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

Overview: Quasi-Lagrangian observations of Arctic air mass transformations – Introduction and initial results of the HALO–(AC)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 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 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 Schäfer, Vera Schemannn, 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
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-783,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-783, 2024
Short summary

Related subject area

Climate and Earth system modeling
Linking global terrestrial and ocean biogeochemistry with process-based, coupled freshwater algae–nutrient–solid dynamics in LM3-FANSY v1.0
Minjin Lee, Charles A. Stock, John P. Dunne, and Elena Shevliakova
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5191–5224, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5191-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5191-2024, 2024
Short summary
Validating a microphysical prognostic stratospheric aerosol implementation in E3SMv2 using observations after the Mount Pinatubo eruption
Hunter York Brown, Benjamin Wagman, Diana Bull, Kara Peterson, Benjamin Hillman, Xiaohong Liu, Ziming Ke, and Lin Lin
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5087–5121, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5087-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5087-2024, 2024
Short summary
Implementing detailed nucleation predictions in the Earth system model EC-Earth3.3.4: sulfuric acid–ammonia nucleation
Carl Svenhag, Moa K. Sporre, Tinja Olenius, Daniel Yazgi, Sara M. Blichner, Lars P. Nieradzik, and Pontus Roldin
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4923–4942, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4923-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4923-2024, 2024
Short summary
Modeling biochar effects on soil organic carbon on croplands in a microbial decomposition model (MIMICS-BC_v1.0)
Mengjie Han, Qing Zhao, Xili Wang, Ying-Ping Wang, Philippe Ciais, Haicheng Zhang, Daniel S. Goll, Lei Zhu, Zhe Zhao, Zhixuan Guo, Chen Wang, Wei Zhuang, Fengchang Wu, and Wei Li
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4871–4890, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4871-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4871-2024, 2024
Short summary
Hector V3.2.0: functionality and performance of a reduced-complexity climate model
Kalyn Dorheim, Skylar Gering, Robert Gieseke, Corinne Hartin, Leeya Pressburger, Alexey N. Shiklomanov, Steven J. Smith, Claudia Tebaldi, Dawn L. Woodard, and Ben Bond-Lamberty
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 4855–4869, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4855-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-4855-2024, 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.