Articles | Volume 15, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-1375-2022
© Author(s) 2022. 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-15-1375-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Model evaluation paper
| 
17 Feb 2022
Model evaluation paper |
| 17 Feb 2022
| 17 Feb 2022
A circulation-based performance atlas of the CMIP5 and 6 models for regional climate studies in the Northern Hemisphere mid-to-high latitudes
MeteoGalicia, Consellería de Medio Ambiente, Territorio y Vivienda – Xunta de Galicia, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
Tragsatec, Santiago de Compostela, Spain
Related authors
Forrest M. Hoffman, Birgit Hassler, Ranjini Swaminathan, Jared Lewis, Bouwe Andela, Nathaniel Collier, Dóra Hegedűs, Jiwoo Lee, Charlotte Pascoe, Mika Pflüger, Martina Stockhause, Paul Ullrich, Min Xu, Lisa Bock, Felicity Chun, Bettina K. Gier, Douglas I. Kelley, Axel Lauer, Julien Lenhardt, Manuel Schlund, Mohanan G. Sreeush, Katja Weigel, Ed Blockley, Rebecca Beadling, Romain Beucher, Demiso D. Dugassa, Valerio Lembo, Jianhua Lu, Swen Brands, Jerry Tjiputra, Elizaveta Malinina, Brian Mederios, Enrico Scoccimarro, Jeremy Walton, Philip Kershaw, André L. Marquez, Malcolm J. Roberts, Eleanor O’Rourke, Elisabeth Dingley, Briony Turner, Helene Hewitt, and John P. Dunne
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2685, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2685, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
As Earth system models become more complex, rapid and comprehensive evaluation through comparison with observational data is necessary. The upcoming Assessment Fast Track for the Seventh Phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP7) will require fast analysis. This paper describes a new Rapid Evaluation Framework (REF) that was developed for the Assessment Fast Track that will be run at the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) to inform the community about the performance of models.
Swen Brands, Guillermo Fernández-García, Marta García Vivanco, Marcos Tesouro Montecelo, Nuria Gallego Fernández, Anthony David Saunders Estévez, Pablo Enrique Carracedo García, Anabela Neto Venâncio, Pedro Melo Da Costa, Paula Costa Tomé, Cristina Otero, María Luz Macho, and Juan Taboada
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3947–3973, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3947-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3947-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The capability of numerical models to predict air quality depends on many factors. Here, the role of the applied model resolution, emission configuration and model chemistry is assessed for the CHIMERE model and the northwestern Iberian Peninsula. Although heterogeneous results are obtained, the forecasts can be systematically improved by increasing the vertical resolution in the lower and middle troposphere. This finding might also apply to other regions with similar characteristics.
Swen Brands, Guillermo Fernández-García, Marcos Tesouro Montecelo, Nuria Gallego Fernández, Anthony David Saunders Estévez, Pablo Enrique Carracedo García, Anabela Neto Venancio, Pedro Melo da Costa, Paula Costa Tomé, Christina Otero, María Luz Macho, and Juan Taboada
Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2019-351, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2019-351, 2019
Revised manuscript not accepted
Short summary
Short summary
The capability of numerical models used to predict air quality depends on many factors. Here, the role of model resolution and model chemistry is assessed for the CHIMERE model and the northwestern Iberian Peninsula. Forecasts are improved particularly by increasing the vertical resolution in the lower and middle troposphere. This finding might help to achieve better forecasts in other regions as well.
Forrest M. Hoffman, Birgit Hassler, Ranjini Swaminathan, Jared Lewis, Bouwe Andela, Nathaniel Collier, Dóra Hegedűs, Jiwoo Lee, Charlotte Pascoe, Mika Pflüger, Martina Stockhause, Paul Ullrich, Min Xu, Lisa Bock, Felicity Chun, Bettina K. Gier, Douglas I. Kelley, Axel Lauer, Julien Lenhardt, Manuel Schlund, Mohanan G. Sreeush, Katja Weigel, Ed Blockley, Rebecca Beadling, Romain Beucher, Demiso D. Dugassa, Valerio Lembo, Jianhua Lu, Swen Brands, Jerry Tjiputra, Elizaveta Malinina, Brian Mederios, Enrico Scoccimarro, Jeremy Walton, Philip Kershaw, André L. Marquez, Malcolm J. Roberts, Eleanor O’Rourke, Elisabeth Dingley, Briony Turner, Helene Hewitt, and John P. Dunne
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2685, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2685, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Geoscientific Model Development (GMD).
Short summary
Short summary
As Earth system models become more complex, rapid and comprehensive evaluation through comparison with observational data is necessary. The upcoming Assessment Fast Track for the Seventh Phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP7) will require fast analysis. This paper describes a new Rapid Evaluation Framework (REF) that was developed for the Assessment Fast Track that will be run at the Earth System Grid Federation (ESGF) to inform the community about the performance of models.
Swen Brands, Guillermo Fernández-García, Marta García Vivanco, Marcos Tesouro Montecelo, Nuria Gallego Fernández, Anthony David Saunders Estévez, Pablo Enrique Carracedo García, Anabela Neto Venâncio, Pedro Melo Da Costa, Paula Costa Tomé, Cristina Otero, María Luz Macho, and Juan Taboada
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3947–3973, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3947-2020, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3947-2020, 2020
Short summary
Short summary
The capability of numerical models to predict air quality depends on many factors. Here, the role of the applied model resolution, emission configuration and model chemistry is assessed for the CHIMERE model and the northwestern Iberian Peninsula. Although heterogeneous results are obtained, the forecasts can be systematically improved by increasing the vertical resolution in the lower and middle troposphere. This finding might also apply to other regions with similar characteristics.
Swen Brands, Guillermo Fernández-García, Marcos Tesouro Montecelo, Nuria Gallego Fernández, Anthony David Saunders Estévez, Pablo Enrique Carracedo García, Anabela Neto Venancio, Pedro Melo da Costa, Paula Costa Tomé, Christina Otero, María Luz Macho, and Juan Taboada
Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2019-351, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2019-351, 2019
Revised manuscript not accepted
Short summary
Short summary
The capability of numerical models used to predict air quality depends on many factors. Here, the role of model resolution and model chemistry is assessed for the CHIMERE model and the northwestern Iberian Peninsula. Forecasts are improved particularly by increasing the vertical resolution in the lower and middle troposphere. This finding might help to achieve better forecasts in other regions as well.
Related subject area
Climate and Earth system modeling
Modelling emission and transport of key components of primary marine organic aerosol using the global aerosol–climate model ECHAM6.3–HAM2.3
Assessing the climate impact of an improved volcanic sulfate aerosol representation in E3SM
Advanced climate model evaluation with ESMValTool v2.11.0 using parallel, out-of-core, and distributed computing
ICON-HAM-lite 1.0: simulating the Earth system with interactive aerosols at kilometer scales
Process-based modeling framework for sustainable irrigation management at the regional scale: integrating rice production, water use, and greenhouse gas emissions
Implementing deep soil and dynamic root uptake in Noah-MP (v4.5): impact on Amazon dry-season transpiration
Reducing time and computing costs in EC-Earth: an automatic load-balancing approach for coupled Earth system models
FLAME 1.0: a novel approach for modelling burned area in the Brazilian biomes using the maximum entropy concept
SURFER v3.0: a fast model with ice sheet tipping points and carbon cycle feedbacks for short- and long-term climate scenarios
NMH-CS 3.0: a C# programming language and Windows-system-based ecohydrological model derived from Noah-MP
A method for quantifying uncertainty in spatially interpolated meteorological data with application to daily maximum air temperature
Baseline Climate Variables for Earth System Modelling
PaleoSTeHM v1.0: a modern, scalable spatiotemporal hierarchical modeling framework for paleo-environmental data
The Tropical Basin Interaction Model Intercomparison Project (TBIMIP)
ZEMBA v1.0: an energy and moisture balance climate model to investigate Quaternary climate
Development and evaluation of a new 4DEnVar-based weakly coupled ocean data assimilation system in E3SMv2
TemDeep: a self-supervised framework for temporal downscaling of atmospheric fields at arbitrary time resolutions
The ensemble consistency test: from CESM to MPAS and beyond
Presentation, calibration and testing of the DCESS II Earth system model of intermediate complexity (version 1.0)
Synthesizing global carbon–nitrogen coupling effects – the MAGICC coupled carbon–nitrogen cycle model v1.0
Historical trends and controlling factors of isoprene emissions in CMIP6 Earth system models
Investigating carbon and nitrogen conservation in reported CMIP6 Earth system model data
OpenBench: a land models evaluation system
From weather data to river runoff: using spatiotemporal convolutional networks for discharge forecasting
A Fortran–Python interface for integrating machine learning parameterization into earth system models
ROCKE-3D 2.0: An updated general circulation model for simulating the climates of rocky planets
A rapid-application emissions-to-impacts tool for scenario assessment: Probabilistic Regional Impacts from Model patterns and Emissions (PRIME)
The DOE E3SM version 2.1: overview and assessment of the impacts of parameterized ocean submesoscales
WRF-ELM v1.0: a regional climate model to study land–atmosphere interactions over heterogeneous land use regions
Modeling commercial-scale CO2 storage in the gas hydrate stability zone with PFLOTRAN v6.0
DiuSST: a conceptual model of diurnal warm layers for idealized atmospheric simulations with interactive sea surface temperature
High-Resolution Model Intercomparison Project phase 2 (HighResMIP2) towards CMIP7
T&C-CROP: representing mechanistic crop growth with a terrestrial biosphere model (T&C, v1.5) – model formulation and validation
An updated non-intrusive, multi-scale, and flexible coupling interface in WRF 4.6.0
Monitoring and benchmarking Earth system model simulations with ESMValTool v2.12.0
The Earth Science Box Modeling Toolkit (ESBMTK 0.14.0.11): a Python library for research and teaching
CropSuite v1.0 – a comprehensive open-source crop suitability model considering climate variability for climate impact assessment
ICON ComIn – the ICON Community Interface (ComIn version 0.1.0, with ICON version 2024.01-01)
Using feature importance as an exploratory data analysis tool on Earth system models
A new metrics framework for quantifying and intercomparing atmospheric rivers in observations, reanalyses, and climate models
The real challenges for climate and weather modelling on its way to sustained exascale performance: a case study using ICON (v2.6.6)
COSP-RTTOV-1.0: Flexible radiation diagnostics to enable new science applications in model evaluation, climate change detection, and satellite mission design
Impact of spatial resolution on CMIP6-driven Mediterranean climate simulations: a focus on precipitation distribution over Italy
Improving the representation of major Indian crops in the Community Land Model version 5.0 (CLM5) using site-scale crop data
Evaluation of CORDEX ERA5-forced NARCliM2.0 regional climate models over Australia using the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model version 4.1.2
Design, evaluation, and future projections of the NARCliM2.0 CORDEX-CMIP6 Australasia regional climate ensemble
The Detection and Attribution Model Intercomparison Project (DAMIP v2.0) contribution to CMIP7
Statistical summaries for streamed data from climate simulations: One-pass algorithms (v0.6.2)
Amending the algorithm of aerosol–radiation interactions in WRF-Chem (v4.4)
The very-high-resolution configuration of the EC-Earth global model for HighResMIP
Anisbel Leon-Marcos, Moritz Zeising, Manuela van Pinxteren, Sebastian Zeppenfeld, Astrid Bracher, Elena Barbaro, Anja Engel, Matteo Feltracco, Ina Tegen, and Bernd Heinold
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4183–4213, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4183-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4183-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study represents the primary marine organic aerosol (PMOA) emissions, focusing on their sea–atmosphere transfer. Using the FESOM2.1–REcoM3 model, concentrations of key organic biomolecules were estimated and integrated into the ECHAM6.3–HAM2.3 aerosol–climate model. Results highlight the influence of marine biological activity and surface winds on PMOA emissions, with reasonably good agreement with observations improving aerosol representation in the southern oceans.
Ziming Ke, Qi Tang, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Xiaohong Liu, and Hailong Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4137–4153, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4137-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4137-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This study assesses volcanic aerosol representation in E3SM (Energy Exascale Earth System Model), showing that an emission-based approach moderately improves temperature variability and cloud responses compared to a prescribed forcing approach, yet significant bias persists.
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., 18, 4009–4021, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4009-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4009-2025, 2025
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.
Philipp Weiss, Ross Herbert, and Philip Stier
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3877–3894, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3877-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3877-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Aerosols strongly influence Earth's climate as they interact with radiation and clouds. New Earth system models run at resolutions of a few kilometers. To simulate the Earth system with interactive aerosols, we developed a new aerosol module. It represents aerosols as an ensemble of lognormal modes with given sizes and compositions. We present a year-long simulation with four modes at a resolution of 5 km. It captures key processes like the formation of dust storms in the Sahara.
Yan Bo, Hao Liang, Tao Li, and Feng Zhou
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3799–3817, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3799-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3799-2025, 2025
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 vital 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 multi-objective optimization of rice irrigation schemes at a large scale.
Carolina A. Bieri, Francina Dominguez, Gonzalo Miguez-Macho, and Ying Fan
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3755–3779, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3755-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3755-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Access to deep moisture below the Earth's surface is important for vegetation in areas of the Amazon where there is little precipitation for part of the year. Most existing numerical models of the Earth system do not adequately capture where and when deep root water uptake occurs. We address this by adding deep soil layers and a root water uptake feature to an existing model. Out modifications lead to increased dry-month transpiration and improved simulation of the annual transpiration cycle.
Sergi Palomas, Mario C. Acosta, Gladys Utrera, and Etienne Tourigny
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3661–3679, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3661-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3661-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present an automatic tool that optimizes resource distribution in coupled climate models, enhancing speed and reducing computational costs without requiring expert knowledge. Users can set energy/time criteria or limit resource usage. Tested on various European Community Earth System Model (EC-Earth) configurations and high-performance computing (HPC) platforms, it achieved up to 34 % faster simulations with fewer resources.
Maria Lucia Ferreira Barbosa, Douglas I. Kelley, Chantelle A. Burton, Igor J. M. Ferreira, Renata Moura da Veiga, Anna Bradley, Paulo Guilherme Molin, and Liana O. Anderson
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3533–3557, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3533-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3533-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
As fire seasons in Brazil become increasingly severe, confidently understanding the factors driving fires is more critical than ever. To address this challenge, we developed FLAME (Fire Landscape Analysis using Maximum Entropy), a new model designed to predict fires and to analyse the spatial influence of both environmental and human factors while accounting for uncertainties. By adapting the model to different regions, we can enhance fire management strategies, making FLAME a powerful tool for protecting landscapes in Brazil and beyond.
Victor Couplet, Marina Martínez Montero, and Michel Crucifix
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3081–3129, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3081-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3081-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present SURFER v3.0, a simple climate model designed to estimate the impact of CO2 and CH4 emissions on global temperatures, sea levels, and ocean pH. We added new carbon cycle processes and calibrated the model to observations and results from more complex models, enabling use over timescales ranging from decades to millions of years. SURFER v3.0 is fast, transparent, and easy to use, making it an ideal tool for policy assessments and suitable for educational purposes.
Yong-He Liu and Zong-Liang Yang
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3157–3174, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3157-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3157-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
NMH-CS 3.0 is a C#-based ecohydrological model reconstructed from the WRF-Hydro/Noah-MP model by translating the Fortran code of WRF-Hydro 3.0 and integrating a parallel river routing module. It enables efficient execution on multi-core personal computers. Simulations in the Yellow River basin demonstrate its consistency with WRF-Hydro outputs, providing a reliable alternative to the original Noah-MP model.
Conor T. Doherty, Weile Wang, Hirofumi Hashimoto, and Ian G. Brosnan
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3003–3016, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3003-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3003-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present, analyze, and validate a methodology for quantifying uncertainty in gridded meteorological data products produced by spatial interpolation. In a validation case study using daily maximum near-surface air temperature (Tmax), the method works well and produces predictive distributions with closely matching theoretical versus actual coverage levels. Application of the method reveals that the magnitude of uncertainty in interpolated Tmax varies significantly in both space and time.
Martin Juckes, Karl E. Taylor, Fabrizio Antonio, David Brayshaw, Carlo Buontempo, Jian Cao, Paul J. Durack, Michio Kawamiya, Hyungjun Kim, Tomas Lovato, Chloe Mackallah, Matthew Mizielinski, Alessandra Nuzzo, Martina Stockhause, Daniele Visioni, Jeremy Walton, Briony Turner, Eleanor O'Rourke, and Beth Dingley
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2639–2663, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2639-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2639-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Baseline Climate Variables for Earth System Modelling (ESM-BCVs) are defined as a list of 135 variables which have high utility for the evaluation and exploitation of climate simulations. The list reflects the most frequently used variables from Earth system models based on an assessment of data publication and download records from the largest archive of global climate projects.
Yucheng Lin, Robert E. Kopp, Alexander Reedy, Matteo Turilli, Shantenu Jha, and Erica L. Ashe
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2609–2637, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2609-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2609-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
PaleoSTeHM v1.0 is a state-of-the-art framework designed to reconstruct past environmental conditions using geological data. Built on modern machine learning techniques, it efficiently handles the sparse and noisy nature of paleo-records, allowing scientists to make accurate and scalable inferences about past environmental change. By using flexible statistical models, PaleoSTeHM separates different sources of uncertainty, improving the precision of historical climate reconstructions.
Ingo Richter, Ping Chang, Ping-Gin Chiu, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Takeshi Doi, Dietmar Dommenget, Guillaume Gastineau, Zoe E. Gillett, Aixue Hu, Takahito Kataoka, Noel S. Keenlyside, Fred Kucharski, Yuko M. Okumura, Wonsun Park, Malte F. Stuecker, Andréa S. Taschetto, Chunzai Wang, Stephen G. Yeager, and Sang-Wook Yeh
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2587–2608, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2587-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2587-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Tropical ocean basins influence each other through multiple pathways and mechanisms, referred to here as tropical basin interaction (TBI). Many researchers have examined TBI using comprehensive climate models but have obtained conflicting results. This may be partly due to differences in experiment protocols and partly due to systematic model errors. The Tropical Basin Interaction Model Intercomparison Project (TBIMIP) aims to address this problem by designing a set of TBI experiments that will be performed by multiple models.
Daniel F. J. Gunning, Kerim H. Nisancioglu, Emilie Capron, and Roderik S. W. van de Wal
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2479–2508, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2479-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2479-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This work documents the first results from ZEMBA: an energy balance model of the climate system. The model is a computationally efficient tool designed to study the response of climate to changes in the Earth's orbit. We demonstrate that ZEMBA reproduces many features of the Earth's climate for both the pre-industrial period and the Earth's most recent cold extreme – the Last Glacial Maximum. We intend to develop ZEMBA further and investigate the glacial cycles of the last 2.5 million years.
Pengfei Shi, L. Ruby Leung, and Bin Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2443–2460, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2443-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2443-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Improving climate predictions has significant socio-economic impacts. In this study, we develop and apply a new weakly coupled ocean data assimilation (WCODA) system to a coupled climate model. The WCODA system improves simulations of ocean temperature and salinity across many global regions. This system is meant to advance our understanding of the ocean's role in climate predictability.
Liwen Wang, Qian Li, Qi Lv, Xuan Peng, and Wei You
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2427–2442, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2427-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2427-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Our research presents a novel deep learning approach called "TemDeep" for downscaling atmospheric variables at arbitrary time resolutions based on temporal coherence. Results show that our method can accurately recover evolution details superior to other methods, reaching 53.7 % in the restoration rate. Our findings are important for advancing weather forecasting models and enabling more precise and reliable predictions to support disaster preparedness, agriculture, and sustainable development.
Teo Price-Broncucia, Allison Baker, Dorit Hammerling, Michael Duda, and Rebecca Morrison
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2349–2372, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2349-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2349-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The ensemble consistency test (ECT) and its ultrafast variant (UF-ECT) have become powerful tools in the development community for the identification of unwanted changes in the Community Earth System Model (CESM). We develop a generalized setup framework to enable easy adoption of the ECT approach for other model developers and communities. This framework specifies test parameters to accurately characterize model variability and balance test sensitivity and computational cost.
Esteban Fernández Villanueva and Gary Shaffer
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2161–2192, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2161-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2161-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We describe, calibrate and test the Danish Center for Earth System Science (DCESS) II model, a new, broad, adaptable and fast Earth system model. DCESS II is designed for global simulations over timescales of years to millions of years using limited computer resources like a personal computer. With its flexibility and comprehensive treatment of the global carbon cycle, DCESS II is a useful, computationally friendly tool for simulations of past climates as well as for future Earth system projections.
Gang Tang, Zebedee Nicholls, Alexander Norton, Sönke Zaehle, and Malte Meinshausen
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2193–2230, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2193-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2193-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We studied carbon–nitrogen coupling in Earth system models by developing a global carbon–nitrogen cycle model (CNit v1.0) within the widely used emulator MAGICC. CNit effectively reproduced the global carbon–nitrogen cycle dynamics observed in complex models. Our results show persistent nitrogen limitations on plant growth (net primary production) from 1850 to 2100, suggesting that nitrogen deficiency may constrain future land carbon sequestration.
Ngoc Thi Nhu Do, Kengo Sudo, Akihiko Ito, Louisa K. Emmons, Vaishali Naik, Kostas Tsigaridis, Øyvind Seland, Gerd A. Folberth, and Douglas I. Kelley
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2079–2109, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2079-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2079-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Understanding historical isoprene emission changes is important for predicting future climate, but trends and their controlling factors remain uncertain. This study shows that long-term isoprene trends vary among Earth system models mainly due to partially incorporating CO2 effects and land cover changes rather than to climate. Future models that refine these factors’ effects on isoprene emissions, along with long-term observations, are essential for better understanding plant–climate interactions.
Gang Tang, Zebedee Nicholls, Chris Jones, Thomas Gasser, Alexander Norton, Tilo Ziehn, Alejandro Romero-Prieto, and Malte Meinshausen
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2111–2136, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2111-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2111-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We analyzed carbon and nitrogen mass conservation in data from various Earth system models. Our findings reveal significant discrepancies between flux and pool size data, where cumulative imbalances can reach hundreds of gigatons of carbon or nitrogen. These imbalances appear primarily due to missing or inconsistently reported fluxes – especially for land-use and fire emissions. To enhance data quality, we recommend that future climate data protocols address this issue at the reporting stage.
Zhongwang Wei, Qingchen Xu, Fan Bai, Xionghui Xu, Zixin Wei, Wenzong Dong, Hongbin Liang, Nan Wei, Xingjie Lu, Lu Li, Shupeng Zhang, Hua Yuan, Laibo Liu, and Yongjiu Dai
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1380, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1380, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Land surface models are used for simulating earth's surface interacts with the atmosphere. As models grow more complex and detailed, researchers need better tools to evaluate their performance. OpenBench, a new software system that makes evaluation process more comprehensive and efficient. It stands out by incorporating various factors and working with data at any scale which enabling scientists to incorporate new types of models and measurements as our understanding of Earth’s systems evolves.
Florian Börgel, Sven Karsten, Karoline Rummel, and Ulf Gräwe
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 2005–2019, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2005-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-2005-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Forecasting river runoff, which is crucial for managing water resources and understanding climate impacts, can be challenging. This study introduces a new method using convolutional long short-term memory (ConvLSTM) networks, a machine learning model that processes spatial and temporal data. Focusing on the Baltic Sea region, our model uses weather data as input to predict daily river runoff for 97 rivers.
Tao Zhang, Cyril Morcrette, Meng Zhang, Wuyin Lin, Shaocheng Xie, Ye Liu, Kwinten Van Weverberg, and Joana Rodrigues
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1917–1928, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1917-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1917-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Earth system models (ESMs) struggle with the uncertainties associated with parameterizing subgrid physics. Machine learning (ML) algorithms offer a solution by learning the important relationships and features from high-resolution models. To incorporate ML parameterizations into ESMs, we develop a Fortran–Python interface that allows for calling Python functions within Fortran-based ESMs. Through two case studies, this interface demonstrates its feasibility, modularity, and effectiveness.
Kostas Tsigaridis, Andrew S. Ackerman, Igor Aleinov, Mark A. Chandler, Thomas L. Clune, Christopher M. Colose, Anthony D. Del Genio, Maxwell Kelley, Nancy Y. Kiang, Anthony Leboissetier, Jan P. Perlwitz, Reto A. Ruedy, Gary L. Russell, Linda E. Sohl, Michael J. Way, and Eric T. Wolf
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-925, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-925, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present the second generation of ROCKE-3D, a generalized 3-dimensional model for use in Solar System and exoplanetary simulations of rocky planet climates. We quantify how the different component choices affect model results, and discuss strengths and limitations of using each component, together with how one can select which component to use. ROCKE-3D is publicly available and tutorial sessions are available for the community, greatly facilitating its use by any interested group.
Camilla Mathison, Eleanor J. Burke, Gregory Munday, Chris D. Jones, Chris J. Smith, Norman J. Steinert, Andy J. Wiltshire, Chris Huntingford, Eszter Kovacs, Laila K. Gohar, Rebecca M. Varney, and Douglas McNeall
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1785–1808, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1785-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present PRIME (Probabilistic Regional Impacts from Model patterns and Emissions), which is designed to take new emissions scenarios and rapidly provide regional impact information. PRIME allows large ensembles to be run on multi-centennial timescales, including the analysis of many important variables for impact assessments. Our evaluation shows that PRIME reproduces the climate response for known scenarios, providing confidence in using PRIME for novel scenarios.
Katherine M. Smith, Alice M. Barthel, LeAnn M. Conlon, Luke P. Van Roekel, Anthony Bartoletti, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Chengzhu Zhang, Carolyn Branecky Begeman, James J. Benedict, Gautam Bisht, Yan Feng, Walter Hannah, Bryce E. Harrop, Nicole Jeffery, Wuyin Lin, Po-Lun Ma, Mathew E. Maltrud, Mark R. Petersen, Balwinder Singh, Qi Tang, Teklu Tesfa, Jonathan D. Wolfe, Shaocheng Xie, Xue Zheng, Karthik Balaguru, Oluwayemi Garuba, Peter Gleckler, Aixue Hu, Jiwoo Lee, Ben Moore-Maley, and Ana C. Ordoñez
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1613–1633, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1613-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1613-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Version 2.1 of the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) adds the Fox-Kemper et al. (2011) mixed-layer eddy parameterization, which restratifies the ocean surface layer through an overturning streamfunction. Results include surface layer bias reduction in temperature, salinity, and sea ice extent in the North Atlantic; a small strengthening of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation; and improvements to many atmospheric climatological variables.
Huilin Huang, Yun Qian, Gautam Bisht, Jiali Wang, Tirthankar Chakraborty, Dalei Hao, Jianfeng Li, Travis Thurber, Balwinder Singh, Zhao Yang, Ye Liu, Pengfei Xue, William J. Sacks, Ethan Coon, and Robert Hetland
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1427–1443, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1427-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1427-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We integrate the E3SM Land Model (ELM) with the WRF model through the Lightweight Infrastructure for Land Atmosphere Coupling (LILAC) Earth System Modeling Framework (ESMF). This framework includes a top-level driver, LILAC, for variable communication between WRF and ELM and ESMF caps for ELM initialization, execution, and finalization. The LILAC–ESMF framework maintains the integrity of the ELM's source code structure and facilitates the transfer of future ELM model developments to WRF-ELM.
Michael Nole, Jonah Bartrand, Fawz Naim, and Glenn Hammond
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1413–1425, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1413-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1413-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Safe carbon dioxide (CO2) storage is likely to be critical for mitigating some of the most severe effects of climate change. We present a simulation framework for modeling CO2 storage beneath the seafloor, where CO2 can form a solid. This can aid in permanent CO2 storage for long periods of time. Our models show what a commercial-scale CO2 injection would look like in a marine environment. We discuss what would need to be considered when designing a subsea CO2 injection.
Reyk Börner, Jan O. Haerter, and Romain Fiévet
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1333–1356, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1333-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1333-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The daily cycle of sea surface temperature (SST) impacts clouds above the ocean and could influence the clustering of thunderstorms linked to extreme rainfall and hurricanes. However, daily SST variability is often poorly represented in modeling studies of how clouds cluster. We present a simple, wind-responsive model of upper-ocean temperature for use in atmospheric simulations. Evaluating the model against observations, we show that it performs significantly better than common slab models.
Malcolm J. Roberts, Kevin A. Reed, Qing Bao, Joseph J. Barsugli, Suzana J. Camargo, Louis-Philippe Caron, Ping Chang, Cheng-Ta Chen, Hannah M. Christensen, Gokhan Danabasoglu, Ivy Frenger, Neven S. Fučkar, Shabeh ul Hasson, Helene T. Hewitt, Huanping Huang, Daehyun Kim, Chihiro Kodama, Michael Lai, Lai-Yung Ruby Leung, Ryo Mizuta, Paulo Nobre, Pablo Ortega, Dominique Paquin, Christopher D. Roberts, Enrico Scoccimarro, Jon Seddon, Anne Marie Treguier, Chia-Ying Tu, Paul A. Ullrich, Pier Luigi Vidale, Michael F. Wehner, Colin M. Zarzycki, Bosong Zhang, Wei Zhang, and Ming Zhao
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1307–1332, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1307-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1307-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
HighResMIP2 is a model intercomparison project focusing on high-resolution global climate models, that is, those with grid spacings of 25 km or less in the atmosphere and ocean, using simulations of decades to a century in length. We are proposing an update of our simulation protocol to make the models more applicable to key questions for climate variability and hazard in present-day and future projections and to build links with other communities to provide more robust climate information.
Jordi Buckley Paules, Simone Fatichi, Bonnie Warring, and Athanasios Paschalis
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1287–1305, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1287-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1287-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present and validate enhancements to the process-based T&C model aimed at improving its representation of crop growth and management practices. The updated model, T&C-CROP, enables applications such as analysing the hydrological and carbon storage impacts of land use transitions (e.g. conversions between crops, forests, and pastures) and optimizing irrigation and fertilization strategies in response to climate change.
Sébastien Masson, Swen Jullien, Eric Maisonnave, David Gill, Guillaume Samson, Mathieu Le Corre, and Lionel Renault
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1241–1263, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1241-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1241-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This article details a new feature we implemented in the popular regional atmospheric model WRF. This feature allows for data exchange between WRF and any other model (e.g. an ocean model) using the coupling library Ocean–Atmosphere–Sea–Ice–Soil Model Coupling Toolkit (OASIS3-MCT). This coupling interface is designed to be non-intrusive, flexible and modular. It also offers the possibility of taking into account the nested zooms used in WRF or in the models with which it is coupled.
Axel Lauer, Lisa Bock, Birgit Hassler, Patrick Jöckel, Lukas Ruhe, and Manuel Schlund
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1169–1188, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1169-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1169-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Earth system models are important tools to improve our understanding of current climate and to project climate change. Thus, it is crucial to understand possible shortcomings in the models. New features of the ESMValTool software package allow one to compare and visualize a model's performance with respect to reproducing observations in the context of other climate models in an easy and user-friendly way. We aim to help model developers assess and monitor climate simulations more efficiently.
Ulrich G. Wortmann, Tina Tsan, Mahrukh Niazi, Irene A. Ma, Ruben Navasardyan, Magnus-Roland Marun, Bernardo S. Chede, Jingwen Zhong, and Morgan Wolfe
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1155–1167, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1155-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1155-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The Earth Science Box Modeling Toolkit (ESBMTK) is a user-friendly Python library that simplifies the creation of models to study earth system processes, such as the carbon cycle and ocean chemistry. It enhances learning by emphasizing concepts over programming and is accessible to students and researchers alike. By automating complex calculations and promoting code clarity, ESBMTK accelerates model development while improving reproducibility and the usability of scientific research.
Florian Zabel, Matthias Knüttel, and Benjamin Poschlod
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1067–1087, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1067-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1067-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
CropSuite is a new open-source crop suitability model. It provides a GUI and a wide range of options, including a spatial downscaling of climate data. We apply CropSuite to 48 staple and opportunity crops at a 1 km spatial resolution in Africa. We find that climate variability significantly impacts suitable areas but also affects optimal sowing dates and multiple cropping potential. The results provide valuable information for climate impact assessments, adaptation, and land-use planning.
Kerstin Hartung, Bastian Kern, Nils-Arne Dreier, Jörn Geisbüsch, Mahnoosh Haghighatnasab, Patrick Jöckel, Astrid Kerkweg, Wilton Jaciel Loch, Florian Prill, and Daniel Rieger
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1001–1015, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1001-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1001-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The ICOsahedral Non-hydrostatic (ICON) model system Community Interface (ComIn) library supports connecting third-party modules to the ICON model. Third-party modules can range from simple diagnostic Python scripts to full chemistry models. ComIn offers a low barrier for code extensions to ICON, provides multi-language support (Fortran, C/C++, and Python), and reduces the migration effort in response to new ICON releases. This paper presents the ComIn design principles and a range of use cases.
Daniel Ries, Katherine Goode, Kellie McClernon, and Benjamin Hillman
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1041–1065, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1041-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1041-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Machine learning has advanced research in the climate science domain, but its models are difficult to understand. In order to understand the impacts and consequences of climate interventions such as stratospheric aerosol injection, complex models are often necessary. We use a case study to illustrate how we can understand the inner workings of a complex model. We present this technique as an exploratory tool that can be used to quickly discover and assess relationships in complex climate data.
Bo Dong, Paul Ullrich, Jiwoo Lee, Peter Gleckler, Kristin Chang, and Travis A. O'Brien
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 961–976, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-961-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-961-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
A metrics package designed for easy analysis of atmospheric river (AR) characteristics and statistics is presented. The tool is efficient for diagnosing systematic AR bias in climate models and useful for evaluating new AR characteristics in model simulations. In climate models, landfalling AR precipitation shows dry biases globally, and AR tracks are farther poleward (equatorward) in the North and South Atlantic (South Pacific and Indian Ocean).
Panagiotis Adamidis, Erik Pfister, Hendryk Bockelmann, Dominik Zobel, Jens-Olaf Beismann, and Marek Jacob
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 905–919, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-905-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-905-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In this paper, we investigated performance indicators of the climate model ICON (ICOsahedral Nonhydrostatic) on different compute architectures to answer the question of how to generate high-resolution climate simulations. Evidently, it is not enough to use more computing units of the conventionally used architectures; higher memory throughput is the most promising approach. More potential can be gained from single-node optimization rather than simply increasing the number of compute nodes.
Jonah K. Shaw, Dustin J. Swales, Sergio DeSouza-Machado, David D. Turner, Jennifer E. Kay, and David P. Schneider
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-169, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-169, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Satellites have observed earth's emission of infrared radiation since the 1970s. Because infrared wavelengths interact with the atmosphere in distinct ways, these observations contain information about the earth and atmosphere. We present a tool that runs alongside global climate models and produces output that can be directly compared with satellite measurements of infrared radiation. We then use this tool for climate model evaluation, climate change detection, and satellite mission design.
Maria Vittoria Struglia, Alessandro Anav, Marta Antonelli, Sandro Calmanti, Franco Catalano, Alessandro Dell'Aquila, Emanuela Pichelli, and Giovanna Pisacane
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-387, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-387, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present the results of downscaling global climate projections for the Mediterranean and Italian regions aiming to produce high-resolution climate information for the assessment of climate change signals, focusing on extreme events. A general warming is foreseen by the end of century with a mean precipitation reduction accompanied, over Italian Peninsula, by a strong increase in the intensity of extreme precipitation events, particularly relevant for the high emissions scenario during autumn
Kangari Narender Reddy, Somnath Baidya Roy, Sam S. Rabin, Danica L. Lombardozzi, Gudimetla Venkateswara Varma, Ruchira Biswas, and Devavat Chiru Naik
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 763–785, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-763-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-763-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
The study aimed to improve the representation of wheat and rice in a land model for the Indian region. The modified model performed significantly better than the default model in simulating crop phenology, yield, and carbon, water, and energy fluxes compared to observations. The study highlights the need for global land models to use region-specific crop parameters for accurately simulating vegetation processes and land surface processes.
Giovanni Di Virgilio, Fei Ji, Eugene Tam, Jason P. Evans, Jatin Kala, Julia Andrys, Christopher Thomas, Dipayan Choudhury, Carlos Rocha, Yue Li, and Matthew L. Riley
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 703–724, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-703-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-703-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We evaluate the skill in simulating the Australian climate of some of the latest generation of regional climate models. We show when and where the models simulate this climate with high skill versus model limitations. We show how new models perform relative to the previous-generation models, assessing how model design features may underlie key performance improvements. This work is of national and international relevance as it can help guide the use and interpretation of climate projections.
Giovanni Di Virgilio, Jason P. Evans, Fei Ji, Eugene Tam, Jatin Kala, Julia Andrys, Christopher Thomas, Dipayan Choudhury, Carlos Rocha, Stephen White, Yue Li, Moutassem El Rafei, Rishav Goyal, Matthew L. Riley, and Jyothi Lingala
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 671–702, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-671-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-671-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We introduce new climate models that simulate Australia’s future climate at regional scales, including at an unprecedented resolution of 4 km for 1950–2100. We describe the model design process used to create these new climate models. We show how the new models perform relative to previous-generation models and compare their climate projections. This work is of national and international relevance as it can help guide climate model design and the use and interpretation of climate projections.
Nathan P. Gillett, Isla R. Simpson, Gabi Hegerl, Reto Knutti, Dann Mitchell, Aurélien Ribes, Hideo Shiogama, Dáithí Stone, Claudia Tebaldi, Piotr Wolski, Wenxia Zhang, and Vivek K. Arora
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4086, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4086, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Climate model simulations of the response to human and natural influences together, natural climate influences alone, and greenhouse gases alone, among others, are key to quantifying human influence on the climate. The last set of such coordinated simulations underpinned key findings in the last Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Here we propose a new set of such simulations to be used in the next generation of attribution studies, and to underpin the next IPCC report.
Katherine Grayson, Stephan Thober, Aleksander Lacima-Nadolnik, Ehsan Sharifi, Llorenç Lledó, and Francisco Doblas-Reyes
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-28, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-28, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
To provide the most accurate climate adaptation information, climate models are being run with finer grid resolution, resulting in larger data output. This paper presents intelligent data reduction algorithms that act on streamed data, a novel way of processing climate data as soon as it is produced. Using these algorithms to calculate statistics, we show that the accuracy provided is well within acceptable bounds while still providing memory savings that bypass unfeasible storage requirements.
Jiawang Feng, Chun Zhao, Qiuyan Du, Zining Yang, and Chen Jin
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 585–603, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-585-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-585-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
In this study, we improved the calculation of how aerosols in the air interact with radiation in WRF-Chem. The original model used a simplified method, but we developed a more accurate approach. We found that this method significantly changes the properties of the estimated aerosols and their effects on radiation, especially for dust aerosols. It also impacts the simulated weather conditions. Our work highlights the importance of correctly representing aerosol–radiation interactions in models.
Eduardo Moreno-Chamarro, Thomas Arsouze, Mario Acosta, Pierre-Antoine Bretonnière, Miguel Castrillo, Eric Ferrer, Amanda Frigola, Daria Kuznetsova, Eneko Martin-Martinez, Pablo Ortega, and Sergi Palomas
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 461–482, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-461-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-461-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present the high-resolution model version of the EC-Earth global climate model to contribute to HighResMIP. The combined model resolution is about 10–15 km in both the ocean and atmosphere, which makes it one of the finest ever used to complete historical and scenario simulations. This model is compared with two lower-resolution versions, with a 100 km and a 25 km grid. The three models are compared with observations to study the improvements thanks to the increased resolution.
Cited articles
AMS: General Circulation Model, Glossary of Meteorology,
https://glossary.ametsoc.org/wiki/General_circulation_model (last access: 11 February 2022),
2020. a
Bentsen, M., Bethke, I., Debernard, J. B., Iversen, T., Kirkevåg, A., Seland, Ø., Drange, H., Roelandt, C., Seierstad, I. A., Hoose, C., and Kristjánsson, J. E.: The Norwegian Earth System Model, NorESM1-M – Part 1: Description and basic evaluation of the physical climate, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 687–720, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-687-2013, 2013. a, b
Bi, D., Dix, M., Marsland, S. J., O'Farrell, S., Rashid, H., Uotila, P., Hirst,
A., Kowalczyk, E., Golebiewski, M., Sullivan, A., Yan, H., Hannah, N.,
Franklin, C., Sun, Z., Vohralik, P., Watterson, I., Zhou, X., Fiedler, R.,
Collier, M., Ma, Y., Noonan, J., Stevens, L., Uhe, P., Zhu, H., Griffies, S.,
Hill, R., Harris, C., and Puri, K.: The ACCESS coupled model: description,
control climate and evaluation, Aust. Meteorol. Ocean.
J., 63, 41–64, https://doi.org/10.22499/2.6301.004, 2013. a, b, c
Bi, D., Dix, M., Marsland, S., O’Farrell, S., Sullivan, A., Bodman, R., Law,
R., Harman, I., Srbinovsky, J., Rashid, H., Dobrohotoff, P., Mackallah, C.,
Yan, H., Hirst, A., Savita, A., Dias, F. B., Woodhouse, M., Fiedler, R., and
Heerdegen, A.: Configuration and spin-up of ACCESS-CM2, the new generation
Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator Coupled Model,
Journal of Southern Hemisphere Earth Systems Science, 70, 225–251,
https://doi.org/10.1071/ES19040, 2020. a, b
Bleck, R. and Smith, L. T.: A wind-driven isopycnic coordinate model of the
north and equatorial Atlantic Ocean: 1. Model development and supporting
experiments, J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans, 95, 3273–3285,
https://doi.org/10.1029/JC095iC03p03273, 1990. a
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, Lionel, E.,
Guilyardi, E., 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., Traore, A. K., 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. a, b
Brands, S.: Which ENSO teleconnections are robust to internal atmospheric
variability?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 1483–1493,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL071529, 2017. a
Brands, S.: A circulation-based performance atlas of the CMIP5 and 6 models for regional climate studies in the northern hemisphere, Zenodo [data set], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4452080, 2021. a, b
Brands, S.: Python code to calculate Lamb circulation types for the northern hemisphere derived from historical CMIP simulations and reanalysis data, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4555367, 2022. a, b
Brands, S., Gutiérrez, J. M., Herrera, S., and Cofiño, A. S.: On the Use of
Reanalysis Data for Downscaling, J. Climate, 25, 2517–2526,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00251.1, 2012. a
Brands, S., Herrera García, S., Fernández, J., and Gutiérrez, J.: How well
do CMIP5 Earth System Models simulate present climate conditions in Europe
and Africa? A performance comparison for the downscaling community, Clim.
Dynam., 41, 803–817, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-013-1742-8, 2013. a, b
Brands, S., Herrera, S., and Gutiérrez, J.: Is Eurasian snow cover in October
a reliable statistical predictor for the wintertime climate on the Iberian
Peninsula?, Int. J. Climatol., 34, 1615–1627,
https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3788, 2014. a, b
Brunner, L., Pendergrass, A. G., Lehner, F., Merrifield, A. L., Lorenz, R., and Knutti, R.: Reduced global warming from CMIP6 projections when weighting models by performance and independence, Earth Syst. Dynam., 11, 995–1012, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-995-2020, 2020. a
Cannon, A.: Reductions in daily continental-scale atmospheric circulation
biases between generations of Global Climate Models: CMIP5 to CMIP6,
Environ. Res. Lett., 15, 064006, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab7e4f,
2020. a
Cao, J., Wang, B., Yang, Y.-M., Ma, L., Li, J., Sun, B., Bao, Y., He, J., Zhou, X., and Wu, L.: The NUIST Earth System Model (NESM) version 3: description and preliminary evaluation, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 2975–2993, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-2975-2018, 2018. a, b, c
Cherchi, A., Fogli, P. G., Lovato, T., Peano, D., Iovino, D., Gualdi, S.,
Masina, S., Scoccimarro, E., Materia, S., Bellucci, A., and Navarra, A.:
Global Mean Climate and Main Patterns of Variability in the CMCC-CM2 Coupled
Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 185–209,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018MS001369, 2019. a, b, c
Chylek, P., Li, J., Dubey, M. K., Wang, M., and Lesins, G.: Observed and model simulated 20th century Arctic temperature variability: Canadian Earth System Model CanESM2, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 11, 22893–22907, https://doi.org/10.5194/acpd-11-22893-2011, 2011. a, b
Collier, M., Jeffrey, S., Rotstayn, L., Wong, K.-H., Dravitzki, S., Moeseneder,
C., Hamalainen, C., Syktus, J., Suppiah, R., Antony, J., El Zein, A., and
Atif, M.: The CSIRO-Mk3.6.0 Atmosphere Ocean GCM: participation in CMIP5 and data publication, 19th International Congress on Modelling and Simulation. Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand, 2691–2697, Perth, Australia, http://mssanz.org.au/modsim2011 (last access: 22 February 2022), 2011. a, b
Collins, W. J., Bellouin, N., Doutriaux-Boucher, M., Gedney, N., Halloran, P., Hinton, T., Hughes, J., Jones, C. D., Joshi, M., Liddicoat, S., Martin, G., O'Connor, F., Rae, J., Senior, C., Sitch, S., Totterdell, I., Wiltshire, A., and Woodward, S.: Development and evaluation of an Earth-System model – HadGEM2, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 1051–1075, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-1051-2011, 2011. a, b, c, d
Craig, A. P., Vertenstein, M., and Jacob, R.: A new flexible coupler for earth
system modeling developed for CCSM4 and CESM1, Int. J.
High Perform. C., 26, 31–42,
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094342011428141, 2012. a, b
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. M., Large, W. G., Lauritzen, P. H., Lawrence, D. M.,
Lenaerts, J. T. M., Lindsay, K., Lipscomb, W. H., Mills, M. J., Neale, R.,
Oleson, K. W., Otto-Bliesner, B., Phillips, A. S., Sacks, W., Tilmes, S., van
Kampenhout, L., Vertenstein, M., Bertini, A., Dennis, J., Deser, C., Fischer,
C., Fox-Kemper, B., Kay, J. E., Kinnison, D., Kushner, P. J., Larson, V. E.,
Long, M. C., Mickelson, S., Moore, J. K., Nienhouse, E., Polvani, L., Rasch,
P. J., and Strand, W. G.: The Community Earth System Model Version 2 (CESM2),
J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS001916,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001916, 2020. a, b
Dee, D. P., Uppala, S. M., Simmons, A. J., Berrisford, P., Poli, P., Kobayashi,
S., Andrae, U., Balmaseda, M. A., Balsamo, G., Bauer, P., Bechtold, P.,
Beljaars, A. C. M., van de Berg, L., Bidlot, J., Bormann, N., Delsol, C.,
Dragani, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A. J., Haimberger, L., Healy, S. B.,
Hersbach, H., Holm, E. V., Isaksen, L., Kallberg, P., Koehler, M.,
Matricardi, M., McNally, A. P., Monge-Sanz, B. M., Morcrette, J. J., Park,
B. K., Peubey, C., de Rosnay, P., Tavolato, C., Thepaut, J. N., and Vitart,
F.: The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data
assimilation system, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 137, 553–597,
https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828, 2011. a
Deser, C., Simpson, I. R., McKinnon, K. A., and Phillips, A. S.: The Northern
Hemisphere Extratropical Atmospheric Circulation Response to ENSO: How Well
Do We Know It and How Do We Evaluate Models Accordingly?, J. Climate,
30, 5059–5082, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0844.1, 2017. a
Döscher, R., Acosta, M., Alessandri, A., Anthoni, P., Arneth, A., Arsouze, T., Bergmann, T., Bernadello, R., Bousetta, S., Caron, L.-P., Carver, G., Castrillo, M., Catalano, F., Cvijanovic, I., Davini, P., Dekker, E., Doblas-Reyes, F. J., Docquier, D., Echevarria, P., Fladrich, U., Fuentes-Franco, R., Gröger, M., v. Hardenberg, J., Hieronymus, J., Karami, M. P., Keskinen, J.-P., Koenigk, T., Makkonen, R., Massonnet, F., Ménégoz, M., Miller, P. A., Moreno-Chamarro, E., Nieradzik, L., van Noije, T., Nolan, P., O’Donnell, D., Ollinaho, P., van den Oord, G., Ortega, P., Prims, O. T., Ramos, A., Reerink, T., Rousset, C., Ruprich-Robert, Y., Le Sager, P., Schmith, T., Schrödner, R., Serva, F., Sicardi, V., Sloth Madsen, M., Smith, B., Tian, T., Tourigny, E., Uotila, P., Vancoppenolle, M., Wang, S., Wårlind, D., Willén, U., Wyser, K., Yang, S., Yepes-Arbós, X., and Zhang, Q.: The EC-Earth3 Earth System Model for the Climate Model Intercomparison Project 6, Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss. [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2020-446, in review, 2021. a, b, c, d, e, f
Droettboom, M., Caswell, T. A., Hunter, J., Firing, E., Hedegaard Nielsen, J., Root, B., Elson, P., Dale, D., Lee, J.-J., Varoquaux, N., Seppänen, J. K., McDougall, D., May, R., Straw, A., de Andrade, E. S., Lee, A., Yu, T. S., Ma, E, Gohlke, C., Silvester, S., Moad, C., Hobson, P., Schulz, J., Würtz, P., Ariza, F., Cimarron, Hisch, T., Kniazev, N., Vincent, A. F., and Thomas, I.: matplotlib/matplotlib: v2.0.0, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.248351, 2017. a
Dufresne, J.-L., Foujols, M.-A., Denvil, S., Caubel, A., Marti, O., Aumont, O.,
Balkanski, Y., Bekki, S., Bellenger, H., Benshila, R., Bony, S., Bopp, L.,
Braconnot, P., Brockmann, P., Cadule, P., Cheruy, F., Codron, F., Cozic, A.,
Cugnet, D., de Noblet, N., Duvel, J.-P., Ethe, C., Fairhead, L., Fichefet,
T., Flavoni, S., Friedlingstein, P., Grandpeix, J.-Y., Guez, L., Guilyardi,
E., Hauglustaine, D., Hourdin, F., Idelkadi, A., Ghattas, J., Joussaume, S.,
Kageyama, M., Krinner, G., Labetoulle, S., Lahellec, A., Lefebvre, M.-P.,
Lefevre, F., Levy, C., Li, Z. X., Lloyd, J., Lott, F., Madec, G., Mancip, M.,
Marchand, M., Masson, S., Meurdesoif, Y., Mignot, J., Musat, I., Parouty, S.,
Polcher, J., Rio, C., Schulz, M., Swingedouw, D., Szopa, S., Talandier, C.,
Terray, P., Viovy, N., and Vuichard, N.: Climate change projections using the
IPSL-CM5 Earth System Model: from CMIP3 to CMIP5, Clim. Dynam., 40, 2123–2165,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-012-1636-1, 2013. a, b, c, d
Eyring, V., Bony, S., Meehl, G. A., Senior, C. A., Stevens, B., Stouffer, R. J., and Taylor, K. E.: Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 1937–1958, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-1937-2016, 2016. a, b
Fernandez-Granja, J. A., Casanueva, A., Bedia, J., and Fernández, J.: Improved
atmospheric circulation over Europe by the new generation of CMIP6 earth
system models, Clim. Dynam., 56, 3527–3540,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-021-05652-9, 2021. a, b
Fogli, P. G., Manzini, E., Vichi, M., Alessandri, A., Patara, L., Gualdi, S.,
Scoccimarro, E., Masina, S., and Navarra, A.: INGV-CMCC Carbon (ICC): A
carbon cycle Earth system model, SSRN Electronic Journal, CMCC Research Paper No. 61, 31 pp.,
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1517282, 2009. a
Gates, W.: AMIP – The Atmospheric Model Intercomparison Project, B. Am.
Meteorol. Soc., 73, 1962–1970,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1992)073<1962:ATAMIP>2.0.CO;2, 1992. a, b
Gent, P. R., Danabasoglu, G., Donner, L. J., Holland, M. M., Hunke, E. C.,
Jayne, S. R., Lawrence, D. M., Neale, R. B., Rasch, P. J., Vertenstein, M.,
Worley, P. H., Yang, Z.-L., and Zhang, M.: The Community Climate System Model
Version 4, J. Climate, 24, 4973–4991, https://doi.org/10.1175/2011JCLI4083.1,
2011. a, b
Giorgetta, M. A., Jungclaus, J., Reick, C. H., Legutke, S., Bader, J.,
Böttinger, M., Brovkin, V., Crueger, T., Esch, M., Fieg, K., Glushak, K.,
Gayler, V., Haak, H., Hollweg, H.-D., Ilyina, T., Kinne, S., Kornblueh, L.,
Matei, D., Mauritsen, T., Mikolajewicz, U., Mueller, W., Notz, D., Pithan,
F., Raddatz, T., Rast, S., Redler, R., Roeckner, E., Schmidt, H., Schnur, R.,
Segschneider, J., Six, K. D., Stockhause, M., Timmreck, C., Wegner, J.,
Widmann, H., Wieners, K.-H., Claussen, M., Marotzke, J., and Stevens, B.:
Climate and carbon cycle changes from 1850 to 2100 in MPI-ESM simulations for
the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 5, 572–597, https://doi.org/10.1002/jame.20038, 2013. a, b, c
Gourgue, O.: Normalized Taylor diagram Python module (Version 1.0), Zenodo [code],
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3715535, 2020. a, b
Griffies, S., Winton, M., Donner, L., Horowitz, L., Downes, S., Farneti, R.,
Gnanadesikan, A., Hurlin, W., Lee, H.-C., Liang, Z., Palter, J., Samuels, B.,
Wittenberg, A., Wyman, B., Yin, J., and Zadeh, N.: The GFDL-CM3 Coupled
Climate Model: Characteristics of the Ocean and Sea Ice Simulations, J. Climate, 24, 3520–3544, https://doi.org/10.1175/2011JCLI3964.1, 2011. a, b
Grotch, S. and MacCracken, M.: The Use of General Circulation Models to Predict
Regional Climatic Change, J. Climate, 4, 286–303,
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(1991)004<0286:TUOGCM>2.0.CO;2, 1991. a
Gutiérrez, J. M., San-Martín, D., Brands, S., Manzanas, R., and Herrera, S.:
Reassessing Statistical Downscaling Techniques for Their Robust Application
under Climate Change Conditions, J. Climate, 26, 171–188,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00687.1, 2013. a, b
Haarsma, R. J., Roberts, M. J., Vidale, P. L., Senior, C. A., Bellucci, A., Bao, Q., Chang, P., Corti, S., Fučkar, N. S., Guemas, V., von Hardenberg, J., Hazeleger, W., Kodama, C., Koenigk, T., Leung, L. R., Lu, J., Luo, J.-J., Mao, J., Mizielinski, M. S., Mizuta, R., Nobre, P., Satoh, M., Scoccimarro, E., Semmler, T., Small, J., and von Storch, J.-S.: High Resolution Model Intercomparison Project (HighResMIP v1.0) for CMIP6, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 4185–4208, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-4185-2016, 2016. a
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. a, b
Harris, C., Millman, K., Walt, S., Gommers, R., Virtanen, P., Cournapeau, D.,
Wieser, E., Taylor, J., Berg, S., Smith, N., Kern, R., Picus, M., Hoyer, S.,
Kerkwijk, M., Brett, M., Haldane, A., Río, J., Wiebe, M., Peterson, P., and
Oliphant, T.: Array programming with NumPy, Nature, 585, 357–362,
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2, 2020. a
Hazeleger, W., Severijns, C., Semmler, T., Briceag, S., Yang, S., Wang, X.,
Wyser, K., Dutra, E., Baldasano, J., Bintanja, R., Bougeault, P., Caballero,
R., Ekman, A., Christensen, J., Hurk, B., Jimenez-Guerrero, P., Jones, C.,
Kallberg, P., Koenigk, T., and Willén, U.: EC-Earth: A Seamless Earth-System
Prediction Approach in Action, B. Am. Meteorol.
Soc., 91, 1357–1363, https://doi.org/10.1175/2010bams2877.1, 2010. a
Hazeleger, W., Wang, X., Severijns, C., Briceag, S., Bintanja, R., Sterl, A.,
Wyser, K., Semmler, T., Yang, S., Hurk, B., Noije, T., Van der Linden, E.,
and van der Wiel, K.: EC-Earth V2.2: Description and validation of a new
seamless Earth system prediction model, Clim. Dynam., 39, 1–19,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-011-1228-5, 2011. a, b
Held, I. M., Guo, H., Adcroft, A., Dunne, J. P., Horowitz, L. W., Krasting, J.,
Shevliakova, E., Winton, M., Zhao, M., Bushuk, M., Wittenberg, A. T., Wyman,
B., Xiang, B., Zhang, R., Anderson, W., Balaji, V., Donner, L., Dunne, K.,
Durachta, J., Gauthier, P. P. G., Ginoux, P., Golaz, J.-C., Griffies, S. M.,
Hallberg, R., Harris, L., Harrison, M., Hurlin, W., John, J., Lin, P., Lin,
S.-J., Malyshev, S., Menzel, R., Milly, P. C. D., Ming, Y., Naik, V.,
Paynter, D., Paulot, F., Rammaswamy, V., Reichl, B., Robinson, T., Rosati,
A., Seman, C., Silvers, L. G., Underwood, S., and Zadeh, N.: Structure and
Performance of GFDL's CM4.0 Climate Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 3691–3727, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001829, 2019. a, b
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., Dufresne, J.-L., Boucher, O., Lefebvre, M.-P., Millour,
E., Vignon, E., Jouhaud, J., Diallo, F. B., Lott, F., Gastineau, G., Caubel,
A., Meurdesoif, Y., and Ghattas, J.: LMDZ6A: The Atmospheric Component of the
IPSL Climate Model With Improved and Better Tuned Physics, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS001892,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001892, 2020. a
Hoyer, S. and Hamman, J.: xarray: N-D labeled Arrays and Datasets in Python,
J. Open Res. Softw., 5, 10 pp., https://doi.org/10.5334/jors.148, 2017. a
Hoyer, S., Fitzgerald, C., Hamman, J., akleeman, Kluyver. T., Maussion, F., Roos, M., Markel, Helmus, J. J., Cable, P., Wolfram, P., Bovy, B., Abernathey, R., Noel, V., Kanmae, T., Miles, A., Hill, S., crusaderky, Sinclair, S., Filipe, Guedes, R., ebrevdo, chunweiyuan, Delley, Y., Wilson, R., Signell, J., Laliberte, F., Malevich, B., Hilboll, A., and Johnson, A.: pydata/xarray: v0.9.1 (v0.9.1), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.264282, 2017. a
Hulme, M., Briffal, K., Jones, P., and Senior, C.: Validation of GCM control
simulations using indices of daily airflow types over British Isles, Clim.
Dynam., 9, 95–105, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00210012, 1993. a, b
Hunter, J. D.: Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment, Comput. Sci.
Eng., 9, 90–95, https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55, 2007. a
Hurrell, J. W., Holland, M. M., Gent, P. R., Ghan, S., Kay, J. E., Kushner,
P. J., Lamarque, J.-F., Large, W. G., Lawrence, D., Lindsay, K., Lipscomb,
W. H., Long, M. C., Mahowald, N., Marsh, D. R., Neale, R. B., Rasch, P.,
Vavrus, S., Vertenstein, M., Bader, D., Collins, W. D., Hack, J. J., Kiehl,
J., and Marshall, S.: The Community Earth System Model: A Framework for
Collaborative Research, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 94,
1339–1360, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00121.1, 2013. a, b, c
Jacob, D., Petersen, J., Eggert, B., Alias, A., Christensen, O., Bouwer, L.,
Braun, A., Colette, A., Déqué, M., Georgievski, G., Georgopoulou, E.,
Gobiet, A., Menut, L., Nikulin, G., Haensler, A., Hempelmann, N., Jones, C.,
Keuler, K., Kovats, S., and Yiou, P.: EURO-CORDEX: New high-resolution
climate change projections for European impact research, Reg.
Environ. Change, 14, 563–578, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0499-2, 2014. a, b
Japan Meteorological Agency: JRA-55: Japanese 55-year Reanalysis, Daily 3-Hourly and 6-Hourly Data, Research Data Archive at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Computational and Information Systems Laboratory [data set], https://doi.org/10.5065/D6HH6H41, 2013. a
Jenkinson, A. and Collison, F.: An Initial Climatology of Gales over the North Sea, Synoptic Climatology Branch Memorandum, 62, Meteorological Office, Bracknell, UK, 1977. a
Jinjun, J.: A Climate-Vegetation Interaction Model: Simulating Physical and
Biological Processes at the Surface, J. Biogeogr., 22, 445–451,
1995. a
Jones, C. D.: So What Is in an Earth System Model?, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS001967,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001967, 2020. a, b
Jones, P. D., Hulme, M., and Briffa, K. R.: A comparison of Lamb circulation
types with an objective classification scheme, Int. J.
Climatol., 13, 655–663, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3370130606, 1993. a, b
Jones, P. D., Harpham, C., and Briffa, K. R.: Lamb weather types derived from
reanalysis products, Int. J. Climatol., 33, 1129–1139,
https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3498, 2013. a, b, c, d
Jungclaus, J. H., Fischer, N., Haak, H., Lohmann, K., Marotzke, J., Matei, D.,
Mikolajewicz, U., Notz, D., and von Storch, J. S.: Characteristics of the
ocean simulations in the Max Planck Institute Ocean Model (MPIOM) the ocean
component of the MPI-Earth system model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 5, 422–446, https://doi.org/10.1002/jame.20023, 2013. a
Kelley, M., Schmidt, G. A., Nazarenko, L. S., Bauer, S. E., Ruedy, R., Russell,
G. L., Ackerman, A. S., Aleinov, I., Bauer, M., Bleck, R., Canuto, V.,
Cesana, G., Cheng, Y., Clune, T. L., Cook, B. I., Cruz, C. A., Del Genio,
A. D., Elsaesser, G. S., Faluvegi, G., Kiang, N. Y., Kim, D., Lacis, A. A.,
Leboissetier, A., LeGrande, A. N., Lo, K. K., Marshall, J., Matthews, E. E.,
McDermid, S., Mezuman, K., Miller, R. L., Murray, L. T., Oinas, V., Orbe, C.,
García-Pando, C. P., Perlwitz, J. P., Puma, M. J., Rind, D., Romanou, A.,
Shindell, D. T., Sun, S., Tausnev, N., Tsigaridis, K., Tselioudis, G., Weng,
E., Wu, J., and Yao, M.-S.: GISS-E2.1: Configurations and Climatology,
J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS002025,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS002025, 2020. a, b
Kirkevag, A., Iversen, T., Øyvind Seland, Debernard, J. B., Storelvmo, T., and
Kristjánsson, J. E.: Aerosol-cloud-climate interactions in the climate model
CAM-Oslo, Tellus A, 60, 492–512,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0870.2007.00313.x, 2008. a
Knutti, R., Sedláček, J., Sanderson, B. M., Lorenz, R., Fischer, E. M., and
Eyring, V.: A climate model projection weighting scheme accounting for
performance and interdependence, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44,
1909–1918,https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL072012, 2017. a
Kobayashi, S., Ota, Y., Harada, Y., Ebita, A., Moriya, M., Onoda, H., Onogi,
K., Kamahori, H., Kobayashi, C., Endo, H., Miyaoka, K., and Takahashi, K.:
The JRA-55 Reanalysis: General Specifications and Basic Characteristics,
J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn. Ser. II, 93, 5–48,
https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.2015-001, 2015. a
Lee, W.-L., Wang, Y.-C., Shiu, C.-J., Tsai, I., Tu, C.-Y., Lan, Y.-Y., Chen, J.-P., Pan, H.-L., and Hsu, H.-H.: Taiwan Earth System Model Version 1: description and evaluation of mean state, Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 3887–3904, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-3887-2020, 2020. a, b
Li, L., Lin, P., Yu, Y.-Q., Zhou, T., Liu, L., Liu, J., Bao, Q., Xu, S., Huang,
W., Xia, K., Pu, Y., Dong, L., Shen, S., Liu, Y., Hu, N., Liu, M., Sun, W.,
Shi, X., and Qiao, F.-L.: The flexible global ocean-atmosphere-land system
model, Grid-point Version 2: FGOALS-g2, Adv. Atmos. Sci., 30,
543–560, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00376-012-2140-6, 2013. a, b
Li, L., Yu, Y., Tang, Y., Lin, P., Xie, J., Song, M., Dong, L., Zhou, T., Liu,
L., Wang, L., Pu, Y., Chen, X., Chen, L., Xie, Z., Liu, H., Zhang, L., Huang,
X., Feng, T., Zheng, W., Xia, K., Liu, H., Liu, J., Wang, Y., Wang, L., Jia,
B., Xie, F., Wang, B., Zhao, S., Yu, Z., Zhao, B., and Wei, J.: The Flexible
Global Ocean-Atmosphere-Land System Model Grid-Point Version 3 (FGOALS-g3):
Description and Evaluation, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy.,
12, e2019MS002012, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS002012,
2020. a, b
Lorenzo, M. N., Taboada, J. J., and Gimeno, L.: Links between circulation
weather types and teleconnection patterns and their influence on
precipitation patterns in Galicia (NW Spain), Int. J.
Climatol. 28, 1493–1505, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1646, 2008. a
Lurton, T., Balkanski, Y., Bastrikov, V., Bekki, S., Bopp, L., Braconnot, P.,
Brockmann, P., Cadule, P., Contoux, C., Cozic, A., Cugnet, D., Dufresne,
J.-L., Éthé, C., Foujols, M.-A., Ghattas, J., Hauglustaine, D., Hu, R.-M.,
Kageyama, M., Khodri, M., Lebas, N., Levavasseur, G., Marchand, M., Ottlé,
C., Peylin, P., Sima, A., Szopa, S., Thiéblemont, R., Vuichard, N., and
Boucher, O.: Implementation of the CMIP6 Forcing Data in the IPSL-CM6A-LR
Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12, e2019MS001940,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001940, 2020. a
Madec, G.: NEMO ocean engine, Note du Pôle de modélisation, Institut
Pierre-Simon Laplace (IPSL), France, No 27, ISSN No 1288-1619, 2008. a
Madec, G., Delécluse, P., Imbard, M., and Lévy, C.: OPA 8.1 Ocean General
Circulation Model reference manual, Notes du pôle de modélisation,
laboratoire d’océanographie dynamique et de climatologie, Institut Pierre
Simon Laplace des sciences de l’environnement global, 11, 91 pp., 1998. a
Maraun, D., Wetterhall, F., Ireson, A. M., Chandler, R. E., Kendon, E. J.,
Widmann, M., Brienen, S., Rust, H. W., Sauter, T., Themeßl, M., Venema, V.
K. C., Chun, K. P., Goodess, C. M., Jones, R. G., Onof, C., Vrac, M., and
Thiele-Eich, I.: Precipitation downscaling under climate change: Recent
developments to bridge the gap between dynamical models and the end user,
Reviews of Geophysics, 48, RG3003, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009RG000314, 2010. a
Maraun, D., Shepherd, T., Widmann, M., Zappa, G., Walton, D., Gutiérrez, J.,
Hagemann, S., Richter, I., Soares, P., Hall, A., and Mearns, L.: Towards
process-informed bias correction of climate change simulations, Nat.
Clim. Change, 7, 764–773, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3418, 2017. a, b
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. a, b, c, d, e
McKinney, W.: Data Structures for Statistical Computing in
Python, in: Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference,
edited by: van der Walt, S. and Millman, J., 56 – 61,
https://doi.org/10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a, 2010. a
Mearns, L., Giorgi, F., Whetton, P., Pabón Caicedo, J. D., Hulme, M., and Lal,
M.: Guidelines for Use of Climate Scenarios Developed from Regional Climate
Model Experiments (version 1.0.0), 38 pp., Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1421091,
2003. a
Müller, W. A., Jungclaus, J. H., Mauritsen, T., Baehr, J., Bittner, M.,
Budich, R., Bunzel, F., Esch, M., Ghosh, R., Haak, H., Ilyina, T., Kleine,
T., Kornblueh, L., Li, H., Modali, K., Notz, D., Pohlmann, H., Roeckner, E.,
Stemmler, I., Tian, F., and Marotzke, J.: A Higher-resolution Version of the
Max Planck Institute Earth System Model (MPI-ESM1.2-HR), J. Adv.
Model. Earth Sy., 10, 1383–1413, https://doi.org/10.1029/2017MS001217, 2018. a
Osborn, T., Conway, D., Hulme, M., Gregory, J., and Jones, P.: Air flow
influences on local climate: Observed and simulated mean relationships for
the United Kingdom, Clim. Res., 13, 173–191, https://doi.org/10.3354/cr013173,
1999. a
Otero, N., Sillmann, J., and Butler, T.: Assessment of an extended version of
the Jenkinson-Collison classification on CMIP5 models over Europe, Clim.
Dynam., 50, 1559–1579, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-017-3705-y, 2017. a, b, c
Pak, G., Noh, Y., Lee, M.-I., Yeh, S.-W., Kim, D., Kim, S.-Y., Lee, J.-L., Lee,
H. J., Hyun, S.-H., Lee, K.-Y., Lee, J.-H., Park, Y.-G., Jin, H., Park, H.,
and Kim, Y. H.: Korea Institute of Ocean Science and Technology Earth System
Model and Its Simulation Characteristics, Ocean Sci. J., 56, 18–45,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12601-021-00001-7, 2021. a, b
Palmer, T. and Stevens, B.: The scientific challenge of understanding and
estimating climate change, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA,
116, 24390–24395, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1906691116, 2019. a
Palmer, T. N., Doblas-Reyes, F. J., Weisheimer, A., and Rodwell, M. J.: Toward
Seamless Prediction: Calibration of Climate Change Projections Using Seasonal
Forecasts, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 89, 459–470,
https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-89-4-459, 2008. a, b
Park, S., Shin, J., Kim, S., Oh, E., and Kim, Y.: Global Climate Simulated by
the Seoul National University Atmosphere Model Version 0 with a Unified
Convection Scheme (SAM0-UNICON), J. Climate, 32, 2917–2949,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0796.1, 2019. a, b, c
Perez, J., Menendez, M., Mendez, F., and Losada, I.: Evaluating the performance
of CMIP3 and CMIP5 global climate models over the north-east Atlantic region,
Clim. Dynam., 43, 2663–2680, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-014-2078-8, 2014. a, b, c
Perry, A. and Mayes, J.: The Lamb weather type catalogue, Weather, 53,
222–229, https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1477-8696.1998.tb06387.x, 1998. a
Prein, A. F., Bukovsky, M. S., Mearns, L. O., Bruyère, C. L., and Done, J. M.:
Simulating North American Weather Types With Regional Climate Models,
Front. Environ. Sci., 7, 36, https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00036,
2019. a
Reback, J., jbrockmendel, McKinney, W., Van den Bossche, J., Augspurger, T., Cloud, P., Hawkins, S., Roeschke, M.; gfyoung; Sinhrks; Klein, A., Hoefler, P., Petersen, T., Tratner, J., She, C., Ayd, W., Naveh, S., Garcia, M., Darbyshire, JHM, Schendel J., Shadrach R., Hayden, A., Saxton, D., Gorelli, M. E., Li, F., Zeitlin, M., Jancauskas, V., McMaster, A., Battiston, P., and Seabold S.: pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas 1.4.0, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3509134, 2022. a
Roberts, M. J., Baker, A., Blockley, E. W., Calvert, D., Coward, A., Hewitt, H. T., Jackson, L. C., Kuhlbrodt, T., Mathiot, P., Roberts, C. D., Schiemann, R., Seddon, J., Vannière, B., and Vidale, P. L.: Description of the resolution hierarchy of the global coupled HadGEM3-GC3.1 model as used in CMIP6 HighResMIP experiments, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 4999–5028, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-4999-2019, 2019. a, b, c
San-Martín, D., Manzanas, R., Brands, S., Herrera, S., and Gutiérrez, J. M.:
Reassessing Model Uncertainty for Regional Projections of Precipitation with
an Ensemble of Statistical Downscaling Methods, J. Climate, 30,
203–223, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0366.1, 2016. a, b
Schmidt, G. A., Kelley, M., Nazarenko, L., Ruedy, R., Russell, G. L., Aleinov,
I., Bauer, M., Bauer, S. E., Bhat, M. K., Bleck, R., Canuto, V., Chen, Y.-H.,
Cheng, Y., Clune, T. L., Del Genio, A., de Fainchtein, R., Faluvegi, G.,
Hansen, J. E., Healy, R. J., Kiang, N. Y., Koch, D., Lacis, A. A., LeGrande,
A. N., Lerner, J., Lo, K. K., Matthews, E. E., Menon, S., Miller, R. L.,
Oinas, V., Oloso, A. O., Perlwitz, J. P., Puma, M. J., Putman, W. M., Rind,
D., Romanou, A., Sato, M., Shindell, D. T., Sun, S., Syed, R. A., Tausnev,
N., Tsigaridis, K., Unger, N., Voulgarakis, A., Yao, M.-S., and Zhang, J.:
Configuration and assessment of the GISS ModelE2 contributions to the CMIP5
archive, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 6, 141–184,
https://doi.org/10.1002/2013MS000265, 2014. a, b, c
Schubert, S. D., Stewart, R. E., Wang, H., Barlow, M., Berbery, E. H., Cai, W.,
Hoerling, M. P., Kanikicharla, K. K., Koster, R. D., Lyon, B., Mariotti, A.,
Mechoso, C. R., Müller, O. V., Rodriguez-Fonseca, B., Seager, R.,
Seneviratne, S. I., Zhang, L., and Zhou, T.: Global Meteorological Drought: A
Synthesis of Current Understanding with a Focus on SST Drivers of
Precipitation Deficits, J. Climate, 29, 3989–4019,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0452.1, 2016. a
Scoccimarro, E., Gualdi, S., Bellucci, A., Sanna, A., Giuseppe Fogli, P.,
Manzini, E., Vichi, M., Oddo, P., and Navarra, A.: Effects of Tropical
Cyclones on Ocean Heat Transport in a High-Resolution Coupled General
Circulation Model, J. Climate, 24, 4368–4384,
https://doi.org/10.1175/2011JCLI4104.1, 2011. a, b
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. a, b, c
Semmler, T., Danilov, S., Gierz, P., Goessling, H. F., Hegewald, J., Hinrichs,
C., Koldunov, N., Khosravi, N., Mu, L., Rackow, T., Sein, D. V., Sidorenko,
D., Wang, Q., and Jung, T.: Simulations for CMIP6 With the AWI Climate Model
AWI-CM-1-1, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 12,
e2019MS002009, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS002009, 2020. a, b
Soares, P. M. M., Maraun, D., Brands, S., Jury, M. W., Gutiérrez, J. M.,
San-Martín, D., Hertig, E., Huth, R., Belušić Vozila, A., Cardoso, R. M.,
Kotlarski, S., Drobinski, P., and Obermann-Hellhund, A.: Process-based
evaluation of the VALUE perfect predictor experiment of statistical
downscaling methods, Int. J. Climatol., 39, 3868–3893,
https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5911, 2019. a
Spellman, G.: An assessment of the Jenkinson and Collison synoptic
classification to a continental mid-latitude location, Theor.
Appl. Climatol., 128, 731–744, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-015-1711-8, 2016. a
Stainforth, D. A., Allen, M. R., Tredger, E. R., and Smith, L. A.: Confidence,
uncertainty and decision-support relevance in climate predictions, Philos.
T. R. Soc. A, 365, 2145–2161,
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2007.2074, 2007. a
Sterl, A.: On the (In)Homogeneity of Reanalysis Products, J. Climate,
17, 3866–3873, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017<3866:OTIORP>2.0.CO;2,
2004. a
Stryhal, J. and Huth, R.: Classifications of winter atmospheric circulation
patterns: validation of CMIP5 GCMs over Europe and the North Atlantic,
Clim. Dynam., 52, 3575–3598, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-018-4344-7, 2018. a
Swapna, P., Koll, R., Aparna, K., Kulkarni, K., Ag, P., Ashok, K., Raghavan,
K., Moorthi, S., Kumar, A., and Goswami, B. N.: The IITM Earth System Model:
Transformation of a Seasonal Prediction Model to a Long Term Climate Model,
B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 96, 1351–1367,
https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00276.1, 2015. a, b
Séférian, R., Nabat, P., Michou, M., Saint-Martin, D., Voldoire, A., Colin,
J., Decharme, B., Delire, C., Berthet, S., Chevallier, M., Sénési, S.,
Franchisteguy, L., Vial, J., Mallet, M., Joetzjer, E., Geoffroy, O.,
Guérémy, J.-F., Moine, M.-P., Msadek, R., Ribes, A., Rocher, M., Roehrig,
R., Salas-y Mélia, D., Sanchez, E., Terray, L., Valcke, S., Waldman, R.,
Aumont, O., Bopp, L., Deshayes, J., Éthé, C., 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. a, b, c
Séférian, R., Berthet, S., Yool, A., Palmiéri, J., Bopp, L., Tagliabue, A.,
Kwiatkowski, L., Aumont, O., Christian, J., Dunne, J., Gehlen, M., Ilyina,
T., John, J., Li, H., Long, M., Luo, J., Nakano, H., Romanou, A., Schwinger,
J., and Yamamoto, A.: Tracking Improvement in Simulated Marine
Biogeochemistry Between CMIP5 and CMIP6, Current Climate Change Reports, 6,
95–119, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-020-00160-0, 2020. a, b
Tatebe, H., Ogura, T., Nitta, T., Komuro, Y., Ogochi, K., Takemura, T., Sudo, K., Sekiguchi, M., Abe, M., Saito, F., Chikira, M., Watanabe, S., Mori, M., Hirota, N., Kawatani, Y., Mochizuki, T., Yoshimura, K., Takata, K., O'ishi, R., Yamazaki, D., Suzuki, T., Kurogi, M., Kataoka, T., Watanabe, M., and Kimoto, M.: Description and basic evaluation of simulated mean state, internal variability, and climate sensitivity in MIROC6, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 2727–2765, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2727-2019, 2019. a, b
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. a, b
Tegen, I., Neubauer, D., Ferrachat, S., Siegenthaler-Le Drian, C., Bey, I., Schutgens, N., Stier, P., Watson-Parris, D., Stanelle, T., Schmidt, H., Rast, S., Kokkola, H., Schultz, M., Schroeder, S., Daskalakis, N., Barthel, S., Heinold, B., and Lohmann, U.: The global aerosol–climate model ECHAM6.3–HAM2.3 – Part 1: Aerosol evaluation, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 1643–1677, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1643-2019, 2019. a
The HadGEM2 Development Team: Martin, G. M., Bellouin, N., Collins, W. J., Culverwell, I. D., Halloran, P. R., Hardiman, S. C., Hinton, T. J., Jones, C. D., McDonald, R. E., McLaren, A. J., O'Connor, F. M., Roberts, M. J., Rodriguez, J. M., Woodward, S., Best, M. J., Brooks, M. E., Brown, A. R., Butchart, N., Dearden, C., Derbyshire, S. H., Dharssi, I., Doutriaux-Boucher, M., Edwards, J. M., Falloon, P. D., Gedney, N., Gray, L. J., Hewitt, H. T., Hobson, M., Huddleston, M. R., Hughes, J., Ineson, S., Ingram, W. J., James, P. M., Johns, T. C., Johnson, C. E., Jones, A., Jones, C. P., Joshi, M. M., Keen, A. B., Liddicoat, S., Lock, A. P., Maidens, A. V., Manners, J. C., Milton, S. F., Rae, J. G. L., Ridley, J. K., Sellar, A., Senior, C. A., Totterdell, I. J., Verhoef, A., Vidale, P. L., and Wiltshire, A.: The HadGEM2 family of Met Office Unified Model climate configurations, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 723–757, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-723-2011, 2011. a
Trigo, R. M. and DaCamara, C. C.: Circulation weather types and their influence
on the precipitation regime in Portugal, Int. J.
Climatol., 20, 1559–1581, https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0088, 2000. a
Turco, M., Quintana-Seguí, P., Llasat, M. C., Herrera, S., and Gutiérrez,
J. M.: Testing MOS precipitation downscaling for ENSEMBLES regional climate
models over Spain, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 116, D18109,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD016166, 2011. a
Virtanen, P., Gommers, R. Oliphant, T. E., Cournapeau, D., Burovski, E., Weckesser, W., alexbrc, Peterson, P., wnbell, mattknox_ca, endolith, van der Walt, S., Laxalde, D., Brett, M., Millman, J., Lars, Mayorov, N., eric-jones, Kern, R., Moore, E., GM, P., Schofield, E., Leslie, T., Perktold, J., cookedm, Griffith, B., Nelson, A., Eads, D., Vanderplas, J., Carey, C. J., Waite, T., Wilson, J., Escalante, A., Falck R., fullung, Larson, E., Smith, D. B., Harris, C., Archibald, A., Molden, S., Cimrman, R., Henriksen, I., Hilboll, A., Berkenkamp, F., Feng, Y., Burns, C., Taylor, J., Schnell, I., Tsai, R., Nothman, J., Reimer, J., Quintero, E., Nowaczyk, N., Reddy, T., Taylor, J., prabhu, Stevenson, J., Seabold, S., Hochberg, T., Pedregosa, F., Teichmann, M., Bourquin, R., McIntyre, A., Warde-Farley, D., Ingold,G.-L., Kroshko, D., Varilly, P., Gohlke,C., Young, G., Probst, I., Nation, P., Fulton, C., Perez, F., Kulick, J., Vankerschaver, J., Kerr, C., fred.mailhot, Nandana, M., Scopatz, A., Vaught, T., jtravs, van Foreest, N., Robitaille, T., Lee, A., Venthur, B., Boulogne, F., Brodtkorb, P., and Bunch, P., Wettinger, R., Grigorievskiy, A., Gaul, A., Silterra, J., chanley, and weinbe58: scipy/scipy: SciPy 0.18.1, Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.154391, 2016. a
Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T., Haberland, M., Reddy, T., Cournapeau,
D., Burovski, E., Peterson, P., Weckesser, W., Bright, J., Walt, S., Brett,
M., Wilson, J., Millman, K., Mayorov, N., Nelson, A., Jones, E., Kern, R.,
and Larson, E.: SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in
Python, Nature Methods, 17, 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2, 2020. a
Voldoire, A., Sanchez-Gomez, E., Salas y Melia, D., Decharme, B., Cassou, C.,
Senesi, S., Valcke, S., Beau, I., Alias, A., Chevallier, M., Deque, M.,
Deshayes, J., Douville, H., Fernandez, E., Madec, G., Maisonnave, E., Moine,
M.-P., Planton, S., Saint-Martin, D., Szopa, S., Tyteca, S., Alkama, R.,
Belamari, S., Braun, A., Coquart, L., and Chauvin, F.: The CNRM-CM5.1 global
climate model: description and basic evaluation, Clim. Dyn., 40, 2091–2121,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-011-1259-y, 2013. a, b
Voldoire, A., Saint-Martin, D., Sénési, S., Decharme, B., Alias, A.,
Chevallier, M., Colin, J., Guérémy, J.-F., Michou, M., Moine, M.-P., Nabat,
P., Roehrig, R., Salas y Mélia, D., Séférian, R., Valcke, S., Beau, I.,
Belamari, S., Berthet, S., Cassou, C., Cattiaux, J., Deshayes, J., Douville,
H., Ethé, C., Franchistéguy, L., Geoffroy, O., Lévy, C., Madec, G.,
Meurdesoif, Y., Msadek, R., Ribes, A., Sanchez-Gomez, E., Terray, L., and
Waldman, R.: Evaluation of CMIP6 DECK Experiments With CNRM-CM6-1, J.
Adva. Model. Earth Sy., 11, 2177–2213,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019MS001683, 2019. a, b, c
Volodin, E., Diansky, N., and Gusev, A.: Simulating present-day climate with
the INMCM4.0 coupled model of the atmospheric and oceanic general
circulations, Izvestiya, Atmos. Ocean. Phys., 46, 414–431,
https://doi.org/10.1134/S000143381004002X, 2010. a, b
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. a
Walters, D., Baran, A. J., Boutle, I., Brooks, M., Earnshaw, P., Edwards, J., Furtado, K., Hill, P., Lock, A., Manners, J., Morcrette, C., Mulcahy, J., Sanchez, C., Smith, C., Stratton, R., Tennant, W., Tomassini, L., Van Weverberg, K., Vosper, S., Willett, M., Browse, J., Bushell, A., Carslaw, K., Dalvi, M., Essery, R., Gedney, N., Hardiman, S., Johnson, B., Johnson, C., Jones, A., Jones, C., Mann, G., Milton, S., Rumbold, H., Sellar, A., Ujiie, M., Whitall, M., Williams, K., and Zerroukat, M.: The Met Office Unified Model Global Atmosphere 7.0/7.1 and JULES Global Land 7.0 configurations, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 1909–1963, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-1909-2019, 2019. a
Wang, N., Zhu, L., Yang, H., and Han, L.: Classification of Synoptic
Circulation Patterns for Fog in the Urumqi Airport, Atmospheric and Climate
Sciences, 07, 352–366, https://doi.org/10.4236/acs.2017.73026, 2017. a, b
Watanabe, M., Suzuki, T., O'ishi, R., Komuro, Y., Watanabe, S., Emori, S.,
Takemura, T., Chikira, M., Ogura, T., Sekiguchi, M., Takata, K., Yamazaki,
D., Yokohata, T., Nozawa, T., Hasumi, H., Tatebe, H., and Kimoto, M.:
Improved Climate Simulation by MIROC5: Mean States, Variability, and Climate
Sensitivity, J. Climate, 23, 6312–6335,
https://doi.org/10.1175/2010JCLI3679.1, 2010. a, b
Watanabe, S., Hajima, T., Sudo, K., Nagashima, T., Takemura, T., Okajima, H., Nozawa, T., Kawase, H., Abe, M., Yokohata, T., Ise, T., Sato, H., Kato, E., Takata, K., Emori, S., and Kawamiya, M.: MIROC-ESM 2010: model description and basic results of CMIP5-20c3m experiments, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 845–872, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-845-2011, 2011.
a, b, c
Wilby, R. L. and Quinn, N. W.: Reconstructing multi-decadal variations in
fluvial flood risk using atmospheric circulation patterns, J.
Hydrol., 487, 109–121,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.02.038, 2013. a
Wu, T., Yu, R., and Zhang, F.: A Modified Dynamic Framework for the Atmospheric
Spectral Model and Its Application, J. Atmos. Sci., 65,
2235–2253, https://doi.org/10.1175/2007JAS2514.1, 2008. a
Wu, T., Li, W., Ji, J., Xin, X., Li, L., Wang, Z., Zhang, Y., Li, J., Zhang,
F., Wei, M., Shi, X., Wu, F., Zhang, L., Chu, M., Jie, W., Liu, Y., Wang, F.,
Liu, X., Li, Q., Dong, M., Liang, X., Gao, Y., and Zhang, J.: Global carbon
budgets simulated by the Beijing Climate Center Climate System Model for the
last century, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 4326–4347,
https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50320, 2013. a
Wu, T., Song, L., Li, W., Wang, Z., Zhang, H., Xin, X., Zhang, Y., Zhang, L.,
Li, J., Wu, F., Liu, Y., Zhang, F., Shi, X., Chu, M., Zhang, J., Fang, Y.,
Wang, F., Lu, Y., Liu, X., and Zhou, M.: An Overview of BCC Climate System
Model Development and Application for Climate Change Studies, Acta
Meteorol. Sin., 28, 34–56, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13351-014-3041-7, 2014. a
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. a, b
Yukimoto, S., Yoshimura, H., Hosaka, M., Sakami, T., Tsujino, H., Hirabara, M.,
Tanaka, T., Deushi, M., Obata, A., Nakano, H., Adachi, Y., Shindo, E., Yabu,
S., Ose, T., and Kitoh, A.: Meteorological Research Institute-Earth System
Model Version 1 (MRI-ESM1) – Model Description, Technical Reports of
the Meteorological Research Institute, 64, 1–96, 2011. a, b, c, d, e
Yukimoto, S., Kawai, H., Koshiro, T., Oshima, N., Yoshida, K., Urakawa, S.,
Tsujino, H., Deushi, M., Tanaka, T., Hosaka, M., Yabu, S., Yoshimura, H.,
Shindo, E., Mizuta, R., Obata, A., Adachi, Y., and Ishii, M.: The
Meteorological Research Institute Earth System Model Version 2.0, MRI-ESM2.0:
Description and Basic Evaluation of the Physical Component, J.
Meteorol. Soc. Jpn. Ser. II, 97, 931–965,
https://doi.org/10.2151/jmsj.2019-051, 2019. a, b
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. a, b
Short summary
The present study evaluates the last two global climate model generations in terms of their capability to reproduce recurrent regional atmospheric circulation patterns in the Northern Hemisphere mid-to-high latitudes under present climate conditions. These patterns are linked with many environmental variables on the local scale and thus provide an overarching concept for model verification. The results are expected to be of interest for model developers and regional climate scientists.
The present study evaluates the last two global climate model generations in terms of their...
