B. Reich, Nadjeda A. Soudzilovskaia, and Peter van Bodegom
Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 2415–2440, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2415-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2415-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
Dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) are used to predict the response of vegetation to climate change. We improved the representation of carbon uptake by ecosystems in a DGVM by including a wider range of trade-offs between nutrient allocation to photosynthetic capacity and leaf structure, based on observed plant traits from a worldwide data base. The improved model has higher rates of photosynthesis and net C uptake by plants, and more closely matches observations at site and global scales.
G. Murray-Tortarolo, P. Friedlingstein, S. Sitch, V. J. Jaramillo, F. Murguía-Flores, A. Anav, Y. Liu, A. Arneth, A. Arvanitis, A. Harper, A. Jain, E. Kato, C. Koven, B. Poulter, B. D. Stocker, A. Wiltshire, S. Zaehle, and N. Zeng
Biogeosciences, 13, 223–238, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-223-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-223-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
We modelled the carbon (C) cycle in Mexico for three different time periods: past (20th century), present (2000-2005) and future (2006-2100). We used different available products to estimate C stocks and fluxes in the country. Contrary to other current estimates, our results showed that Mexico was a C sink and this is likely to continue in the next century (unless the most extreme climate-change scenarios are reached).
K. E. Williams and P. D. Falloon
Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 3987–3997, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3987-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3987-2015, 2015
C. Mathison, A. J. Wiltshire, P. Falloon, and A. J. Challinor
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 4783–4810, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-4783-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-4783-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
South Asia is a highly variable region where there is concern over water and food security. The simulations presented suggest an increasing trend in water resources, in some cases almost doubling by the end of the century although this is masked by the large annual variability of river flows for this region. Future peak river flows still occur during the monsoon period, with a tendency for reduced frequency of lowest flows and increased magnitude of highest flows across the selected locations.
C. Le Quéré, R. Moriarty, R. M. Andrew, J. G. Canadell, S. Sitch, J. I. Korsbakken, P. Friedlingstein, G. P. Peters, R. J. Andres, T. A. Boden, R. A. Houghton, J. I. House, R. F. Keeling, P. Tans, A. Arneth, D. C. E. Bakker, L. Barbero, L. Bopp, J. Chang, F. Chevallier, L. P. Chini, P. Ciais, M. Fader, R. A. Feely, T. Gkritzalis, I. Harris, J. Hauck, T. Ilyina, A. K. Jain, E. Kato, V. Kitidis, K. Klein Goldewijk, C. Koven, P. Landschützer, S. K. Lauvset, N. Lefèvre, A. Lenton, I. D. Lima, N. Metzl, F. Millero, D. R. Munro, A. Murata, J. E. M. S. Nabel, S. Nakaoka, Y. Nojiri, K. O'Brien, A. Olsen, T. Ono, F. F. Pérez, B. Pfeil, D. Pierrot, B. Poulter, G. Rehder, C. Rödenbeck, S. Saito, U. Schuster, J. Schwinger, R. Séférian, T. Steinhoff, B. D. Stocker, A. J. Sutton, T. Takahashi, B. Tilbrook, I. T. van der Laan-Luijkx, G. R. van der Werf, S. van Heuven, D. Vandemark, N. Viovy, A. Wiltshire, S. Zaehle, and N. Zeng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 7, 349–396, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-7-349-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-7-349-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere is important to understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. We describe data sets and a methodology to quantify all major components of the global carbon budget, including their uncertainties, based on a range of data and models and their interpretation by a broad scientific community.
S. Garrigues, A. Olioso, D. Carrer, B. Decharme, J.-C. Calvet, E. Martin, S. Moulin, and O. Marloie
Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 3033–3053, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3033-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3033-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
This paper investigates the impacts of uncertainties in the climate, the vegetation dynamic, the soil properties and the cropland management on the simulation of evapotranspiration from the ISBA-A-gs land surface model over a 12-year Mediterranean crop succession. It mainly shows that errors in the soil parameters and the lack of irrigation in the simulation have the largest influence on evapotranspiration compared to the uncertainties in the climate and the vegetation dynamic.
K. Frieler, A. Levermann, J. Elliott, J. Heinke, A. Arneth, M. F. P. Bierkens, P. Ciais, D. B. Clark, D. Deryng, P. Döll, P. Falloon, B. Fekete, C. Folberth, A. D. Friend, C. Gellhorn, S. N. Gosling, I. Haddeland, N. Khabarov, M. Lomas, Y. Masaki, K. Nishina, K. Neumann, T. Oki, R. Pavlick, A. C. Ruane, E. Schmid, C. Schmitz, T. Stacke, E. Stehfest, Q. Tang, D. Wisser, V. Huber, F. Piontek, L. Warszawski, J. Schewe, H. Lotze-Campen, and H. J. Schellnhuber
Earth Syst. Dynam., 6, 447–460, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-6-447-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-6-447-2015, 2015
S. Garrigues, A. Olioso, J. C. Calvet, E. Martin, S. Lafont, S. Moulin, A. Chanzy, O. Marloie, S. Buis, V. Desfonds, N. Bertrand, and D. Renard
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 3109–3131, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-3109-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-3109-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
Land surface model simulations of evapotranspiration are assessed over a 12-year Mediterranean crop succession. Evapotranspiration mainly results from soil evaporation when it is simulated over a Mediterranean crop succession. This leads to a high sensitivity to the soil parameters. Errors on soil hydraulic properties can lead to a large bias in cumulative evapotranspiration over a long period of time. Accounting for uncertainties in soil properties is essential for land surface modelling.
K. Nishina, A. Ito, P. Falloon, A. D. Friend, D. J. Beerling, P. Ciais, D. B. Clark, R. Kahana, E. Kato, W. Lucht, M. Lomas, R. Pavlick, S. Schaphoff, L. Warszawaski, and T. Yokohata
Earth Syst. Dynam., 6, 435–445, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-6-435-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-6-435-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
Our study focused on uncertainties in terrestrial C cycling under newly developed scenarios with CMIP5. This study presents first results for examining relative uncertainties of projected terrestrial C cycling in multiple projection components. Only using our new model inter-comparison project data sets enables us to evaluate various uncertainty sources in projection periods. The information on relative uncertainties is useful for climate science and climate change impact evaluation.
C. Le Quéré, R. Moriarty, R. M. Andrew, G. P. Peters, P. Ciais, P. Friedlingstein, S. D. Jones, S. Sitch, P. Tans, A. Arneth, T. A. Boden, L. Bopp, Y. Bozec, J. G. Canadell, L. P. Chini, F. Chevallier, C. E. Cosca, I. Harris, M. Hoppema, R. A. Houghton, J. I. House, A. K. Jain, T. Johannessen, E. Kato, R. F. Keeling, V. Kitidis, K. Klein Goldewijk, C. Koven, C. S. Landa, P. Landschützer, A. Lenton, I. D. Lima, G. Marland, J. T. Mathis, N. Metzl, Y. Nojiri, A. Olsen, T. Ono, S. Peng, W. Peters, B. Pfeil, B. Poulter, M. R. Raupach, P. Regnier, C. Rödenbeck, S. Saito, J. E. Salisbury, U. Schuster, J. Schwinger, R. Séférian, J. Segschneider, T. Steinhoff, B. D. Stocker, A. J. Sutton, T. Takahashi, B. Tilbrook, G. R. van der Werf, N. Viovy, Y.-P. Wang, R. Wanninkhof, A. Wiltshire, and N. Zeng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 7, 47–85, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-7-47-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-7-47-2015, 2015
Short summary
Short summary
Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from human activities (burning fossil fuels and cement production, deforestation and other land-use change) are set to rise again in 2014.
This study (updated yearly) makes an accurate assessment of anthropogenic CO2 emissions and their redistribution between the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere in order to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change.
T. Osborne, J. Gornall, J. Hooker, K. Williams, A. Wiltshire, R. Betts, and T. Wheeler
Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 1139–1155, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-1139-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-1139-2015, 2015
R. A. Betts, N. Golding, P. Gonzalez, J. Gornall, R. Kahana, G. Kay, L. Mitchell, and A. Wiltshire
Biogeosciences, 12, 1317–1338, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-1317-2015, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-1317-2015, 2015
C. Le Quéré, G. P. Peters, R. J. Andres, R. M. Andrew, T. A. Boden, P. Ciais, P. Friedlingstein, R. A. Houghton, G. Marland, R. Moriarty, S. Sitch, P. Tans, A. Arneth, A. Arvanitis, D. C. E. Bakker, L. Bopp, J. G. Canadell, L. P. Chini, S. C. Doney, A. Harper, I. Harris, J. I. House, A. K. Jain, S. D. Jones, E. Kato, R. F. Keeling, K. Klein Goldewijk, A. Körtzinger, C. Koven, N. Lefèvre, F. Maignan, A. Omar, T. Ono, G.-H. Park, B. Pfeil, B. Poulter, M. R. Raupach, P. Regnier, C. Rödenbeck, S. Saito, J. Schwinger, J. Segschneider, B. D. Stocker, T. Takahashi, B. Tilbrook, S. van Heuven, N. Viovy, R. Wanninkhof, A. Wiltshire, and S. Zaehle
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 6, 235–263, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-6-235-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-6-235-2014, 2014
A. J. Wiltshire
The Cryosphere, 8, 941–958, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-941-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-8-941-2014, 2014
K. Nishina, A. Ito, D. J. Beerling, P. Cadule, P. Ciais, D. B. Clark, P. Falloon, A. D. Friend, R. Kahana, E. Kato, R. Keribin, W. Lucht, M. Lomas, T. T. Rademacher, R. Pavlick, S. Schaphoff, N. Vuichard, L. Warszawaski, and T. Yokohata
Earth Syst. Dynam., 5, 197–209, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-5-197-2014, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-5-197-2014, 2014
J. C. S. Davie, P. D. Falloon, R. Kahana, R. Dankers, R. Betts, F. T. Portmann, D. Wisser, D. B. Clark, A. Ito, Y. Masaki, K. Nishina, B. Fekete, Z. Tessler, Y. Wada, X. Liu, Q. Tang, S. Hagemann, T. Stacke, R. Pavlick, S. Schaphoff, S. N. Gosling, W. Franssen, and N. Arnell
Earth Syst. Dynam., 4, 359–374, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-4-359-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-4-359-2013, 2013
I. H. Taylor, E. Burke, L. McColl, P. D. Falloon, G. R. Harris, and D. McNeall
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 2339–2358, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-2339-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-2339-2013, 2013
S. Hagemann, C. Chen, D. B. Clark, S. Folwell, S. N. Gosling, I. Haddeland, N. Hanasaki, J. Heinke, F. Ludwig, F. Voss, and A. J. Wiltshire
Earth Syst. Dynam., 4, 129–144, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-4-129-2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-4-129-2013, 2013
Related subject area
Climate and Earth system modeling
Implementing deep soil and dynamic root uptake in Noah-MP (v4.5): impact on Amazon dry-season transpiration
Reducing time and computing costs in EC-Earth: an automatic load-balancing approach for coupled Earth system models
FLAME 1.0: a novel approach for modelling burned area in the Brazilian biomes using the maximum entropy concept
SURFER v3.0: a fast model with ice sheet tipping points and carbon cycle feedbacks for short- and long-term climate scenarios
NMH-CS 3.0: a C# programming language and Windows-system-based ecohydrological model derived from Noah-MP
A method for quantifying uncertainty in spatially interpolated meteorological data with application to daily maximum air temperature
Baseline Climate Variables for Earth System Modelling
PaleoSTeHM v1.0: a modern, scalable spatiotemporal hierarchical modeling framework for paleo-environmental data
The Tropical Basin Interaction Model Intercomparison Project (TBIMIP)
ZEMBA v1.0: an energy and moisture balance climate model to investigate Quaternary climate
Development and evaluation of a new 4DEnVar-based weakly coupled ocean data assimilation system in E3SMv2
TemDeep: a self-supervised framework for temporal downscaling of atmospheric fields at arbitrary time resolutions
The ensemble consistency test: from CESM to MPAS and beyond
Presentation, calibration and testing of the DCESS II Earth system model of intermediate complexity (version 1.0)
Synthesizing global carbon–nitrogen coupling effects – the MAGICC coupled carbon–nitrogen cycle model v1.0
Historical trends and controlling factors of isoprene emissions in CMIP6 Earth system models
Investigating carbon and nitrogen conservation in reported CMIP6 Earth system model data
From weather data to river runoff: using spatiotemporal convolutional networks for discharge forecasting
A Fortran–Python interface for integrating machine learning parameterization into earth system models
ROCKE-3D 2.0: An updated general circulation model for simulating the climates of rocky planets
A rapid-application emissions-to-impacts tool for scenario assessment: Probabilistic Regional Impacts from Model patterns and Emissions (PRIME)
The DOE E3SM version 2.1: overview and assessment of the impacts of parameterized ocean submesoscales
WRF-ELM v1.0: a regional climate model to study land–atmosphere interactions over heterogeneous land use regions
Modeling commercial-scale CO2 storage in the gas hydrate stability zone with PFLOTRAN v6.0
DiuSST: a conceptual model of diurnal warm layers for idealized atmospheric simulations with interactive sea surface temperature
High-Resolution Model Intercomparison Project phase 2 (HighResMIP2) towards CMIP7
T&C-CROP: representing mechanistic crop growth with a terrestrial biosphere model (T&C, v1.5) – model formulation and validation
An updated non-intrusive, multi-scale, and flexible coupling interface in WRF 4.6.0
Monitoring and benchmarking Earth system model simulations with ESMValTool v2.12.0
The Earth Science Box Modeling Toolkit (ESBMTK 0.14.0.11): a Python library for research and teaching
CropSuite v1.0 – a comprehensive open-source crop suitability model considering climate variability for climate impact assessment
ICON ComIn – the ICON Community Interface (ComIn version 0.1.0, with ICON version 2024.01-01)
Using feature importance as an exploratory data analysis tool on Earth system models
A new metrics framework for quantifying and intercomparing atmospheric rivers in observations, reanalyses, and climate models
The real challenges for climate and weather modelling on its way to sustained exascale performance: a case study using ICON (v2.6.6)
COSP-RTTOV-1.0: Flexible radiation diagnostics to enable new science applications in model evaluation, climate change detection, and satellite mission design
Impact of spatial resolution on CMIP6-driven Mediterranean climate simulations: a focus on precipitation distribution over Italy
Improving the representation of major Indian crops in the Community Land Model version 5.0 (CLM5) using site-scale crop data
Evaluation of CORDEX ERA5-forced NARCliM2.0 regional climate models over Australia using the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model version 4.1.2
Design, evaluation, and future projections of the NARCliM2.0 CORDEX-CMIP6 Australasia regional climate ensemble
The Detection and Attribution Model Intercomparison Project (DAMIP v2.0) contribution to CMIP7
Statistical summaries for streamed data from climate simulations: One-pass algorithms (v0.6.2)
Amending the algorithm of aerosol–radiation interactions in WRF-Chem (v4.4)
The very-high-resolution configuration of the EC-Earth global model for HighResMIP
GOSI9: UK Global Ocean and Sea Ice configurations
FACA v1 – Fully Automated Co-Alignment of UAV Point Clouds
Decomposition of skill scores for conditional verification: impact of Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation phases on the predictability of decadal temperature forecasts
Virtual Integration of Satellite and In-situ Observation Networks (VISION) v1.0: In-Situ Observations Simulator (ISO_simulator)
Climate model downscaling in central Asia: a dynamical and a neural network approach
Advanced climate model evaluation with ESMValTool v2.11.0 using parallel, out-of-core, and distributed computing
Carolina A. Bieri, Francina Dominguez, Gonzalo Miguez-Macho, and Ying Fan
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3755–3779, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3755-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3755-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Access to deep moisture below the Earth's surface is important for vegetation in areas of the Amazon where there is little precipitation for part of the year. Most existing numerical models of the Earth system do not adequately capture where and when deep root water uptake occurs. We address this by adding deep soil layers and a root water uptake feature to an existing model. Out modifications lead to increased dry-month transpiration and improved simulation of the annual transpiration cycle.
Sergi Palomas, Mario C. Acosta, Gladys Utrera, and Etienne Tourigny
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3661–3679, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3661-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3661-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present an automatic tool that optimizes resource distribution in coupled climate models, enhancing speed and reducing computational costs without requiring expert knowledge. Users can set energy/time criteria or limit resource usage. Tested on various European Community Earth System Model (EC-Earth) configurations and high-performance computing (HPC) platforms, it achieved up to 34 % faster simulations with fewer resources.
Maria Lucia Ferreira Barbosa, Douglas I. Kelley, Chantelle A. Burton, Igor J. M. Ferreira, Renata Moura da Veiga, Anna Bradley, Paulo Guilherme Molin, and Liana O. Anderson
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3533–3557, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3533-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3533-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
As fire seasons in Brazil become increasingly severe, confidently understanding the factors driving fires is more critical than ever. To address this challenge, we developed FLAME (Fire Landscape Analysis using Maximum Entropy), a new model designed to predict fires and to analyse the spatial influence of both environmental and human factors while accounting for uncertainties. By adapting the model to different regions, we can enhance fire management strategies, making FLAME a powerful tool for protecting landscapes in Brazil and beyond.
Victor Couplet, Marina Martínez Montero, and Michel Crucifix
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3081–3129, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3081-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3081-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present SURFER v3.0, a simple climate model designed to estimate the impact of CO2 and CH4 emissions on global temperatures, sea levels, and ocean pH. We added new carbon cycle processes and calibrated the model to observations and results from more complex models, enabling use over timescales ranging from decades to millions of years. SURFER v3.0 is fast, transparent, and easy to use, making it an ideal tool for policy assessments and suitable for educational purposes.
Yong-He Liu and Zong-Liang Yang
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3157–3174, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3157-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3157-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
NMH-CS 3.0 is a C#-based ecohydrological model reconstructed from the WRF-Hydro/Noah-MP model by translating the Fortran code of WRF-Hydro 3.0 and integrating a parallel river routing module. It enables efficient execution on multi-core personal computers. Simulations in the Yellow River basin demonstrate its consistency with WRF-Hydro outputs, providing a reliable alternative to the original Noah-MP model.
Conor T. Doherty, Weile Wang, Hirofumi Hashimoto, and Ian G. Brosnan
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3003–3016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3003-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3003-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present, analyze, and validate a methodology for quantifying uncertainty in gridded meteorological data products produced by spatial interpolation. In a validation case study using daily maximum near-surface air temperature (Tmax), the method works well and produces predictive distributions with closely matching theoretical versus actual coverage levels. Application of the method reveals that the magnitude of uncertainty in interpolated Tmax varies significantly in both space and time.
Martin Juckes, Karl E. Taylor, Fabrizio Antonio, David Brayshaw, Carlo Buontempo, Jian Cao, Paul J. Durack, Michio Kawamiya, Hyungjun Kim, Tomas Lovato, Chloe Mackallah, Matthew Mizielinski, Alessandra Nuzzo, Martina Stockhause, Daniele Visioni, Jeremy Walton, Briony Turner, Eleanor O'Rourke, and Beth Dingley
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2639–2663, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2639-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2639-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Baseline Climate Variables for Earth System Modelling (ESM-BCVs) are defined as a list of 135 variables which have high utility for the evaluation and exploitation of climate simulations. The list reflects the most frequently used variables from Earth system models based on an assessment of data publication and download records from the largest archive of global climate projects.
Yucheng Lin, Robert E. Kopp, Alexander Reedy, Matteo Turilli, Shantenu Jha, and Erica L. Ashe
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2609–2637, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2609-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2609-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
PaleoSTeHM v1.0 is a state-of-the-art framework designed to reconstruct past environmental conditions using geological data. Built on modern machine learning techniques, it efficiently handles the sparse and noisy nature of paleo-records, allowing scientists to make accurate and scalable inferences about past environmental change. By using flexible statistical models, PaleoSTeHM separates different sources of uncertainty, improving the precision of historical climate reconstructions.
Ingo Richter, Ping Chang, Ping-Gin Chiu, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Takeshi Doi, Dietmar Dommenget, Guillaume Gastineau, Zoe E. Gillett, Aixue Hu, Takahito Kataoka, Noel S. Keenlyside, Fred Kucharski, Yuko M. Okumura, Wonsun Park, Malte F. Stuecker, Andréa S. Taschetto, Chunzai Wang, Stephen G. Yeager, and Sang-Wook Yeh
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2587–2608, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2587-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2587-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Tropical ocean basins influence each other through multiple pathways and mechanisms, referred to here as tropical basin interaction (TBI). Many researchers have examined TBI using comprehensive climate models but have obtained conflicting results. This may be partly due to differences in experiment protocols and partly due to systematic model errors. The Tropical Basin Interaction Model Intercomparison Project (TBIMIP) aims to address this problem by designing a set of TBI experiments that will be performed by multiple models.
Daniel F. J. Gunning, Kerim H. Nisancioglu, Emilie Capron, and Roderik S. W. van de Wal
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2479–2508, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2479-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2479-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This work documents the first results from ZEMBA: an energy balance model of the climate system. The model is a computationally efficient tool designed to study the response of climate to changes in the Earth's orbit. We demonstrate that ZEMBA reproduces many features of the Earth's climate for both the pre-industrial period and the Earth's most recent cold extreme – the Last Glacial Maximum. We intend to develop ZEMBA further and investigate the glacial cycles of the last 2.5 million years.
Pengfei Shi, L. Ruby Leung, and Bin Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2443–2460, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2443-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2443-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Improving climate predictions has significant socio-economic impacts. In this study, we develop and apply a new weakly coupled ocean data assimilation (WCODA) system to a coupled climate model. The WCODA system improves simulations of ocean temperature and salinity across many global regions. This system is meant to advance our understanding of the ocean's role in climate predictability.
Liwen Wang, Qian Li, Qi Lv, Xuan Peng, and Wei You
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2427–2442, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2427-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2427-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Our research presents a novel deep learning approach called "TemDeep" for downscaling atmospheric variables at arbitrary time resolutions based on temporal coherence. Results show that our method can accurately recover evolution details superior to other methods, reaching 53.7 % in the restoration rate. Our findings are important for advancing weather forecasting models and enabling more precise and reliable predictions to support disaster preparedness, agriculture, and sustainable development.
Teo Price-Broncucia, Allison Baker, Dorit Hammerling, Michael Duda, and Rebecca Morrison
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2349–2372, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2349-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2349-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The ensemble consistency test (ECT) and its ultrafast variant (UF-ECT) have become powerful tools in the development community for the identification of unwanted changes in the Community Earth System Model (CESM). We develop a generalized setup framework to enable easy adoption of the ECT approach for other model developers and communities. This framework specifies test parameters to accurately characterize model variability and balance test sensitivity and computational cost.
Esteban Fernández Villanueva and Gary Shaffer
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2161–2192, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2161-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2161-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We describe, calibrate and test the Danish Center for Earth System Science (DCESS) II model, a new, broad, adaptable and fast Earth system model. DCESS II is designed for global simulations over timescales of years to millions of years using limited computer resources like a personal computer. With its flexibility and comprehensive treatment of the global carbon cycle, DCESS II is a useful, computationally friendly tool for simulations of past climates as well as for future Earth system projections.
Gang Tang, Zebedee Nicholls, Alexander Norton, Sönke Zaehle, and Malte Meinshausen
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2193–2230, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2193-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2193-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We studied carbon–nitrogen coupling in Earth system models by developing a global carbon–nitrogen cycle model (CNit v1.0) within the widely used emulator MAGICC. CNit effectively reproduced the global carbon–nitrogen cycle dynamics observed in complex models. Our results show persistent nitrogen limitations on plant growth (net primary production) from 1850 to 2100, suggesting that nitrogen deficiency may constrain future land carbon sequestration.
Ngoc Thi Nhu Do, Kengo Sudo, Akihiko Ito, Louisa K. Emmons, Vaishali Naik, Kostas Tsigaridis, Øyvind Seland, Gerd A. Folberth, and Douglas I. Kelley
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2079–2109, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2079-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2079-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Understanding historical isoprene emission changes is important for predicting future climate, but trends and their controlling factors remain uncertain. This study shows that long-term isoprene trends vary among Earth system models mainly due to partially incorporating CO2 effects and land cover changes rather than to climate. Future models that refine these factors’ effects on isoprene emissions, along with long-term observations, are essential for better understanding plant–climate interactions.
Gang Tang, Zebedee Nicholls, Chris Jones, Thomas Gasser, Alexander Norton, Tilo Ziehn, Alejandro Romero-Prieto, and Malte Meinshausen
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2111–2136, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2111-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2111-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We analyzed carbon and nitrogen mass conservation in data from various Earth system models. Our findings reveal significant discrepancies between flux and pool size data, where cumulative imbalances can reach hundreds of gigatons of carbon or nitrogen. These imbalances appear primarily due to missing or inconsistently reported fluxes – especially for land-use and fire emissions. To enhance data quality, we recommend that future climate data protocols address this issue at the reporting stage.
Florian Börgel, Sven Karsten, Karoline Rummel, and Ulf Gräwe
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2005–2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2005-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2005-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Forecasting river runoff, which is crucial for managing water resources and understanding climate impacts, can be challenging. This study introduces a new method using convolutional long short-term memory (ConvLSTM) networks, a machine learning model that processes spatial and temporal data. Focusing on the Baltic Sea region, our model uses weather data as input to predict daily river runoff for 97 rivers.
Tao Zhang, Cyril Morcrette, Meng Zhang, Wuyin Lin, Shaocheng Xie, Ye Liu, Kwinten Van Weverberg, and Joana Rodrigues
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1917–1928, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1917-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1917-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Earth system models (ESMs) struggle with the uncertainties associated with parameterizing subgrid physics. Machine learning (ML) algorithms offer a solution by learning the important relationships and features from high-resolution models. To incorporate ML parameterizations into ESMs, we develop a Fortran–Python interface that allows for calling Python functions within Fortran-based ESMs. Through two case studies, this interface demonstrates its feasibility, modularity, and effectiveness.
Kostas Tsigaridis, Andrew S. Ackerman, Igor Aleinov, Mark A. Chandler, Thomas L. Clune, Christopher M. Colose, Anthony D. Del Genio, Maxwell Kelley, Nancy Y. Kiang, Anthony Leboissetier, Jan P. Perlwitz, Reto A. Ruedy, Gary L. Russell, Linda E. Sohl, Michael J. Way, and Eric T. Wolf
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-925, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-925, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present the second generation of ROCKE-3D, a generalized 3-dimensional model for use in Solar System and exoplanetary simulations of rocky planet climates. We quantify how the different component choices affect model results, and discuss strengths and limitations of using each component, together with how one can select which component to use. ROCKE-3D is publicly available and tutorial sessions are available for the community, greatly facilitating its use by any interested group.
Camilla Mathison, Eleanor J. Burke, Gregory Munday, Chris D. Jones, Chris J. Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Andy J. Wiltshire, Chris Huntingford, Eszter Kovacs, Laila K. Gohar, Rebecca M. Varney, and Douglas McNeall
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1785–1808, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present PRIME (Probabilistic Regional Impacts from Model patterns and Emissions), which is designed to take new emissions scenarios and rapidly provide regional impact information. PRIME allows large ensembles to be run on multi-centennial timescales, including the analysis of many important variables for impact assessments. Our evaluation shows that PRIME reproduces the climate response for known scenarios, providing confidence in using PRIME for novel scenarios.
Katherine M. Smith, Alice M. Barthel, LeAnn M. Conlon, Luke P. Van Roekel, Anthony Bartoletti, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Chengzhu Zhang, Carolyn Branecky Begeman, James J. Benedict, Gautam Bisht, Yan Feng, Walter Hannah, Bryce E. Harrop, Nicole Jeffery, Wuyin Lin, Po-Lun Ma, Mathew E. Maltrud, Mark R. Petersen, Balwinder Singh, Qi Tang, Teklu Tesfa, Jonathan D. Wolfe, Shaocheng Xie, Xue Zheng, Karthik Balaguru, Oluwayemi Garuba, Peter Gleckler, Aixue Hu, Jiwoo Lee, Ben Moore-Maley, and Ana C. Ordoñez
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1613–1633, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1613-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1613-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Version 2.1 of the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) adds the Fox-Kemper et al. (2011) mixed-layer eddy parameterization, which restratifies the ocean surface layer through an overturning streamfunction. Results include surface layer bias reduction in temperature, salinity, and sea ice extent in the North Atlantic; a small strengthening of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation; and improvements to many atmospheric climatological variables.
Huilin Huang, Yun Qian, Gautam Bisht, Jiali Wang, Tirthankar Chakraborty, Dalei Hao, Jianfeng Li, Travis Thurber, Balwinder Singh, Zhao Yang, Ye Liu, Pengfei Xue, William J. Sacks, Ethan Coon, and Robert Hetland
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1427–1443, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1427-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1427-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We integrate the E3SM Land Model (ELM) with the WRF model through the Lightweight Infrastructure for Land Atmosphere Coupling (LILAC) Earth System Modeling Framework (ESMF). This framework includes a top-level driver, LILAC, for variable communication between WRF and ELM and ESMF caps for ELM initialization, execution, and finalization. The LILAC–ESMF framework maintains the integrity of the ELM's source code structure and facilitates the transfer of future ELM model developments to WRF-ELM.
Michael Nole, Jonah Bartrand, Fawz Naim, and Glenn Hammond
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1413–1425, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1413-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1413-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Safe carbon dioxide (CO2) storage is likely to be critical for mitigating some of the most severe effects of climate change. We present a simulation framework for modeling CO2 storage beneath the seafloor, where CO2 can form a solid. This can aid in permanent CO2 storage for long periods of time. Our models show what a commercial-scale CO2 injection would look like in a marine environment. We discuss what would need to be considered when designing a subsea CO2 injection.
Reyk Börner, Jan O. Haerter, and Romain Fiévet
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1333–1356, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1333-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1333-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The daily cycle of sea surface temperature (SST) impacts clouds above the ocean and could influence the clustering of thunderstorms linked to extreme rainfall and hurricanes. However, daily SST variability is often poorly represented in modeling studies of how clouds cluster. We present a simple, wind-responsive model of upper-ocean temperature for use in atmospheric simulations. Evaluating the model against observations, we show that it performs significantly better than common slab models.
Malcolm J. Roberts, Kevin A. Reed, Qing Bao, Joseph J. Barsugli, Suzana J. Camargo, Louis-Philippe Caron, Ping Chang, Cheng-Ta Chen, Hannah M. Christensen, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Ivy Frenger, Neven S. Fučkar, Shabeh ul Hasson, Helene T. Hewitt, Huanping Huang, Daehyun Kim, Chihiro Kodama, Michael Lai, Lai-Yung Ruby Leung, Ryo Mizuta, Paulo Nobre, Pablo Ortega, Dominique Paquin, Christopher D. Roberts, Enrico Scoccimarro, Jon Seddon, Anne Marie Treguier, Chia-Ying Tu, Paul A. Ullrich, Pier Luigi Vidale, Michael F. Wehner, Colin M. Zarzycki, Bosong Zhang, Wei Zhang, and Ming Zhao
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1307–1332, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1307-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1307-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
HighResMIP2 is a model intercomparison project focusing on high-resolution global climate models, that is, those with grid spacings of 25 km or less in the atmosphere and ocean, using simulations of decades to a century in length. We are proposing an update of our simulation protocol to make the models more applicable to key questions for climate variability and hazard in present-day and future projections and to build links with other communities to provide more robust climate information.
Jordi Buckley Paules, Simone Fatichi, Bonnie Warring, and Athanasios Paschalis
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1287–1305, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1287-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1287-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present and validate enhancements to the process-based T&C model aimed at improving its representation of crop growth and management practices. The updated model, T&C-CROP, enables applications such as analysing the hydrological and carbon storage impacts of land use transitions (e.g. conversions between crops, forests, and pastures) and optimizing irrigation and fertilization strategies in response to climate change.
Sébastien Masson, Swen Jullien, Eric Maisonnave, David Gill, Guillaume Samson, Mathieu Le Corre, and Lionel Renault
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1241–1263, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1241-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1241-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This article details a new feature we implemented in the popular regional atmospheric model WRF. This feature allows for data exchange between WRF and any other model (e.g. an ocean model) using the coupling library Ocean–Atmosphere–Sea–Ice–Soil Model Coupling Toolkit (OASIS3-MCT). This coupling interface is designed to be non-intrusive, flexible and modular. It also offers the possibility of taking into account the nested zooms used in WRF or in the models with which it is coupled.
Axel Lauer, Lisa Bock, Birgit Hassler, Patrick Jöckel, Lukas Ruhe, and Manuel Schlund
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1169–1188, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1169-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1169-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Earth system models are important tools to improve our understanding of current climate and to project climate change. Thus, it is crucial to understand possible shortcomings in the models. New features of the ESMValTool software package allow one to compare and visualize a model's performance with respect to reproducing observations in the context of other climate models in an easy and user-friendly way. We aim to help model developers assess and monitor climate simulations more efficiently.
Ulrich G. Wortmann, Tina Tsan, Mahrukh Niazi, Irene A. Ma, Ruben Navasardyan, Magnus-Roland Marun, Bernardo S. Chede, Jingwen Zhong, and Morgan Wolfe
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1155–1167, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1155-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1155-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth Science Box Modeling Toolkit (ESBMTK) is a user-friendly Python library that simplifies the creation of models to study earth system processes, such as the carbon cycle and ocean chemistry. It enhances learning by emphasizing concepts over programming and is accessible to students and researchers alike. By automating complex calculations and promoting code clarity, ESBMTK accelerates model development while improving reproducibility and the usability of scientific research.
Florian Zabel, Matthias Knüttel, and Benjamin Poschlod
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1067–1087, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1067-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1067-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
CropSuite is a new open-source crop suitability model. It provides a GUI and a wide range of options, including a spatial downscaling of climate data. We apply CropSuite to 48 staple and opportunity crops at a 1 km spatial resolution in Africa. We find that climate variability significantly impacts suitable areas but also affects optimal sowing dates and multiple cropping potential. The results provide valuable information for climate impact assessments, adaptation, and land-use planning.
Kerstin Hartung, Bastian Kern, Nils-Arne Dreier, Jörn Geisbüsch, Mahnoosh Haghighatnasab, Patrick Jöckel, Astrid Kerkweg, Wilton Jaciel Loch, Florian Prill, and Daniel Rieger
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1001–1015, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1001-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1001-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The ICOsahedral Non-hydrostatic (ICON) model system Community Interface (ComIn) library supports connecting third-party modules to the ICON model. Third-party modules can range from simple diagnostic Python scripts to full chemistry models. ComIn offers a low barrier for code extensions to ICON, provides multi-language support (Fortran, C/C++, and Python), and reduces the migration effort in response to new ICON releases. This paper presents the ComIn design principles and a range of use cases.
Daniel Ries, Katherine Goode, Kellie McClernon, and Benjamin Hillman
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1041–1065, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1041-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1041-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Machine learning has advanced research in the climate science domain, but its models are difficult to understand. In order to understand the impacts and consequences of climate interventions such as stratospheric aerosol injection, complex models are often necessary. We use a case study to illustrate how we can understand the inner workings of a complex model. We present this technique as an exploratory tool that can be used to quickly discover and assess relationships in complex climate data.
Bo Dong, Paul Ullrich, Jiwoo Lee, Peter Gleckler, Kristin Chang, and Travis A. O'Brien
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 961–976, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-961-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-961-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
A metrics package designed for easy analysis of atmospheric river (AR) characteristics and statistics is presented. The tool is efficient for diagnosing systematic AR bias in climate models and useful for evaluating new AR characteristics in model simulations. In climate models, landfalling AR precipitation shows dry biases globally, and AR tracks are farther poleward (equatorward) in the North and South Atlantic (South Pacific and Indian Ocean).
Panagiotis Adamidis, Erik Pfister, Hendryk Bockelmann, Dominik Zobel, Jens-Olaf Beismann, and Marek Jacob
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 905–919, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-905-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-905-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper, we investigated performance indicators of the climate model ICON (ICOsahedral Nonhydrostatic) on different compute architectures to answer the question of how to generate high-resolution climate simulations. Evidently, it is not enough to use more computing units of the conventionally used architectures; higher memory throughput is the most promising approach. More potential can be gained from single-node optimization rather than simply increasing the number of compute nodes.
Jonah K. Shaw, Dustin J. Swales, Sergio DeSouza-Machado, David D. Turner, Jennifer E. Kay, and David P. Schneider
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-169, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-169, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Satellites have observed earth's emission of infrared radiation since the 1970s. Because infrared wavelengths interact with the atmosphere in distinct ways, these observations contain information about the earth and atmosphere. We present a tool that runs alongside global climate models and produces output that can be directly compared with satellite measurements of infrared radiation. We then use this tool for climate model evaluation, climate change detection, and satellite mission design.
Maria Vittoria Struglia, Alessandro Anav, Marta Antonelli, Sandro Calmanti, Franco Catalano, Alessandro Dell'Aquila, Emanuela Pichelli, and Giovanna Pisacane
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-387, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-387, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present the results of downscaling global climate projections for the Mediterranean and Italian regions aiming to produce high-resolution climate information for the assessment of climate change signals, focusing on extreme events. A general warming is foreseen by the end of century with a mean precipitation reduction accompanied, over Italian Peninsula, by a strong increase in the intensity of extreme precipitation events, particularly relevant for the high emissions scenario during autumn
Kangari Narender Reddy, Somnath Baidya Roy, Sam S. Rabin, Danica L. Lombardozzi, Gudimetla Venkateswara Varma, Ruchira Biswas, and Devavat Chiru Naik
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 763–785, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-763-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-763-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The study aimed to improve the representation of wheat and rice in a land model for the Indian region. The modified model performed significantly better than the default model in simulating crop phenology, yield, and carbon, water, and energy fluxes compared to observations. The study highlights the need for global land models to use region-specific crop parameters for accurately simulating vegetation processes and land surface processes.
Giovanni Di Virgilio, Fei Ji, Eugene Tam, Jason P. Evans, Jatin Kala, Julia Andrys, Christopher Thomas, Dipayan Choudhury, Carlos Rocha, Yue Li, and Matthew L. Riley
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 703–724, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-703-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-703-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluate the skill in simulating the Australian climate of some of the latest generation of regional climate models. We show when and where the models simulate this climate with high skill versus model limitations. We show how new models perform relative to the previous-generation models, assessing how model design features may underlie key performance improvements. This work is of national and international relevance as it can help guide the use and interpretation of climate projections.
Giovanni Di Virgilio, Jason P. Evans, Fei Ji, Eugene Tam, Jatin Kala, Julia Andrys, Christopher Thomas, Dipayan Choudhury, Carlos Rocha, Stephen White, Yue Li, Moutassem El Rafei, Rishav Goyal, Matthew L. Riley, and Jyothi Lingala
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 671–702, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-671-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-671-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce new climate models that simulate Australia’s future climate at regional scales, including at an unprecedented resolution of 4 km for 1950–2100. We describe the model design process used to create these new climate models. We show how the new models perform relative to previous-generation models and compare their climate projections. This work is of national and international relevance as it can help guide climate model design and the use and interpretation of climate projections.
Nathan P. Gillett, Isla R. Simpson, Gabi Hegerl, Reto Knutti, Dann Mitchell, Aurélien Ribes, Hideo Shiogama, Dáithí Stone, Claudia Tebaldi, Piotr Wolski, Wenxia Zhang, and Vivek K. Arora
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4086, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4086, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Climate model simulations of the response to human and natural influences together, natural climate influences alone, and greenhouse gases alone, among others, are key to quantifying human influence on the climate. The last set of such coordinated simulations underpinned key findings in the last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Here we propose a new set of such simulations to be used in the next generation of attribution studies, and to underpin the next IPCC report.
Katherine Grayson, Stephan Thober, Aleksander Lacima-Nadolnik, Ehsan Sharifi, Llorenç Lledó, and Francisco Doblas-Reyes
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-28, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-28, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
To provide the most accurate climate adaptation information, climate models are being run with finer grid resolution, resulting in larger data output. This paper presents intelligent data reduction algorithms that act on streamed data, a novel way of processing climate data as soon as it is produced. Using these algorithms to calculate statistics, we show that the accuracy provided is well within acceptable bounds while still providing memory savings that bypass unfeasible storage requirements.
Jiawang Feng, Chun Zhao, Qiuyan Du, Zining Yang, and Chen Jin
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 585–603, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-585-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-585-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we improved the calculation of how aerosols in the air interact with radiation in WRF-Chem. The original model used a simplified method, but we developed a more accurate approach. We found that this method significantly changes the properties of the estimated aerosols and their effects on radiation, especially for dust aerosols. It also impacts the simulated weather conditions. Our work highlights the importance of correctly representing aerosol–radiation interactions in models.
Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Thomas Arsouze, Mario Acosta, Pierre-Antoine Bretonnière, Miguel Castrillo, Eric Ferrer, Amanda Frigola, Daria Kuznetsova, Eneko Martin-Martinez, Pablo Ortega, and Sergi Palomas
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 461–482, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-461-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-461-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present the high-resolution model version of the EC-Earth global climate model to contribute to HighResMIP. The combined model resolution is about 10–15 km in both the ocean and atmosphere, which makes it one of the finest ever used to complete historical and scenario simulations. This model is compared with two lower-resolution versions, with a 100 km and a 25 km grid. The three models are compared with observations to study the improvements thanks to the increased resolution.
Catherine Guiavarc'h, David Storkey, Adam T. Blaker, Ed Blockley, Alex Megann, Helene Hewitt, Michael J. Bell, Daley Calvert, Dan Copsey, Bablu Sinha, Sophia Moreton, Pierre Mathiot, and Bo An
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 377–403, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-377-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-377-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Global Ocean and Sea Ice configuration version 9 (GOSI9) is the new UK hierarchy of model configurations based on the Nucleus for European Modelling of the Ocean (NEMO) and available at three resolutions. It will be used for various applications, e.g. weather forecasting and climate prediction. It improves upon the previous version by reducing global temperature and salinity biases and enhancing the representation of Arctic sea ice and the Antarctic Circumpolar Current.
Nick Schüßler, Jewgenij Torizin, Claudia Gunkel, Karsten Schütze, Lars Tiepolt, Dirk Kuhn, Michael Fuchs, and Steffen Prüfer
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-209, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-209, 2025
Revised manuscript accepted for GMD
Short summary
Short summary
FACA – Fully Automated Co-Alignment – is a tool designed to generate co-aligned point clouds. We aim to accelerate the application of the co-alignment method and achieve fast results with evolving temporal data and minimal site-specific preparation. FACA offers multiple ways to interact with the workflow, enabling new users to quickly generate initial results through the custom interface, as well as integration into larger automated workflows via the command line. Test datasets are provided.
Andy Richling, Jens Grieger, and Henning W. Rust
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 361–375, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-361-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-361-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The performance of weather and climate prediction systems is variable in time and space. It is of interest how this performance varies in different situations. We provide a decomposition of a skill score (a measure of forecast performance) as a tool for detailed assessment of performance variability to support model development or forecast improvement. The framework is exemplified with decadal forecasts to assess the impact of different ocean states in the North Atlantic on temperature forecast.
Maria R. Russo, Sadie L. Bartholomew, David Hassell, Alex M. Mason, Erica Neininger, A. James Perman, David A. J. Sproson, Duncan Watson-Parris, and Nathan Luke Abraham
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 181–191, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-181-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-181-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Observational data and modelling capabilities have expanded in recent years, but there are still barriers preventing these two data sources from being used in synergy. Proper comparison requires generating, storing, and handling a large amount of data. This work describes the first step in the development of a new set of software tools, the VISION toolkit, which can enable the easy and efficient integration of observational and model data required for model evaluation.
Bijan Fallah, Masoud Rostami, Emmanuele Russo, Paula Harder, Christoph Menz, Peter Hoffmann, Iulii Didovets, and Fred F. Hattermann
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 161–180, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-161-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-161-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We tried to contribute to a local climate change impact study in central Asia, a region that is water-scarce and vulnerable to global climate change. We use regional models and machine learning to produce reliable local data from global climate models. We find that regional models show more realistic and detailed changes in heavy precipitation than global climate models. Our work can help assess the future risks of extreme events and plan adaptation strategies in central Asia.
Manuel Schlund, Bouwe Andela, Jörg Benke, Ruth Comer, Birgit Hassler, Emma Hogan, Peter Kalverla, Axel Lauer, Bill Little, Saskia Loosveldt Tomas, Francesco Nattino, Patrick Peglar, Valeriu Predoi, Stef Smeets, Stephen Worsley, Martin Yeo, and Klaus Zimmermann
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-236, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-236, 2025
Revised manuscript accepted for GMD
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) is a community diagnostics and performance metrics tool for the evaluation of Earth system models. Here, we describe recent significant improvements of ESMValTool’s computational efficiency including parallel, out-of-core, and distributed computing. Evaluations with the enhanced version of ESMValTool are faster, use less computational resources, and can handle input data larger than the available memory.
Cited articles
Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., and Smith, M.: Crop evapotranspiration
– Guidelines for computing crop water requirements – FAO Irrigation and
drainage paper 56, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
available at: http://www.fao.org/3/X0490E/x0490e00.htm (last access: June 2019), 1998. a
Best, M. J., Pryor, M., Clark, D. B., Rooney, G. G., Essery, R. L. H., Ménard, C. B., Edwards, J. M., Hendry, M. A., Porson, A., Gedney, N., Mercado, L. M., Sitch, S., Blyth, E., Boucher, O., Cox, P. M., Grimmond, C. S. B., and Harding, R. J.: The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description Part 1: Energy and water fluxes, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 677–699, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-677-2011, 2011. a
Betts, R. A.: Integrated approaches to climate-crop modelling: needs and
challenges, Philos. T. R. Soc. B, 360, 2049–2065, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2005.1739, 2005. a
Bhattacharyya, T., Pal, D., Easter, M., Batjes, N., Milne, E., Gajbhiye, K.,
Chandran, P., Ray, S., Mandal, C., Paustian, K., Williams, S., Killian, K.,
Coleman, K., Falloon, P., and Powlson, D.: Modelled soil organic carbon
stocks and changes in the Indo-Gangetic Plains, India from 1980 to 2030,
Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 122, 84–94,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2007.01.010,
soil carbon stocks at regional scales, 2007. a, b
Biemans, H., Speelman, L., Ludwig, F., Moors, E., Wiltshire, A., Kumar, P.,
Gerten, D., and Kabat, P.: Future water resources for food production in five South Asian river basins and potential for adaptation – A modeling study,
Sci. Total Environ., 468–469, Supplement, S117–S131,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.05.092, 2013. a
Bodh, S. P. C., Rai, S. J. P., Sharma, S. A., Gajria, S. P., Yadav, S. M.,
Virmani, S. S., and Pandey, S. R.: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2015,
Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers welfare, Directorate of Economics and
Statistics, available at: http://eands.dacnet.nic.in (last access: June 2019), 2015. a, b, c
Bondeau, A., Smith, P. C., Zaehle, S., Schaphoff, S., Lucht, W., Cramer, W.,
Gerten, D., Lotze-Campen, H., Müller, C., Reichstein, M., and Smith, B.:
Modelling the role of agriculture for the 20th century global terrestrial
carbon balance, Glob. Change Biol., 13, 679–706,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01305.x,
2007. a
Caldwell, R. M. and Hansen, J. W.: Simulation of multiple cropping systems with
CropSys, pp. 397–412, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2842-1_24, 1993. a
Calvet, J.-C., Noilhan, J., Roujean, J.-L., Bessemoulin, P., Cabelguenne, M.,
Olioso, A., and Wigneron, J.-P.: An interactive vegetation SVAT model tested
against data from six contrasting sites, Agr. Forest Meteorol.,
92, 73–95, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1923(98)00091-4, 1998. a
Challinor, A., Wheeler, T., Craufurd, P., Slingo, J., and Grimes, D.: Design
and optimisation of a large-area process-based model for annual crops,
Agr. Forest Meteorol., 124, 99–120,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2004.01.002,
2004. a, b
Clark, D. B., Mercado, L. M., Sitch, S., Jones, C. D., Gedney, N., Best, M. J., Pryor, M., Rooney, G. G., Essery, R. L. H., Blyth, E., Boucher, O., Harding, R. J., Huntingford, C., and Cox, P. M.: The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description Part 2: Carbon fluxes and vegetation dynamics, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 701–722, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-701-2011, 2011. a, b, c, d
Cong, W.-F., Hoffland, E., Li, L., Six, J., Sun, J.-H., Bao, X.-G., Zhang, F.-S., and Werf, W. V. D.: Intercropping enhances soil carbon and nitrogen,
Glob. Change Biol., 21, 1715–1726, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12738,
2015. a
Dee, D. P., Uppala, S. M., Simmons, A. J., Berrisford, P., Poli, P., Kobayashi, S., Andrae, U., Balmaseda, M. A., P., G. B., Bauer, Bechtold, P., Beljaars, A. C. M., van de Berg, L., Bidlot, J., Bormann, N., Delsol, C., Dragani, R.,
Fuentes, M., Geer, A. J., Haimberger, L., Healy, S. B., Hersbach, H.,
Hólm, E. V., Isaksen, L., Kållberg, P., Köhler, M., Matricardi, M., McNally, A. P., Monge-Sanz, B. M., Morcrette, J.-J., Park, B.-K., Peubey, C., de Rosnay, P., Tavolato, C., Thépaut, J.-N., and Vitart, F.: The
ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data
assimilation system, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,
137, 553–597, https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828,
https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828, 2011. a
Dury, J., Schaller, N., Garcia, F., Reynaud, A., and Bergez, J. E.: Models to
support cropping plan and crop rotation decisions. A review, Agron. Sustain. Dev., 32, 567–580, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-011-0037-x, 2012. a
Erenstein, O. and Laxmi, V.: Zero tillage impacts in India's rice-wheat
systems: A review, Soil Till. Res., 100, 1–14,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2008.05.001,
2008. a, b, c
Erenstein, O., Farooq, U., Malik, R., and Sharif, M.: On-farm impacts of zero
tillage wheat in South Asia's rice-wheat systems, Field Crop. Res., 105,
240–252, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2007.10.010,
2008. a
Fischer, R.: Definitions and determination of crop yield, yield gaps, and of
rates of change, Field Crop. Res., 182, 9–18,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2014.12.006, 2015. a
Frieler, K., Levermann, A., Elliott, J., Heinke, J., Arneth, A., Bierkens, M. F. P., Ciais, P., Clark, D. B., Deryng, D., Döll, P., Falloon, P., Fekete, B., Folberth, C., Friend, A. D., Gellhorn, C., Gosling, S. N., Haddeland, I., Khabarov, N., Lomas, M., Masaki, Y., Nishina, K., Neumann, K., Oki, T., Pavlick, R., Ruane, A. C., Schmid, E., Schmitz, C., Stacke, T., Stehfest, E., Tang, Q., Wisser, D., Huber, V., Piontek, F., Warszawski, L., Schewe, J., Lotze-Campen, H., and Schellnhuber, H. J.: A framework for the cross-sectoral integration of multi-model impact projections: land use decisions under climate impacts uncertainties, Earth Syst. Dynam., 6, 447–460, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-6-447-2015, 2015. a
Garrigues, S., Olioso, A., Calvet, J. C., Martin, E., Lafont, S., Moulin, S., Chanzy, A., Marloie, O., Buis, S., Desfonds, V., Bertrand, N., and Renard, D.: Evaluation of land surface model simulations of evapotranspiration over a 12-year crop succession: impact of soil hydraulic and vegetation properties, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 3109–3131, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-3109-2015, 2015a. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q
Garrigues, S., Olioso, A., Carrer, D., Decharme, B., Calvet, J.-C., Martin, E., Moulin, S., and Marloie, O.: Impact of climate, vegetation, soil and crop management variables on multi-year ISBA-A-gs simulations of evapotranspiration over a Mediterranean crop site, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 3033–3053, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3033-2015, 2015b. a
Garrigues, S., Boone, A., Decharme, B., Olioso, A., Albergel, C., Calvet, J.-C., Moulin, S., Buis, S., and Martin, E.: Impacts of the Soil Water
Transfer Parameterization on the Simulation of Evapotranspiration over a
14-Year Mediterranean Crop Succession, J. Hydrometeorol., 19,
3–25, https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-17-0058.1, 2018. a, b, c, d, e
Goswami, B. and Xavier, P. K.: Dynamics of “interna” interannual variability
of the Indian summer monsoon in a GCM, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 110, D24104, https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006042, 2005. a
Griffiths, F. E. W., Lyndon, R., and Bennett, M.: The Effects of Vernalization
on the Growth of the Wheat Shoot Apex, Ann. Bot.-London, 56, 501–511,
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a087035, 1985. a
Harding, R., Blyth, E., Tuinenburg, O., and Wiltshire, A.: Land atmosphere
feedbacks and their role in the water resources of the Ganges basin, Sci. Total Environ., 468–469, Supplement, S85–S92,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.03.016, 2013. a
Harper, A. B., Williams, K. E., McGuire, P. C., Duran Rojas, M. C., Hemming, D., Verhoef, A., Huntingford, C., Rowland, L., Marthews, T., Breder Eller, C., Mathison, C., Nobrega, R. L. B., Gedney, N., Vidale, P. L., Otu-Larbi, F., Pandey, D., Garrigues, S., Wright, A., Slevin, D., De Kauwe, M. G., Blyth, E., Ärdo, J., Black, A., Bonal, D., Buchmann, N., Burban, B., Fuchs, K., de Grandcourt, A., Mammarella, I., Merbold, L., Montagnani, L., Nouvellon, Y., Restrepo-Coupe, N., and Wohlfahrt, G.: Improvement of modelling plant responses to low soil moisture in JULESvn4.9 and evaluation against flux tower measurements, Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss. [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-273, in review, 2020. a
Hatfield, J. L. and Prueger, J. H.: Temperature extremes: Effect on plant
growth and development, Weather Clim. Extremes, 10, 4–10,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2015.08.001, 2015. a
Hu, S., Mo, X., and Lin, Z.: Optimizing the photosynthetic parameter Vcmax by
assimilating MODIS-fPAR and MODIS-NDVI with a process-based ecosystem model,
Agr. Forest Meteorol., 198–199, 320–334,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.09.002,
2014. a
Hudson, R.: Management of Agricultural, Forestry, Fisheries and Rural
Enterprise – Volume I, EOLSS Publications, available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-eGvCwAAQBAJ (last access: June 2019), 2009. a
Iizumi, T. and Ramankutty, N.: How do weather and climate influence cropping
area and intensity?, Glob. Food Secur.-Agr., 4, 46–50,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2014.11.003,
2015. a
Jones, R. G., Noguer, M., Hassell, D. C., Hudson, D., Wilson, S. S., Jenkins, G. J., and Mitchell, J. F.: Generating high resolution climate change
scenarios using PRECIS, Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK, 40 pp.,
available at: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/assets/metofficegovuk/pdf/research/applied-science/precis/tech_man_v2.pdf (last access: January 2021), 2004. a
JULES Collaboration: Rose suite access page, available at: https://code.metoffice.gov.uk/trac/jules/browser/main/branches/dev/camillamathison/vn5.2_croprotate_irrigtiles,
last access: January 2021. a
Kumar, P., Wiltshire, A., Mathison, C., Asharaf, S., Ahrens, B., Lucas-Picher, P., Christensen, J. H., Gobiet, A., Saeed, F., Hagemann, S., and Jacob, D.:
Downscaled climate change projections with uncertainty assessment over India using a high resolution multi-model approach, Sci. Total Environ., 468–469, Supplement, S18–S30,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.01.051,
2013. a, b
Kumar, R., Singh, R., and Sharma, K.: Water resources of India, Current
Sci. India, 89, 794–811, 2005. a
Laik, R., Sharma, S., Idris, M., Singh, A., Singh, S., Bhatt, B., Saharawat, Y., Humphreys, E., and Ladha, J.: Integration of conservation agriculture
with best management practices for improving system performance of the
rice–wheat rotation in the Eastern Indo-Gangetic Plains of India,
Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 195, 68–82,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.06.001,
2014. a
Liu, L., Xu, X., Zhuang, D., Chen, X., and Li, S.: Changes in the Potential
Multiple Cropping System in Response to Climate Change in China from
1960–2010, PLoS ONE, 8, e80990, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0080990,
2013. a
Mahajan, A. and Gupta, R. D. (Eds.): The Rice–Wheat Cropping System,
pp. 109–117, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9875-8_7, 2009. a, b, c
Makino, A.: Rubisco and nitrogen relationships in rice: Leaf photosynthesis and
plant growth, Soil Sci. Plant Nutr., 49, 319–327,
https://doi.org/10.1080/00380768.2003.10410016, 2003. a
Mathison, C., Wiltshire, A., Dimri, A., Falloon, P., Jacob, D., Kumar, P.,
Moors, E., Ridley, J., Siderius, C., Stoffel, M., and Yasunari, T.: Regional
projections of North Indian climate for adaptation studies, Sci. Total Environ., 468–469, Supplement, S4–S17,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.04.066,
2013. a, b
Mathison, C., Wiltshire, A. J., Falloon, P., and Challinor, A. J.: South Asia river-flow projections and their implications for water resources, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 4783–4810, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-4783-2015, 2015. a, b, c, d
Met Office Science Repository Service: Scientific Collaboration Trac page, available at: https://code.metoffice.gov.uk/trac, last access: January 2021. a
Monfreda, C., Ramankutty, N., and Foley, J. A.: Farming the planet: 2.
Geographic distribution of crop areas, yields, physiological types, and net
primary production in the year 2000, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 22, GB1022, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GB002947,
2008. a
Mueller, B., Hauser, M., Iles, C., Rimi, R. H., Zwiers, F. W., and Wan, H.:
Lengthening of the growing season in wheat and maize producing regions,
Weather Clim. Extremes, 9, 47–56,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2015.04.001, 2015. a
Noilhan, J. and Planton, S.: A Simple Parameterization of Land Surface
Processes for Meteorological Models, Mon. Weather Rev., 117, 536–549,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1989)117<0536:ASPOLS>2.0.CO;2, 1989. a
Ogbaga, C.: Regulation of Photosynthesis in Sorghum in response to drought, PhD
Thesis, University of Manchester, 1, 1–186, https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4756.5208,
2014. a
Olsovska, K., Kovar, M., Brestic, M., Zivcak, M., Slamka, P., and Shao, H. B.:
Genotypically Identifying Wheat Mesophyll Conductance Regulation under
Progressive Drought Stress, Front. Plant Sci., 7, 1111,
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01111,
2016. a
Osborne, T., Gornall, J., Hooker, J., Williams, K., Wiltshire, A., Betts, R., and Wheeler, T.: JULES-crop: a parametrisation of crops in the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 1139–1155, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-1139-2015, 2015. a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q
Petrie, C. A., Singh, R. N., Bates, J., Dixit, Y., French, C. A. I., Hodell, D. A., Jones, P. J., Lancelotti, C., Lynam, F., Neogi, S., Pandey, A. K.,
Parikh, D., Pawar, V., Redhouse, D. I., and Singh, D. P.: Adaptation to
Variable Environments, Resilience to Climate Change: Investigating Land,
Water and Settlement in Indus Northwest India, Curr. Anthropol., 58,
1–30, https://doi.org/10.1086/690112,
2017. a
Pires, G. F., Abrahão, G. M., Brumatti, L. M., Oliveira, L. J., Costa, M. H.,
Liddicoat, S., Kato, E., and Ladle, R. J.: Increased climate risk in
Brazilian double cropping agriculture systems: Implications for land use in
Northern Brazil, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 228–229, 286–298,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.07.005,
2016. a
Portmann, F. T., Siebert, S., and Döll, P.: MIRCA2000-Global monthly
irrigated and rainfed crop areas around the year 2000: A new high-resolution
data set for agricultural and hydrological modeling, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 24, GB1011,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GB003435, gB1011, 2010. a
Ramankutty, N., Evan, A. T., Monfreda, C., and Foley, J. A.: Farming the
planet: 1. Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year
2000, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 22, GB1003, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GB002952, 2008. a
Ray, D. K., Ramankutty, N., and, N. D. M.: Recent patterns of crop yield
growth and stagnation, Nat. Commun., 3, 1293–1300,
https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2296, 2012a. a, b, c
Rivington, M. and Koo, J.: Report on the Meta-Analysis of Crop Modelling for
Climate Change and Food Security Survey, Climate Change, Agriculture and Food
Security Challenge Program of the CGIAR, available at:
https://cgspace.cgiar.org/rest/bitstreams/9114/retrieve (last access: July 2019),
2010. a, b
Robertson, M., Brooking, I., and Ritchie, J.: Temperature Response of
Vernalization in Wheat: Modelling the Effect on the Final Number of Mainstem
Leaves, Ann. Bot.-London, 78, 371–381, https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.1996.0132, 1996. a
Rosenzweig, C., Jones, J., Hatfield, J., Ruane, A., Boote, K., Thorburn, P.,
Antle, J., Nelson, G., Porter, C., Janssen, S., Asseng, S., Basso, B., Ewert, F., Wallach, D., Baigorria, G., and Winter, J.: The Agricultural Model
Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP): Protocols and pilot studies,
Agr. Forest Meteorol., 170, 166–182,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.09.011, 2013. a, b
Rosenzweig, C., Elliott, J., Deryng, D., Ruane, A. C., Müller, C., Arneth, A., Boote, K. J., Folberth, C., Glotter, M., Khabarov, N., Neumann, K.,
Piontek, F., Pugh, T. A. M., Schmid, E., Stehfest, E., Yang, H., and Jones, J. W.: Assessing agricultural risks of climate change in the 21st century in
a global gridded crop model intercomparison, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 111, 3268–3273, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1222463110, 2014. a, b
ROSE Suite JULES Collaboration: Sequential Crop rose suite access page, available at:
https://code.metoffice.gov.uk/trac/roses-u/browser/main/branches/dev/camillamathison/vn5.2_croprotate_irrigtiles, last access: January 2021. a
Schaphoff, S., von Bloh, W., Rammig, A., Thonicke, K., Biemans, H., Forkel, M., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Jägermeyr, J., Knauer, J., Langerwisch, F., Lucht, W., Müller, C., Rolinski, S., and Waha, K.: LPJmL4 a dynamic global vegetation model with managed land Part 1: Model description, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1343–1375, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-1343-2018, 2018. a
Sacks, W. J., Deryng, D., Foley, J. A., and Ramankutty, N.: Crop planting
dates: an analysis of global patterns, Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 19,
607–620, 2010. a
Shannon, S., Smith, R., Wiltshire, A., Payne, T., Huss, M., Betts, R., Caesar,
J., Koutroulis, A., Jones, D., and Harrison, S.: Global glacier volume
projections under high-end climate change scenarios, The Cryosphere, 13,
325–350, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-325-2019, 2019. a
Sharma, B. and Sharma, H.: Status of Rice Production in Assam, India, J.
Rice Res., 3, e121, https://doi.org/10.4172/2375-4338.1000e121, 2015. a
Simmons, A., Uppala, S., Dee, D., and Kobayashi, S.: ERA-Interim: New ECMWF
reanalysis products from 1989 onwards, ECMWF Newsletter – Winter 2006/07,
110, 25–35, 2007. a
Sinclair, T., Jr, P. P., Kimball, B., Adamsen, F., LaMorte, R., Wall, G.,
Hunsaker, D., Adam, N., Brooks, T., Garcia, R., Thompson, T., Leavitt, S.,
and Matthias, A.: Leaf nitrogen concentration of wheat subjected to elevated
[CO2] and either water or N deficits, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ.,
79, 53–60, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(99)00146-2,
2000. a
Tuinenburg, O. A., Hutjes, R. W. A., Stacke, T., Wiltshire, A., and
Lucas-Picher, P.: Effects of irrigation in india on the atmospheric water
budget, J. Hydrometeorol., 15, 1028–1050,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-13-078.1, 2014. a, b
Waha, K., van Bussel, L. G. J., Müller, C., and Bondeau, A.: Climate-driven
simulation of global crop sowing dates, Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 21,
247–259, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2011.00678.x, 2012. a, b
Waha, K., Müller, C., Bondeau, A., Dietrich, J., Kurukulasuriya, P.,
Heinke, J., and Lotze-Campen, H.: Adaptation to climate change through the
choice of cropping system and sowing date in sub-Saharan Africa, Global Environ. Chang., 23, 130–143,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.11.001,
2013. a, b, c, d, e, f, g
Wang, E., Martre, P., Zhao, Z., Ewert, F., Maiorano, A., Rötter, R. P.,
Kimball, B. A., Ottman, M. J., Wall, G. W., White, J. W., Reynolds, M. P.,
Alderman, P. D., Aggarwal, P. K., Anothai, J., Basso, B., Biernath, C.,
Cammarano, D., Challinor, A. J., Sanctis, G. D., Doltra, J., Dumont, B.,
Fereres, E., Garcia-Vila, M., Gayler, S., Hoogenboom, G., Hunt, L. A.,
Izaurralde, R. C., Jabloun, M., Jones, C. D., Kersebaum, K. C., Koehler, A.-K., Liu, L., Müller, C., Kumar, S. N., Nendel, C., O'Leary, G.,
Olesen, J. E., Palosuo, T., Priesack, E., Rezaei, E. E., Ripoche, D., Ruane, A. C., Semenov, M. A., Shcherbak, I., Stöckle, C., Stratonovitch, P.,
Streck, T., Supit, I., Tao, F., Thorburn, P., Waha, K., Wallach, D., Wang, Z., Wolf, J., Zhu, Y., and Asseng, S.: The uncertainty of crop yield
projections is reduced by improved temperature response functions, Nat. Plants, 3, 17102, https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2017.102, 2017. a, b
Warszawski, L., Friend, A., Ostberg, S., Frieler, K., Lucht, W., Schaphoff, S.,
Beerling, D., Cadule, P., Ciais, P., Clark, D. B., Kahana, R., Ito, A.,
Keribin, R., Kleidon, A., Lomas, M., Nishina, K., Pavlick, R., Rademacher, T. T., Buechner, M., Piontek, F., Schewe, J., Serdeczny, O., and
Schellnhuber, H. J.: A multi-model analysis of risk of ecosystem shifts under
climate change, Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 044018, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044018,
2013. a, b, c
Warszawski, L., Frieler, K., Huber, V., Piontek, F., Serdeczny, O., and Schewe, J.: The Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISI-MIP):
Project framework, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 111,
3228–3232, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1312330110, 2014. a, b, c
Williams, K., Gornall, J., Harper, A., Wiltshire, A., Hemming, D., Quaife, T., Arkebauer, T., and Scoby, D.: Evaluation of JULES-crop performance against site observations of irrigated maize from Mead, Nebraska, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1291–1320, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1291-2017, 2017. a, b, c, d, e, f
Williams, K. E. and Falloon, P. D.: Sources of interannual yield variability
in JULES-crop and implications for forcing with seasonal weather forecasts,
Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 3987–3997, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3987-2015,
2015. a
Williams, K. E., Harper, A. B., Huntingford, C., Mercado, L. M., Mathison, C. T., Falloon, P. D., Cox, P. M., and Kim, J.: How can the First ISLSCP Field Experiment contribute to present-day efforts to evaluate water stress in JULESv5.0?, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 3207–3240, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-3207-2019, 2019. a, b
Xue, W.: Evaluation of biophysical factors driving temporal variations in C
gain, water use and yield production in Rice, PhD thesis, Department of Plant
Ecology, University of Bayreuth, 1, 1–230, available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295562013_Evaluation_of_biophysical_factors_driving_temporal_variations_in_carbon_gain_water_use_and_yield_production_in_rice (last access: March 2019),
2015. a
Zhang, G., Dong, J., Zhou, C., Xu, X., Wang, M., Ouyang, H., and Xiao, X.:
Increasing cropping intensity in response to climate warming in Tibetan
Plateau, China, Field Crop. Res., 142, 36–46,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2012.11.021,
2013. a
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.
Sequential cropping (also known as multiple or double cropping) is a common cropping system,...
Special issue