Articles | Volume 16, issue 7
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1857-2023
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1857-2023
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

Related authors

Too cold, too saturated? Evaluating climate models at the gateway to the Arctic
Felix Pithan, Ann Kristin Naumann, and Marion Maturilli
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2961,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2961, 2024
Short summary
Overview: quasi-Lagrangian observations of Arctic air mass transformations – introduction and initial results of the HALO–(𝒜 𝒞)3 aircraft campaign
Manfred Wendisch, Susanne Crewell, André Ehrlich, Andreas Herber, Benjamin Kirbus, Christof Lüpkes, Mario Mech, Steven J. Abel, Elisa F. Akansu, Felix Ament, Clémantyne Aubry, Sebastian Becker, Stephan Borrmann, Heiko Bozem, Marlen Brückner, Hans-Christian Clemen, Sandro Dahlke, Georgios Dekoutsidis, Julien Delanoë, Elena De La Torre Castro, Henning Dorff, Regis Dupuy, Oliver Eppers, Florian Ewald, Geet George, Irina V. Gorodetskaya, Sarah Grawe, Silke Groß, Jörg Hartmann, Silvia Henning, Lutz Hirsch, Evelyn Jäkel, Philipp Joppe, Olivier Jourdan, Zsofia Jurányi, Michail Karalis, Mona Kellermann, Marcus Klingebiel, Michael Lonardi, Johannes Lucke, Anna E. Luebke, Maximilian Maahn, Nina Maherndl, Marion Maturilli, Bernhard Mayer, Johanna Mayer, Stephan Mertes, Janosch Michaelis, Michel Michalkov, Guillaume Mioche, Manuel Moser, Hanno Müller, Roel Neggers, Davide Ori, Daria Paul, Fiona M. Paulus, Christian Pilz, Felix Pithan, Mira Pöhlker, Veronika Pörtge, Maximilian Ringel, Nils Risse, Gregory C. Roberts, Sophie Rosenburg, Johannes Röttenbacher, Janna Rückert, Michael Schäfer, Jonas Schaefer, Vera Schemann, Imke Schirmacher, Jörg Schmidt, Sebastian Schmidt, Johannes Schneider, Sabrina Schnitt, Anja Schwarz, Holger Siebert, Harald Sodemann, Tim Sperzel, Gunnar Spreen, Bjorn Stevens, Frank Stratmann, Gunilla Svensson, Christian Tatzelt, Thomas Tuch, Timo Vihma, Christiane Voigt, Lea Volkmer, Andreas Walbröl, Anna Weber, Birgit Wehner, Bruno Wetzel, Martin Wirth, and Tobias Zinner
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 8865–8892, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-8865-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-8865-2024, 2024
Short summary

Related subject area

Climate and Earth system modeling
Architectural insights into and training methodology optimization of Pangu-Weather
Deifilia To, Julian Quinting, Gholam Ali Hoshyaripour, Markus Götz, Achim Streit, and Charlotte Debus
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8873–8884, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8873-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8873-2024, 2024
Short summary
Evaluation of global fire simulations in CMIP6 Earth system models
Fang Li, Xiang Song, Sandy P. Harrison, Jennifer R. Marlon, Zhongda Lin, L. Ruby Leung, Jörg Schwinger, Virginie Marécal, Shiyu Wang, Daniel S. Ward, Xiao Dong, Hanna Lee, Lars Nieradzik, Sam S. Rabin, and Roland Séférian
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8751–8771, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8751-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8751-2024, 2024
Short summary
Evaluating downscaled products with expected hydroclimatic co-variances
Seung H. Baek, Paul A. Ullrich, Bo Dong, and Jiwoo Lee
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8665–8681, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8665-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8665-2024, 2024
Short summary
Software sustainability of global impact models
Emmanuel Nyenah, Petra Döll, Daniel S. Katz, and Robert Reinecke
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8593–8611, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8593-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8593-2024, 2024
Short summary
fair-calibrate v1.4.1: calibration, constraining, and validation of the FaIR simple climate model for reliable future climate projections
Chris Smith, Donald P. Cummins, Hege-Beate Fredriksen, Zebedee Nicholls, Malte Meinshausen, Myles Allen, Stuart Jenkins, Nicholas Leach, Camilla Mathison, and Antti-Ilari Partanen
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8569–8592, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8569-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8569-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Ahn, M.-S., Kim, D., Sperber, K. R., Kang, I.-S., Maloney, E., Waliser, D., and Hendon, H.: MJO simulation in CMIP5 climate models: MJO skill metrics and process-oriented diagnosis, Clim. Dynam., 49, 4023–4045, 2017. a
Barbi, D., Gierz, P., Andrés-Martínez, M., Ural, D., and Cristini, L.: esm_tools_release3_as_used_by_AWI-CM3_paper (3.1), Zenodo [code], https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6335309, 2022. a
Bauer, P., Thorpe, A., and Brunet, G.: The quiet revolution of numerical weather prediction, Nature, 525, 47–55, 2015. a
Bogenschutz, P. A., Gettelman, A., Morrison, H., Larson, V. E., Schanen, D. P., Meyer, N. R., and Craig, C.: Unified parameterization of the planetary boundary layer and shallow convection with a higher-order turbulence closure in the Community Atmosphere Model: single-column experiments, Geosci. Model Dev., 5, 1407–1423, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-5-1407-2012, 2012. a
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.