Articles | Volume 15, issue 22
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8581-2022
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-8581-2022
Model evaluation paper
 | 
24 Nov 2022
Model evaluation paper |  | 24 Nov 2022

Assessment of JSBACHv4.30 as a land component of ICON-ESM-V1 in comparison to its predecessor JSBACHv3.2 of MPI-ESM1.2

Rainer Schneck, Veronika Gayler, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Thomas Raddatz, Christian H. Reick, and Reiner Schnur

Related authors

Pattern scaling of simulated vegetation change in North Africa during glacial cycles
Mateo Duque-Villegas, Martin Claussen, Thomas Kleinen, Jürgen Bader, and Christian H. Reick
Clim. Past Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2024-61,https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2024-61, 2024
Preprint under review for CP
Short summary
The new plant functional diversity model JeDi-BACH (version 1.0) in the ICON Earth System Model (version 1.0)
Pin-Hsin Hu, Christian H. Reick, Reiner Schnur, Axel Kleidon, and Martin Claussen
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-111,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-111, 2024
Preprint under review for GMD
Short summary
Deglaciation and abrupt events in a coupled comprehensive atmosphere–ocean–ice sheet–solid earth model
Uwe Mikolajewicz, Marie-Luise Kapsch, Clemens Schannwell, Katharina D. Six, Florian A. Ziemen, Meike Bagge, Jean-Philippe Baudouin, Olga Erokhina, Veronika Gayler, Volker Klemann, Virna L. Meccia, Anne Mouchet, and Thomas Riddick
Clim. Past Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2024-55,https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2024-55, 2024
Preprint under review for CP
Short summary
Remote carbon cycle changes are overlooked impacts of land-cover and land management changes
Suqi Guo, Felix Havermann, Steven J. De Hertog, Fei Luo, Iris Manola, Thomas Raddatz, Hongmei Li, Wim Thiery, Quentin Lejeune, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, David Wårlind, Lars Nieradzik, and Julia Pongratz
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2387,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2387, 2024
Short summary
Evaluation of the coupling of EMACv2.55 to the land surface and vegetation model JSBACHv4
Anna Martin, Veronika Gayler, Benedikt Steil, Klaus Klingmüller, Patrick Jöckel, Holger Tost, Jos Lelieveld, and Andrea Pozzer
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5705–5732, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5705-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5705-2024, 2024
Short summary

Related subject area

Climate and Earth system modeling
Impact of ocean vertical-mixing parameterization on Arctic sea ice and upper-ocean properties using the NEMO-SI3 model
Sofia Allende, Anne Marie Treguier, Camille Lique, Clément de Boyer Montégut, François Massonnet, Thierry Fichefet, and Antoine Barthélemy
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7445–7466, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7445-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7445-2024, 2024
Short summary
Bridging the gap: a new module for human water use in the Community Earth System Model version 2.2.1
Sabin I. Taranu, David M. Lawrence, Yoshihide Wada, Ting Tang, Erik Kluzek, Sam Rabin, Yi Yao, Steven J. De Hertog, Inne Vanderkelen, and Wim Thiery
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7365–7399, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7365-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7365-2024, 2024
Short summary
A new lightning scheme in the Canadian Atmospheric Model (CanAM5.1): implementation, evaluation, and projections of lightning and fire in future climates
Cynthia Whaley, Montana Etten-Bohm, Courtney Schumacher, Ayodeji Akingunola, Vivek Arora, Jason Cole, Michael Lazare, David Plummer, Knut von Salzen, and Barbara Winter
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7141–7155, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7141-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7141-2024, 2024
Short summary
Methane dynamics in the Baltic Sea: investigating concentration, flux, and isotopic composition patterns using the coupled physical–biogeochemical model BALTSEM-CH4 v1.0
Erik Gustafsson, Bo G. Gustafsson, Martijn Hermans, Christoph Humborg, and Christian Stranne
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7157–7179, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7157-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7157-2024, 2024
Short summary
Split-explicit external mode solver in the finite volume sea ice–ocean model FESOM2
Tridib Banerjee, Patrick Scholz, Sergey Danilov, Knut Klingbeil, and Dmitry Sidorenko
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7051–7065, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7051-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7051-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Adler, R., Huffman, G., Chang, A., Ferraro, R., Xie, P., Janowiak, J., Rudolf, B., Schneider, U., Curtis, S., Bolvin, D., Gruber, A., Susskind, J., and Arkin, P.: The Version 2 Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) Monthly Precipitation Analysis (1979–Present), J. Hydrometeorol., 4, 1147–1167, 2003. a
Beer, C., Ciais, P., Reichstein, M., Baldocchi, D., Law, B., Papale, D., Soussana, J.-F., Ammann, C., Buchmann, N., Frank, D., Gianelle, D., Janssens, I., Knohl, A., Köstner, B., Moors, E., Roupsard, O., Verbeeck, H., Vesala, T., Williams, C. A., and Wohlfahrt, G.: Temporal and among-site variability of inherent water use efficiency at the ecosystem level, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 23, GB2018, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GB003233, 2009. a
Betts, R., Cox, P., Lee, S., and Woodward, F.: Contrasting physiological and structural vegetation feedback in climate change simulations, Nature, 387, 796–799, 1997. a
Böttcher, K., Markkanen, T., Thum, T., Aalto, T., Aurela, M., Reick, C. H., Kolari, P., Arslan, A. N., and Pulliainen, J.: Evaluating Biosphere Model Estimates of the Start of the Vegetation Active Season in Boreal Forests by Satellite Observations, Remote Sensing, 8, 580, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8070580, 2016. a
Brovkin, V., Boysen, Raddatz, T., Gayler, V., Loew, A., and Claussen, M.: Evaluation of vegetation cover and land‐surface albedo in MPI‐ESM CMIP5 simulations, J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 5, 48–57, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012MS000169, 2013. a
Download
Short summary
The versions of ICON-A and ICON-Land/JSBACHv4 used for this study constitute the first milestone in the development of the new ICON Earth System Model ICON-ESM. JSBACHv4 is the successor of JSBACHv3, and most of the parameterizations of JSBACHv4 are re-implementations from JSBACHv3. We assess and compare the performance of JSBACHv4 and JSBACHv3. Overall, the JSBACHv4 results are as good as JSBACHv3, but both models reveal the same main shortcomings, e.g. the depiction of the leaf area index.