Articles | Volume 14, issue 9
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-5863-2021
© 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-14-5863-2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Review and perspective paper
| 
27 Sep 2021
Review and perspective paper |
| 27 Sep 2021
| 27 Sep 2021
Validation of terrestrial biogeochemistry in CMIP6 Earth system models: a review
Climate and Environment, Saint Francis Xavier University,
Antigonish, Canada
Environmental Sciences, Memorial University, St. John's, Canada
Andrew H. MacDougall
Climate and Environment, Saint Francis Xavier University,
Antigonish, Canada
Related authors
No articles found.
Richard G. Williams, Philip Goodwin, Paulo Ceppi, Chris D. Jones, and Andrew MacDougall
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-800, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-800, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Biogeosciences (BG).
Short summary
Short summary
How the climate system responds when carbon emissions cease is an open question: some climate models reveal a slight warming, whereas most models reveal a slight cooling. Their climate response is affected by how the planet takes up heat and radiates heat back to space, and how the land and ocean sequester carbon from the atmosphere. A framework is developed to connect the temperature response of the climate models to competing and opposing-signed thermal and carbon contributions.
Benjamin Mark Sanderson, Victor Brovkin, Rosie Fisher, David Hohn, Tatiana Ilyina, Chris Jones, Torben Koenigk, Charles Koven, Hongmei Li, David Lawrence, Peter Lawrence, Spencer Liddicoat, Andrew Macdougall, Nadine Mengis, Zebedee Nicholls, Eleanor O'Rourke, Anastasia Romanou, Marit Sandstad, Jörg Schwinger, Roland Seferian, Lori Sentman, Isla Simpson, Chris Smith, Norman Steinert, Abigail Swann, Jerry Tjiputra, and Tilo Ziehn
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3356, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3356, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study investigates how climate models warm in response to simplified carbon emissions trajectories, refining understanding of climate reversibility and commitment. Metrics are defined for warming response to cumulative emissions and for the cessation or ramp-down to net-zero and net-negative levels. Results indicate that previous concentration-driven experiments may have overstated zero emissions commitment due to emissions rates exceeding historical levels.
Makcim L. De Sisto and Andrew H. MacDougall
Biogeosciences, 21, 4853–4873, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-4853-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-4853-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
The remaining carbon budget (RCB) represents the allowable future CO2 emissions before a temperature target is reached. Understanding the uncertainty in the RCB is critical for effective climate regulation and policy-making. One major source of uncertainty is the representation of the carbon cycle in Earth system models. We assessed how nutrient limitation affects the estimation of the RCB. We found a reduction in the estimated RCB when nutrient limitation is taken into account.
Makcim L. De Sisto, Andrew H. MacDougall, Nadine Mengis, and Sophia Antoniello
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 4113–4136, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4113-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-4113-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we developed a nitrogen and phosphorus cycle in an intermediate-complexity Earth system climate model. We found that the implementation of nutrient limitation in simulations has reduced the capacity of land to take up atmospheric carbon and has decreased the vegetation biomass, hence, improving the fidelity of the response of land to simulated atmospheric CO2 rise.
Francisco José Cuesta-Valero, Hugo Beltrami, Almudena García-García, Gerhard Krinner, Moritz Langer, Andrew H. MacDougall, Jan Nitzbon, Jian Peng, Karina von Schuckmann, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Wim Thiery, Inne Vanderkelen, and Tonghua Wu
Earth Syst. Dynam., 14, 609–627, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-609-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-14-609-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Climate change is caused by the accumulated heat in the Earth system, with the land storing the second largest amount of this extra heat. Here, new estimates of continental heat storage are obtained, including changes in inland-water heat storage and permafrost heat storage in addition to changes in ground heat storage. We also argue that heat gains in all three components should be monitored independently of their magnitude due to heat-dependent processes affecting society and ecosystems.
Karina von Schuckmann, Audrey Minière, Flora Gues, Francisco José Cuesta-Valero, Gottfried Kirchengast, Susheel Adusumilli, Fiammetta Straneo, Michaël Ablain, Richard P. Allan, Paul M. Barker, Hugo Beltrami, Alejandro Blazquez, Tim Boyer, Lijing Cheng, John Church, Damien Desbruyeres, Han Dolman, Catia M. Domingues, Almudena García-García, Donata Giglio, John E. Gilson, Maximilian Gorfer, Leopold Haimberger, Maria Z. Hakuba, Stefan Hendricks, Shigeki Hosoda, Gregory C. Johnson, Rachel Killick, Brian King, Nicolas Kolodziejczyk, Anton Korosov, Gerhard Krinner, Mikael Kuusela, Felix W. Landerer, Moritz Langer, Thomas Lavergne, Isobel Lawrence, Yuehua Li, John Lyman, Florence Marti, Ben Marzeion, Michael Mayer, Andrew H. MacDougall, Trevor McDougall, Didier Paolo Monselesan, Jan Nitzbon, Inès Otosaka, Jian Peng, Sarah Purkey, Dean Roemmich, Kanako Sato, Katsunari Sato, Abhishek Savita, Axel Schweiger, Andrew Shepherd, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Leon Simons, Donald A. Slater, Thomas Slater, Andrea K. Steiner, Toshio Suga, Tanguy Szekely, Wim Thiery, Mary-Louise Timmermans, Inne Vanderkelen, Susan E. Wjiffels, Tonghua Wu, and Michael Zemp
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 1675–1709, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-1675-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-1675-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Earth's climate is out of energy balance, and this study quantifies how much heat has consequently accumulated over the past decades (ocean: 89 %, land: 6 %, cryosphere: 4 %, atmosphere: 1 %). Since 1971, this accumulated heat reached record values at an increasing pace. The Earth heat inventory provides a comprehensive view on the status and expectation of global warming, and we call for an implementation of this global climate indicator into the Paris Agreement’s Global Stocktake.
Claude-Michel Nzotungicimpaye, Kirsten Zickfeld, Andrew H. MacDougall, Joe R. Melton, Claire C. Treat, Michael Eby, and Lance F. W. Lesack
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 6215–6240, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6215-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-6215-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper, we describe a new wetland methane model (WETMETH) developed for use in Earth system models. WETMETH consists of simple formulations to represent methane production and oxidation in wetlands. We also present an evaluation of the model performance as embedded in the University of Victoria Earth System Climate Model (UVic ESCM). WETMETH is capable of reproducing mean annual methane emissions consistent with present-day estimates from the regional to the global scale.
Andrew H. MacDougall
Biogeosciences, 18, 4937–4952, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-4937-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-18-4937-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Permafrost soils hold about twice as much carbon as the atmosphere. As the Earth warms the organic matter in these soils will decay, releasing CO2 and CH4. It is expected that these soils will continue to release carbon to the atmosphere long after man-made emissions of greenhouse gases cease. Here we use a method employing hundreds of slightly varying model versions to estimate how much warming permafrost carbon will cause after human emissions of CO2 end.
Nadine Mengis, David P. Keller, Andrew H. MacDougall, Michael Eby, Nesha Wright, Katrin J. Meissner, Andreas Oschlies, Andreas Schmittner, Alexander J. MacIsaac, H. Damon Matthews, and Kirsten Zickfeld
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 4183–4204, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4183-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4183-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper, we evaluate the newest version of the University of Victoria Earth System Climate Model (UVic ESCM 2.10). Combining recent model developments as a joint effort, this version is to be used in the next phase of model intercomparison and climate change studies. The UVic ESCM 2.10 is capable of reproducing changes in historical temperature and carbon fluxes well. Additionally, the model is able to reproduce the three-dimensional distribution of many ocean tracers.
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.
Ignacio Hermoso de Mendoza, Hugo Beltrami, Andrew H. MacDougall, and Jean-Claude Mareschal
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 1663–1683, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1663-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1663-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
We study the impact that the thickness of the subsurface and the geothermal gradient have in land models for climate simulations. To do this, we modify the Community Land Model version 4.5. In a scenario of rising atmospheric temperatures, the temperature of an insufficiently deep subsurface rises faster than it would in the real land. For the model, this produces faster permafrost thawing and increased emissions of land carbon to the atmosphere.
Chris D. Jones, Thomas L. Frölicher, Charles Koven, Andrew H. MacDougall, H. Damon Matthews, Kirsten Zickfeld, Joeri Rogelj, Katarzyna B. Tokarska, Nathan P. Gillett, Tatiana Ilyina, Malte Meinshausen, Nadine Mengis, Roland Séférian, Michael Eby, and Friedrich A. Burger
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4375–4385, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4375-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4375-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
Global warming is simply related to the total emission of CO2 allowing us to define a carbon budget. However, information on the Zero Emissions Commitment is a key missing link to assess remaining carbon budgets to achieve the climate targets of the Paris Agreement. It was therefore decided that a small targeted MIP activity to fill this knowledge gap would be extremely valuable. This article formalises the experimental design alongside the other CMIP6 documentation papers.
Andrew Hugh MacDougall
Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 597–611, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-597-2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-597-2019, 2019
Short summary
Short summary
The 1 % per year exponential change in CO2 concentration experiment is an idealized climate change scenario that has traditionally been used to facilitate comparison of different climate models and to create benchmark statistics. Here, we examine the limitations of this experiment for assessing the global carbon cycle and propose an alternative idealized experiment.
Andrew H. MacDougall and Reto Knutti
Biogeosciences, 13, 2123–2136, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-2123-2016, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-2123-2016, 2016
Short summary
Short summary
The soils of the permafrost region are estimated to hold 1100 to 1500 billion tonnes of carbon. As climate change progresses much of this permafrost is expected to thaw and the carbon within it decay. Here we conduct numerical experiments with a climate model to estimate with formal uncertainty bounds the release of carbon from permafrost soils. Our simulations suggest that the permafrost carbon will make a significant but not cataclysmic contribution to climate change over the next centuries.
Related subject area
Climate and Earth system modeling
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
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)
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
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
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
Multi-year simulations at kilometre scale with the Integrated Forecasting System coupled to FESOM2.5 and NEMOv3.4
Subsurface hydrological controls on the short-term effects of hurricanes on nitrate–nitrogen runoff loading: a case study of Hurricane Ida using the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) Land Model (v2.1)
CARIB12: a regional Community Earth System Model/Modular Ocean Model 6 configuration of the Caribbean Sea
Process-based modeling framework for sustainable irrigation management at the regional scale: Integrating rice production, water use, and greenhouse gas emissions
Architectural insights into and training methodology optimization of Pangu-Weather
Evaluation of global fire simulations in CMIP6 Earth system models
Evaluating downscaled products with expected hydroclimatic co-variances
Software sustainability of global impact models
fair-calibrate v1.4.1: calibration, constraining, and validation of the FaIR simple climate model for reliable future climate projections
ISOM 1.0: a fully mesoscale-resolving idealized Southern Ocean model and the diversity of multiscale eddy interactions
A computationally lightweight model for ensemble forecasting of environmental hazards: General TAMSAT-ALERT v1.2.1
Introducing the MESMER-M-TPv0.1.0 module: spatially explicit Earth system model emulation for monthly precipitation and temperature
The need for carbon-emissions-driven climate projections in CMIP7
Robust handling of extremes in quantile mapping – “Murder your darlings”
A protocol for model intercomparison of impacts of marine cloud brightening climate intervention
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thomas Rackow, Xabier Pedruzo-Bagazgoitia, Tobias Becker, Sebastian Milinski, Irina Sandu, Razvan Aguridan, Peter Bechtold, Sebastian Beyer, Jean Bidlot, Souhail Boussetta, Willem Deconinck, Michail Diamantakis, Peter Dueben, Emanuel Dutra, Richard Forbes, Rohit Ghosh, Helge F. Goessling, Ioan Hadade, Jan Hegewald, Thomas Jung, Sarah Keeley, Lukas Kluft, Nikolay Koldunov, Aleksei Koldunov, Tobias Kölling, Josh Kousal, Christian Kühnlein, Pedro Maciel, Kristian Mogensen, Tiago Quintino, Inna Polichtchouk, Balthasar Reuter, Domokos Sármány, Patrick Scholz, Dmitry Sidorenko, Jan Streffing, Birgit Sützl, Daisuke Takasuka, Steffen Tietsche, Mirco Valentini, Benoît Vannière, Nils Wedi, Lorenzo Zampieri, and Florian Ziemen
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 33–69, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-33-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-33-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Detailed global climate model simulations have been created based on a numerical weather prediction model, offering more accurate spatial detail down to the scale of individual cities ("kilometre-scale") and a better understanding of climate phenomena such as atmospheric storms, whirls in the ocean, and cracks in sea ice. The new model aims to provide globally consistent information on local climate change with greater precision, benefiting environmental planning and local impact modelling.
Yilin Fang, Hoang Viet Tran, and L. Ruby Leung
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 19–32, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-19-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-19-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Hurricanes may worsen water quality in the lower Mississippi River basin (LMRB) by increasing nutrient runoff. We found that runoff parameterizations greatly affect nitrate–nitrogen runoff simulated using an Earth system land model. Our simulations predicted increased nitrogen runoff in the LMRB during Hurricane Ida in 2021, albeit less pronounced than the observations, indicating areas for model improvement to better understand and manage nutrient runoff loss during hurricanes in the region.
Giovanni Seijo-Ellis, Donata Giglio, Gustavo Marques, and Frank Bryan
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8989–9021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8989-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8989-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
A CESM–MOM6 regional configuration of the Caribbean Sea was developed in response to the rising need for high-resolution models for climate impact studies. The configuration is validated for the period 2000–2020 and improves significant errors in a low-resolution model. Oceanic properties are well represented. Patterns of freshwater associated with the Amazon River are well captured, and the mean flows of ocean waters across multiple passages in the Caribbean Sea agree with observations.
Yan Bo, Hao Liang, Tao Li, and Feng Zhou
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-212, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-212, 2024
Revised manuscript accepted for GMD
Short summary
Short summary
This study proposed an advancing framework for modeling regional rice production, water use, and greenhouse gas emissions. The framework integrated a process-based soil-crop model with key physiological effects, a novel model upscaling method, and the NSGA-II multi-objective optimization algorithm at a parallel computing platform. The framework provides a valuable tool for irrigation optimization to deliver co-benefits of ensuring food production, reducing water use and greenhouse gas emissions.
Deifilia To, Julian Quinting, Gholam Ali Hoshyaripour, Markus Götz, Achim Streit, and Charlotte Debus
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8873–8884, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8873-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8873-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Pangu-Weather is a breakthrough machine learning model in medium-range weather forecasting that considers 3D atmospheric information. We show that using a simpler 2D framework improves robustness, speeds up training, and reduces computational needs by 20 %–30 %. We introduce a training procedure that varies the importance of atmospheric variables over time to speed up training convergence. Decreasing computational demand increases the accessibility of training and working with the model.
Fang Li, Xiang Song, Sandy P. Harrison, Jennifer R. Marlon, Zhongda Lin, L. Ruby Leung, Jörg Schwinger, Virginie Marécal, Shiyu Wang, Daniel S. Ward, Xiao Dong, Hanna Lee, Lars Nieradzik, Sam S. Rabin, and Roland Séférian
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8751–8771, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8751-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8751-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
This study provides the first comprehensive assessment of historical fire simulations from 19 Earth system models in phase 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). Most models reproduce global totals, spatial patterns, seasonality, and regional historical changes well but fail to simulate the recent decline in global burned area and underestimate the fire response to climate variability. CMIP6 simulations address three critical issues of phase-5 models.
Seung H. Baek, Paul A. Ullrich, Bo Dong, and Jiwoo Lee
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8665–8681, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8665-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8665-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluate downscaled products by examining locally relevant co-variances during precipitation events. Common statistical downscaling techniques preserve expected co-variances during convective precipitation (a stationary phenomenon). However, they dampen future intensification of frontal precipitation (a non-stationary phenomenon) captured in global climate models and dynamical downscaling. Our study quantifies a ramification of the stationarity assumption underlying statistical downscaling.
Emmanuel Nyenah, Petra Döll, Daniel S. Katz, and Robert Reinecke
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8593–8611, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8593-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8593-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Research software is vital for scientific progress but is often developed by scientists with limited skills, time, and funding, leading to challenges in usability and maintenance. Our study across 10 sectors shows strengths in version control, open-source licensing, and documentation while emphasizing the need for containerization and code quality. We recommend workshops; code quality metrics; funding; and following the findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) standards.
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.
Jingwei Xie, Xi Wang, Hailong Liu, Pengfei Lin, Jiangfeng Yu, Zipeng Yu, Junlin Wei, and Xiang Han
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8469–8493, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8469-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8469-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We propose the concept of mesoscale ocean direct numerical simulation (MODNS), which should resolve the first baroclinic deformation radius and ensure the numerical dissipative effects do not directly contaminate the mesoscale motions. It can be a benchmark for testing mesoscale ocean large eddy simulation (MOLES) methods in ocean models. We build an idealized Southern Ocean model using MITgcm to generate a type of MODNS. We also illustrate the diversity of multiscale eddy interactions.
Emily Black, John Ellis, and Ross I. Maidment
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8353–8372, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8353-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8353-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We present General TAMSAT-ALERT, a computationally lightweight and versatile tool for generating ensemble forecasts from time series data. General TAMSAT-ALERT is capable of combining multiple streams of monitoring and meteorological forecasting data into probabilistic hazard assessments. In this way, it complements existing systems and enhances their utility for actionable hazard assessment.
Sarah Schöngart, Lukas Gudmundsson, Mathias Hauser, Peter Pfleiderer, Quentin Lejeune, Shruti Nath, Sonia Isabelle Seneviratne, and Carl-Friedrich Schleussner
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8283–8320, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8283-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8283-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Precipitation and temperature are two of the most impact-relevant climatic variables. Yet, projecting future precipitation and temperature data under different emission scenarios relies on complex models that are computationally expensive. In this study, we propose a method that allows us to generate monthly means of local precipitation and temperature at low computational costs. Our modelling framework is particularly useful for all downstream applications of climate model data.
Benjamin M. Sanderson, Ben B. B. Booth, John Dunne, Veronika Eyring, Rosie A. Fisher, Pierre Friedlingstein, Matthew J. Gidden, Tomohiro Hajima, Chris D. Jones, Colin G. Jones, Andrew King, Charles D. Koven, David M. Lawrence, Jason Lowe, Nadine Mengis, Glen P. Peters, Joeri Rogelj, Chris Smith, Abigail C. Snyder, Isla R. Simpson, Abigail L. S. Swann, Claudia Tebaldi, Tatiana Ilyina, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Roland Séférian, Bjørn H. Samset, Detlef van Vuuren, and Sönke Zaehle
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8141–8172, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8141-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8141-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We discuss how, in order to provide more relevant guidance for climate policy, coordinated climate experiments should adopt a greater focus on simulations where Earth system models are provided with carbon emissions from fossil fuels together with land use change instructions, rather than past approaches that have largely focused on experiments with prescribed atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. We discuss how these goals might be achieved in coordinated climate modeling experiments.
Peter Berg, Thomas Bosshard, Denica Bozhinova, Lars Bärring, Joakim Löw, Carolina Nilsson, Gustav Strandberg, Johan Södling, Johan Thuresson, Renate Wilcke, and Wei Yang
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8173–8179, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8173-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8173-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
When bias adjusting climate model data using quantile mapping, one needs to prescribe what to do at the tails of the distribution, where a larger data range is likely encountered outside of the calibration period. The end result is highly dependent on the method used. We show that, to avoid discontinuities in the time series, one needs to exclude data in the calibration range to also activate the extrapolation functionality in that time period.
Philip J. Rasch, Haruki Hirasawa, Mingxuan Wu, Sarah J. Doherty, Robert Wood, Hailong Wang, Andy Jones, James Haywood, and Hansi Singh
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7963–7994, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7963-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7963-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce a protocol to compare computer climate simulations to better understand a proposed strategy intended to counter warming and climate impacts from greenhouse gas increases. This slightly changes clouds in six ocean regions to reflect more sunlight and cool the Earth. Example changes in clouds and climate are shown for three climate models. Cloud changes differ between the models, but precipitation and surface temperature changes are similar when their cooling effects are made similar.
Cited articles
Achard, F., Beuchle, R., Mayaux, P., Stibig, H. J., Bodart, C., Brink, A.,
and Simonetti, D.: Determination of tropical deforestation rates and related
carbon losses from 1990 to 2010, Glob. Change Biol., 20, 2540–2554,
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12605, 2014.
Amthor, J. S.: The McCree–de Wit–Penning de Vries–Thornley respiration
paradigms: 30 years later, Ann. Bot.-London, 86, 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.2000.1175, 2000.
Anav, A., Friedlingstein, P., Kidston, M., Bopp, L., Ciais, P., Cox, P.,
Jones, C., Jung, M., Myneni, R., and Zhu, Z.: Evaluating the land and ocean
components of the global carbon cycle in the CMIP5 earth system models, J.
Climate, 26, 6801–6843, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00417.1, 2013.
Anav, A., Friedlingstein, P., Beer, C., Ciais, P., Harper, A., Jones, C.,
and Zhao, M.: Spatiotemporal patterns of terrestrial gross primary
production: A review, Rev. Geophys., 53, 785–818, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015RG000483, 2015.
Anderson, T. R., Hawkins, E., and Jones, P. D.: CO2, the greenhouse
effect and global warming: from the pioneering work of Arrhenius and
Callendar to today's Earth System Models, Endeavour, 40, 178–187, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.endeavour.2016.07.002, 2016.
Arora, V. K. and Boer, G. J.: A parameterization of leaf phenology for the
terrestrial ecosystem component of climate models, Glob. Change Biol., 11,
39–59, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2004.00890.x, 2005.
Arora, V. K. and Boer, G. J.: Uncertainties in the 20th century carbon
budget associated with land use change, Glob. Change Biol., 16, 3327–3348,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02202.x, 2010.
Arora, V. K., Boer, G. J., Friedlingstein, P., Eby, M., Jones, C. D.,
Christian, J. R., Bonan, G., Bopp, L., Brovkin, V., Cadule, P., Hajima, T.,
Ilyina, T., Lindsay, K., Tjiputra, J. F., and Wu, T.: Carbon–concentration
and carbon–climate feedbacks in CMIP5 Earth system models, J. Climate, 26,
5289–5314, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00494.1, 2013.
Arora, V. K., Katavouta, A., Williams, R. G., Jones, C. D., Brovkin, V., Friedlingstein, P., Schwinger, J., Bopp, L., Boucher, O., Cadule, P., Chamberlain, M. A., Christian, J. R., Delire, C., Fisher, R. A., Hajima, T., Ilyina, T., Joetzjer, E., Kawamiya, M., Koven, C. D., Krasting, J. P., Law, R. M., Lawrence, D. M., Lenton, A., Lindsay, K., Pongratz, J., Raddatz, T., Séférian, R., Tachiiri, K., Tjiputra, J. F., Wiltshire, A., Wu, T., and Ziehn, T.: Carbon–concentration and carbon–climate feedbacks in CMIP6 models and their comparison to CMIP5 models, Biogeosciences, 17, 4173–4222, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-4173-2020, 2020.
Avitabile, V., Herold, M., Heuvelink, G. B. M., Lewis, S. L., Phillips,
O. L., Asner, G. P., Armston, J., Ashton, P. S., Banin, L., Bayol, N.,
Berry, N. J., Boeckx, P., de Jong, B. H. J., DeVries, B., Girardin, C.
A. J., Kearsley, E., Lindsell, J. A., Lopez-Gonzalez, G., Lucas, R., Malhi,
Y., Morel, A., Mitchard, E. T. A., Nagy, L., Qie, L., Quinones, M. J., Ryan,
C. M., Ferry, S. J. F., Sunderland, T., Laurin, G. V., Gatti, R. C.,
Valentini, R., Verbeeck, H., Wijaya, A., and Willcock, S.: An integrated
pan-tropical biomass map using multiple reference datasets, Glob. Change
Biol., 22, 1406–1420, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13139, 2016.
Baccini, A., Goetz, S. J., Walker, W. S., Laporte, N. T., Sun,
M., Sulla-Menashe, D., Hackler, J., Beck, P. S. A., Dubayah, R., Friedl, M.
A., Samanta, S., and Houghton, R. A.: Estimated carbon dioxide emissions
from tropical deforestation improved by carbon-density maps, Nat. Clim.
Change, 2, 182–185, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1354, 2012.
Baret, F., Hagolle, O., Geiger, B., Bicheron, P., Miras, B., Huc, M.,
Berthelot, B., Niño, F., Weiss, M., Samain, O., Roujean, J. L., and
Leroy, M.: LAI, fAPAR and fCover CYCLOPES global products derived from
VEGETATION: Part 1: Principles of the algorithm, Remote Sens. Environ., 110,
275–286, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2007.02.018, 2007.
Batjes, N. H.: Harmonized soil property values for broad-scale modelling
(WISE30sec) with estimates of global soil carbon stocks, Geoderma, 269,
61–68, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2016.01.034, 2016.
Beer, C., Reichstein, M., Tomelleri, E., Ciais, P., Jung, M., Carvalhais,
N., Rödenbeck, C., Arain, M. A., Baldocchi, D., Bonan, G. B., Bondeau,
A., Cescatti, A., Lasslop, G., Lindroth, A., Lomas, M., Luyssaert, S.,
Margolis, H., Oleson, K. W., Roupsard, O., Veenendaal, E., Viovy, N.,
Williams, C., Woodward, F. I., and Papale, D.: Terrestrial gross carbon
dioxide uptake: global distribution and covariation with
climate, Science, 329, 834–838, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1184984, 2010.
Blackard, J. A., Finco, M. V., Helmer, E. H., Holden, G. R., Hoppus, M.
L., Jacobs, D. M., Lister, A. J., Moisen, G. G., Nelson, M. D., Riemann,
R., Ruefenacht, B., Salajanu, D., Weyermann, D. L., Winterberger, K.
C., Brandeis, T. J., Czaplewski, R. L., McRoberts, R. E., Patterson, P.
L., and Tymcio, R. P.: Mapping U.S. forest biomass using nationwide forest
inventory data and moderate resolution information, Remote Sens.
Environ., 112, 1658–1677, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2007.08.021, 2008.
Bonan, G. B., Lombardozzi, D. L., Wieder, W. R., Oleson, K. W., Lawrence, D.
M., Hoffman, F. M., and Collier, N.: Model structure and climate data
uncertainty in historical simulations of the terrestrial carbon cycle
(1850–2014), Global Biogeochem. Cy., 33, 1310–1326, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GB006175, 2019.
Bond-Lamberty, B., Bailey, V. L., Chen, M., Gough, C. M., and Vargas,
R.: Globally rising soil heterotrophic respiration over recent
decades, Nature, 560, 80–83, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0358-x, 2018.
Boucher, O., Servonnat, J., Albright, A. L., Aumont, O., Balkanski,
Y., Bastrikov, V., Bekki, S., Bonnet, R., Bony, S., Bopp, L., Braconnot,
P., Brockmann, P., Cadule, P., Caubel, A., Cheruy, F., Codron, F., Cozic,
A., Cugnet, D., D'Andrea, F., Davini, P., de Lavergne, C., Denvil,
S., Deshayes, J., Devilliers, M., Ducharne, A., Dufresne, J.-L., Dupont,
E., Éthé, C., Fairhead, L., Falletti, L., Flavoni, S., Foujols,
M.-A., Gardoll, S., Gastineau, G., Ghattas, J., Grandpeix, J.-Y., Guenet,
B., Guez, L., Guilyardi, É., Guimberteau, M., Hauglustaine, D., Hourdin,
F., Idelkadi, A., Joussaume, S., Kageyama, M., Khodri, M., Krinner,
G., Lebas, N., Levavasseur, G., Lévy, C., Li, L., Lott, F., Lurton,
T., Luyssaert, S., Madec, G., Madeleine, J.-B., Maignan, F., Marchand,
M., Marti, O., Mellul, L., Meurdesoif, Y., Mignot, J., Musat, I., Ottlé,
C., Peylin, P., Planton, Y., Polcher, J., Rio, C., Rochetin, N., Rousset,
C., Sepulchre, P., Sima, A., Swingedouw, D., Thiéblemont, R., Khadre
Traore, A., Vancoppenolle, M., Vial, J., Vialard, J., Viovy, N.,
and Vuichard, N.: Presentation and evaluation of the IPSL-CM6A-LR climate
model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS002010, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS002010, 2020.
Carvalhais, N., Forkel, M., Khomik, M., Bellarby, J., Jung, M., Migliavacca,
M., Mu, M., Saatchi, S., Santoro, M., Thurner, M., Weber, U., Ahrens,
B., Beer, C., Cescatti, A., Randerson, J. T., and Reichstein, M.: Global
covariation of carbon turnover times with climate in terrestrial
ecosystems, Nature, 514, 213–217, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13731, 2014.
Chu, H., Baldocchi, D. D., John, R., Wolf, S., and Reichstein, M.: Fluxes
all of the time? A primer on the temporal representativeness of Fluxnet, J.
Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 122, 289–307, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JG003576, 2017.
Ciais, P., Sabine, C., Bala, G., Bopp, L., Brovkin, V., Canadell,
J., Chhabra, A., DeFries, R., Galloway, J., Heimann, M., Jones, C., Le
Quéré, C., Myneni, R. B., Piao, S., and Thornton, P.: Carbon and
Other Biogeochemical Cycles, in: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S. K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and
Midgley, P. M., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
and New York, NY, USA, available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf (last access: 1 April 2021), 2013.
Ciais, P., Tan, J., Wang, X., Roedenbeck, C., Chevallier, F., Piao,
S.-L., Moriarty, R., Broquet, G., Le Quéré, C., Canadell, J.
G., Peng, S., Poulter, B., Liu, Z., and Tans, P.: Five decades of northern
land carbon uptake revealed by the interhemispheric
CO2 gradient, Nature, 568, 221–225, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1078-6, 2019.
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.
Collier, N., Hoffman, F. M., Lawrence, D. M., Keppel-Aleks, G., Koven, C.
D., Riley, W. J., Mu, M., and Randerson, J. T.: The International Land Model
Benchmarking (ILAMB) system: design, theory, and implementation, J. Adv. Model.
Earth Sy., 10, 2731–2754, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001354,
2018.
Dai, M., Yin, Z., Meng, F., Liu, Q., and Cai, W. J.: Spatial distribution of
riverine DOC inputs to the ocean: an updated global synthesis, Curr. Opin. Env.
Sust., 4, 170–178, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.03.003,
2012.
Danabasoglu, G., Lamarque, J. F., Bacmeister, J., Bailey, D. A., DuVivier,
A. K., Edwards, J., Emmons, L.K., Fasullo, J., Garcia, R., Gettelman, A.,
Hannay, C., Holland, M., Large, W., Lauritzen, P., Lawrence, D., Lenaerts,
J., Lindsay, K., Lipscomb, W., Mills M. J., Neale, R., Oleson, K.,
Otto-Bliesner, B., Phillips, A., Sacks, W., Tilmes, S., van Kampenhout, L.,
Vertenstein, M., Bertini, A., Dennis, J., Deser, C., Fischer, C.,
Fox-Kemper, B., Kay, J., Kinnison, D., Kushner, P., Larson, V., Long, M.,
Mickelson, S., Moore, J., Nienhouse, E., Polvani, L., Rasch, P., and Strand,
W.: The community earth system model version 2 (CESM2), J. Adv. Model. Earth
Sy., 12, e2019MS001916, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001916, 2020.
Davies-Barnard, T., Meyerholt, J., Zaehle, S., Friedlingstein, P., Brovkin, V., Fan, Y., Fisher, R. A., Jones, C. D., Lee, H., Peano, D., Smith, B., Wårlind, D., and Wiltshire, A. J.: Nitrogen cycling in CMIP6 land surface models: progress and limitations, Biogeosciences, 17, 5129–5148, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-5129-2020, 2020.
Defourny, P., Boettcher, M., Bontemps, S., Kirches, G., Lamarche, C.,
Peters, M., Santoro, M., and Schlerf, M.: Land cover CCI Product user guide
version 2, Technical report, European Space Agency, London, United Kingdom, 1–91, 2016.
de Kauwe, M. G., Disney, M. I., Quaife, T., Lewis, P., and Williams, M.: An
assessment of the MODIS Collection 5 leaf area index product for a region of
mixed coniferous forest, Remote Sens. Environ., 115, 767–780, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.11.004, 2011.
Delire, C., Séférian, R., Decharme, B., Alkama, R., Calvet, J. C.,
Carrer, D., Gibelin, A., Joetzjer, E., Morel, X., Rochner, M., and Tzanos,
D.: The global land carbon cycle simulated with ISBA-CTRIP: Improvements
over the last decade, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy, 12, e2019MS001886, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001886, 2020.
de Mora, L., Butenschön, M., and Allen, J. I.: How should sparse marine in situ measurements be compared to a continuous model: an example, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 533–548, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-533-2013, 2013.
Desai, A. R., Richardson, A. D., Moffat, A. M., Kattge, J., Hollinger, D.
Y., Barr, A., and Stauch, V. J.: Cross-site evaluation of eddy covariance
GPP and RE decomposition techniques, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 148, 821–838,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2007.11.012, 2008.
Deser, C., Lehner, F., Rodgers, K. B., Ault, T., Delworth, T. L., DiNezio,
P. N., and Ting, M.: Insights from Earth system model initial-condition large
ensembles and future prospects, Nat. Clim. Change, 10, 277–286, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0731-2, 2020.
Dunne, J. P., Horowitz, L. W., Adcroft, A. J., Ginoux, P., Held, I. M.,
John, J. G., Krasting, J. P., Malyshev, S., Naik1, V., Paulot, F.,
Shevliakova, E., Stock, C. A., Zadeh, N., Balaji, V., Blanton, C., Dunne, K.
A., Dupuis, C., Durachta, J., Dussin, R., Gauthier, P. P. G., Griffies, S.
M., Guo, H., Hallberg, R. W., Harrison, M., He, J., Hurlin, W., McHugh, C.,
Menzel, R., Milly, P. C. D., Nikonov, S., Paynter, D. J., Ploshay, J.,
Radhakrishnan, A., Rand, K., Reichl, B. G., Robinson, T., Schwarzkopf, D.
M., Sentman, L. T., Underwood, S., Vahlenkamp, H., Winton, M., Wittenberg,
A. T., Wyman, B., Zeng, Y., and Zhao, M.: The GFDL Earth System Model
version 4.1 (GFDL-ESM 4.1): Overall coupled model description and simulation
characteristics, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS002015, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS002015, 2020.
Ehlers, I., Augusti, A., Betson, T. R., Nilsson, M. B., Marshall, J. D., and
Schleucher, J.: Detecting long-term metabolic shifts using isotopomers:
CO2-driven suppression of photorespiration in C3 plants over the 20th
century, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 112, 15585–15590, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1504493112, 2015.
Erkkilä, K.-M., Ojala, A., Bastviken, D., Biermann, T., Heiskanen, J. J., Lindroth, A., Peltola, O., Rantakari, M., Vesala, T., and Mammarella, I.: Methane and carbon dioxide fluxes over a lake: comparison between eddy covariance, floating chambers and boundary layer method, Biogeosciences, 15, 429–445, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-15-429-2018, 2018.
Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1937–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, 2016a.
Eyring, V., Righi, M., Lauer, A., Evaldsson, M., Wenzel, S., Jones, C., Anav, A., Andrews, O., Cionni, I., Davin, E. L., Deser, C., Ehbrecht, C., Friedlingstein, P., Gleckler, P., Gottschaldt, K.-D., Hagemann, S., Juckes, M., Kindermann, S., Krasting, J., Kunert, D., Levine, R., Loew, A., Mäkelä, J., Martin, G., Mason, E., Phillips, A. S., Read, S., Rio, C., Roehrig, R., Senftleben, D., Sterl, A., van Ulft, L. H., Walton, J., Wang, S., and Williams, K. D.: ESMValTool (v1.0) – a community diagnostic and performance metrics tool for routine evaluation of Earth system models in CMIP, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1747–1802, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1747-2016, 2016b.
Eyring, V., Cox, P. M., Flato, G. M., Gleckler, P. J., Abramowitz, G.,
Caldwell, P., Collins, W. D., Gier, B. K., Hall, A. D., Hoffman, F. M.,
Hurtt, G. C., Jahn, A., Jones, C. D., Klein, S. A., Krasting, J. P.,
Kwiatkowski, L., Lorenz, R., Maloney, E., Meehl, G. A., Pendergrass, A. G.,
Pincus, R., Ruane, A. C., Russell, J. L., Sanderson, B. M., Santer, B. D.,
Sherwood, S. C., Simpson, I. R., Stouffer, R. J., and Williamson, M. S.:
Taking climate model validation to the next level, Nat. Clim. Change, 9,
102–110, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0355-y, 2019.
Eyring, V., Bock, L., Lauer, A., Righi, M., Schlund, M., Andela, B., Arnone, E., Bellprat, O., Brötz, B., Caron, L.-P., Carvalhais, N., Cionni, I., Cortesi, N., Crezee, B., Davin, E. L., Davini, P., Debeire, K., de Mora, L., Deser, C., Docquier, D., Earnshaw, P., Ehbrecht, C., Gier, B. K., Gonzalez-Reviriego, N., Goodman, P., Hagemann, S., Hardiman, S., Hassler, B., Hunter, A., Kadow, C., Kindermann, S., Koirala, S., Koldunov, N., Lejeune, Q., Lembo, V., Lovato, T., Lucarini, V., Massonnet, F., Müller, B., Pandde, A., Pérez-Zanón, N., Phillips, A., Predoi, V., Russell, J., Sellar, A., Serva, F., Stacke, T., Swaminathan, R., Torralba, V., Vegas-Regidor, J., von Hardenberg, J., Weigel, K., and Zimmermann, K.: Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 – an extended set of large-scale diagnostics for quasi-operational and comprehensive evaluation of Earth system models in CMIP, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3383–3438, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3383-2020, 2020.
Fan, J., Chen, B., Wu, L., Zhang, F., Lu, X., and Xiang, Y.: Evaluation and
development of temperature-based empirical models for estimating daily
global solar radiation in humid regions, Energy, 144, 903–914, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.12.091, 2018.
Fan, N., Koirala, S., Reichstein, M., Thurner, M., Avitabile, V., Santoro, M., Ahrens, B., Weber, U., and Carvalhais, N.: Apparent ecosystem carbon turnover time: uncertainties and robust features, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 12, 2517–2536, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-2517-2020, 2020.
FAO.: Harmonized World Soil Database v 1.2, available at: http://www.fao.org/soils-portal/data-hub/soil-maps-and-databases/harmonized-world-soil-database-v12/en/ (last access: 29 January 2021),
2012.
Fisher, R. A., Wieder, W. R., Sanderson, B. M., Koven, C. D., Oleson, K. W.,
Xu, C., and Lawrence, D. M.: Parametric controls on vegetation responses to
biogeochemical forcing in the CLM5, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 2879–2895,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001609, 2019.
Flato, G., Marotzke, J., Abiodun, B., Braconnot, P., Chou, S. C., Collins,
W., Cox, P., Driouech, F., Emori, S., Eyring, V., Forest, C., Gleckler, P.,
Guilyardi, E., Jakob, C., Kattsov, V., Reason, C., and Rummukainen, M.:
Evaluation of climate models, in: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by: Stocker, T. F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S. K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., and
Midgley, P. M., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
and New York, NY, USA, 2013.
Fleischer, K., Rammig, A., De Kauwe, M. G., Walker, A. P., Domingues, T. F.,
Fuchslueger, L., and Lapola, D. M.: Amazon forest response to CO2
fertilization dependent on plant phosphorus acquisition, Nat. Geosci., 12,
736–741, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-019-0404-9, 2019.
Fowler, D., Coyle, M., Skiba, U., Sutton, M. A., Cape, J. N., Reis,
S., Sheppard, L. J., Jenkins, A., Grizzetti, B., Galloway, J. N., Vitousek,
P., Leach, A., Bouwman, A. F., Butterbach-Bahl, K., Dentener, F., Stevenson,
D., Amann, M., and Voss, M.: The global nitrogen cycle in the twenty-first
century, Philos. T. R. Soc. B, 368, 20130164–20130164, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0164, 2013.
Galloway, J. N., Dentener, F. J., Capone, D. G., Boyer, E. W., Howarth, R.
W., Seitzinger, S. P., Asner, G. P., Cleveland, C. C., Green, P. A.,
Holland, E. A., Karl, D. M., Michaels, A. F., Porter, J. H., Townsend, A.
R., and Vo, C. J.: Nitrogen cycles: past, present, and
future, Biogeochemistry, 70, 153–226, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-004-0370-0, 2004.
Galloway, J. N., Townsend, A. R., Erisman, J. W., Bekunda, M., Cai, Z.,
Freney, J. R., Martinelli, L. A., Seitzinger, S. P., and Sutton, M. A.:
Transformation of the nitrogen cycle: recent trends, questions, and
potential solutions, Science, 320, 889–892, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136674, 2008.
Galloway, J. N., Leach, A. M., Bleeker, A., and Erisman, J. W.: A chronology
of human understanding of the nitrogen cycle, Philos. T. R. Soc. B, 368,
20130120, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0120, 2013.
Gibbs, H. K.: Olson's Major World Ecosystem Complexes Ranked by Carbon in
Live Vegetation: An Updated Database Using the GLC2000 Land Cover Product
NDP-017b, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, https://doi.org/10.3334/CDIAC/lue.ndp017.2006, 2006.
Giglio, L., Randerson, J. T., van der Werf, G. R., Kasibhatla, P. S., Collatz, G. J., Morton, D. C., and DeFries, R. S.: Assessing variability and long-term trends in burned area by merging multiple satellite fire products, Biogeosciences, 7, 1171–1186, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-7-1171-2010, 2010.
Gleckler, P. J., Doutriaux, C., Durack, P. J., Taylor, K. E., Zhang, Y.,
Williams, D. N., and Servonnat, J.: A more powerful reality test for climate
models, EOS, 97, 20–24, available at: https://eos.org/science-updates/a-more-powerful-reality-test-for-climate-models (last access: 1 April 2021),
2016.
Global Monitoring Laboratory.: Global monitoring Laboratory – carbon cycle
greenhouse gases, available at: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ (last access: 1 April 2021), 2005.
Global Soil Data Task Group.: Global Gridded Surfaces of Selected Soil
Characteristics (IGBP-DIS), Tech. Rep., available at: https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/569, 2002.
GLOBAL VIEW-CO2: Cooperative Global Atmospheric Data Integration
Project, updated annually, Multi-laboratory compilation of synchronized and
gap-filled atmospheric carbon dioxide records for the period 1979–2012,
NOAA, Boulder, CO, https://doi.org/10.3334/OBSPACK/1002, 2013.
Goll, D. S., Brovkin, V., Liski, J., Raddatz, T., Thum, T., and Todd-Brown,
K. E.: Strong dependence of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic land cover
change on initial land cover and soil carbon parametrization, Global
Biogeochem. Cy., 29, 1511–1523, https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GB004988, 2015.
Goll, D. S., Winkler, A. J., Raddatz, T., Dong, N., Prentice, I. C., Ciais, P., and Brovkin, V.: Carbon–nitrogen interactions in idealized simulations with JSBACH (version 3.10), Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 2009–2030, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-2009-2017, 2017.
Green, J. K., Seneviratne, S. I., Berg, A. M., Findell, K. L., Hagemann, S.,
Lawrence, D. M., and Gentine, P.: Large influence of soil moisture on
long-term terrestrial carbon uptake, Nature, 565, 476–479, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0848-x, 2019.
Gruber, N. and Galloway, J. N.: An Earth-system perspective of the global
nitrogen cycle, Nature, 451, 293–296, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06592, 2008.
Gulden, L. E., Rosero, E., Yang, Z. L., Wagener, T., and Niu, G. Y.: Model
performance, model robustness, and model fitness scores: A new method for
identifying good land-surface models, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L11404, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL033721, 2008.
Hajima, T., Watanabe, M., Yamamoto, A., Tatebe, H., Noguchi, M. A., Abe, M., Ohgaito, R., Ito, A., Yamazaki, D., Okajima, H., Ito, A., Takata, K., Ogochi, K., Watanabe, S., and Kawamiya, M.: Development of the MIROC-ES2L Earth system model and the evaluation of biogeochemical processes and feedbacks, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 2197–2244, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2197-2020, 2020.
Harper, A. B., Wiltshire, A. J., Cox, P. M., Friedlingstein, P., Jones, C. D., Mercado, L. M., Sitch, S., Williams, K., and Duran-Rojas, C.: Vegetation distribution and terrestrial carbon cycle in a carbon cycle configuration of JULES4.6 with new plant functional types, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 2857–2873, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2857-2018, 2018.
Hashimoto, S., Carvalhais, N., Ito, A., Migliavacca, M., Nishina, K., and Reichstein, M.: Global spatiotemporal distribution of soil respiration modeled using a global database, Biogeosciences, 12, 4121–4132, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-12-4121-2015, 2015.
He, Y., Piao, S. L., Li, X. Y., Chen, A. P., and Qin, D. H.: Global patterns
of vegetation carbon use efficiency and their climate drivers deduced from
MODIS satellite data and process-based models, Agr. Forest
Meteorol., 256–257, 150– 158, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2018.03.009, 2018.
Heimann, M. and Reichstein, M.: Terrestrial ecosystem carbon dynamics and
climate feedbacks, Nature, 451, 289–292, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06591, 2008.
Herridge, D. F., Peoples, M. B., and Boddey, R. M.: Global inputs of
biological nitrogen fixation in agricultural systems, Plant Soil, 311, 1–18,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-008-9668-3, 2008.
Hoffman, F. M., Randerson, J. T., Arora, V. K., Bao, Q., Cadule, P., Ji, D.,
Jones, C. D., Kawamiya, M., Khatiwala, S., Lindsay, K., and Wu, T.: Causes
and implications of persistent atmospheric carbon dioxide biases in Earth
System Models, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 119, 141–162, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013JG002381, 2014.
Holland, E. A., Post, W. M., Matthews, E., Sulzman, J. M., Staufer, R., and
Krankina, O. N.: A global database of litterfall mass and litter pool carbon
and nutrients, ORNL DAAC, available at: https://daac.ornl.gov/VEGETATION/guides/Global_Litter_Carbon_Nutrients.html (last access: 1 April 2021), 2015.
Houlton, B. Z., Marklein, A. R., and Bai, E.: Representation of nitrogen in
climate change forecasts, Nat. Clim. Change, 5, 398–401, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2538, 2015.
Hourdin, F., Rio, C., Grandpeix, J.-Y., Madeleine, J.-B., Cheruy, F.,
Rochetin, N., Jam, A., Musat, I., Idelkadi, A., Fairhead, L., Foujols,
M.-A., Mellul, L., Traore, A.-K., Ghattas, J., Gastineau, G., Dufresne,
J.-L., Boucher, O., Lefebvre, M.-P., Millour, E., Vignon, E., Jouaud, J.,
Bint Diallo, F., Bonazzola, M. and Lott, F.: LMDZ6: Improved atmospheric
component of the IPSL coupled model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12,
e2019MS001892, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001892, 2020.
Hovenden, M. and Newton, P.: Plant responses to CO2 are a question of
time, Science, 360, 263–264, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aat2481, 2018.
Hugelius, G., Bockheim, J. G., Camill, P., Elberling, B., Grosse, G., Harden, J. W., Johnson, K., Jorgenson, T., Koven, C. D., Kuhry, P., Michaelson, G., Mishra, U., Palmtag, J., Ping, C.-L., O'Donnell, J., Schirrmeister, L., Schuur, E. A. G., Sheng, Y., Smith, L. C., Strauss, J., and Yu, Z.: A new data set for estimating organic carbon storage to 3 m depth in soils of the northern circumpolar permafrost region, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 5, 393–402, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-5-393-2013, 2013.
Huntzinger, D. N., Schwalm, C., Michalak, A. M., Schaefer, K., King, A. W., Wei, Y., Jacobson, A., Liu, S., Cook, R. B., Post, W. M., Berthier, G., Hayes, D., Huang, M., Ito, A., Lei, H., Lu, C., Mao, J., Peng, C. H., Peng, S., Poulter, B., Riccuito, D., Shi, X., Tian, H., Wang, W., Zeng, N., Zhao, F., and Zhu, Q.: The North American Carbon Program Multi-Scale Synthesis and Terrestrial Model Intercomparison Project – Part 1: Overview and experimental design, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 2121–2133, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-2121-2013, 2013.
Ito, A.: A historical meta-analysis of global terrestrial net primary
productivity: are estimates converging?, Glob. Change Biol., 17, 3161–3175,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02450.x, 2011.
Ito, A. and Inatomi, M.: Use of a process-based model for assessing the methane budgets of global terrestrial ecosystems and evaluation of uncertainty, Biogeosciences, 9, 759–773, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-9-759-2012, 2012.
Ito, A., Hajima, T., Lawrence, D. M., Brovkin, V., Delire, C., Guenet, B.,
Jones, C., Malyshev, S., Materia, S., McDermid, S., Peano, D., Pongratz, J.,
Robertson, E., Shevliakova, E., Vuichard, N., Warlind, D., Wiltshire, A.,
and Ziehn, T.: Soil carbon sequestration simulated in CMIP6-LUMIP models:
implications for climatic mitigation, Environ. Res. Lett., 15, 124061,
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abc912, 2020.
Joetzjer, E., Delire, C., Douville, H., Ciais, P., Decharme, B., Carrer, D., Verbeeck, H., De Weirdt, M., and Bonal, D.: Improving the ISBACC land surface model simulation of water and carbon fluxes and stocks over the Amazon forest, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 1709–1727, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-1709-2015, 2015.
Jones, C. D., Arora, V., Friedlingstein, P., Bopp, L., Brovkin, V., Dunne, J., Graven, H., Hoffman, F., Ilyina, T., John, J. G., Jung, M., Kawamiya, M., Koven, C., Pongratz, J., Raddatz, T., Randerson, J. T., and Zaehle, S.: C4MIP – The Coupled Climate–Carbon Cycle Model Intercomparison Project: experimental protocol for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 2853–2880, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2853-2016, 2016.
Jonsson, A., Åberg, J., Lindroth, A., and Jansson, M.: Gas transfer rate
and CO2 flux between an unproductive lake and the atmosphere in
northern Sweden, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 113, G04006,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JG000688, 2008.
Jung, M., Reichstein, M., and Bondeau, A.: Towards global empirical upscaling of FLUXNET eddy covariance observations: validation of a model tree ensemble approach using a biosphere model, Biogeosciences, 6, 2001–2013, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-6-2001-2009, 2009.
Jung, M., Reichstein, M., Ciais, P., Seneviratne, S. I., Sheffield, J.,
Goulden, M. L., Bonan, G., Cescatti, A., Chen, J., De Jeu, R., and Zhang,
K.: Recent decline in the global land evapotranspiration trend due to
limited moisture supply, Nature, 467, 951–954, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09396, 2010.
Jung, M., Reichstein, M., Margolis, H. A., Cescatti, A., Richardson, A. D.,
Arain, M. A., Arneth, A., Bernhofer, C., Bonal, D., Chen, J., Gianelle, D.,
Gobron, N., Kiely, G., Kutsch, W., Lasslop, G., Law, B. E., Lindroth, A.,
Merbold, L., Montagnani, L., Moors, E. J., Papale, D., Sottocornola, M.,
Vaccari, F., and Williams, C.: Global patterns of land-atmosphere fluxes of
carbon dioxide, latent heat, and sensible heat derived from eddy covariance,
satellite, and meteorological observations, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 116, G00J07,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2010JG001566, 2011.
Jung, M., Reichstein, M., Schwalm, C. R., Huntingford, C., Sitch, S.,
Ahlström, A., Arneth, A., Camps-Valls, G., Ciais, P., Friedlingstein,
P., Gans, F., Ichii, K., Jain, A. K., Kato, E., Papale, D., Poulter, B.,
Raduly, B., Rödenbeck, C., Tramontana, G., Viovy, N., Wang, Y.-P.,
Weber, U., Zaehle, S., and Zeng, N.: FLUXCOM (RS+METEO) Global Land Carbon
Fluxes using CRUNCEP climate data, FLUXCOM Data Portal,
https://www.doi.org/10.17871/FLUXCOM_RS_METEO_CRUNCEPv6_1980_2013_v1, 2016.
Jung, M., Reichstein, M., Schwalm, C. R., Huntingford, C., Sitch,
S., Ahlström, A., Arneth, A., Camps-Valls, G., Ciais,
P., Friedlingstein, P., Gans, F., Ichii, K., Jain, A. K., Kato, E., Papale,
D., Poulter, B., Raduly, B., Rödenbeck, C., Tramontana, G., Viovy,
N., Wang, Y., Weber, U., Zaehle, S., and Zeng, N.: Compensatory water
effects link yearly global land CO2 sink changes to temperature,
Nature, 541, 516– 520, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20780,
2017.
Jung, M., Koirala, S., Weber, U., Ichii, K., Gans, F., Camps-Valls, G., Papale, D., Schwalm, C., Tramontana, G., and Reichstein, M.: The FLUXCOM ensemble of global land-atmosphere energy fluxes, Sci. Data, 6, 74, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0076-8, 2019.
Jung, M., Schwalm, C., Migliavacca, M., Walther, S., Camps-Valls, G., Koirala, S., Anthoni, P., Besnard, S., Bodesheim, P., Carvalhais, N., Chevallier, F., Gans, F., Goll, D. S., Haverd, V., Köhler, P., Ichii, K., Jain, A. K., Liu, J., Lombardozzi, D., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Nelson, J. A., O'Sullivan, M., Pallandt, M., Papale, D., Peters, W., Pongratz, J., Rödenbeck, C., Sitch, S., Tramontana, G., Walker, A., Weber, U., and Reichstein, M.: Scaling carbon fluxes from eddy covariance sites to globe: synthesis and evaluation of the FLUXCOM approach, Biogeosciences, 17, 1343–1365, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-1343-2020, 2020.
Kattge, J., Knorr, W., Raddatz, T., and Wirth, C.: Quantifying
photosynthetic capacity and its relationship to leaf nitrogen content for
global-scale terrestrial biosphere models, Glob. Change Biol., 15, 976–991,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01744.x, 2009.
Kellndorfer, J., Walker, W., Kirsch, K., Fiske, G., Bishop, J., Lapoint,
L., Hoppus, M., and Westfall, J.: NACP aboveground biomass and carbon baseline
data, V.2 (NBCD 2000), U.S.A., 2000, https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1161, 2013.
Kindermann, G., McCallum, I., Fritz, S., and Obersteiner, M.: A global
forest growing stock, biomass and carbon map based on FAO statistics, Silva
Fenn, 42, 387–396, https://doi.org/10.14214/sf.244, 2008.
Kobayashi, K. and Salam, M. U.: Comparing simulated and measured values
using mean squared deviation and its components, Agron. J., 92, 345–352,
https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2000.922345x, 2000.
Koch, J., Siemann, A., Stisen, S., and Sheffield, J.: Spatial validation of
large-scale land surface models against monthly land surface temperature
patterns using innovative performance metrics, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121,
5430–5452, https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024482, 2016.
Koven, C. D., Hugelius, G., Lawrence, D. M., and Wieder, W. R.: Higher
climatological temperature sensitivity of soil carbon in cold than warm
climates, Nat. Clim. Change, 7, 817–822, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3421, 2017.
Kowalczyk, E. A., Wang, Y. P., Law, R. M., Davies, H. L., McGregor, J. L.,
and Abramowitz, G.: The CSIRO Atmosphere Biosphere Land Exchange (CABLE)
model for use in climate models and as an offline model, CSIRO Marine and
Atmospheric Research Paper, 13, 1–43, http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/kowalczykea_2006a.pdf (last access: 1 April 2021), 2006.
Kowalczyk, E. A., Stevens, L., Law, R. M., Dix, M., Wang, Y. P., Harman, I.
N., Haynes, K., Srbinovsky, J., Pak, B., and Ziehn, T.: The land surface
model component of ACCESS: description and impact on the simulated surface
climatology, Aust. Meteorol. Oceanogr. J, 63, 65–82, http://www.bom.gov.au/jshess/docs/2013/kowalczyk_hres.pdf (last access: 1 April 2021),
2013.
Kumar, S. V., Peters-Lidard, C. D., Santanello, J., Harrison, K., Liu, Y., and Shaw, M.: Land surface Verification Toolkit (LVT) – a generalized framework for land surface model evaluation, Geosci. Model Dev., 5, 869–886, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-869-2012, 2012.
Lamarque, J.-F., Bond, T. C., Eyring, V., Granier, C., Heil, A., Klimont, Z., Lee, D., Liousse, C., Mieville, A., Owen, B., Schultz, M. G., Shindell, D., Smith, S. J., Stehfest, E., Van Aardenne, J., Cooper, O. R., Kainuma, M., Mahowald, N., McConnell, J. R., Naik, V., Riahi, K., and van Vuuren, D. P.: Historical (1850–2000) gridded anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions of reactive gases and aerosols: methodology and application, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 7017–7039, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-7017-2010, 2010.
Lasslop, G., Reichstein, M., Kattge, J., and Papale, D.: Influences of observation errors in eddy flux data on inverse model parameter estimation, Biogeosciences, 5, 1311–1324, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-5-1311-2008, 2008.
Lasslop, G., Reichstein, M., Papale, D., Richardson, A. D., Arneth,
A., Barr, A., Stoy, P., and Wohlfahrt, G.: Separation of net ecosystem exchange
into assimilation and respiration using a light response curve approach:
Critical issues and global evaluation, Glob. Change Biol., 16, 187–208,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2009.02041.x, 2010.
Law, K., Stuart, A., and Zygalakis, K.: Data assimilation: A Mathematical
Introduction, Texts in Applied Mathematics, Cham, Switzerland:
Springer, 141, 1–242, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20325-6,
2015.
Lawrence, D. M., Fisher, R. A., Koven, C. D., Oleson, K. W., Swenson, S. C.,
Bonan, G., Collier, N., Ghimire, B., van Kampenhout, L., Kennedy, D., and
Zeng, X.: The Community Land Model version 5: Description of new features,
benchmarking, and impact of forcing uncertainty, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11,
4245–4287, https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001583, 2019.
Le Quéré, C., Peters, G. P., Andres, R. J., Andrew, R. M., Boden, T. A., Ciais, P., Friedlingstein, P., Houghton, R. A., Marland, G., Moriarty, R., Sitch, S., Tans, P., Arneth, A., Arvanitis, A., Bakker, D. C. E., Bopp, L., Canadell, J. G., Chini, L. P., Doney, S. C., Harper, A., Harris, I., House, J. I., Jain, A. K., Jones, S. D., Kato, E., Keeling, R. F., Klein Goldewijk, K., Körtzinger, A., Koven, C., Lefèvre, N., Maignan, F., Omar, A., Ono, T., Park, G.-H., Pfeil, B., Poulter, B., Raupach, M. R., Regnier, P., Rödenbeck, C., Saito, S., Schwinger, J., Segschneider, J., Stocker, B. D., Takahashi, T., Tilbrook, B., van Heuven, S., Viovy, N., Wanninkhof, R., Wiltshire, A., and Zaehle, S.: Global carbon budget 2013, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 6, 235–263, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-6-235-2014, 2014.
Le Quéré, C., Andrew, R. M., Canadell, J. G., Sitch, S., Korsbakken, J. I., Peters, G. P., Manning, A. C., Boden, T. A., Tans, P. P., Houghton, R. A., Keeling, R. F., Alin, S., Andrews, O. D., Anthoni, P., Barbero, L., Bopp, L., Chevallier, F., Chini, L. P., Ciais, P., Currie, K., Delire, C., Doney, S. C., Friedlingstein, P., Gkritzalis, T., Harris, I., Hauck, J., Haverd, V., Hoppema, M., Klein Goldewijk, K., Jain, A. K., Kato, E., Körtzinger, A., Landschützer, P., Lefèvre, N., Lenton, A., Lienert, S., Lombardozzi, D., Melton, J. R., Metzl, N., Millero, F., Monteiro, P. M. S., Munro, D. R., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Nakaoka, S., O'Brien, K., Olsen, A., Omar, A. M., Ono, T., Pierrot, D., Poulter, B., Rödenbeck, C., Salisbury, J., Schuster, U., Schwinger, J., Séférian, R., Skjelvan, I., Stocker, B. D., Sutton, A. J., Takahashi, T., Tian, H., Tilbrook, B., van der Laan-Luijkx, I. T., van der Werf, G. R., Viovy, N., Walker, A. P., Wiltshire, A. J., and Zaehle, S.: Global Carbon Budget 2016, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 8, 605–649, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-8-605-2016, 2016.
Li, W., Zhang, Y., Shi, X., Zhou, W., Huang, A., Mu, M., Qiu, B., and Ji,
J.: Development of land surface model BCC_AVIM2.0 and its
preliminary performance in LS3MIP/CMIP6, J. Meteorol. Res.-Prc., 33, 851–869,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13351-019-9016-y, 2019.
Liang, J., Qi, X., Souza, L., and Luo, Y.: Processes regulating progressive nitrogen limitation under elevated carbon dioxide: a meta-analysis, Biogeosciences, 13, 2689–2699, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-2689-2016, 2016.
Liu, Y., Xiao, J., Ju, W., Zhu, G., Wu, X., Fan, W., and Zhou, Y.:
Satellite-derived LAI products exhibit large discrepancies and can lead to
substantial uncertainty in simulated carbon and water fluxes, Remote Sens.
Environ., 206, 174–188, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2017.12.024, 2018.
Liu, Y. Y., Van Dijk, A. I., De Jeu, R. A., Canadell, J. G., McCabe, M. F.,
Evans, J. P., and Wang, G.: Recent reversal in loss of global terrestrial
biomass, Nat. Clim. Change, 5, 470–474, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2581, 2015.
Loveland, T. R., Reed, B. C., Brown, J. F., Ohlen, D. O., Zhu, Z., Yang, L.
W. M. J., and Merchant, J. W.: Development of a global land cover
characteristics database and IGBP DISCover from 1 km AVHRR data, Int. J.
Remote Sens., 21, 1303–1330,
https://doi.org/10.1080/014311600210191, 2000.
Lovenduski, N. S. and Bonan, G. B.: Reducing uncertainty in projections of
terrestrial carbon uptake, Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 044020, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa66b8, 2017.
Lovett, G. M., Cole, J. J., and Pace, M. L.: Is net ecosystem production
equal to ecosystem carbon accumulation?, Ecosystems, 9, 152–155, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-005-0036-3, 2006.
Mack, P. E.: Viewing the Earth: The social construction of the Landsat
satellite system, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States, available at: https://books.google.ca/books?id=Pk7WtI2MJPgC (last access: 1 May 2021), 1990.
Maki, T., Ikegami, M., Fujita, T., Hirahara, T., Yamada, K., Mori, K.,
Takeuchi, A., Tsutsumi, Y., Suda, K., and Conway, T. J.: New technique to
analyse global distributions of CO2 concentrations and fluxes from
non-processed observational data, Tellus B, 62, 797–809, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2010.00488.x, 2010.
Malhi, Y., Aragao, L. E. O., Metcalfe, D. B., Paiva, R., Quesada, C.
A., Almeida, S., Anderson, L., Brando, P., Chamber, J. Q., da Costa, A. C.
L., Hutyra, L. R., Oliveira, P., Patino, S., Pyle, E., Robertson, A., and
Teixeira, L.: Comprehensive assessment of carbon productivity, allocation
and storage in three Amazonian forests, Glob. Change Biol., 15, 1255–1274,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01780.x, 2009.
Mauritsen, T., Bader, J., Becker, T., Behrens, J., Bittner, M., Brokopf, R.,
Brovkin, V., Claussen, M., Crueger, T., Esch, M., Fast, I., Fiedler, S.,
Fläschner, D., Gayler, V., Giorgetta, M., Goll, D. S., Haak, H.,
Hagemann, S., Hedemann, C., Hohenegger, C., Ilyina, T., Jahns, T.,
Jimenéz-de-la-Cuesta, D., Jungclaus, J., Kleinen, T., Kloster, S.,
Kracher, D., Kinne, S., Kleberg, D., Lasslop, G., Kornblueh, L., Marotzke,
J., Matei, D., Meraner, K., Mikolajewicz, U., Modali, K., Möbis, B.,
Müller, W. A., Nabel, J. E. M. S., Nam, C. C. W., Notz, D., Nyawira,
S.-S., Paulsen, H., Peters, K., Pincus, R., Pohlmann, H., Pongratz, J.,
Popp, M., Raddatz, T. J., Rast, S., Redler, R., Reick, C. H., Rohrschneider,
T., Schemann, V., Schmidt, H., Schnur, R., Schulzweida, U., Six, K. D.,
Stein, L., Stemmler, I., Stevens, B., von Storch, J.- S., Tian, F., Voigt,
A., Vrese, P., Wieners, K.-H., Wilkenskjeld, S., Winkler, A., and Roeckner,
E.: Developments in the MPI-M Earth System Model version 1.2 (MPI-ESM1. 2)
and its response to increasing CO2, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 998–1038,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001400, 2019.
Mayorga, E., Seitzinger, S. P., Harrison, J. A., Dumont, E., Beusen, A. H.
W., Bouwman, A. F., Fekete, B. M., Kroeze, C., and Van Drecht, G.: Global
nutrient export from WaterSheds 2 (NEWS 2): model development and
implementation, Environ. Modell. Softw., 25, 837–853,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.01.007, 2010.
McGroddy, M. E., Daufresne, T., and Hedin, L. O.: Scaling of
Mitchell, T. D. and Jones, P. D.: An improved method of constructing a
database of monthly climate observations and associated high-resolution
grids, Int. J. Climatol., 25, 693–712, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1181, 2005.
Monfreda, C., Ramankutty, N., and Foley, J. A.: Farming the planet. Part 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.
Mouillot, F., and Field, C. B.: Fire history and the global carbon budget: A
1∘ × 1∘ fire history reconstruction for the
20th century, Glob. Change Biol., 11, 398–420, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.00920.x, 2005.
Myneni, R. B., Ramakrishna, R., Nemani, R., and Running, S. W.: Estimation
of global leaf area index and absorbed PAR using radiative transfer
models, IEEE T. Geosci. Remote, 35, 1380–1393,
https://doi.org/10.1109/36.649788, 1997.
NASA LP DAAC.: MOD17A3 Terra/MODIS net primary production yearly L4 global
1 km, NASA EOSDIS Land Processes DAAC, USGS Earth Resources Observation and
Science (EROS) Center, Sioux Falls, South Dakota,
https://doi.org/10.5067/ASTER/AST_L1T.003, 2017.
Norby, R. J., DeLucia, E. H., Gielen, B., Calfapietra, C., Giardina, C. P.,
King, J. S., and Oren, R.: Forest response to elevated CO2 is conserved
across a broad range of productivity, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 102, 18052–18056,
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0509478102, 2005.
Nowak, R. S., Ellsworth, D. S., and Smith, S. D.: Functional responses of
plants to elevated atmospheric CO2 – do photosynthetic and productivity
data from FACE experiments support early predictions?, New Phytol., 162,
253–280, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01033.x,
2004.
Olson, D. M., Dinerstein, E., Wikramanayake, E. D., Burgess, N. D., Powell,
G. V. N., Underwood, E. C., D'amico, J. A., Itoua, I., Strand, H.
E., Morrison, J. C., Loucks, C. J., Allnutt, T. F., Ricketts, T. H., Kura,
Y., Lamoreux, J. F., Wettengel, W. W., Hedao, P., and Kassem, K. R.:
Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Life on
Earth, BioScience, 51, 933–938, https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0933:TEOTWA]2.0.CO;2, 2006.
Orth, R., Dutra, E., Trigo, I. F., and Balsamo, G.: Advancing land surface model development with satellite-based Earth observations, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 2483–2495, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-2483-2017, 2017.
Pastorello, G., Trotta, C., Canfora, E., Chu, H., Christianson, D., Cheah,
Y. W., and Li, Y.: The Fluxnet2015 dataset and the ONEFlux processing pipeline
for eddy covariance data, Sci. Data, 7, 1–27, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0534-3, 2020.
Phillips, L. B., Hansen, A. J., and Flather, C. H.: Evaluating the species
energy relationship with the newest measures of ecosystem energy: NDVI
versus MODIS primary production, Remote Sens. Environ., 112, 4381–4392,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2008.04.012, 2008.
Piao, S., Liu, Q., Chen, A., Janssens, I. A., Fu, Y., Dai, J., and Zhu, X.:
Plant phenology and global climate change: Current progresses and
challenges, Glob. Change Biol., 25, 1922–1940, https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14619, 2019.
Poulter, B., MacBean, N., Hartley, A., Khlystova, I., Arino, O., Betts, R., Bontemps, S., Boettcher, M., Brockmann, C., Defourny, P., Hagemann, S., Herold, M., Kirches, G., Lamarche, C., Lederer, D., Ottlé, C., Peters, M., and Peylin, P.: Plant functional type classification for earth system models: results from the European Space Agency's Land Cover Climate Change Initiative, Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 2315–2328, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-2315-2015, 2015.
Randerson, J. T., van der Werf, G. R., Giglio, L., Collatz, G. J., and Kasibhatla, P. S.: Global fire emissions database, version 4.1 (GFEDv4), ORNL
DAAC, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA, https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1293, 2017.
Reichler, T. and Kim, J.: How well do coupled models simulate today's
climate?, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 89, 303–312, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-89-3-303, 2008.
Richardson, A. D., Keenan, T. F., Migliavacca, M., Ryu, Y., Sonnentag, O.,
and Toomey, M.: Climate change, phenology, and phenological control of
vegetation feedbacks to the climate system, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 169,
156–173, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.09.012, 2013.
Richardson, A. D., Hufkens, K., Milliman, T., Aubrecht, D. M., Furze, M. E.,
Seyednasrollah, B., and Hanson, P. J.: Ecosystem warming extends vegetation
activity but heightens vulnerability to cold temperatures, Nature, 560,
368–371, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0399-1, 2018.
Righi, M., Andela, B., Eyring, V., Lauer, A., Predoi, V., Schlund, M., Vegas-Regidor, J., Bock, L., Brötz, B., de Mora, L., Diblen, F., Dreyer, L., Drost, N., Earnshaw, P., Hassler, B., Koldunov, N., Little, B., Loosveldt Tomas, S., and Zimmermann, K.: Earth System Model Evaluation Tool (ESMValTool) v2.0 – technical overview, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 1179–1199, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1179-2020, 2020.
Rodda, S. R., Thumaty, K. C., Praveen, M. S. S., Jha, C. S., and Dadhwal, V.
K.: Multi-year eddy covariance measurements of net ecosystem exchange in
tropical dry deciduous forest of India, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 301, 108351,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2021.108351, 2021.
Saatchi, S. S., Harris, N. L., Brown, S., Lefsky, M., Mitchard, E. T.,
Salas, W., Zutta, B. R., Buermann, W., Lewis, S. L., Hagen, S., and Morel, A.:
Benchmark map of forest carbon stocks in tropical regions across three
continents, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 108, 9899–9904, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1019576108, 2011.
Santoro, M., Beaudoin, A., Beer, C., Cartus, O., Fransson, J. B. S., Hall,
R. J., Pathe, C., Schmullius, C., Schepaschenko, D., Shvidenko, A., Thurner,
M., and Wegmüller, U.: Forest growing stock volume of the northern
hemisphere: Spatially explicit estimates for 2010 derived from Envisat
ASAR, Remote Sens. Environ., 168, 316–334, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2015.07.005, 2015.
Saugier, B., Roy, J., and Mooney, H. A.: 23 – Estimations of Global Terrestrial Productivity: Converging toward a Single Number?, in: Physiological Ecology, Global Terrestrial Productivity, Academic Press,
San Diego, USA, 543–557, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012505290-0/50024-7, 2001.
Schlesinger, W. H.: Biogeochemistry: An analysis of global change, 2nd edn.,
Academic Press, Oxford, United Kingdom, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016756898231505,
1997.
Séférian, R., Nabat, P., Michou, M., Saint-Martin, D., Voldoire, A.,
Colin, J., and Madec, G.: Evaluation of CNRM Earth System Model, CNRM-ESM2-1:
Role of Earth System Processes in Present-Day and Future Climate, J. Adv.
Model. Earth Sy., 11, 4182–4227, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001791, 2019.
Seland, Ø., Bentsen, M., Olivié, D., Toniazzo, T., Gjermundsen, A., Graff, L. S., Debernard, J. B., Gupta, A. K., He, Y.-C., Kirkevåg, A., Schwinger, J., Tjiputra, J., Aas, K. S., Bethke, I., Fan, Y., Griesfeller, J., Grini, A., Guo, C., Ilicak, M., Karset, I. H. H., Landgren, O., Liakka, J., Moseid, K. O., Nummelin, A., Spensberger, C., Tang, H., Zhang, Z., Heinze, C., Iversen, T., and Schulz, M.: Overview of the Norwegian Earth System Model (NorESM2) and key climate response of CMIP6 DECK, historical, and scenario simulations, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 6165–6200, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-6165-2020, 2020.
Sellar, A. A., Jones, C. G., Mulcahy, J. P., Tang, Y., Yool, A., Wiltshire,
A., and Zerroukat, M.: UKESM1: Description and evaluation of the UK Earth System
Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 4513–4558, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001739, 2019.
Sheffield, J., Goteti, G., and Wood, E. F.: Development of a 50-year
high-resolution global dataset of meteorological forcings for land surface
modeling, J. Climate, 19, 3088–3111, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3790.1, 2006.
Shevliakova, E., Malyshev, S., Martinez-Cano, I., Milly, P. C. D., Pacala,
S. W., Ginoux, P., Dunne, K. A., Dunne, J. P., Dupius, C., Findell, K.,
Ghannam, K., Horowitz, L. W., John, J. G., Knutson, T. R., Krasting, J. P.,
Naik, V., Zadeh, N., Zeng, F., and Zeng, Y.: The land component LM4. 1 of
the GFDL Earth System Model ESM4. 1: biophysical and biogeochemical
processes and interactions with climate, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy.,
2019MS002040, in review, 2021.
Simard, M., Pinto, N., Fisher, J. B., and Baccini, A.: Mapping forest canopy
height globally with spaceborne lidar, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 116, G04021,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JG001708, 2011.
Swart, N. C., Cole, J. N. S., Kharin, V. V., Lazare, M., Scinocca, J. F., Gillett, N. P., Anstey, J., Arora, V., Christian, J. R., Hanna, S., Jiao, Y., Lee, W. G., Majaess, F., Saenko, O. A., Seiler, C., Seinen, C., Shao, A., Sigmond, M., Solheim, L., von Salzen, K., Yang, D., and Winter, B.: The Canadian Earth System Model version 5 (CanESM5.0.3), Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4823–4873, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4823-2019, 2019.
Taylor, K. E.: Summarizing multiple aspects of model performance in a single
diagram, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 106, 7183–7192, https://doi.org/10.1029/2000JD900719, 2001.
Thurner, M., Beer, C., Santoro, M., Carvalhais, N., Wutzler,
T., Schepaschenko, D., Shvidenko, A., Kompter, E., Ahrens, B., Levick, S.
R., and Schmullius, C.: Carbon stock and density of northern boreal and
temperate forests, Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 23, 297–310, https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12125, 2014.
Tian, H., Yang, J., Lu, C., Xu, R., Canadell, J. G., Jackson, R. B., Arneth,
A., Chang, J., Chen, G., Ciais, P., Gerber, S., Ito, A., Huang, Y., Joos,
F., Lienert, S., Messina, P., Olin, S., Pan, S., Peng, C., Saikawa, E.,
Thompson, R. L., Vuichard, N., Winiwarter, W., Zaehle, S., Zhang, B., Zhang,
K., and Zhu, Q.: The global N2O model intercomparison project, B. Am.
Meteorol. Soc., 99, 1231–1251, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-17-0212.1, 2018.
Todd-Brown, K. E. O., Randerson, J. T., Post, W. M., Hoffman, F. M., Tarnocai, C., Schuur, E. A. G., and Allison, S. D.: Causes of variation in soil carbon simulations from CMIP5 Earth system models and comparison with observations, Biogeosciences, 10, 1717–1736, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-1717-2013, 2013.
Tramontana, G., Jung, M., Schwalm, C. R., Ichii, K., Camps-Valls, G., Ráduly, B., Reichstein, M., Arain, M. A., Cescatti, A., Kiely, G., Merbold, L., Serrano-Ortiz, P., Sickert, S., Wolf, S., and Papale, D.: Predicting carbon dioxide and energy fluxes across global FLUXNET sites with regression algorithms, Biogeosciences, 13, 4291–4313, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-13-4291-2016, 2016.
Tucker, C. J., Fung, I. Y., Keeling, C. D., and Gammon, R. H.: Relationship
between atmospheric CO2 variations and a satellite-derived vegetation
index, Nature, 319, 195–199, https://doi.org/10.1038/319195a0,
1986.
Twine, T. E., Kustas, W. P., Norman, J. M., Cook, D. R., Houser, P., Meyers,
T. P., and Wesely, M. L.: Correcting eddy-covariance flux underestimates
over a grassland, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 103, 279–300, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1923(00)00123-4, 2000.
Umair, M., Kim, D., Ray, R. L., and Choi, M.: Estimating land surface
variables and sensitivity analysis for CLM and VIC simulations using remote
sensing products, Sci. Total Environ., 633, 470–483, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.138, 2018.
Vafaei, S., Soosani, J., Adeli, K., Fadaei, H., Naghavi, H., Pham, T. D.,
and Tien Bui, D.: Improving accuracy estimation of Forest Aboveground
Biomass based on incorporation of ALOS-2 PALSAR-2 and Sentinel-2A imagery
and machine learning: A case study of the Hyrcanian forest area
(Iran), Remote Sens., 10, 172, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10020172, 2018.
van den Hurk, B., Kim, H., Krinner, G., Seneviratne, S. I., Derksen, C., Oki, T., Douville, H., Colin, J., Ducharne, A., Cheruy, F., Viovy, N., Puma, M. J., Wada, Y., Li, W., Jia, B., Alessandri, A., Lawrence, D. M., Weedon, G. P., Ellis, R., Hagemann, S., Mao, J., Flanner, M. G., Zampieri, M., Materia, S., Law, R. M., and Sheffield, J.: LS3MIP (v1.0) contribution to CMIP6: the Land Surface, Snow and Soil moisture Model Intercomparison Project – aims, setup and expected outcome, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 2809–2832, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-2809-2016, 2016.
van der Werf, G. R., Randerson, J. T., Giglio, L., van Leeuwen, T. T., Chen, Y., Rogers, B. M., Mu, M., van Marle, M. J. E., Morton, D. C., Collatz, G. J., Yokelson, R. J., and Kasibhatla, P. S.: Global fire emissions estimates during 1997–2016, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 9, 697–720, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-9-697-2017, 2017.
Verger, A., Filella, I., Baret, F., and Peñuelas, J.: Vegetation
baseline phenology from kilometric global LAI satellite products, Remote
Sens. Environ., 178, 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2016.02.057, 2016.
Vitousek, P. M., Menge, D. N., Reed, S. C., and Cleveland, C. C.: Biological
nitrogen fixation: rates, patterns and ecological controls in terrestrial
ecosystems, Philos. T. R. Soc. B, 368, 20130119, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0119, 2013.
Vuichard, N. and Papale, D.: Filling the gaps in meteorological continuous data measured at FLUXNET sites with ERA-Interim reanalysis, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 7, 157–171, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-7-157-2015, 2015.
Vuichard, N., Messina, P., Luyssaert, S., Guenet, B., Zaehle, S., Ghattas, J., Bastrikov, V., and Peylin, P.: Accounting for carbon and nitrogen interactions in the global terrestrial ecosystem model ORCHIDEE (trunk version, rev 4999): multi-scale evaluation of gross primary production, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4751–4779, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4751-2019, 2019.
Waliser, D., Gleckler, P. J., Ferraro, R., Taylor, K. E., Ames, S., Biard, J., Bosilovich, M. G., Brown, O., Chepfer, H., Cinquini, L., Durack, P. J., Eyring, V., Mathieu, P.-P., Lee, T., Pinnock, S., Potter, G. L., Rixen, M., Saunders, R., Schulz, J., Thépaut, J.-N., and Tuma, M.: Observations for Model Intercomparison Project (Obs4MIPs): status for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 2945–2958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2945-2020, 2020.
WCRP: CMIP Phase 6 (CMIP6), available at: https://www.wcrp-climate.org/wgcm-cmip/wgcm-cmip6 (last access: 23 January 2021), 2020.
Wei, J., Dirmeyer, P. A., Yang, Z. L., and Chen, H.: Effect of land model
ensemble versus coupled model ensemble on the simulation of precipitation
climatology and variability, Theor. Appl. Climatol., 134, 793–800, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-017-2310-7, 2018.
Wieder, W.: Regridded Harmonized World Soil Database v1.2, ORNL DAAC, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee, USA, https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/1247,
2014.
Wieder, W. R., Cleveland, C. C., Smith, W. K., and Todd-Brown, K.: Future
productivity and carbon storage limited by terrestrial nutrient
availability, Nat. Geosci., 8, 441–444, https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2413, 2015.
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.
Wu, T., Lu, Y., Fang, Y., Xin, X., Li, L., Li, W., Jie, W., Zhang, J., Liu, Y., Zhang, L., Zhang, F., Zhang, Y., Wu, F., Li, J., Chu, M., Wang, Z., Shi, X., Liu, X., Wei, M., Huang, A., Zhang, Y., and Liu, X.: The Beijing Climate Center Climate System Model (BCC-CSM): the main progress from CMIP5 to CMIP6 , Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 1573–1600, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1573-2019, 2019.
Xiao, J., Chevallier, F., Gomez, C., Guanter, L., Hicke, J. A., Huete, A.
R., and Zhang, X.: Remote sensing of the terrestrial carbon cycle: A review
of advances over 50 years, Remote Sens. Environ., 233, 111383, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111383, 2019.
Xie, X., Li, A., Tan, J., Lei, G., Jin, H., and Zhang, Z.: Uncertainty
analysis of multiple global GPP datasets in characterizing the lagged effect
of drought on photosynthesis, Ecol. Indic., 113, 106224, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106224, 2020.
Xu, Z., Jiang, Y., Jia, B., and Zhou, G.: Elevated-CO2 response of
stomata and its dependence on environmental factors, Front. Plant Sci., 7,
657, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00657, 2016.
Yan, Y., Zhou, X., Jiang, L., and Luo, Y.: Effects of carbon turnover time on terrestrial ecosystem carbon storage, Biogeosciences, 14, 5441–5454, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-14-5441-2017, 2017.
Yoshikawa, C., Kawamiya, M., Kato, T., Yamanaka, Y., and Matsuno, T.:
Geographical distribution of the feedback between future climate change and
the carbon cycle, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 113, G03002,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JG000570, 2008.
Zaehle, S. and Dalmonech, D.: Carbon–nitrogen interactions on land at
global scales: current understanding in modelling climate biosphere
feedbacks, Curr. Opin. Env. Sust., 3, 311–320, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2011.08.008, 2011.
Zhang, Y. J., Yu, G. R., Yang, J., Wimberly, M. C., Zhang, X. Z., Tao,
J., Jiang, Y. B., and Zhu, J. T.: Climate-driven global changes in carbon
use efficiency, Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 23, 144–155, https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12086, 2014.
Zhang, Z., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Gobron, N., Frankenberg, C., Wang, S., and
Li, Z.: The potential of satellite FPAR product for GPP estimation: An
indirect evaluation using solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence, Remote
Sens. Environ., 240, 111686, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2020.111686, 2020.
Zhao, M., Heinsch, F. A., Nemani, R. R., and Running, S. W.: Improvements of
the MODIS terrestrial gross and net primary production global data
set, Remote Sens. Environ., 95, 164–176, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2004.12.011, 2005.
Zhu, Q., Castellano, M. J., and Yang, G.: Coupling soil water processes and
the nitrogen cycle across spatial scales: Potentials, bottlenecks and
solutions, Earth-Sci. Rev., 187, 248–258, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2018.10.005, 2018.
Zhu, Z., Bi, J., Pan, Y., Ganguly, S., Anav, A., Xu, L., Samanta, A., Piao,
S., Nemani, R. R., and Myneni, R. B.: Global data sets of vegetation leaf
area index (LAI)3g and fraction of photosynthetically active radiation
(FPAR)3g derived from global inventory modeling and mapping studies (GIMMS)
normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI3g) for the period 1981 to
2011, Remote Sens., 5, 927–948, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs5020927, 2013.
Ziehn, T., Kattge, J., Knorr, W., and Scholze, M.: Improving the
predictability of global CO2 assimilation rates under climate
change, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L10404,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL047182, 2011.
Ziehn, T., Chamberlain, M. A., Law, R. M., Lenton, A., Bodman, R. W., Dix,
M., Stevens, L., Wang, Y. P., and Srbinovsky, J.: The Australian Earth System
Model: ACCESS-ESM1.5, Journal of Southern Hemisphere Earth Systems
Science, 70, 193–214, https://doi.org/10.1071/ES19035, 2020.
Short summary
Land biogeochemical cycles influence global climate change. Their influence is examined through complex computer models that account for the interaction of the land, ocean, and atmosphere. Improved models used in the recent round of model intercomparison used inconsistent validation methods to compare simulated land biogeochemistry to datasets. For the next round of model intercomparisons we recommend a validation protocol with explicit reference datasets and informative performance metrics.
Land biogeochemical cycles influence global climate change. Their influence is examined through...
