Geoscientific Model Development
Geoscientific Model Development
GMD
Articles | Volume 16, issue 7
Articles | Volume 16, issue 7
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1857-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1857-2023
© Author(s) 2023. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Articles | Volume 16, issue 7
Methods for assessment of models
 | 
04 Apr 2023
Methods for assessment of models |  | 04 Apr 2023

Nudging allows direct evaluation of coupled climate models with in situ observations: a case study from the MOSAiC expedition

Felix Pithan, Marylou Athanase, Sandro Dahlke, Antonio Sánchez-Benítez, Matthew D. Shupe, Anne Sledd, Jan Streffing, Gunilla Svensson, and Thomas Jung

Viewed

Total article views: 3,541 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
2,747 699 95 3,541 98 140
  • HTML: 2,747
  • PDF: 699
  • XML: 95
  • Total: 3,541
  • BibTeX: 98
  • EndNote: 140
Views and downloads (calculated since 15 Sep 2022)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 15 Sep 2022)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 3,541 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 3,434 with geography defined and 107 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 24 Nov 2025
Download
Short summary
Evaluating climate models usually requires long observational time series, but we present a method that also works for short field campaigns. We compare climate model output to observations from the MOSAiC expedition in the central Arctic Ocean. All models show how the arrival of a warm air mass warms the Arctic in April 2020, but two models do not show the response of snow temperature to the diurnal cycle. One model has too little liquid water and too much ice in clouds during cold days.
Read more
Share